This last Presidential election has brought about many interesting questions, including one that has been asked in many ways, “Who is qualified for office, and what should those qualifications be?” The questions continue to be asked as the whole nation appears to be in debate over the qualification of Caroline Kennedy to serve in the Senate as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.
The Constitution itself only has minimal qualifications listed for any national office. For President:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
As for qualification to serve in Congress:
“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”
Critics of both President Elect Obama and potential Senate appointee Kennedy have argued that neither has the experience for the office they aspire to. However, as evidenced by the Constitution, there are no experience requirements for either position. States do not make any additional requirements to serve in national offices, but the voters do, and these requirements have a huge range.
For those seeking national office, or a higher office in the event the candidate is already serving in some legislative capacity, or has been in an office previously, it is relatively easy for one to discover and review the candidate’s history. Depending on the ideology of the voter, this record will either qualify or disqualify the candidate.
But voters can never really be put into a box. You can never depend on them to vote certain ways. While most have certain qualifications in mind for their candidate, they often rationalize points to legitimize their selection. There will always be those who vote according to party once the primaries are over and the final selection is on us. Others are pretty much one issue voters. The primary issues for these voters tend to be abortion, war or immigration… more specifically, illegal immigration.
This last Presidential election brought about a couple new categories for one issue voters, race and gender. Many voters cast their ballot for either Obama or Hillary because of these. This is only wrong if you are among those who do not believe race or gender is or should be a qualification to hold office. To those whom this matters, it is right and they will argue all day long about why it is important, why it matters.
Obama’s resume, while rather thin, did not matter to those who voted for him, but experience did matter when it came to the Republican nominee for Vice-President. Obama supporters stated that Sara Palin’s short time in the Alaskan Governor’s office was not long enough to qualify her to back up John McCain while Palin supporters pointed out that she had more experience than did Obama who was seeking the higher office.
Some have argued that we should revamp the Constitutional requirements for public office to outline minimal qualifications for candidates for various offices. There is some merit to this, and it would surly distract the legislators for quite a while as they debate what those qualifications should be, but I would make the argument against this. The debate has already been heard at least once, when our founding fathers were setting the requirements in the first place. I have come to the same conclusions.
The voters are the ones who need to make the decision as to who will represent them. One voter’s requirements are not the same as another’s. In fact, if you polled 1000 voters as to what their requirements for office might be, I would be willing to bet you get almost a thousand different answers. In other words, you will never get the voters to agree to a short list of minimum qualifications, and since they are the ultimate authority as to who serves in most cases, any laws limiting the voter’s choice of candidate would undermine the very freedoms this country is founded on and would be unconstitutional.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
What If They Built A Car… And No One Bought It?
Who has not heard about the heads of the big three US auto companies going to Washington begging for money to continue their unprofitable ways? Few I doubt, even if they have not paid a lot of attention to it. One common reaction to this and all the monies Washington is forking over is that it is making people’s heads swim with the astronomical numbers being tossed around. It is difficult at best to imagine these numbers while looking at your own pay checks.
The one thing that connects most people to the concept of bailing out these companies is jobs. The economic situation has made about everyone to think about their own job security, which in turn makes most sympathetic to the plight of the auto workers who, as we are told, are wondering if they will even have a job by Christmas.
Yet something tends to stick in our collective claws. Something is not right about this whole mess. We know this even if we cannot put our fingers on it. One aspect only a few are talking about is the idea of the government taking over, or at least making production and design decisions for these companies as a condition for the loans. Many are actually afraid to really address the idea of the Government running private companies, but more and more are starting to question if it is a good idea to have the Government mandate what we will be driving. Picking out the car we are seen in every day is something most American’s take a lot of pride in. For most, it is something we put a lot of effort in as we peruse the ads and lots for the car that suits us best according to what we can afford.
Tastes in cars still vary considerably as they always have. Some still love the power and agility they fell in love with as they slipped behind the wheel of a foreign sports car. Mustang, Charger, Corvette, Trans Am, Camero, AMX, Mopar, hemi, Hurst…, these names and terms still excite many who thrilled at the loud rumble of the huge engines and the adrenaline rush they got as they were pressed back into their seats when the wheels started spinning and you flew out of the intersection like a dragster.
Still others loved the feel of the large comfortable vehicles. They felt safe surrounded by all the room such cars as the LTD, Impala, or even the upscale Lincolns and Caddy’s offered. As the SUV frenzy took over people fell in love with the large, roomy and powerful vehicles. They got a real sense of power and prestige as they shopped for larger and more powerful vehicles such as the Suburban, Excursion, or even a Hummer.
And of course American’s have always loved our pickup trucks. These great utility vehicles are the staple of the working man, and as they were designed with larger cabs and more luxurious interiors, more people chose them for everyday transportation.
Then the gas prices spiked and drivers were forced to make some serious compromises. I remember interviewing a gentleman by the name of Dave Blankly who was trying to convince himself he could be just as happy in the Saturn Vue he traded in his Explorer for. The excitement he usually felt when purchasing a new vehicle just wasn’t there, especially as he lamented the loss on his trade, the room and power he lost. While he did like the style of the smaller crossover, as well as the significant increase in gas mileage, he knew his argument that he could feel good about doing his part to save the environment was shallow at best. Dave is not really an environmentalist, but the entire PR surrounding global warming did influence him even as he questioned the whole concept.
I looked Dave up again to ask how he is getting along with his Saturn. He stated that he has gotten used to it but he also said he will never get rid of his classic Roadrunner he keeps in his garage even if he cannot fill the tank.
Dave and others spoke about the state of the auto companies and the proposed designs for new vehicles over coffee the other day. They do not like what they are seeing and hearing. Sure, there is a market for small hybrids, but these are not the mainstream buyers.
While most in the coffee shop nodded in agreement, a guy named Bob stated, “You know, we are Americans. We are a varied people and we all have different tastes. The American car market has always been unique, producing vehicles that others around the world wanted, even as they drove their little Bugs and Renaults around. Heck, the number one selling vehicle in China right now is a Buick! We don’t want what Washington wants us to have. We have the freedom to choose, and now they are taking away those choices by mandate! I won’t buy one. I will rebuild my truck a hundred times before I am forced into one of the new concept cars!”
Can the American auto industry survive if they do not produce vehicles the American consumer wants to drive?
The one thing that connects most people to the concept of bailing out these companies is jobs. The economic situation has made about everyone to think about their own job security, which in turn makes most sympathetic to the plight of the auto workers who, as we are told, are wondering if they will even have a job by Christmas.
Yet something tends to stick in our collective claws. Something is not right about this whole mess. We know this even if we cannot put our fingers on it. One aspect only a few are talking about is the idea of the government taking over, or at least making production and design decisions for these companies as a condition for the loans. Many are actually afraid to really address the idea of the Government running private companies, but more and more are starting to question if it is a good idea to have the Government mandate what we will be driving. Picking out the car we are seen in every day is something most American’s take a lot of pride in. For most, it is something we put a lot of effort in as we peruse the ads and lots for the car that suits us best according to what we can afford.
Tastes in cars still vary considerably as they always have. Some still love the power and agility they fell in love with as they slipped behind the wheel of a foreign sports car. Mustang, Charger, Corvette, Trans Am, Camero, AMX, Mopar, hemi, Hurst…, these names and terms still excite many who thrilled at the loud rumble of the huge engines and the adrenaline rush they got as they were pressed back into their seats when the wheels started spinning and you flew out of the intersection like a dragster.
Still others loved the feel of the large comfortable vehicles. They felt safe surrounded by all the room such cars as the LTD, Impala, or even the upscale Lincolns and Caddy’s offered. As the SUV frenzy took over people fell in love with the large, roomy and powerful vehicles. They got a real sense of power and prestige as they shopped for larger and more powerful vehicles such as the Suburban, Excursion, or even a Hummer.
And of course American’s have always loved our pickup trucks. These great utility vehicles are the staple of the working man, and as they were designed with larger cabs and more luxurious interiors, more people chose them for everyday transportation.
Then the gas prices spiked and drivers were forced to make some serious compromises. I remember interviewing a gentleman by the name of Dave Blankly who was trying to convince himself he could be just as happy in the Saturn Vue he traded in his Explorer for. The excitement he usually felt when purchasing a new vehicle just wasn’t there, especially as he lamented the loss on his trade, the room and power he lost. While he did like the style of the smaller crossover, as well as the significant increase in gas mileage, he knew his argument that he could feel good about doing his part to save the environment was shallow at best. Dave is not really an environmentalist, but the entire PR surrounding global warming did influence him even as he questioned the whole concept.
I looked Dave up again to ask how he is getting along with his Saturn. He stated that he has gotten used to it but he also said he will never get rid of his classic Roadrunner he keeps in his garage even if he cannot fill the tank.
Dave and others spoke about the state of the auto companies and the proposed designs for new vehicles over coffee the other day. They do not like what they are seeing and hearing. Sure, there is a market for small hybrids, but these are not the mainstream buyers.
While most in the coffee shop nodded in agreement, a guy named Bob stated, “You know, we are Americans. We are a varied people and we all have different tastes. The American car market has always been unique, producing vehicles that others around the world wanted, even as they drove their little Bugs and Renaults around. Heck, the number one selling vehicle in China right now is a Buick! We don’t want what Washington wants us to have. We have the freedom to choose, and now they are taking away those choices by mandate! I won’t buy one. I will rebuild my truck a hundred times before I am forced into one of the new concept cars!”
Can the American auto industry survive if they do not produce vehicles the American consumer wants to drive?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Bailout Reform
Many of us are upset about the economic crisis, especially as we watch the fiasco known as the bailout. Just the other day we were told that instead of buying up all the bad mortgages that are directly responsible for much of the mess we find ourselves in, the Government is now buying banks and other companies.
We saw that AIG, the insurance giant, came to the well once again, all the while providing massive luxury meetings and huge bonuses to company executives, all with the taxpayer funded bailout monies. None of this sits well with the taxpayers.
I was against the idea of the bailout from the start, as many others were and are. However, our Government is bound and determined to keep on spending in hopes something positive will happen. In this light, and simply for the sake of argument, (not that I am actually pushing the idea,) I offer a different pathway for bailout monies.
A brief bit of searching turned up numbers showing there are approximately some 50 million mortgages. Most of these are solvent, being paid on time, but those that are either behind or in default are undermining the entire financial industry. The reasons for the defaults are many, including massive fraud, irresponsible borrowing, etc…, but this is a point for another day.
What if we gave the money directly to the mortgage holders? What might be the consequences? What would be the cost? Will it work? (Note: I am not breaking down the various types of loans or taking into consideration fraudulent loans. This is merely an exercise for the sake of argument.)
From the few figures I have found, the average outstanding balance of mortgages is somewhere in the neighborhood of around $145,000.00. If, for instance, the government gives out half of that money with the requirement the monies be spend paying down the principle and restructuring notes that were written at unfavorable terms. The cost would be about $362.5 billion. Now we put on the rose colored glasses to analyze the potential results!
The financial institutions that hold the loans would be flush with cash. These monies would be required to be the source of new loans, responsible loans to people who can pay them back. They would also be required to pay a small percent of the profits to the Government, (on not only the original monies but future profits resulting from the monies the institutions collected as a result of the new loans,) to pay the debts the taxpayers are now holding as a result of the bailouts.
Most mortgages should now be caught up and affordable. The homes would now have positive equity. Home values should actually rise adding even more equity. People would also have a larger percentage of their incomes available for other spending which has largely been curtailed as a result of this whole mess. With more spending comes economic growth as retailers need to by more product, manufacturers need to produce more goods, including the auto manufacturers which should help to negate the need for the Government to bail them out, more people are employed to produce all these goods which gives rise to more income and more spending. With all of this we should also see more home purchases. As home inventories decline, home building should once again increase, but hopefully at a more moderate pace.
Sales taxes would be up as would real estate tax revenues which will help the states, counties and cities.
If all this were coupled with reforms in Government, (especially in earmarks and institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,) and a positive national energy plan, we could go a long way in restoring the economic quagmire we are now entangled in.
If the problem starts with the consumer overspending, especially on mortgages, would it not make some sense to start fixing the problem on this end? Does this make any less sense than what we are doing now?
We saw that AIG, the insurance giant, came to the well once again, all the while providing massive luxury meetings and huge bonuses to company executives, all with the taxpayer funded bailout monies. None of this sits well with the taxpayers.
I was against the idea of the bailout from the start, as many others were and are. However, our Government is bound and determined to keep on spending in hopes something positive will happen. In this light, and simply for the sake of argument, (not that I am actually pushing the idea,) I offer a different pathway for bailout monies.
A brief bit of searching turned up numbers showing there are approximately some 50 million mortgages. Most of these are solvent, being paid on time, but those that are either behind or in default are undermining the entire financial industry. The reasons for the defaults are many, including massive fraud, irresponsible borrowing, etc…, but this is a point for another day.
What if we gave the money directly to the mortgage holders? What might be the consequences? What would be the cost? Will it work? (Note: I am not breaking down the various types of loans or taking into consideration fraudulent loans. This is merely an exercise for the sake of argument.)
From the few figures I have found, the average outstanding balance of mortgages is somewhere in the neighborhood of around $145,000.00. If, for instance, the government gives out half of that money with the requirement the monies be spend paying down the principle and restructuring notes that were written at unfavorable terms. The cost would be about $362.5 billion. Now we put on the rose colored glasses to analyze the potential results!
The financial institutions that hold the loans would be flush with cash. These monies would be required to be the source of new loans, responsible loans to people who can pay them back. They would also be required to pay a small percent of the profits to the Government, (on not only the original monies but future profits resulting from the monies the institutions collected as a result of the new loans,) to pay the debts the taxpayers are now holding as a result of the bailouts.
Most mortgages should now be caught up and affordable. The homes would now have positive equity. Home values should actually rise adding even more equity. People would also have a larger percentage of their incomes available for other spending which has largely been curtailed as a result of this whole mess. With more spending comes economic growth as retailers need to by more product, manufacturers need to produce more goods, including the auto manufacturers which should help to negate the need for the Government to bail them out, more people are employed to produce all these goods which gives rise to more income and more spending. With all of this we should also see more home purchases. As home inventories decline, home building should once again increase, but hopefully at a more moderate pace.
Sales taxes would be up as would real estate tax revenues which will help the states, counties and cities.
If all this were coupled with reforms in Government, (especially in earmarks and institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,) and a positive national energy plan, we could go a long way in restoring the economic quagmire we are now entangled in.
If the problem starts with the consumer overspending, especially on mortgages, would it not make some sense to start fixing the problem on this end? Does this make any less sense than what we are doing now?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Different Energy Plan For America
Several times throughout history get things have been proposed during tough times to boost the moral of the country and to give it a national goal. Out of these came programs such as NASA. The agency, and the country got a boost when President Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s.
Inspired by such people, I now propose that this country set forth on a mission to become energy independent by 2020. There are many reasons for this, including the prices and national security. The plan should be multi-faceted, providing solutions from many different sources. Each part of the solution should take into consideration the environment, the sustainability of the source, the costs and efficiency.
It does no one any good to provide a source of energy that no one can afford, is not efficient, cannot be maintained and/or destroys in real terms, the environment.
According to energy experts, including oil field engineers, the range of time for extracting new sources of oil is between one and ten years. This means that some sources will only take one year, others three, some five, and still others ten years to start producing. This is because we have several fields, both on shore and off, that are in various states of readiness. In many cases, there is the real need for exploration before drilling, then of course the time consuming process of applying for permits before any drilling of some sites can even start.
For the oil companies, this means an investment in the billions of dollars, but an investment they are willing and prepared to make.
In some cases, such as Gull Island, WA, many wells have already been drilled, but ordered capped by the EPA. Currently the Prudhoe Bay field is producing some two million barrels each day. As the Kuparuk field on Gull Island is at least as large as Prudhoe, possibly even twice as large, and we have already drilled, this oil can be in use in less than one year. There is one caveat though. The oil companies, once they are allowed to pump the oil, are so afraid of what OPEC might do in response, they want a guarantee of $25.00 minimum per barrel. I see no real problem with this.
The last time we decided to significantly increase domestic oil supplies, OPEC dropped prices below cost and took the profit right out of the market. I do not favor government controls of any market, but considering the price of oil as of this writing is above $140.00/barrel, I can live with this guarantee.
Along with the oil comes natural gas reserves. As over 52% of all homes use natural gas for home heating and cooking, it is essential these reserves are also tapped into.
Next is coal. The United States has more coal than anyone in the world. We have new technologies, with more on the way, to use coal efficiently and cleanly. Coal is inexpensive and abundant. Lets go get it!
If this current situation has taught us anything, it is that we must explore new sources of energy. Even Ben Franklin advised not to put all our eggs in one basket. And there are many sources to explore, including some few have ever even heard of. But again, these must be efficient, sustainable and affordable to all.
Some want electric cars. This is fine, but these have a very limited range and still need to be charged using large amounts of electricity that must be produced. This means more power generation, which means we need more power plants.
While they cost the most to build, nuclear power plants are among the most efficient. They are also very clean and actually very safe. The big problem? What to do with the waste! However, countries such as France have pretty much solved the problem simply by recycling the fuel rods! They do not have a problem with waste as there is none. We can have hundred new plants on line by 2020.
Coal fired and natural gas powered plants are also fine, but only if we are allowed to get the fuels for their operation. They are much cheaper and faster to build, but cost more to operate. They are also more volatile in that they are susceptible to price swings in energy costs.
Wind, solar, hydrogen, water, plasma… These are all being looked into for various answers. This is as it should be. Some are thinking the answer lies only with one or two of these, mostly wind and water. I say go for them all!
However, government subsidies should not be considered here. If the government is to have anything to do with the development of any source of fuel or energy source, it should be to allow private enterprises to proceed full steam ahead, making certain that all reasonable laws concerning fraud, the environment and consumer safety are followed.
I do propose a reward program. For those who are the first to develop new sources of energy, as well as vehicles that can run efficiently and affordably, (including the cost to obtain and own the vehicles,) we should reward their efforts. I do not really see things such as a $300 million dollar reward such as Senator McCain has proposed for the development of a new battery, but certainly something that would make a decent incentive to invent and produce. For those who succeed, they will also reap the rewards of putting their ideas into the market place. The rewards should be granted only after the fact. Grants given before hand tend to undermine results. Knowing the reward is waiting upon completion gives a tremendous incentive to work hard and produce real results.
We are America. We should be leading the world. The rest of the world should either follow our example or come running to us for our new products. This will not only reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels in the long run, it will eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, cause prices to not only stabilize but become affordable for all. We will stimulate the economy in a big way by introducing new products to the national and world markets and provide lots of jobs!
Inspired by such people, I now propose that this country set forth on a mission to become energy independent by 2020. There are many reasons for this, including the prices and national security. The plan should be multi-faceted, providing solutions from many different sources. Each part of the solution should take into consideration the environment, the sustainability of the source, the costs and efficiency.
It does no one any good to provide a source of energy that no one can afford, is not efficient, cannot be maintained and/or destroys in real terms, the environment.
According to energy experts, including oil field engineers, the range of time for extracting new sources of oil is between one and ten years. This means that some sources will only take one year, others three, some five, and still others ten years to start producing. This is because we have several fields, both on shore and off, that are in various states of readiness. In many cases, there is the real need for exploration before drilling, then of course the time consuming process of applying for permits before any drilling of some sites can even start.
For the oil companies, this means an investment in the billions of dollars, but an investment they are willing and prepared to make.
In some cases, such as Gull Island, WA, many wells have already been drilled, but ordered capped by the EPA. Currently the Prudhoe Bay field is producing some two million barrels each day. As the Kuparuk field on Gull Island is at least as large as Prudhoe, possibly even twice as large, and we have already drilled, this oil can be in use in less than one year. There is one caveat though. The oil companies, once they are allowed to pump the oil, are so afraid of what OPEC might do in response, they want a guarantee of $25.00 minimum per barrel. I see no real problem with this.
The last time we decided to significantly increase domestic oil supplies, OPEC dropped prices below cost and took the profit right out of the market. I do not favor government controls of any market, but considering the price of oil as of this writing is above $140.00/barrel, I can live with this guarantee.
Along with the oil comes natural gas reserves. As over 52% of all homes use natural gas for home heating and cooking, it is essential these reserves are also tapped into.
Next is coal. The United States has more coal than anyone in the world. We have new technologies, with more on the way, to use coal efficiently and cleanly. Coal is inexpensive and abundant. Lets go get it!
If this current situation has taught us anything, it is that we must explore new sources of energy. Even Ben Franklin advised not to put all our eggs in one basket. And there are many sources to explore, including some few have ever even heard of. But again, these must be efficient, sustainable and affordable to all.
Some want electric cars. This is fine, but these have a very limited range and still need to be charged using large amounts of electricity that must be produced. This means more power generation, which means we need more power plants.
While they cost the most to build, nuclear power plants are among the most efficient. They are also very clean and actually very safe. The big problem? What to do with the waste! However, countries such as France have pretty much solved the problem simply by recycling the fuel rods! They do not have a problem with waste as there is none. We can have hundred new plants on line by 2020.
Coal fired and natural gas powered plants are also fine, but only if we are allowed to get the fuels for their operation. They are much cheaper and faster to build, but cost more to operate. They are also more volatile in that they are susceptible to price swings in energy costs.
Wind, solar, hydrogen, water, plasma… These are all being looked into for various answers. This is as it should be. Some are thinking the answer lies only with one or two of these, mostly wind and water. I say go for them all!
However, government subsidies should not be considered here. If the government is to have anything to do with the development of any source of fuel or energy source, it should be to allow private enterprises to proceed full steam ahead, making certain that all reasonable laws concerning fraud, the environment and consumer safety are followed.
I do propose a reward program. For those who are the first to develop new sources of energy, as well as vehicles that can run efficiently and affordably, (including the cost to obtain and own the vehicles,) we should reward their efforts. I do not really see things such as a $300 million dollar reward such as Senator McCain has proposed for the development of a new battery, but certainly something that would make a decent incentive to invent and produce. For those who succeed, they will also reap the rewards of putting their ideas into the market place. The rewards should be granted only after the fact. Grants given before hand tend to undermine results. Knowing the reward is waiting upon completion gives a tremendous incentive to work hard and produce real results.
We are America. We should be leading the world. The rest of the world should either follow our example or come running to us for our new products. This will not only reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels in the long run, it will eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, cause prices to not only stabilize but become affordable for all. We will stimulate the economy in a big way by introducing new products to the national and world markets and provide lots of jobs!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
What Happened To My State?
I was born in Rutland, Vermont back in 1958. I lived much of my youth there. I lived in several places around the state. Much of what formed the person I am today came from the values that were part of every day life in the Green Mountain State.
Life in Vermont in those days was, full of work and play, but no real worries. We took care of the morning chores before heading off to school. We played outside until dark, then clean up for dinner, homework and bed.
In the summer we spent our time in the woods hiking and fishing, swimming, bike riding, baseball… all the things kids love to do on a warm, sunny day. In the winter there was sledding, skiing, even hunting. Most of this was done without direct parental supervision. (Ahh, but do not think that we, as children were not taught about safety and responsibility, and we never used weapons unless we had an adult with us.) For the most part, our parents only worried that we might injure ourselves falling out of a tree or some other mishap related to normal childhood activity.
If something did happen, which was actually rare, we all knew that we could count on our neighbors. In fact, taking care of and looking out for our neighbors was an everyday thing.
A snowy winter morning might consist of shoveling the walk and plowing out the drive, followed by taking care of the widow or elderly neighbor down the road. This would include making sure they had enough heat, (many times kerosene or wood,) and food. Doors were rarely, if ever locked. The biggest exception would be when the summer squash would come in. This grew in abundance, and everyone had some, so much in fact they would leave it on your table when you were out, or put a large bag in your car while you were shopping! You locked the car and house just to keep from getting more!
I moved out of the state many years ago, mostly because economic opportunities were not all that abundant. I have been back as a visitor many times, but it was not the same as the carefree childhood playground I grew up in. Most of the farms are now gone. Many of the residents were outsiders, not native to the state. People did not know, or even care about their neighbors. Security gates abound, along with signs waning trespassers about the consequences of entering where they are no longer welcome. The old swimming hole, Elfin Lake located just outside of Wallingford, is now a gated community where only the elite can afford to live, and only those with permission can enter.
The government has become a haven for socialists who claim they care, but leave the unconnected in the cold. Where we once knew our elected officials by first name, few even know what they look like. Where once we could trust our neighbors, sex offenders are allowed to roam free, the security locks and bars on the windows are the only thing between the safety of the children and the predators.
This has been coming for a very long times now and, unfortunately, is a symptom of things to come on a national level as we “progress” toward the same thinking as those who have destroyed my once beloved state.
Back in January of 2006, Fox News commentator Bill O’Rielly highlighted the case of Judge Edward Cashman who handed down a 60 day sentence to Mark Hulett who admitted to raping a 7 year old so many time, he did not remember the number. Officials have said they have the most progressive and successful sex offender rehabilitation program in the country. This appears so successful that many sex offenders have moved to the state because they know they will never receive a harsh sentence, or any real punishment at all. In fact, according to the news reports and a few contacts in the state, it now appears that many of these sex offenders are now part of organized sex rings, operated right under the collective noses of the very officials who claim these people simply need understanding and help. This is not the help our society needs, nor is it the same sort of help we offered our neighbors back in the day.
Life in Vermont in those days was, full of work and play, but no real worries. We took care of the morning chores before heading off to school. We played outside until dark, then clean up for dinner, homework and bed.
In the summer we spent our time in the woods hiking and fishing, swimming, bike riding, baseball… all the things kids love to do on a warm, sunny day. In the winter there was sledding, skiing, even hunting. Most of this was done without direct parental supervision. (Ahh, but do not think that we, as children were not taught about safety and responsibility, and we never used weapons unless we had an adult with us.) For the most part, our parents only worried that we might injure ourselves falling out of a tree or some other mishap related to normal childhood activity.
If something did happen, which was actually rare, we all knew that we could count on our neighbors. In fact, taking care of and looking out for our neighbors was an everyday thing.
A snowy winter morning might consist of shoveling the walk and plowing out the drive, followed by taking care of the widow or elderly neighbor down the road. This would include making sure they had enough heat, (many times kerosene or wood,) and food. Doors were rarely, if ever locked. The biggest exception would be when the summer squash would come in. This grew in abundance, and everyone had some, so much in fact they would leave it on your table when you were out, or put a large bag in your car while you were shopping! You locked the car and house just to keep from getting more!
I moved out of the state many years ago, mostly because economic opportunities were not all that abundant. I have been back as a visitor many times, but it was not the same as the carefree childhood playground I grew up in. Most of the farms are now gone. Many of the residents were outsiders, not native to the state. People did not know, or even care about their neighbors. Security gates abound, along with signs waning trespassers about the consequences of entering where they are no longer welcome. The old swimming hole, Elfin Lake located just outside of Wallingford, is now a gated community where only the elite can afford to live, and only those with permission can enter.
The government has become a haven for socialists who claim they care, but leave the unconnected in the cold. Where we once knew our elected officials by first name, few even know what they look like. Where once we could trust our neighbors, sex offenders are allowed to roam free, the security locks and bars on the windows are the only thing between the safety of the children and the predators.
This has been coming for a very long times now and, unfortunately, is a symptom of things to come on a national level as we “progress” toward the same thinking as those who have destroyed my once beloved state.
Back in January of 2006, Fox News commentator Bill O’Rielly highlighted the case of Judge Edward Cashman who handed down a 60 day sentence to Mark Hulett who admitted to raping a 7 year old so many time, he did not remember the number. Officials have said they have the most progressive and successful sex offender rehabilitation program in the country. This appears so successful that many sex offenders have moved to the state because they know they will never receive a harsh sentence, or any real punishment at all. In fact, according to the news reports and a few contacts in the state, it now appears that many of these sex offenders are now part of organized sex rings, operated right under the collective noses of the very officials who claim these people simply need understanding and help. This is not the help our society needs, nor is it the same sort of help we offered our neighbors back in the day.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Media Bias?
Ask anyone their opinion of the media and you will get responses, lots of them, and all different! Most of the responses will more than likely be based on the political ideology of the person being polled.
Not surprisingly, most who claim they are conservative say the press is biased toward the left, and those who claim to be Democrat, or at least have a liberal leaning, say the press is either fair or leaning toward the right.
A new Rasmussen poll shows that in reality, a mere 17% of all people, (across all demographic lines,) believe the media is fair and unbiased. According to the poll, "The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers."
Rather than going into the old argument about the fairness of a news reporter, journalist, editor or publisher endorsing one candidate or another, or whether it is right or wrong for any media outlet, print or otherwise, to lean one way or another, I would simply like to accept that this is true and actually say it is OK!
I was a publisher and editor of a small paper. I am still a freelance journalist and researcher, and once in a while a pollster, political consultant and analyst. I am a registered Republican and very much a conservative. Most of my commentaries are from this view. I offer no apologies for this.
But, if I own the paper, and it is alright for me to write from my perspective, then I also have to accept that it is alright for someone who owns a media outlet to publish stories from their own perspective. My problem is when the stories are either intellectually or factually dishonest. If I know that the story is biased from one angle or another, but I am being given the facts, I can still discover what is really going on with the story.
What appears to be missing these days is objectivity. It is fine to have a political opinion, and even to report from the view of those opinions. But, if you have to change or ignore the facts to support your opinion, you are doing your readers or viewers a disservice. There have been many times the facts have contradicted my opinion. When this happens, I have no choice but to change my opinion to suit the facts rather than change the facts to fit my opinion.
Not surprisingly, most who claim they are conservative say the press is biased toward the left, and those who claim to be Democrat, or at least have a liberal leaning, say the press is either fair or leaning toward the right.
A new Rasmussen poll shows that in reality, a mere 17% of all people, (across all demographic lines,) believe the media is fair and unbiased. According to the poll, "The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers."
Rather than going into the old argument about the fairness of a news reporter, journalist, editor or publisher endorsing one candidate or another, or whether it is right or wrong for any media outlet, print or otherwise, to lean one way or another, I would simply like to accept that this is true and actually say it is OK!
I was a publisher and editor of a small paper. I am still a freelance journalist and researcher, and once in a while a pollster, political consultant and analyst. I am a registered Republican and very much a conservative. Most of my commentaries are from this view. I offer no apologies for this.
But, if I own the paper, and it is alright for me to write from my perspective, then I also have to accept that it is alright for someone who owns a media outlet to publish stories from their own perspective. My problem is when the stories are either intellectually or factually dishonest. If I know that the story is biased from one angle or another, but I am being given the facts, I can still discover what is really going on with the story.
What appears to be missing these days is objectivity. It is fine to have a political opinion, and even to report from the view of those opinions. But, if you have to change or ignore the facts to support your opinion, you are doing your readers or viewers a disservice. There have been many times the facts have contradicted my opinion. When this happens, I have no choice but to change my opinion to suit the facts rather than change the facts to fit my opinion.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Mexico At War?
It is true, or at least I believe it to be. So do many others.
But just who would they be at war with, you might ask. For news junkies such as myself, the answer is rather obvious. The drug cartels! True, they have been at each other for a while now. Violence has escalated. But look deeper into the stories and you will come to the same conclusions as I have if you are honest with yourself. War does not have to be declared to exist.
One by one the cartels take a town. Now and again the government sends in troops to retake control, but everywhere they go there is still uneasiness and fear. In response, the drug lords taunt the government, sometimes by hanging banners with statements mocking the government. Eventualy though, the cartels reign once again.
How did it get to this point? The government has long been in the pockets of the cartels. It has probably been the worse kept secret that the drug lords have been paying off officials to look the other way while they continue their nefarious deeds. But lately, the price has been getting too high, and the government is under a lot of pressure to reign in the cartels so they attempted to put on a show the cartels did not like.
To keep the drug and human smuggling rings working and all the lanes of traffic open, the cartels started getting more and more violent, bringing more pressure on the government from places such as the United States to get control of the violence that has been spilling across the border. It has finally come to the point that the cartels have decided to simply take over the entire country.
The cartels have not officially declared a war on Mexico. It would not be a wise move. For one, an open and declared war would not only force the government to send out the entire military at once to stop the cartels, it would force the United States to step in, and possibly even the UN. (They can peacekeep the drug lords to death! The smugglers would end up laughing themselves to death!) All of this would distract the smugglers from their business and cut too deep into their profits which amount to billions each year.
So, they continue as they are, openly recruiting the police and military as they go, one town at a time. As the cartels are much better armed, trained and financed, the government is almost helpless to stop them. Without intervention from outside, which the government is not all that willing to ask for since they would have to admit to having some real problems that are actually very painfully obvious to everyone outside, they do not stand much of a chance of winning.
But, can the United States tolerate a country on their southern border that is run by these criminal gangs?
But just who would they be at war with, you might ask. For news junkies such as myself, the answer is rather obvious. The drug cartels! True, they have been at each other for a while now. Violence has escalated. But look deeper into the stories and you will come to the same conclusions as I have if you are honest with yourself. War does not have to be declared to exist.
One by one the cartels take a town. Now and again the government sends in troops to retake control, but everywhere they go there is still uneasiness and fear. In response, the drug lords taunt the government, sometimes by hanging banners with statements mocking the government. Eventualy though, the cartels reign once again.
How did it get to this point? The government has long been in the pockets of the cartels. It has probably been the worse kept secret that the drug lords have been paying off officials to look the other way while they continue their nefarious deeds. But lately, the price has been getting too high, and the government is under a lot of pressure to reign in the cartels so they attempted to put on a show the cartels did not like.
To keep the drug and human smuggling rings working and all the lanes of traffic open, the cartels started getting more and more violent, bringing more pressure on the government from places such as the United States to get control of the violence that has been spilling across the border. It has finally come to the point that the cartels have decided to simply take over the entire country.
The cartels have not officially declared a war on Mexico. It would not be a wise move. For one, an open and declared war would not only force the government to send out the entire military at once to stop the cartels, it would force the United States to step in, and possibly even the UN. (They can peacekeep the drug lords to death! The smugglers would end up laughing themselves to death!) All of this would distract the smugglers from their business and cut too deep into their profits which amount to billions each year.
So, they continue as they are, openly recruiting the police and military as they go, one town at a time. As the cartels are much better armed, trained and financed, the government is almost helpless to stop them. Without intervention from outside, which the government is not all that willing to ask for since they would have to admit to having some real problems that are actually very painfully obvious to everyone outside, they do not stand much of a chance of winning.
But, can the United States tolerate a country on their southern border that is run by these criminal gangs?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Why I Love Newspapers
I love newspapers. Always have. While I have read literally thousands of books, my love and passion for reading was actually nurtured by newspapers.
My first real job was selling newspaper subscriptions for the now defunct Boston Traveler. Back in 1972 the paper merged with the Boston Record American and at the ripe old age of 14, I was laid off.
I then took on my first paper route in Springfield, MA, growing the route until I could no longer deliver all the papers myself. I took on a couple to assist in deliveries, then started selling sections of the routes while continuing to sell subscriptions.
In high school I started writing for the school paper and quickly became the editor. I worked on my college newspaper. I have since been a stringer for the Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a freelance journalist with work being published all over the world, and even owned my own paper for a while.
My appetite for news has never been quenched. Nor has my love for newspapers.
But, despite this love for the printed word, I could never sell out my principles or the truth, and I never really made it to the mainstream, even with many guest appearances on radio and television. The problem has never been those who have heard, seen or read me, but those in charge of the organizations. I have been told I am too far to the right, that no one would share my "extremist" views, and even that the world does not need, "Another white conservative commentator!"
Thanks to the Internet though, as well as some limited circulation trade periodicals, there but for the Grace of God go I!
As much as I would love to get my own regular column, be able to have the resources to investigate several important stories I have been documenting and more, I still have an outlet to do what I love, even if I cannot make a living doing so.
My first real job was selling newspaper subscriptions for the now defunct Boston Traveler. Back in 1972 the paper merged with the Boston Record American and at the ripe old age of 14, I was laid off.
I then took on my first paper route in Springfield, MA, growing the route until I could no longer deliver all the papers myself. I took on a couple to assist in deliveries, then started selling sections of the routes while continuing to sell subscriptions.
In high school I started writing for the school paper and quickly became the editor. I worked on my college newspaper. I have since been a stringer for the Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a freelance journalist with work being published all over the world, and even owned my own paper for a while.
My appetite for news has never been quenched. Nor has my love for newspapers.
But, despite this love for the printed word, I could never sell out my principles or the truth, and I never really made it to the mainstream, even with many guest appearances on radio and television. The problem has never been those who have heard, seen or read me, but those in charge of the organizations. I have been told I am too far to the right, that no one would share my "extremist" views, and even that the world does not need, "Another white conservative commentator!"
Thanks to the Internet though, as well as some limited circulation trade periodicals, there but for the Grace of God go I!
As much as I would love to get my own regular column, be able to have the resources to investigate several important stories I have been documenting and more, I still have an outlet to do what I love, even if I cannot make a living doing so.
Why School Vouchers?
When the public schools in our country were first proposed, it was said that this should be done so no American child would be without an education. The new country needed educated people to insure its success and growth. At the time, the only real education was for those who could afford it, and most were sent overseas because what few schools we had were insufficient.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Who Is Better For The Economy?
This is a question we are now hearing, and will be hearing much more of once the Democrats finally decide who is going to be their nominee. Like Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos, I could care less who it is. The Republican nominee has already been chosen by the Democrats, so one might suspect, and they would at least be partially correct, that there is some amount delight stemming from revenge as we watch the democratic party self destruct.
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Boom Or Bust, Has Our Economy Been Destroyed By President Bush?
Our economy is much tougher and complex than can be summarized in a few comments in a local newspaper or blog, which is where all the discussion over this issue is being debated. That being said, it is far easier for a government to destroy such an economy than to fix it.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Should There Be A Law To Force Teaching Democracy In America?
Well, this is not actually the proposal. The bill the Arizona representatives are considering would ban the teaching of any form of government or ideal above democracy. If passed, this would mean that no teacher or professor in any Arizona public educational institution, including colleges, may not push socialist values over democratic values.
The bill, S.B. 1108, has been met with a large amount of both support, and criticism. Supporters say the bill will protect American from those who are attempting to use our children to undermine American values and replace democracy with socialism. Critics claim the right wing is creating "Thought Police" and blocking free speech. Both sides make claims about the bill that are not true, and apparently, most from both sides have not read the bill, but rather basing opinions on local press coverage, which is biased to be sure!
But, the fact is, the bill is flawed and will be interpreted in ways the bill was never intended to do. In my opinion, the bill will never hold up in court either. Here are a few of the examples from the bill:
The bill, S.B. 1108, has been met with a large amount of both support, and criticism. Supporters say the bill will protect American from those who are attempting to use our children to undermine American values and replace democracy with socialism. Critics claim the right wing is creating "Thought Police" and blocking free speech. Both sides make claims about the bill that are not true, and apparently, most from both sides have not read the bill, but rather basing opinions on local press coverage, which is biased to be sure!
But, the fact is, the bill is flawed and will be interpreted in ways the bill was never intended to do. In my opinion, the bill will never hold up in court either. Here are a few of the examples from the bill:
- PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PROMOTE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, IDEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL BELIEFS OR VALUES AS TRUTH WHEN SUCH VALUES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE VALUES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND THE TEACHINGS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
15-108. Denigration, disparagement or encouragement of dissent from values of American democracy and western civilization; prohibition; enforcement; prohibition of race-based organizations; definition
The intention of this should be quite clear, but it will be construed by the groups who will eventually bring the case to court, assuming it actually passes into law, as a means to brainwash our children to accept democracy as the only acceptable form of government, eliminating free thought by students and freedom of speech by teachers.
The intent though, is to keep teachers from indoctrinating students to the values of socialism and/or communism, a practice that has been going on for decades now, mostly in our colleges. While the critics do not want the kids to be "Brainwashed" by democratic values, they want the opposite to happen. There is a proper middle ground.
The middle ground lies in properly teaching our children and actually trusting them to think and reason for themselves based on factual history and government being taught to them. This means we teach our children about our form of government, based on the founding documents as well as factual history. We also teach them about other forms of government, based on facts rather than opinion based on the political beliefs of the teacher, the school system, and/or the unions. We then encourage the students to compare, contrast and debate the differences. Moderators to the debate should limit their correction to facts as opposed to their own beliefs in order to allow free thought and debate to take it's natural course.
If we teach our children properly, and if we give them the trust and encouragement they require, they will be able to accomplish this great task of learning to think and reason for themselves. This, and a good moral background led by the example of good parents, would be the greatest gift we could give our children besides life!
Below is the full context of the bill:
Forty-eighth Legislature APPROP
Second Regular Session S.B. 1108
PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1108
(Reference to Senate engrossed bill)
Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:
"Section 1. Title 15, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 15-107 and 15-108, to read:
START_STATUTE15-107. Declaration of policy
The legislature finds and declares that:
1. A primary purpose of public education is to inculcate values of American citizenship.
2. Public tax dollars used in public schools should not be used to denigrate American values and the teachings of western civilization.
3. Public tax dollars should not be used to promote political, religious, ideological or cultural beliefs or values as truth when such values are in conflict with the values of American citizenship and the teachings of western CIVILIZATION.
START_STATUTE15-108. Denigration, disparagement or encouragement of dissent from values of American democracy and western civilization; prohibition; enforcement; prohibition of race-based organizations; definition
A. A public school in this state shall not include within the program of instruction any courses, classes or school sponsored activities that promote, assert as truth or feature as an exclusive focus any political, religious, ideological or cultural beliefs or values that denigrate, disparage or overtly ENCOURAGE dissent from the values of American democracy and western civilization, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious toleration.
B. This section does not prohibit the inclusion of diverse political, religious, ideological or CULTURAL beliefs or values if the course, CLASS or school sponsored activity as a whole does not denigrate, disparage or overtly ENCOURAGE dissent from the values of American democracy and western civilization.
C. On request of the superintendent of public instruction or the superintendent's designee, a public school shall promptly provide copies of curricula, course materials and course syllabi to the superintendent of public INSTRUCTION. the superintendent of public instruction, after providing appropriate notice and conducting an appropriate hearing, may withhold a proportionate share of state monies from any public school that violates subsection A. The superintendent of public instruction may take reasonable and APPROPRIATE regulatory actions to enforce this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to enlarge the authority of the superintendent of public instruction to regulate the CONTENT of curriculum in public schools.
D. A public school in this state, a university under the JURISDICTION of the Arizona board of regents and a community college under the JURISDICTION of a community college DISTRICT in this state shall not allow organizations to operate on the CAMPUS of the school, UNIVERSITY or community college if the organization is based in whole or in part on race-based criteria.
E. For the purposes of this section, "public school" means any of the following:
1. A school district.
2. A school in a school district.
3. A charter school.
4. An accommodation school.
5. The Arizona state schools for the deaf and the blind." END_STATUTE
Amend title to conform
RUSSELL K. PEARCE
1108rp2.doc
04/14/2008
1:28 PM
C: tdb
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A Return To Slavery?
Sometimes I hate it when I am right.
Several years ago I was asked a question. "Since you are so opinionated and critical of proposed guest worker plans, what would you do? How would you go about creating a guest worker plan? I responded by drafting a plan that inspired a plan submitted to Congress, but was never heard on the floor.
The plan basically addressed real needs for guest workers while at the same time taking into consideration American workers. The following was published in the Tucson Citizen last year:
Several years ago I was asked a question. "Since you are so opinionated and critical of proposed guest worker plans, what would you do? How would you go about creating a guest worker plan? I responded by drafting a plan that inspired a plan submitted to Congress, but was never heard on the floor.
The plan basically addressed real needs for guest workers while at the same time taking into consideration American workers. The following was published in the Tucson Citizen last year:
"Over the years since Senators McCain and Kennedy introduced their bipartisan immigration reform bill, I have been highly critical of the plan, especially the guest worker plan included within the text. Several people have asked, why, if I am so critical, don't I offer a solution to a very real and important issue. Well, I have done so, and I would like to offer some parts of it.The problem I have with most plans is that they are discriminating in nature, and they do not offer realistic protections for American workers. To address these problems I offer the following, which would make any guest worker plan more appealing and fair for all.
First, scrap all existing work visa programs as they are broken and ineffective. The new program should have no caps as these are arbitrary and do not address real needs. Many positions are also granted for political reasons rather than the real needs of all employers and/or workers. The number of visas issued should be based on genuine need rather than arbitrary numbers. Political appointments to a guest worker position are not allowed. All laws of the United States, as well as other laws pertaining specifically to a guest worker program will apply to all participants and will be enforced. Any dispute of the laws will be first addressed by a panel to be made up of legal professionals before being referred to any court. No court outside of the United States will have any jurisdiction in regards to a guest worker program. The benefit of the doubt in any dispute will be granted to the United States.
A government agency must be established to operate the guest worker program, but must also be self-sustaining through reasonable fees to the employer, the guest worker, the host country, or all. The agency must not be profitable, nor should it be operated at a loss. Any excess monies over and above 10% of the total operating budget must be transferred to a fund to offset shortfalls in homeland security, or to supplement such a budget. If in any two years of excessive windfalls or deficits, the fees must be adjusted to reflect the real needs of the program. Fees may be adjusted as needed on an annual basis.
We already have a national job bank. With very little effort and expense, this can be adapted for matching employers to guest workers. The prospective employer submits an application for the worker(s) through this program, along with sufficient documentation proving they have exhausted all reasonable means to hire an American worker. The guest worker fills out an application through the job bank and is matched to the employer. All applications for a guest worker position must be from the prospective worker's home country, or a country the prospective worker is residing legally.
The burden of proof of the need for a guest worker is on the employer and must be verified as being truthful and compliant before a guest worker may be hired.No guest worker may be approved without a complete background check. No person who has been convicted of a crime in any country may be approved for the guest worker program. No person convicted of a crime in any country may accompany a guest worker to this country. No person with ties to any group who has expressed through action or words, their intention to harm America in any way, shape, or form may enter our country. No person who has expressed through action or word, a hatred or animosity for the United States, may be entered into this country. Any guest worker who commits a crime, or acts against the United States while working as a guest worker will be dropped from the program and extradited after the completion of any sentence handed to the guest worker for the crimes.
Rather than allowing an employer to loan monies for expenses related to the application process and moving expenses, either the guest worker must pay this themselves, or the employer may offer a grant to offset those expenses. This keeps the worker from becoming indentured to the employer while still offering a realistic way for the worker to move where the job is.
We already compile statistics as to what every job in the United States pays according to skill levels, experience and location. The worker must be paid on these averages, including benefits. This provision is the most fair to the worker, and takes away incentives for prospective employers to take advantage of the program. It also keeps most workers from being forced to live below the poverty level and adding to the rising numbers of working poor.
Family unification is important, but, the worker must be able to support them. The worker may only bring as many family members as they can support, and then only immediate family members. By this, I mean only a spouse and children. Extended family members would not be allowed to accompany the guest worker. This is not supposed to be a permanent move. Reasonable efforts should be made to allow the spouse to work if this is necessary to support the family.
As the guest worker should be paid a livable wage, and as they should also be an asset to the communities rather then a liability, guest workers should not be allowed social services such as AFDC, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc… Social Security eligibility should be limited to the same requirements as American workers.
As a naturalized American citizen must take an oath of allegiance to support and defend our country and the Constitution, and as, for all intents and purposes, for the duration of, the program, guest workers are expected to obey our laws and act as citizens, all guest workers must take an oath to the United States and sign such an affidavit to swear they will uphold the Constitution and our laws while in our country.
No child of a guest worker can be considered an American citizen by birth. The only possible exception to this would be if one parent is an America citizen, but the guest worker will not be able to gain citizenship through parentage or marriage. I have many more details to this, but these address many of the concerns people have relating to a guest worker plan. I do believe there is a need for guest workers, but any program should never put American jobs in jeopardy, nor should it allow anyone to be taken advantage of. "
Part of my concern about guest worker plans is that most of them promote indentured servitude. This is how slavery started in this country. Initially, immigrants were told that they did not have to have any money to emigrate to the new country. They would be brought here and an employer would cover their expenses. The worker would then work of the debt and be a free citizen. Of course the debt could never be paid off and was transferable to the immigrant's children.
Even after slavery was outlawed in the United States, indentured servitude continued, mostly in the coal towns but in other industries as well. The workers were tied to their jobs by debts they could never pay off. They lived in company housing, shopped in company stores, their children attending company schools. The workers were even paid in company money that could not be spent anywhere else.
If provisions of the may proposed immigration reform plans are passed, we will see a return to indentured servitude, which is just a fancy term for slavery. One can only imagine the politically correct term they will use to make such a move palatable!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Racism And Obama
First off, I should say that among the things I have done in my life is work for equal rights. I have not worked as hard as my mother did though. She worked in the civil rights movement. She also worked for then Senator John F. Kennedy. She taught me well about racism, and the evils this wrought.
I would love to vote for a minority for President, but I want someone who is qualified. I refuse to vote for someone based on race or sex. These are not qualifications for the highest office in the land. By the same token, I will not vote against someone based on race or sex either. I am big into issues.
Obama's run for the White House has brought the issue of racism back into the spot light, though most of the negative comments I have heard are from the left. Most are accusations of racism toward the right, accusing them of campaigning against the Senator simply because they do not want a black man as President.
I keep hearing about how the right has caused all attempts at racial reconciliation to fail, about how powerful white men in Washington keep blacks repressed. However, this is not true.
We have attempted many remedies for racism. All have failed.
We tried affirmative action, to give extra to women and minorities to lift them above their actual abilities in a effort to be fair, to give them a chance they may not have had otherwise.
We gave them extra points on test scores so they could qualify for things they would not have qualified for otherwise.
We created laws to make certain white people were given extra punishments for committing crimes on minorities. We even created laws to make it criminal to even suggest a person of color could be inferior, even if the opinion was not based on race, but actual qualification and/or ability.
We made every excuse as to why minorities as a whole have not done better for themselves.
Nothing has really worked. Why?
The answers are many, and somewhat complex taken as a whole. I certainly do not have them all, nor do I have the time to complete an entire dissertation. I will simply provide a couple of the very basic answers.
One reason is that we managed to take away any reason for ambition. Why work harder when all you have to do is cry racism and have everything handed to you on a silver platter, complete with a never ending apology?
Another reason is themselves. Take for instance the so called black leadership. People like Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson, etc... Why are these people successful? What have they done to merit their positions? They empowered themselves by convincing their followers that they can never succeed, that they can never get out of poverty, drug abuse, single parenthood and more because the white man will never allow it!
It is far easier to accept the premises presented by their own leadership than to do anything to rise above one's position. Hate is an easier emotion to evoke and accept than is contentment and happiness. It is also real easy to blame others for your problem than to accept personal responsibility.
Yet, a great many minorities have succeeded! How could this have happened if everything the minority leadership has claimed is true? How could someone like Obama and his wife have attended ivy league colleges, graduated and earned law degrees? How could such a person become a real contender for the White House if all of this were true?
The real seat of racism lies in the minorities themselves. (Yes, racism is alive and well in the white race as well, but not nearly to the extent we are told.) They want racism to continue because then they would no longer be the victim!
There are many, such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton who do not really want to see Obama succeed. This would mean they are out of work. What more can they do once they have managed to put a black man into the Presidency? This could easily be the greatest accomplishment they could ever hope to achieve.
If Obama fails, then they can continue, using the failure as a crutch for years to come.
But, should we be voting for a man whose only qualification is that he is black?
.
I would love to vote for a minority for President, but I want someone who is qualified. I refuse to vote for someone based on race or sex. These are not qualifications for the highest office in the land. By the same token, I will not vote against someone based on race or sex either. I am big into issues.
Obama's run for the White House has brought the issue of racism back into the spot light, though most of the negative comments I have heard are from the left. Most are accusations of racism toward the right, accusing them of campaigning against the Senator simply because they do not want a black man as President.
I keep hearing about how the right has caused all attempts at racial reconciliation to fail, about how powerful white men in Washington keep blacks repressed. However, this is not true.
We have attempted many remedies for racism. All have failed.
We tried affirmative action, to give extra to women and minorities to lift them above their actual abilities in a effort to be fair, to give them a chance they may not have had otherwise.
We gave them extra points on test scores so they could qualify for things they would not have qualified for otherwise.
We created laws to make certain white people were given extra punishments for committing crimes on minorities. We even created laws to make it criminal to even suggest a person of color could be inferior, even if the opinion was not based on race, but actual qualification and/or ability.
We made every excuse as to why minorities as a whole have not done better for themselves.
Nothing has really worked. Why?
The answers are many, and somewhat complex taken as a whole. I certainly do not have them all, nor do I have the time to complete an entire dissertation. I will simply provide a couple of the very basic answers.
One reason is that we managed to take away any reason for ambition. Why work harder when all you have to do is cry racism and have everything handed to you on a silver platter, complete with a never ending apology?
Another reason is themselves. Take for instance the so called black leadership. People like Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson, etc... Why are these people successful? What have they done to merit their positions? They empowered themselves by convincing their followers that they can never succeed, that they can never get out of poverty, drug abuse, single parenthood and more because the white man will never allow it!
It is far easier to accept the premises presented by their own leadership than to do anything to rise above one's position. Hate is an easier emotion to evoke and accept than is contentment and happiness. It is also real easy to blame others for your problem than to accept personal responsibility.
Yet, a great many minorities have succeeded! How could this have happened if everything the minority leadership has claimed is true? How could someone like Obama and his wife have attended ivy league colleges, graduated and earned law degrees? How could such a person become a real contender for the White House if all of this were true?
The real seat of racism lies in the minorities themselves. (Yes, racism is alive and well in the white race as well, but not nearly to the extent we are told.) They want racism to continue because then they would no longer be the victim!
There are many, such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton who do not really want to see Obama succeed. This would mean they are out of work. What more can they do once they have managed to put a black man into the Presidency? This could easily be the greatest accomplishment they could ever hope to achieve.
If Obama fails, then they can continue, using the failure as a crutch for years to come.
But, should we be voting for a man whose only qualification is that he is black?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
