According to my local fishwrap, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has decided that these tough economic times require bold action. The front page article caught my attention with the headline: “DNR DISCONTINUING LOCAL COUNTER SERVICE.” My first thought was-It’s about time! But, my naiveté belies my years. My reaction should have been-It sounds too good to be true. Well, of course, it is. It turns out that while the DNR is in fact discontinuing counter service, the jobs of the 51 state employees who provided that service are not being cut. No, they will keep their jobs with the DNR but will be “serving the public” in some, as yet undetermined, “different capacity.” The article states, in part:
Although the service centers will remain open as a base of operations
for local field staff, biologists and wardens, starting next spring people
will have to look elsewhere to obtain hunting licenses and information.
Eliminating counter service is expected to save the state $3.2 million
over the course of the next biennium.
I can see how this will inconvenience taxpayers but I don’t understand how it will save them any money. This question did not occur to the reporter who wrote the article so I am left only to contemplate the statements made by a DNR spokesman: “We are really facing an economic struggle. The state government had to make some tough decisions [because] decisions aren’t ever easy when you are facing a deficit.” Oh, really? How tough can it be when your solution is to cut customer service while maintaining a robust payroll? The truth is that the DNR and government in general have only one crucial decision to make. They have to decide where that imaginary and dangerously nebulous line in the sand is. They know they can’t cross it. It’s the one where the taxpayers finally say, “FUCK YOU! We’re not going to take this shit anymore!”
The line has been moving further and further…to the left, of course. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (gotta love these government bureaucracies), the state lost over 72,000 private- sector jobs last year. During this same time period, all those tough decisions being made in Madison have resulted in 900 new government jobs!
The DNR spokesman went on to say that “We will do what we can to avoid layoffs…” And what might that be? Increase production? No, they don’t produce anything. Increase customer service? Obviously not. Who knows?
Apparently the only thing we know for sure is that the consequences of a less than fully staffed DNR are too dire to contemplate. An immediate spike in global temperatures? Bands of renegade hunters decimating entire species of wild game? Maybe the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District would start dumping millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into Lake Michigan every time it rains! Oh, that’s right, they’re doing that now. Gosh, maybe the DNR does need to hire more people. After all, they’ve got 72,000 additional people to choose from this year.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
AN EVIL PIECE OF STEEL
Robert Smith Jr. writes a regular column for the Detroit News Politics Blog. On December 30, he posted a commentary titled BAN ALL GUNS in which he shows a refreshing level of honesty for a liberal. Unfortunately, his honesty is accompanied by a boatload of ignorance.
Mr. Smith states: “The Founding Fathers made a mistake when they said we had a right to bear arms.” Unlike so many liberals, he is not trying to convince us that the 2nd Amendment says something it does not. In fact, his statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the 2nd Amendment does indeed secure our individual right to own guns. He just thinks that the Founders were wrong. I can appreciate that many liberals agree with him but his explanation as to why he feels this way is absurd. He is either grossly ignorant of American history or he is willfully exploiting the ignorance of his fellow liberals. Smith claims that “[The Founders] did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.” A couple of points; The Founders did not write the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about the British or any other foreign invaders. Thomas Jefferson explained the reasoning for the Amendment this way: “And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It is clear these men were concerned about oppression by the very government they were establishing. They understood that all governments inherently drift towards tyranny. It is only the people that can keep them in check. Secondly, the British actually did look back on the United States after the Revolutionary War. Those hostilities are commonly referred to as the War of 1812. That would be the one where the British burned Washington, D.C. and the White House.
Smith goes on to site a 2005 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
that reported over 3000 children and teens were killed by gunfire, most of them black males in inner-city neighborhoods. (Shouldn’t the CDC be doing studies on AIDS or something?) So Mr. Smith wants to ban all guns to solve this problem. What’s next? Do we ban spoons and forks to solve the ongoing obesity crisis? This is how the liberal mind works – Poor black men are shooting each other in inner-city neighborhoods and their solution is to take the guns away from middle class, rural, white people. The plethora of gun restrictions already in place did nothing to prevent these murders. Does Mr. Smith really believe these crimes were committed by people who own guns legally?
Liberals don’t offer viable solutions because they either can’t or won’t recognize the actual problems. Black on black murder rates are rising and instead of advocating responsible behavior with societal consequences, Mr. Smith wants to ban a piece of steel.
Smith says that the person he most admires is Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps he should consider what Gandhi said about gun control: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Mr. Smith states: “The Founding Fathers made a mistake when they said we had a right to bear arms.” Unlike so many liberals, he is not trying to convince us that the 2nd Amendment says something it does not. In fact, his statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the 2nd Amendment does indeed secure our individual right to own guns. He just thinks that the Founders were wrong. I can appreciate that many liberals agree with him but his explanation as to why he feels this way is absurd. He is either grossly ignorant of American history or he is willfully exploiting the ignorance of his fellow liberals. Smith claims that “[The Founders] did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.” A couple of points; The Founders did not write the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about the British or any other foreign invaders. Thomas Jefferson explained the reasoning for the Amendment this way: “And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It is clear these men were concerned about oppression by the very government they were establishing. They understood that all governments inherently drift towards tyranny. It is only the people that can keep them in check. Secondly, the British actually did look back on the United States after the Revolutionary War. Those hostilities are commonly referred to as the War of 1812. That would be the one where the British burned Washington, D.C. and the White House.
Smith goes on to site a 2005 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
that reported over 3000 children and teens were killed by gunfire, most of them black males in inner-city neighborhoods. (Shouldn’t the CDC be doing studies on AIDS or something?) So Mr. Smith wants to ban all guns to solve this problem. What’s next? Do we ban spoons and forks to solve the ongoing obesity crisis? This is how the liberal mind works – Poor black men are shooting each other in inner-city neighborhoods and their solution is to take the guns away from middle class, rural, white people. The plethora of gun restrictions already in place did nothing to prevent these murders. Does Mr. Smith really believe these crimes were committed by people who own guns legally?
Liberals don’t offer viable solutions because they either can’t or won’t recognize the actual problems. Black on black murder rates are rising and instead of advocating responsible behavior with societal consequences, Mr. Smith wants to ban a piece of steel.
Smith says that the person he most admires is Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps he should consider what Gandhi said about gun control: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
REAL CHANGE
The election of Barack Obama as president has got me rethinking my political aspirations. I have always considered myself pretty much unelectable to any position above the level of county government. The president elect has given me new hope. (By the way, I had never even heard of The Office of the President Elect before Obama came around. What power does this office have, I wonder.) The media’s thorough vetting of Obama has revealed his life experiences to be eerily similar to my own. Check this out:
We’re the same age. Obama has two kids, as do I. Obama served several years in the State legislature and then the U.S. Senate while accomplishing nothing. I was on the City Council and then the County Board for several years and I didn’t get anything done either. Our knowledge of economics is comparable. I’ll admit I’m no expert. Obama may be highly educated but anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theory of surplus value doesn’t know shit about economics either. Foreign policy experience? Let’s score that nil-nil. Weird huh? Of course, there are differences. For instance, I’m not buddies with any former terrorists and my “spiritual advisor” is not a racist bigot with a stutter. The priest at my church has never screamed “god damn the U.S. of KKKwanza. And my dad was not a drunken philanderer with several wives. Beyond that, I think a reasonable person could conclude that I am just as qualified as Obama to be President of the United States. Our similar backgrounds, however, would not lead to similar governance.
THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
Obama and his lefty colleagues and supporters don’t seem to have any problem with a selective application of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Some Amendments, like the 9th and 10th, are just ignored. Other’s, through some linguistic voodoo, are interpreted as to provide a legal justification for some liberal cause. Only some lefty could read the 2nd Amendment and conclude that only the government can have guns. It is liberals that insist that rapists and murderers be provided air conditioned cells with cable T.V. because the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s time our side did a little creative interpretation of our own. My administration would start with the 1st Amendment, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will take the position that the specific listing of certain constraints on congress should not be construed to mean there are not others. In fact, for purposes of brevity and perhaps to clarify, I suggest we shorten it up to:
Congress shall make no law.
That ought to do it. Now that they have nothing to do, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank et.al. will be sent home immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, however, will be sequestered in a Motel 6 until he has written a personal letter of apology to every member of the armed forces for his deplorable and irresponsible comment that “The war in Iraq is lost” in 2007. He will then be sent back to Nevada on a Greyhound bus.
Now that my “Constitutional Dictatorship” is in place, we can start fixing things.
TO BE CONTINUED
We’re the same age. Obama has two kids, as do I. Obama served several years in the State legislature and then the U.S. Senate while accomplishing nothing. I was on the City Council and then the County Board for several years and I didn’t get anything done either. Our knowledge of economics is comparable. I’ll admit I’m no expert. Obama may be highly educated but anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theory of surplus value doesn’t know shit about economics either. Foreign policy experience? Let’s score that nil-nil. Weird huh? Of course, there are differences. For instance, I’m not buddies with any former terrorists and my “spiritual advisor” is not a racist bigot with a stutter. The priest at my church has never screamed “god damn the U.S. of KKKwanza. And my dad was not a drunken philanderer with several wives. Beyond that, I think a reasonable person could conclude that I am just as qualified as Obama to be President of the United States. Our similar backgrounds, however, would not lead to similar governance.
THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
Obama and his lefty colleagues and supporters don’t seem to have any problem with a selective application of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Some Amendments, like the 9th and 10th, are just ignored. Other’s, through some linguistic voodoo, are interpreted as to provide a legal justification for some liberal cause. Only some lefty could read the 2nd Amendment and conclude that only the government can have guns. It is liberals that insist that rapists and murderers be provided air conditioned cells with cable T.V. because the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s time our side did a little creative interpretation of our own. My administration would start with the 1st Amendment, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will take the position that the specific listing of certain constraints on congress should not be construed to mean there are not others. In fact, for purposes of brevity and perhaps to clarify, I suggest we shorten it up to:
Congress shall make no law.
That ought to do it. Now that they have nothing to do, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank et.al. will be sent home immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, however, will be sequestered in a Motel 6 until he has written a personal letter of apology to every member of the armed forces for his deplorable and irresponsible comment that “The war in Iraq is lost” in 2007. He will then be sent back to Nevada on a Greyhound bus.
Now that my “Constitutional Dictatorship” is in place, we can start fixing things.
TO BE CONTINUED
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
THE GHOST OF COMMIES PAST
Now that Barack Obama has the presidency safely locked up, the ghost of commies past has decided to reappear. In an op-ed column published by Pravda, U.S.A., aka, The New York Times, Bill Ayers has endeavored to set the record straight. It seems that Ayers believes he was mischaracterized by the Main Stream Media in an effort to link Obama to an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Yea, right. The Main Stream Media were such truth seekers regarding Obama that half of the people I talk to never even heard of Bill Ayers. For those of you in this group, let me get you up to speed.
Bill Ayers was a radical rich white kid who dropped out of college to join the Students for a Democratic Society (A communist group for radical rich white kids). In 1970 he co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that advocated for peace in Southeast Asia by blowing things up in America. Ayers articulated the Weatherman philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” More recently, he has stated that “It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.” Good one Bill. That was a real knee-slapper! The weathermen were responsible for bombings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the State Department and the New York City Police Headquarters to name a few of their targets. Ayers and his comrade, Bernardine Dohrn, went underground and lived as fugitives until 1980 when, like a bad zit, they resurfaced. The details of what happened next are too offensive for polite company but the bottom line is Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine for her crimes and the charges against Ayers were a non-issue, having already been dropped due to a violation of the Warren Court ruling that “Good cops are prohibited from using extraordinary skill and every day common sense in the gathering of evidence against radical rich white kids.”
Free from justice, the happy couple was now able to get back to enjoying the fruits of other peoples labor. They quickly assimilated into the lefty culture of Chicago academia where Ayers is now a “distinguished professor of education” at the University of Illinois at Chicago and his charming wife is director of the Legal Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University. No, I’m not making up this crap! Oh-I forgot to mention that Ms. Dohrn is also quite the comedian. At a Students for a Democratic Society symposium (that’s those radical rich white kids again) in 1969, just after the Manson family murders, she told the audience: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.” Ms. Dohrn has recently said of her remarks: “It was a joke.” Man, these guys crack me up!
So, this brings us to Ayers recent op-ed column in the New Lefty Times. After whining about those pit bulls in the Main Stream Media, he goes on to state some “facts”: “I never killed or injured anyone.” “In 1970 I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.” Ayers doesn’t mention that this “accidental explosion” occurred while his three comrades were building one of his bombs. He says the Weathermen only placed “several small bombs” in empty offices. Small bombs? I wonder how Bill and Bernie would react to some radical Americans shooting up their house with 22’s. No big deal? That’s a very small caliber, after all. Ayers goes on to explain: “We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.” Sure Bill. Whatever makes you feel like a decent human being. The weathermen were the Keystone Cops of terrorists. Just because the only people they killed were three of their own doesn’t mean crap to me. Their incompetence does not absolve them of guilt. Ayers laments that “…We were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10 year war.”
I am really sick of the selective indignation of these American hating slugs. American troops were repeatedly put in untenable situations because of the tactics of the enemy(that would be the three million Vietnamese). The vast, vast majority of them fought with honor and courage, as American troops always have. Ayers and his comrades remained silent while the Khmer Rouge slaughtered two million of their fellow countrymen in four short years following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Ayers looked the other way as Pol Pot murdered 25% of the entire Cambodian population through overwork, starvation and executions in an effort to achieve his communist paradise. No, Ayers would never criticize his philosophical brother.
Even the most casual observer can see that Obama and Ayers know each other. I suspect they have more in common than either is willing to admit. I really don’t care. The fact that Obama would even shake the bastard’s hand is enough of an indictment for me.
Bill Ayers was a radical rich white kid who dropped out of college to join the Students for a Democratic Society (A communist group for radical rich white kids). In 1970 he co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that advocated for peace in Southeast Asia by blowing things up in America. Ayers articulated the Weatherman philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” More recently, he has stated that “It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.” Good one Bill. That was a real knee-slapper! The weathermen were responsible for bombings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, the State Department and the New York City Police Headquarters to name a few of their targets. Ayers and his comrade, Bernardine Dohrn, went underground and lived as fugitives until 1980 when, like a bad zit, they resurfaced. The details of what happened next are too offensive for polite company but the bottom line is Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine for her crimes and the charges against Ayers were a non-issue, having already been dropped due to a violation of the Warren Court ruling that “Good cops are prohibited from using extraordinary skill and every day common sense in the gathering of evidence against radical rich white kids.”
Free from justice, the happy couple was now able to get back to enjoying the fruits of other peoples labor. They quickly assimilated into the lefty culture of Chicago academia where Ayers is now a “distinguished professor of education” at the University of Illinois at Chicago and his charming wife is director of the Legal Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University. No, I’m not making up this crap! Oh-I forgot to mention that Ms. Dohrn is also quite the comedian. At a Students for a Democratic Society symposium (that’s those radical rich white kids again) in 1969, just after the Manson family murders, she told the audience: “Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.” Ms. Dohrn has recently said of her remarks: “It was a joke.” Man, these guys crack me up!
So, this brings us to Ayers recent op-ed column in the New Lefty Times. After whining about those pit bulls in the Main Stream Media, he goes on to state some “facts”: “I never killed or injured anyone.” “In 1970 I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.” Ayers doesn’t mention that this “accidental explosion” occurred while his three comrades were building one of his bombs. He says the Weathermen only placed “several small bombs” in empty offices. Small bombs? I wonder how Bill and Bernie would react to some radical Americans shooting up their house with 22’s. No big deal? That’s a very small caliber, after all. Ayers goes on to explain: “We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.” Sure Bill. Whatever makes you feel like a decent human being. The weathermen were the Keystone Cops of terrorists. Just because the only people they killed were three of their own doesn’t mean crap to me. Their incompetence does not absolve them of guilt. Ayers laments that “…We were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10 year war.”
I am really sick of the selective indignation of these American hating slugs. American troops were repeatedly put in untenable situations because of the tactics of the enemy(that would be the three million Vietnamese). The vast, vast majority of them fought with honor and courage, as American troops always have. Ayers and his comrades remained silent while the Khmer Rouge slaughtered two million of their fellow countrymen in four short years following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Ayers looked the other way as Pol Pot murdered 25% of the entire Cambodian population through overwork, starvation and executions in an effort to achieve his communist paradise. No, Ayers would never criticize his philosophical brother.
Even the most casual observer can see that Obama and Ayers know each other. I suspect they have more in common than either is willing to admit. I really don’t care. The fact that Obama would even shake the bastard’s hand is enough of an indictment for me.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
SHOPKO TEACHER DAY
This past summer, Shopko held the 3rd annual “teacher discount day” at all their stores. A Shopko news release announcing the 1st “discount day” in 2006
states, in part: “Recognizing that teachers often use their personal funds to provide supplies for their classrooms, Shopko has announced that all teachers will receive a 15% discount on purchases for an entire day at Shopko.” The president of Shopko stated: “We wanted to reward teachers for the extra things they do for their students” and “This discount day is one way we can save teachers a little money…”.
Being a freedom loving American, I would never presume to tell Shopko what to do with
their own property. In fact, I think what they are doing for teachers is very nice. I would, however, be interested in knowing what percentage of dollars spent during this “discount day” are for classroom supplies verses personal items. Of course, I would also like to know what teachers actually do during all those “in service” days during the school year but I’m afraid these will remain mysteries.
In keeping with their social awareness and desire to help those that use personal funds to improve their work environment, I have a great idea for Shopko. Why not expand this program and have a special discount day for all private business owners and their employees! I think those of us in the private sector could use the discount every bit as much as teachers. Consider these numbers: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average annual wage for all occupations in Wisconsin was $38,070 in 2007 and the average annual wage for teachers was $44,250. Considering that teachers work roughly nine months a year, their salary equates to $59,000 for a full year. This number does not include the incredibly generous benefit package available to public school teachers. Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance literature indicates that Wisconsin school districts pay over 95% of the premium for health insurance and virtually all of the cost of retirement benefits. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, school districts pay over 35 cents in benefits for every dollar of salaries. Contrast this with private sector employees who have seen a steady increase in the percentage of premiums paid for health insurance often coupled with a decrease in the quality of coverage. This is not meant as an indictment of business owners. What choice do they have? They can’t unilaterally raise the price of their product to cover these costs. If a widget manufacturer raises his price and sales drop, he can’t whine to his costumers “You don’t care about widgets!” as the teachers union does with the often heard mantra “It’s about the kids!” every time they are trying to shove another tax increase down our throats. Besides, if it was really about the kids, you would think there would be some correlation between costs and benefits in education.
I encourage Shopko to expand this wonderful program to include those in the private sector as recognition that they are paying a substantial percentage of personal income to provide health care for their family along with increasingly confiscatory tax rates to pay for government largess.
states, in part: “Recognizing that teachers often use their personal funds to provide supplies for their classrooms, Shopko has announced that all teachers will receive a 15% discount on purchases for an entire day at Shopko.” The president of Shopko stated: “We wanted to reward teachers for the extra things they do for their students” and “This discount day is one way we can save teachers a little money…”.
Being a freedom loving American, I would never presume to tell Shopko what to do with
their own property. In fact, I think what they are doing for teachers is very nice. I would, however, be interested in knowing what percentage of dollars spent during this “discount day” are for classroom supplies verses personal items. Of course, I would also like to know what teachers actually do during all those “in service” days during the school year but I’m afraid these will remain mysteries.
In keeping with their social awareness and desire to help those that use personal funds to improve their work environment, I have a great idea for Shopko. Why not expand this program and have a special discount day for all private business owners and their employees! I think those of us in the private sector could use the discount every bit as much as teachers. Consider these numbers: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average annual wage for all occupations in Wisconsin was $38,070 in 2007 and the average annual wage for teachers was $44,250. Considering that teachers work roughly nine months a year, their salary equates to $59,000 for a full year. This number does not include the incredibly generous benefit package available to public school teachers. Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance literature indicates that Wisconsin school districts pay over 95% of the premium for health insurance and virtually all of the cost of retirement benefits. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, school districts pay over 35 cents in benefits for every dollar of salaries. Contrast this with private sector employees who have seen a steady increase in the percentage of premiums paid for health insurance often coupled with a decrease in the quality of coverage. This is not meant as an indictment of business owners. What choice do they have? They can’t unilaterally raise the price of their product to cover these costs. If a widget manufacturer raises his price and sales drop, he can’t whine to his costumers “You don’t care about widgets!” as the teachers union does with the often heard mantra “It’s about the kids!” every time they are trying to shove another tax increase down our throats. Besides, if it was really about the kids, you would think there would be some correlation between costs and benefits in education.
I encourage Shopko to expand this wonderful program to include those in the private sector as recognition that they are paying a substantial percentage of personal income to provide health care for their family along with increasingly confiscatory tax rates to pay for government largess.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
PC SHAKEDOWN
Score another one for the “fairness over freedom” crowd. Those who use on-line dating services will now be courting in a much more tolerant, albeit more ambiguous, environment. eHarmony, a huge on-line relationship service, just settled a discrimination lawsuit with the New Jersey Civil Rights Division. The settlement is the result of a 2005 complaint filed by some gay guy. What was the guy’s problem? It seems that eHarmony did not provide same-sex dating services. The settlement requires that eHarmony now cater to the “gay community.” While I am disappointed in the settlement, I sympathize with eHarmony’s position. Their attorney explained that they gave in because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” Yea, no kidding! In today’s America, sacred rights are often superseded by the politically correct cause du jour.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by Neil Warren, PhD. Dr. Warren is a psychologist with a divinity degree and he has worked with Focus on the Family, a Christian based advocacy organization. After 35 years as a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor he decided to test his theory on compatibility as it relates to successful relationships. eHarmony did not match gay individuals because Dr. Warren has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also noted that eHarmony is about marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. Apparently it’s also against his religion as he states: “Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong.”
Because eHarmony capitulated to this government coerced tolerance, we will never know what would have happened in court. I can tell you that, based on our right to freedom of association, a Society’s Ditch tribunal would dismiss this case with prejudice. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While not explicit in the amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of association is implicit in the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The Court has also ruled, in general, that freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association and that this freedom would be unconstitutionally burdened if the state required an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Seems pretty “straight” forward to me.
This goes back to a previous discussion here on the NATURE OF RIGHTS. The Founding Fathers believed that all people have fundamental and unalienable human rights against which the government is forbidden to trespass. Because every person has these rights they must be allowed to be exercised universally. If I claim a right that, when exercised, denies the exact same right to someone else, then this supposed right belongs only to me and is not a fundamental human right. Now, if the state decides that my “made-up” right supersedes your rights, I guess that would be good for me but it will create innumerable problems with competing rights. That is exactly what happened in New Jersey. What’s next? Can I walk into a vegetarian restaurant and demand they serve me a big steak? Will the Anti-Defamation League be required to provide links to Aryan Nation literature on their web site? Maybe the NAACP will be required to accept Klansmen as members.
I am curious why this gay guy brought the suit in the first place. It’s not like eHarmony is the only on-line dating service. I’m sure there are hundreds of gay sites available. NOTE: I’m only guessing here. I will go to great lengths to insure accuracy but I draw the line at cruising gay web sites. Anyway, it’s not like the guy has been harmed or has no other options. Could it be that eHarmony is unique in that it is a Christian based site that focuses not on “hooking-up” but on marriage?
I can see where this is headed. In the next few years, some gay group is going to sue eHarmony again because their “gay relationships” aren’t as successful as their straight ones. I don’t know what constitutes a “successful” relationship in the gay “community” and I suspect neither does Dr. Warren.
eHarmony was founded in 2000 by Neil Warren, PhD. Dr. Warren is a psychologist with a divinity degree and he has worked with Focus on the Family, a Christian based advocacy organization. After 35 years as a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor he decided to test his theory on compatibility as it relates to successful relationships. eHarmony did not match gay individuals because Dr. Warren has not done the same amount of research on same-sex match-making as he has done on heterosexual match-making. He also noted that eHarmony is about marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. Apparently it’s also against his religion as he states: “Where Focus on the Family and a lot of these other places come from is that there are six places in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong.”
Because eHarmony capitulated to this government coerced tolerance, we will never know what would have happened in court. I can tell you that, based on our right to freedom of association, a Society’s Ditch tribunal would dismiss this case with prejudice. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While not explicit in the amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of association is implicit in the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The Court has also ruled, in general, that freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association and that this freedom would be unconstitutionally burdened if the state required an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Seems pretty “straight” forward to me.
This goes back to a previous discussion here on the NATURE OF RIGHTS. The Founding Fathers believed that all people have fundamental and unalienable human rights against which the government is forbidden to trespass. Because every person has these rights they must be allowed to be exercised universally. If I claim a right that, when exercised, denies the exact same right to someone else, then this supposed right belongs only to me and is not a fundamental human right. Now, if the state decides that my “made-up” right supersedes your rights, I guess that would be good for me but it will create innumerable problems with competing rights. That is exactly what happened in New Jersey. What’s next? Can I walk into a vegetarian restaurant and demand they serve me a big steak? Will the Anti-Defamation League be required to provide links to Aryan Nation literature on their web site? Maybe the NAACP will be required to accept Klansmen as members.
I am curious why this gay guy brought the suit in the first place. It’s not like eHarmony is the only on-line dating service. I’m sure there are hundreds of gay sites available. NOTE: I’m only guessing here. I will go to great lengths to insure accuracy but I draw the line at cruising gay web sites. Anyway, it’s not like the guy has been harmed or has no other options. Could it be that eHarmony is unique in that it is a Christian based site that focuses not on “hooking-up” but on marriage?
I can see where this is headed. In the next few years, some gay group is going to sue eHarmony again because their “gay relationships” aren’t as successful as their straight ones. I don’t know what constitutes a “successful” relationship in the gay “community” and I suspect neither does Dr. Warren.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
POST ELECTION CATHARSIS-PART 2
In a previous column on this blog, I expressed concern over some of the people and groups that were rooting for Barack Obama in the presidential election. I suggested that if brutal dictators, fanatical terrorist groups and rogue nations supported Obama that maybe he wasn’t our best choice. Now that I have seen the light, I’m feeling pretty foolish. Because all these nut-jobs like our future president, he will be able to effect some real change.
Congressperson Barney Frank, noted defense expert in rearguard operations, has been advocating a 25% reduction in defense spending. The esteemed Ms. Frank may get his way with a President Obama. During the campaign, Mr. Obama outlined his plan to generate real savings in defense spending. Some of the salient points:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”Since it takes billions in investments to actually develop a “proven”
missile defense system this should save a bunch.
“I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future
combat systems”Do we really need all these high tech and expensive systems? Maybe we
can develop our own low cost IED program under the guidance of demolition
expert Bill Ayers.
“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. I will not
develop new nuclear weapons.”I see where the Russians recently tested a new class of ICBM’s. The
Iranians are hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and of course there
are the Chinese and those whacky North Koreans. Seems like the perfect
time for us to lead by example and shut our nuclear program down.
I realize that many people believe that now is not the time to slash defense spending. Because of the myriad threats we face, they think we need to maintain our military superiority. Might I suggest that these people are underestimating President Elect Obama.
Thanks to Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, peace through appeasement has gotten a bad rap. Maybe it just takes a special man to make appeasement work. Because of Barack Obama’s magnetic personality and unsurpassed oratory skills, we will be able to achieve “peace for our time” with a defense budget comparable to France’s. Who cares if the demographics of the Middle East change a little bit.
President Elect Obama has a plan for all the money we will be saving on defense. In a July 2008 speech, Mr. Obama announced his plan for a “Civilian National Security Force.” He stated: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
The numbers are a bit vague but let’s make some assumptions. The 2008 Department of Defense budget was approximately 480 billion. With the cuts President Elect Obama is proposing, I think it is reasonable to think that he could get this down to 300 billion. Using government math, this means he only needs to come up with an additional 120 billion for his “Civilian National Security Force.”
Some people might question the need for a massive new security force when we already have local and state police, the FBI, DHS, DEA and the NSA. According to his web site, he will establish a Classroom Corps, a Health Corps, a Clean Energy Corps, a Veterans Corps and a Homeland Security Corps. I think Mr. Obama is talking about a different kind of security. With his brilliant theory of “mandatory volunteerism,” Mr. Obama is proposing to “Require 100 hours of service in college.” He will grant a $4000 tax credit to those “volunteers” for an effective wage of $40 an hour.
I’ll admit that I’m not real clear on what all these “corps” will be doing but wouldn’t it be enlightening to be educated on the trans-fat content of your Big Mac meal by some bright eyed “Health Corps” volunteer the next time you are at McDonalds? And won’t you be filled with hope when the young “Clean Energy Corps” volunteer demands that you buy carbon credits as you are filling up your gas guzzling SUV?
Yes, change is coming!
Congressperson Barney Frank, noted defense expert in rearguard operations, has been advocating a 25% reduction in defense spending. The esteemed Ms. Frank may get his way with a President Obama. During the campaign, Mr. Obama outlined his plan to generate real savings in defense spending. Some of the salient points:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”Since it takes billions in investments to actually develop a “proven”
missile defense system this should save a bunch.
“I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future
combat systems”Do we really need all these high tech and expensive systems? Maybe we
can develop our own low cost IED program under the guidance of demolition
expert Bill Ayers.
“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. I will not
develop new nuclear weapons.”I see where the Russians recently tested a new class of ICBM’s. The
Iranians are hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and of course there
are the Chinese and those whacky North Koreans. Seems like the perfect
time for us to lead by example and shut our nuclear program down.
I realize that many people believe that now is not the time to slash defense spending. Because of the myriad threats we face, they think we need to maintain our military superiority. Might I suggest that these people are underestimating President Elect Obama.
Thanks to Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, peace through appeasement has gotten a bad rap. Maybe it just takes a special man to make appeasement work. Because of Barack Obama’s magnetic personality and unsurpassed oratory skills, we will be able to achieve “peace for our time” with a defense budget comparable to France’s. Who cares if the demographics of the Middle East change a little bit.
President Elect Obama has a plan for all the money we will be saving on defense. In a July 2008 speech, Mr. Obama announced his plan for a “Civilian National Security Force.” He stated: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
The numbers are a bit vague but let’s make some assumptions. The 2008 Department of Defense budget was approximately 480 billion. With the cuts President Elect Obama is proposing, I think it is reasonable to think that he could get this down to 300 billion. Using government math, this means he only needs to come up with an additional 120 billion for his “Civilian National Security Force.”
Some people might question the need for a massive new security force when we already have local and state police, the FBI, DHS, DEA and the NSA. According to his web site, he will establish a Classroom Corps, a Health Corps, a Clean Energy Corps, a Veterans Corps and a Homeland Security Corps. I think Mr. Obama is talking about a different kind of security. With his brilliant theory of “mandatory volunteerism,” Mr. Obama is proposing to “Require 100 hours of service in college.” He will grant a $4000 tax credit to those “volunteers” for an effective wage of $40 an hour.
I’ll admit that I’m not real clear on what all these “corps” will be doing but wouldn’t it be enlightening to be educated on the trans-fat content of your Big Mac meal by some bright eyed “Health Corps” volunteer the next time you are at McDonalds? And won’t you be filled with hope when the young “Clean Energy Corps” volunteer demands that you buy carbon credits as you are filling up your gas guzzling SUV?
Yes, change is coming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
