It seems to me that this election was the most anti-one-party in recent history. The republicans had a platform in 1994, and most of the people voted for it. This year, the democrats had no such platform; and the leadership virtually disappeared during the last two weeks beforehand (except John Kerry, bless his heart!).
Considering that most conservative ballot initiatives and referendums passed with flying colors; and most of the dems that wrested control of seats from republicans were hand-picked conservatives; this election seems to have been completely anti-republican! With nothing else to distract them, voters cast their ballots for the next best thing. Apparently, all in an effort to smack-down the current GOP-ers -- and boy did they ever deserve it!
Hopefully, these new conservative democrats will stand up to their wacked-out-liberal-psycho leadership, and maintain the current conservative slant in the house. The senate was already lost.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Election Season!
Here we go again, its election season!
Great, that means I can’t watch TV for 3 or 4 weeks without getting punch-drunk on idiocy.
The ads I see on TV appear to be produced with the expectation of the viewer’s political ignorance. ‘Santorum votes with George Bush 98% of the time’ one ad spouts. Why is Bush voting; and what is he voting for? He is the president, he doesn’t vote, he signs!
‘Casey was against the pay raise, but he still signed the checks’ intones another ad. Well, of course he did; it’s his job! The state treasurer has to pay for things the house buys!
Then there is Melissa Hart, touchingly wishing her opponent would stop the negative campaigning; all the while the RNC posts ads that slam the same opponent.
The fact that these ads seem to expect the viewer to be stupid is pitiful – The fact that they work is pathetic!!
Great, that means I can’t watch TV for 3 or 4 weeks without getting punch-drunk on idiocy.
The ads I see on TV appear to be produced with the expectation of the viewer’s political ignorance. ‘Santorum votes with George Bush 98% of the time’ one ad spouts. Why is Bush voting; and what is he voting for? He is the president, he doesn’t vote, he signs!
‘Casey was against the pay raise, but he still signed the checks’ intones another ad. Well, of course he did; it’s his job! The state treasurer has to pay for things the house buys!
Then there is Melissa Hart, touchingly wishing her opponent would stop the negative campaigning; all the while the RNC posts ads that slam the same opponent.
The fact that these ads seem to expect the viewer to be stupid is pitiful – The fact that they work is pathetic!!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Update to Ban-on-the-Smoking-Ban
This Tribune-Review article quotes Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato as stsing "I'm still convinced, now as ever, that (a smoking ban) should be done at the state level,...But I'm also a realist, and with a 14 to 1 vote, this would become law regardless of what I do." You are supposed to make executive decisions based on principles, Dan, not wind-blown opinion or what others might do!!
In exchange for his support, CE Dan asked the council to consider five ammendments. These include exemptions for small bars and taverns, fundraising activities of volunteer groups, and property edjacent to health-care facilities, dropping the 15 foot rule, and a requirement to evaluate the impact on small businesses within one year.
Heck, Dan, that's just about the whole piece of legislation. Either you are for a smoking ban, or you are not!
Pick a side!!
In exchange for his support, CE Dan asked the council to consider five ammendments. These include exemptions for small bars and taverns, fundraising activities of volunteer groups, and property edjacent to health-care facilities, dropping the 15 foot rule, and a requirement to evaluate the impact on small businesses within one year.
Heck, Dan, that's just about the whole piece of legislation. Either you are for a smoking ban, or you are not!
Pick a side!!
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
DDT to Global Warming
John Stossel's piece on realclearpolitics should be enough said on the subject.
The same folks who enabled the deaths of close to a trillion (yes, that is a t), by using baseless junk science and political hysteria to ban DDT; are now doing it with global warming.
Don't settle for it.
The same folks who enabled the deaths of close to a trillion (yes, that is a t), by using baseless junk science and political hysteria to ban DDT; are now doing it with global warming.
Don't settle for it.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Ban on the smoking ban??
Welcome to the Allegheny County, wherein lies the erstwhile city of Pittsburgh, PA
Last week, the county council (a largely unnecessary legislative body) passed a county-wide ban on smoking in workplaces. Opposition from restaurants and bars was brushed aside by dissing their argument – which was that the ban would create an unfair advantage to restaurants and bars outside of the county, where no such ban exists (or probably ever will in SWPA).
This week, the county executive (love the business friendly title? Don’t be fooled) is threatening to veto the ban. It seems that the State Senate just amended the fledgling gambling law to ALLOW smoking in state casinos. The executive’s argument – the casinos would enjoy an unfair advantage over the other bars and restaurants in the county (as if the slot machines do not already provide said advantage)!!
County government needs to get its story straight – either the ban creates an unfair advantage, or it doesn’t!!
Last week, the county council (a largely unnecessary legislative body) passed a county-wide ban on smoking in workplaces. Opposition from restaurants and bars was brushed aside by dissing their argument – which was that the ban would create an unfair advantage to restaurants and bars outside of the county, where no such ban exists (or probably ever will in SWPA).
This week, the county executive (love the business friendly title? Don’t be fooled) is threatening to veto the ban. It seems that the State Senate just amended the fledgling gambling law to ALLOW smoking in state casinos. The executive’s argument – the casinos would enjoy an unfair advantage over the other bars and restaurants in the county (as if the slot machines do not already provide said advantage)!!
County government needs to get its story straight – either the ban creates an unfair advantage, or it doesn’t!!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Term Limits
The Congress of the United States should be subjected to term limits!
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
Muhammad's innovations
This appears to be the difference between the Islamic world and the west.
A world leader, who denigrated Jesus, or even John, would be thought ill of; perhaps called on it in the press. You certainly would not see a group of Episcopalians burning that leader in effigy in Times Square!
Why? The Christian West actually practices tolerance. Plus, we spend much time doing something they don't -- working at our jobs! We can do that because we are not slaves to a murderous, blood-thirsty ideology keeping us trapped in the seventh century.
BTW, wasn’t it Muhammad who said that true believers should spread the faith by the sword, if necessary?
Hmmm.....
Friday, September 15, 2006
PA Supreme Court architect of their own pay raise?
Wow,
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)