Protesters, around one hundred in number, showed up at Woodward and Nine Mile to call attention to cuts to public education passed by the Michigan House Thursday. They claim to have the best interests of children in mind, yet some of what was said there gives us cause to question their real intent.
One of the protesters held a sign which read, 'Public education and unions made our country strong'. 'Closing schools, that's not healthy. Get the money from the wealthy," a man called out over a bullhorn. As a bit of the cherry on top to this clearly self aggrandizing mix, the event was organized by a local chapter of Jobs with Justice. A quick study of that group's website shows it to be something of a modern day socialist front.
That tells us all we need to know about the nature of the protest. They aren't for the schools, they're for the workers. There's nothing wrong with that so far as it goes. But it is galling that they operate under the pretense of helping the schools when they are really for the teachers and the unions.
Nothing wrong with that, either, only call it what it is. Snyder doesn't support education because he seeks to cut the education budget. Yet how is it that the people who most directly benefit from public education, namely the school employees, are not seen as selfish for wanting to keep funding at a level high enough to keep their wages where they want them to be?
Especially as you consider that education is primarily a parental and not a societal issue, notwithstanding American tradition on the matter, and the protest can be seen for what it really is: people living at the public trough demanding the public continue to pay their wages on their terms, and democracy be damned. Yet they are not called selfish.
It is a matter which speaks for itself. And it indeed speaks volumes.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
US Investigates Border Hassles
The US Government has launched an investigation into whether Muslims and other minorities are being systematically harassed at Michigan international border crossings. We would like to add to that list an admittedly rather general, seemingly all encompassing, yet equally harassed group: any and all law abiding American citizens.
This is not to exclude Muslims and other minorities, or anyone else for that matter, from that class of people. A law abiding American citizen is a law abiding American citizen, period. To the degree to which they have been or are subjected to a more intense scrutiny, then they have indeed been more deeply offended. Still, one doesn't have to be part of a more offended group in order to be properly offended.
People at the border, returning to their own country at either one the crossings right here in Detroit, are routinely asked what can only be seen as provocative and insulting questions. Say what you will, to be asked where have you been, what were you doing, and how much money do you have on you (US and Canadian) are ultimately none of the government's business. We understand the reasons for the questions: to try to trip a person up in the search for wrongdoing or ill intent. We simply question whether that justifies the inquiries.
Particularly when we are asked, 'When was the last time you were in prison?'. Does that matter, when you are a US citizen who has presented to the border guard your proper and true credentials? Do you have no less right to re-enter your own country even after you may have paid the price of an indiscretion to it?
If and where Muslim Americans and other loyal yet minority Americans have been unduly and wrongly hassled, then that must be addressed and properly handled, to insure the future respect of all our people. Indeed, the right tone of respect must be addressed to all Americans of any stripe.
It has been said many times and in many ways that when we change our way of doing things solely because of the war on terror, the terrorists have won anyway. We must not allow that to happen. For if we do, we will find ourselves engaging in our own little petty acts of terrorism anyway. We will have made ourselves little different from them.
This is not to exclude Muslims and other minorities, or anyone else for that matter, from that class of people. A law abiding American citizen is a law abiding American citizen, period. To the degree to which they have been or are subjected to a more intense scrutiny, then they have indeed been more deeply offended. Still, one doesn't have to be part of a more offended group in order to be properly offended.
People at the border, returning to their own country at either one the crossings right here in Detroit, are routinely asked what can only be seen as provocative and insulting questions. Say what you will, to be asked where have you been, what were you doing, and how much money do you have on you (US and Canadian) are ultimately none of the government's business. We understand the reasons for the questions: to try to trip a person up in the search for wrongdoing or ill intent. We simply question whether that justifies the inquiries.
Particularly when we are asked, 'When was the last time you were in prison?'. Does that matter, when you are a US citizen who has presented to the border guard your proper and true credentials? Do you have no less right to re-enter your own country even after you may have paid the price of an indiscretion to it?
If and where Muslim Americans and other loyal yet minority Americans have been unduly and wrongly hassled, then that must be addressed and properly handled, to insure the future respect of all our people. Indeed, the right tone of respect must be addressed to all Americans of any stripe.
It has been said many times and in many ways that when we change our way of doing things solely because of the war on terror, the terrorists have won anyway. We must not allow that to happen. For if we do, we will find ourselves engaging in our own little petty acts of terrorism anyway. We will have made ourselves little different from them.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Let the DNR Close Sparsely Used Campgrounds
Free Press outdoors writer Eric Sharp thinks that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources should keep open 23 out of the way state forest campgrounds. The $250,000 dollars saved are a drop in the bucket of government spending, and Mr. Sharp thinks it ought to be spent almost on that ground alone. He ignores many significant questions while harboring that attitude.
To begin with, if every minor aspect of the State budget were to be made immune from cuts simply because in light of the budget as a whole they were small expenditures, how large would such a projected budget loom? For aren't there thousands of tiny bits of spending in any given budget, whether governmental, corporate, or even personal? What Mr. Sharp is saying essentially is that if something is small enough we shouldn't concern ourselves with it. But with that attitude, how might a budget be pared at all?
Yet more is at issue here than an, ahem, mere quarter million dollar expenditure in Lansing's budget. The campgrounds at hand are ones which do not see as much public use as the larger state park campgrounds. Well, we must ask, then who uses them? People such as Eric Sharp, who 'roams the state with a tent and sleeping bag', in his own words, seeking quieter campgrounds. Otherwise, these camps tend to be full during hunting season. That's about it.
What he is saying is that a special interest, notably himself and folks who think like him, and another special interest, hunters, ought to have their activities underwritten by Lansing. Those of us who do not share his or the hunters' interest ought to subsidize his camping and their shooting at game.
People who like to camp and hunt should have to pay for the costs of their hobby, not the taxpaying public. To be sure, they will argue that what they do helps the areas where they camp and hunt. Store owners, restaurant owners, and so forth, would benefit from having hunters and campers around. But if the campground must be state subsidized due to lack of use, what significant benefit is the locality getting anyway? The places in question apparently are not generating a decent amount of revenue. Maintaining them at State cost only drains the state budget that much more, ultimately dipping further into the pockets of the tax paying store owners and so forth who are supposed to benefit.
If you want to camp and hunt, then camp and hunt. But don't do it on our dime. We do not make you participate in or fund our recreational activities. Don't presume you have the right to make us pay for yours.
To begin with, if every minor aspect of the State budget were to be made immune from cuts simply because in light of the budget as a whole they were small expenditures, how large would such a projected budget loom? For aren't there thousands of tiny bits of spending in any given budget, whether governmental, corporate, or even personal? What Mr. Sharp is saying essentially is that if something is small enough we shouldn't concern ourselves with it. But with that attitude, how might a budget be pared at all?
Yet more is at issue here than an, ahem, mere quarter million dollar expenditure in Lansing's budget. The campgrounds at hand are ones which do not see as much public use as the larger state park campgrounds. Well, we must ask, then who uses them? People such as Eric Sharp, who 'roams the state with a tent and sleeping bag', in his own words, seeking quieter campgrounds. Otherwise, these camps tend to be full during hunting season. That's about it.
What he is saying is that a special interest, notably himself and folks who think like him, and another special interest, hunters, ought to have their activities underwritten by Lansing. Those of us who do not share his or the hunters' interest ought to subsidize his camping and their shooting at game.
People who like to camp and hunt should have to pay for the costs of their hobby, not the taxpaying public. To be sure, they will argue that what they do helps the areas where they camp and hunt. Store owners, restaurant owners, and so forth, would benefit from having hunters and campers around. But if the campground must be state subsidized due to lack of use, what significant benefit is the locality getting anyway? The places in question apparently are not generating a decent amount of revenue. Maintaining them at State cost only drains the state budget that much more, ultimately dipping further into the pockets of the tax paying store owners and so forth who are supposed to benefit.
If you want to camp and hunt, then camp and hunt. But don't do it on our dime. We do not make you participate in or fund our recreational activities. Don't presume you have the right to make us pay for yours.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Repealing Obamacare
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has been asked, by 26 States, or more than half of our Federal union, to over turn what is popularly called Obamacare. They argue that if the law is allowed to stay, it "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
Indeed it would. We have been rushing haphazardly to effectively void the Constitution for almost 100 years now. When we reach the point where Washington holds all power, and we are perilously close to that point as it is, then why bother about States at all?
Much of the fault in that lies with the very states who now protest the latest and broadest step by the Beltway folks, mostly Democrats, we should remember, into the personal lives of each individual. For years now states and localities have called on Washington to do more for them. Now they begin to see the Leviathan in it's true colors, and properly fear it. Irony is rather delicious, is it not?
Still, they are fighting back, and therein lies our hope of an America yet free of government excess. It galls the right thinking man or woman here in Michigan that the left cries foul over Lansing's takeover of Benton Harbor while praising Washington's heavy handed incursion against individual rights. We see once more the sheer and ignoble effrontery of the American liberal: a Republican can't take over a city which has wasted State and even federal money, while a Democratic President and Congress can well ignore the basic human rights of the individual. Such itself is not ironic. It is, however, appalling.
The case will eventually go the Supreme Court. But even so, even should that body rule against the People, the People still have recourse. November 2012 is close at hand, and we may elect those who will torpedo Obamacare anyway.
One can only hope.
Indeed it would. We have been rushing haphazardly to effectively void the Constitution for almost 100 years now. When we reach the point where Washington holds all power, and we are perilously close to that point as it is, then why bother about States at all?
Much of the fault in that lies with the very states who now protest the latest and broadest step by the Beltway folks, mostly Democrats, we should remember, into the personal lives of each individual. For years now states and localities have called on Washington to do more for them. Now they begin to see the Leviathan in it's true colors, and properly fear it. Irony is rather delicious, is it not?
Still, they are fighting back, and therein lies our hope of an America yet free of government excess. It galls the right thinking man or woman here in Michigan that the left cries foul over Lansing's takeover of Benton Harbor while praising Washington's heavy handed incursion against individual rights. We see once more the sheer and ignoble effrontery of the American liberal: a Republican can't take over a city which has wasted State and even federal money, while a Democratic President and Congress can well ignore the basic human rights of the individual. Such itself is not ironic. It is, however, appalling.
The case will eventually go the Supreme Court. But even so, even should that body rule against the People, the People still have recourse. November 2012 is close at hand, and we may elect those who will torpedo Obamacare anyway.
One can only hope.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
TMNT and the Environment
When my second son was seven (say that three times fast) he happened to notice that, as I was shaving, I kept the hot water running. “Dad,” he told me a little sheepishly, “the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles say you shouldn’t keep water running when you wash.” My response would draw the ire of many: “Son, when the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pay my water bill, they can tell me how much water I can use.”
Consider that story in relation to this next one. I watched a news report about a 19 year old mother of two, apparently (though it was not said definitively, to be fair) by two different fathers, lamenting that she could not afford health care for her babies with the fast food job she held, the only job she could get. The point of the story was that this was why we need national health care.
Now, were I to have told her before she chose to have sex that she should not do that as it may lead to pregnancies she would not be economically able to handle, indeed that she ought to wait until at least the time when she was able to care completely for her own children as one of the risks of sex is pregnancy, I am certain I would have been told that her actions were none of my business. Further, I am also quite sure that the general community would support her assertion. Why? Because I have no right to make comment on her morals.
Several things come to mind as I contrast these items. I would like to point out two. First, I am told I cannot tell that young woman how to act. Yet as a direct consequence of her chosen irresponsibility, I am later being told I need to pay for the results of her free will action.
Second, when I am paying out of my own funds for every drop of water I elect to use, I am told I am irresponsible.
Think about that for a moment. Then you tell me the folly of our approach to right and wrong in America today.
Consider that story in relation to this next one. I watched a news report about a 19 year old mother of two, apparently (though it was not said definitively, to be fair) by two different fathers, lamenting that she could not afford health care for her babies with the fast food job she held, the only job she could get. The point of the story was that this was why we need national health care.
Now, were I to have told her before she chose to have sex that she should not do that as it may lead to pregnancies she would not be economically able to handle, indeed that she ought to wait until at least the time when she was able to care completely for her own children as one of the risks of sex is pregnancy, I am certain I would have been told that her actions were none of my business. Further, I am also quite sure that the general community would support her assertion. Why? Because I have no right to make comment on her morals.
Several things come to mind as I contrast these items. I would like to point out two. First, I am told I cannot tell that young woman how to act. Yet as a direct consequence of her chosen irresponsibility, I am later being told I need to pay for the results of her free will action.
Second, when I am paying out of my own funds for every drop of water I elect to use, I am told I am irresponsible.
Think about that for a moment. Then you tell me the folly of our approach to right and wrong in America today.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Mission Accomplished...For Now
Osama Bin Laden is dead, having been killed in a firefight at a compound in Pakistan. No Americans were harmed.
The the capture (such as it is) of such an infernal character in such a way is almost anti-climatic. But that cannot completely reflect the true situation. It has taken ten years to bring justice to the world; hopefully, in cutting of the head of the enemy, the body shall wilt. We cannot and should not rely on that, for extremism in any form is rarely put down so easily.
But it's a start. President Obama deserves commendation for ordering the assault based on the information he had; we have said before that it is in the arena of foreign affairs where it is easiest to for a President to make his mark, especially when opportunity rises. Mr. Obama saw the chance and took full advantage of it, and merits praise for a decisive act.
So too do the members of the US military who conducted the project. The training and dedication which they displayed enabled their success with a surgical strike. Their bravery and the bravery of all the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces are what made yesterday possible.
We bask in the glow of victory. And we should, for this is a significant triumph of good over evil in the war which has been fought since the beginning of time. There is nothing wrong in rejoicing when these things happen. Indeed, it should be seen as a tribute to those who fought and died, even those who died in what ought to have been no-combat venues: the World Trade Center and the Spanish rail victims, indeed all who came face to face with terrorists and terrorism, are the ones whose memory we serve in this moment of triumph. The War isn't over. But we can see the light of day now.
The the capture (such as it is) of such an infernal character in such a way is almost anti-climatic. But that cannot completely reflect the true situation. It has taken ten years to bring justice to the world; hopefully, in cutting of the head of the enemy, the body shall wilt. We cannot and should not rely on that, for extremism in any form is rarely put down so easily.
But it's a start. President Obama deserves commendation for ordering the assault based on the information he had; we have said before that it is in the arena of foreign affairs where it is easiest to for a President to make his mark, especially when opportunity rises. Mr. Obama saw the chance and took full advantage of it, and merits praise for a decisive act.
So too do the members of the US military who conducted the project. The training and dedication which they displayed enabled their success with a surgical strike. Their bravery and the bravery of all the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces are what made yesterday possible.
We bask in the glow of victory. And we should, for this is a significant triumph of good over evil in the war which has been fought since the beginning of time. There is nothing wrong in rejoicing when these things happen. Indeed, it should be seen as a tribute to those who fought and died, even those who died in what ought to have been no-combat venues: the World Trade Center and the Spanish rail victims, indeed all who came face to face with terrorists and terrorism, are the ones whose memory we serve in this moment of triumph. The War isn't over. But we can see the light of day now.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
US Mayors are off base
At a recent event co-sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, the American Architectural Foundation, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, there were complaints by some of the city leaders that Washington wasn't doing enough for their little corners of the Earth. "Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said. "In our world, you either picked up the trash or you didn’t. You either moved an abandoned car or you didn’t. You either filled a pothole or you didn’t. That’s what we do every day. And we know how to get this stuff done.”
Well, Mr. Nutter, if you're getting that done, if you're doing your job, then why harp at Washington? Because, they assert, they need Washington cash to get things done. But it's the mayors, Manny Diaz, former mayor of Miami said, who create jobs. But the mayors aren't getting the federal support they need.
Hmmm....you are the guys who get the job done, who create jobs. Yet you also seem to say that you can't get things done without Washington money. If that's the case then, dare we ask, how is it you get the job done in the first place? How is it that you, in your vaunted positions as mayors of whatever cities, get things done?
You speak with forked tongue, mayors of America. You assert that it's all on you, and that you get necessary things done, yet insist on the federal government financing you. When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, can you really blame the taxpayers, or even the lawmakers inside the Beltway, when they look at you with a healthy skepticism? It seems to us that you can't have it both ways: you cannot be doing you jobs well and need federal money to them well too, if you've been doing them well to begin with.
Well, Mr. Nutter, if you're getting that done, if you're doing your job, then why harp at Washington? Because, they assert, they need Washington cash to get things done. But it's the mayors, Manny Diaz, former mayor of Miami said, who create jobs. But the mayors aren't getting the federal support they need.
Hmmm....you are the guys who get the job done, who create jobs. Yet you also seem to say that you can't get things done without Washington money. If that's the case then, dare we ask, how is it you get the job done in the first place? How is it that you, in your vaunted positions as mayors of whatever cities, get things done?
You speak with forked tongue, mayors of America. You assert that it's all on you, and that you get necessary things done, yet insist on the federal government financing you. When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, can you really blame the taxpayers, or even the lawmakers inside the Beltway, when they look at you with a healthy skepticism? It seems to us that you can't have it both ways: you cannot be doing you jobs well and need federal money to them well too, if you've been doing them well to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
