Recalling Snyder: Ranting and Nothing More

Arrogantly claiming that the idea is being pushed 'by the People of Michigan', there has been approval of petition wording to recall Governor Rick Snyder. If the folks actually pushing for the removal of Mr. Snyder can get 807,000 signatures within a 90 day window, he will be subject to a recall election.

We'll give the left this much: for now, anyway, they are working with rather than against the democratic process. Still, it seems a typical reaction on the part of anyone whose ox is being gored. The Governor is being called a dictator in some circles for supposedly taking choice away from localities. It is a violation of their rights to have, such as in Benton Harbor, elected officials power removed.

If Benton Harbor were an entity unto itself, then it would indeed be suffering a grave political loss. Yet it is not; cities and counties are subsets of the State. They do have the same relationship with Lansing as the several states do with Washington. Further, as Benton Harbor gets State money and has squandered its own spending, then it should come as no surprise that Michigan would have to step in, on behalf of the taxpayers of the whole State, to see that their monies are well and properly spent.

If you don't like that, the what you need to do is convince people to change the Michigan Constitution so that localities hold a certain real independence. But as things are, Snyder is no more of a dictator than the President. Yet we see no movement on the right to remove him except during the regular election cycle.

What we actually have here is a protest from the folks who live and breathe government money: leftists such as the Washtenaw Coalition for Economic Justice who feel that only they know how Lansing should spend the taxpayers' dollars. That isn't concern for Benton Harbor or education or the poor. It is, however, a sanctimonious display of false injury, and unworthy of civil debate.

The Royal Wedding?

The entire situation has gotten ridiculous. The fawning and the oogling have reached epidemic proportions, and in America, no less. For crying out loud, it was the headline piece at, of all places, Fox News this morning. It was the Royal Wedding, and it's everywhere today, just like it has been for the bulk of the week, even to the point of overshadowing the upcoming Canadian elections (yes, they matter). Why, golly gosh darn it, why?

We threw off royalty more than two hundred years ago. We're Americans, red blooded and hot tempered and well past any regard for the Divine Right of Kings. Especially as you consider that what we are dealing with in England today are lions with no teeth, with no bite and no real roar. The House of Windsor can do nothing; it has no actual power. Why is it even in existence anymore?

Yet the guy who's second next in line for the throne and his young bride are treated, well, like royalty, even here. What fantastic effect can this possibly really have on anyone with a moment's decent thought? Or are we somehow, fondly yet inexplicably, harkening back to the days of yore, of colonies and peasantry, of taxation without representation, of the suspension of the legislative process and the quartering of soldiers? What? What rational explanation can there be of this, this excess of froth and frivolity?

Americans honoring royalty? What's next in bizarro world, Superman renounces his US citizenship?

Oh. Nuts; we have gone mad.

American Decadence

At one time we would have bristled at the accusation that we Yanks were decadent. We no longer do, chiefly because, in too many ways, we are.

In these rough economic times that may appear an odd lament, yet we stand by it. What type of luxuries have we demanded in recent years? Things such as seat warmers in our cars. Seat warmers? The seat is the first thing that warms up when you get in your car, in a span of maybe five seconds. This is before we even get to remote starters; how much money do you have that you can burn gasoline simply so that your car is toasty warm the instant you get in it? This at a time when, we'll say it even at the risk of appearing liberal, there are too many people in the world without enough to eat, and even too many in our country without proper access to housing and medical care.

This is not naive. We know realize that there is no direct correlation between add-ons to cars and someone in Haiti lacking good food. We will even readily concede that these luxuries do have the positive side benefit of keeping people in jobs. Further, we recognize that the problems elsewhere are not, as a rule, our fault. As P. J. O'Rourke for example explains so very well in his funny and enlightening book All the Trouble in the World, many of those problems are caused by the local government in question and not American selfishness. Still, we have to ask whether this sort of consumerism is what we ought to be promoting when there are folks who lack basic necessities. On their own merit, we have to wonder whether they are worthwhile uses of our time, effort, and cash.

In short, that something is doable doesn't mean that it's worth doing. That we can buy something doesn't mean it's worth the purchase. What we consider basic creature comforts may be little more than modern forms of let them eat cake. We believe it would do our souls well to mull that over when we make certain purchases or demands on our productive forces.

Who knows? We may actually find that what we want isn't what we need.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

Gasoline prices are going through the roof. With costs at around four bucks a gallon in many localities, it seems a safe bet that many if not most families are going through hardship simply getting back and forth to necessary places such as work and the grocery store. What, then, is our President doing about it?

Encouraging Saudi Arabia to produce more oil.

Does anyone see the silliness in that approach? Is it not obvious that we are being reduced to pleading with other nations to satisfy our energy needs? If we had done more to encourage production in our own neck of the woods, we might not be in the position of begging for alms.

It takes five to seven years, in many cases, to set up production in domestic oil fields. When you consider areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the time frame may be longer. Does anyone remember that it was the 1990's, under President Clinton, when talk of drilling in the ANWR was first proposed? We could have had access to that oil by now, except that keeping a pristine wilderness for polar bears and caribou (read that: creatures less important the human beings) seems a higher priority than our daily bread. This despite the fact that a very tiny area of the Arctic would have been affected by drilling anyway.

If you want to pressure someone else into increasing production and lowering the price of anything, you need to demonstrate that you have options. Domestic drilling would fit that need. It is high time we began work on it with far greater degree than we have lately. In short, if we want more oil out of the Saudis and other oil producing countries, we must show them that we have alternatives. Otherwise, we will continue to be at their mercy.

Earth Day Musings

Last Friday was Earth Day, and perhaps not coincidentally my birthday. I point this out not in search of salutations, or condolences as the case may be, but as an example of the irony found everywhere in our wild little universe.

Why else would the powers that be (likely greeting card companies who were looking for yet another way of encouraging the buying public to purchase prepackaged, smarmy, and shallow goodwill) honor the birthday of a rabid and aging conservative with what seems at first glance an incongruent alignment of ideals? Somebody is surely laughing somewhere.

I can't blame them for that. Many of those somebodies will take the opportunity to point this out to me as they wish me happy birthday, as it is, no point denying it, funny on a rote level. Still, I don't understand why so many folks out there believe that conservatives have no respect for the planet or her environment. The very fact that we refer to Mother Earth in the feminine demonstrates the great respect we have for her.

We readily acknowledge that good stewardship is right and proper, not only as God has given us this gift of a place to live and we should honor it on that point alone, but because our own interests command it. We cannot continue as a race without maintaining our world properly.

So plant a tree today if you so desire. Cultivate a field, or begin using cleaner burning fuels if that is your mission in life. I certainly won't stop you. So long as you don't make it into a cause which puts Earth ahead of people, living, breathing people with eternal souls that matter much more than dirt and leaves, we can coexist happily.

Staying Close to Home

One of the most basic axioms a conservative should have in his arsenal is known as the Principle of Subsidiarity. Plainly stated, it says that things should be done on the most local level possible. Why? Because that it the surest way to get necessary things accomplished in the most efficient manner.

The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.

As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at a desk.

There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.

As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.

We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.

Easter Sunday

Happy Easter everyone! Christ is risen and salvation is possible. There is nothing of greater import to be said today.