Monthly Archives: March 2007

Strickland’s Ignorance and/or Stupidity: You decide.

Posted on by

I realize I am a bit late behind the times on this post… but I think it is so relatively unknown to most that it isn’t going to hurt things by commenting on this Story. It turns out that the new Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, has decided to stop funding the Ohio school voucher program. Never mind the fact that hundreds of people spent countless hours getting this program up and running, and that the Ohio Supreme court affirmed the program as constitutional, and finally, that Strickland’s election hardly constituted a “mandate” to end the program — none of this matters. This wasn’t what is so shocking. Good O’l Ted said the program was “Inherently Undemocratic”.

To me, vouchers are inherently undemocratic because they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight…

Those who are paying those tax dollars have no ability to vote for a Board of Education or to make determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things

This typifies the sub-par intelligence of your average Democratic leader. Policies that let INDIVIDUALS make UNIQUE decisions about where to send their children to school are considered to be “undemocratic policies” according to Mr. Strickland. I suppose the huge beurocracy that controls our public schools — with huge interest groups like the teachers unions and Trustee boards carrying vast amounts of power, mandating across-the-board standards and cookie-cutter cirriclum are somehow more subject to the “democratic process” then individually controlled and operated private institutions.

Continue reading →

Giuliani reconsidered

Posted on by

I read an interesting article recently about the current choices conservative have for the Republican ticket in ’08. Personally, I haven’t been paying much attention at this stage — people are still entering the race and ides can change with one slip of the toungue–so I try to refrain from becoming personally invested in any particular candidate. However, Rudy Giuliani has stood out in my mind as the only person worth entrusting leadership to in the Republican party. After all, McCain has been jumping ship and ignoring the conservative cause right and left (the gang of 14 and the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill are just the first 2 examples that come to mind–plus he’s too old). Romney is a big-government Massachusetts politician–and unelectable as a Mormon. Finally, no one else shows any sort of leadership potential.

Rudy, on the other hand, EXUDES leadership. The man was born one (or fate turned him into one on 9/11 … who knows). And it just so happens that a recent article in the American Thinker (I Highly recommend this article to be read in its entirety) makes a pretty convincing case that Rudy is the right man for the job.

The basic premise is this: Conservatives abhor liberalism and social rot:

Mayor Giuliani delivered what they [conservatives] needed most. He reclaimed New York City from the toxic leftism of his predecessors…

While Giuliani may not be a social conservative, at least he fixes 90% of the social rot we have wanted our current leaders to fix–and have been left empty handed. Giuliani may not be pro life, and may even be for civil unions–nevertheless, he promotes the society conducive to the pro-life adgenda.?Ǭ† For those conservatives who would disqualify Giuliani for these moral positions; I would only challenge them by saying that the President isn’t some “pope” of the Religious right.?Ǭ† The more Conservatives delude themselves with this idiocy, the further isolated they will find themselves.?Ǭ† Even Bush, the “conservative christian”, has scarsely mentioned a word about gay marriage or abortion–he avoids these topics like the plague.

He [Bush] will nominate sound judges (most of the time) but never make the case that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned because it is the cornerstone of the left’s profoundly destructive jurisprudence of judicial supremacy. He will stand against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research but never articulate the strong libertarian basis for that stand or attack the callous disdain his political opponents show for the inherent value of human life. He will say as little as humanly possible about the drive for “gay marriage.”

And finally, the crux of the piece: “Social conservatives could benefit from the presidency of someone who agrees with them less but fights for them more.”

And I think this is the reason I am leaning towards Giuliani; I am tired of polite “compassionate” conservatism. It might as well be “turn the other cheek” concervatism for all the good it has done. We need true partizans back in Republican leadership if our goals are to be reached.

The Bulb is mightier than the Sword.

Posted on by

I seem to be on an environmentalism role these days… and I’d hate to loose the momentum now…

Anyway, for those of you who didn’t know… here’s what Hillary Clinton thinks to herself every time she flips a light switch…

“I turn off a light and say, “Take that, Iran?” and “Take that, Venezuela?” … We should not be sending our money to people who are not going to support our values”

As an aside, I can’t think Hugo Chaves really appreciates the negative inference all that much, I mean, she should really be more careful about offending her political role models– I would If I were here.

Anyway, this also represents a fabulous opportunity to distinguish the differences between the conservative and liberal approaches to Iran. Conservatives still understand the power of force in what Robert Cooper refers to as the “old world”. The left, on the other hand thinks that switching our lightbulbs will be the path to victory. LINK

Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

Posted on by

As a believer:

  • that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
  • that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
  • that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
  • that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
  • I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.

Al Gore refused to take this pledge on the floor of the Environment and Public Works Comittee hearing.

link

I hate to pound on Al Gore… but when someone who is on one hand warning that the earth will be over as we know it and on the other hand refusing to take the steps necessary to stop the problem that he claims the “rest of us” need to take… one can’t help but point out the utter hypocrisy

Q: When is Destroying the Environment OK?
A: When you are a liberal and making money by doing it — espeically if you are Al Gore.

Posted on by

I found this OpinionJournal article to be quite revealing. It turns out Al Gore has been making money off a family-owned Zinc Mine which has, and I quote, “emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal.” So, if Gore were so worried about his precious earth, you would think that he would deplore the leasing of his own property to huge mining companies to make a few bucks. The only person in this mess that seems to be coming to his defense is a Ms. Kreidler… who said,

“There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life,” Ms. Kreidler said. She said critics of the arrangement should realize it should be viewed in a “1973 context, not a 2007 context. . . . There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things.”

So it’s OK if you did horrible things to the environment 30 years ago… and continue to do it in a 2007 context… as long as you are Al-Gore. If you buy carbon-offsets (which do not directly offset pound for pound your carbon footprint) you can life whatever kind of lifestyle you want while making as much money as you want hurting the environment. I swear, the gaul of this man.
Here’s a few more interesting paragraphs for your reading enjoyment.

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.–one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore’s company, says that offset purchases “will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term.”

But what about a 1992 context? That is the year Mr. Gore published “Earth in the Balance,” in which he wrote: “The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future.” Mr. Gore wrote that at a time when he would be collecting zinc royalties for another 11 years.

Concurrence to Red Lion… if I were writing it.

Posted on by

In this case, I concur with the majority in result, but would rather decide the case on less questionable grounds.

I concur with the majority on the issues of spectrum scarcity and licensing. It is clear that the F.C.C. must allocate frequencies if the broadcast media is to exist in the form in which we have become accustomed. The public nature of the airwaves necessitates a licensing scheme in order for the available frequencies to be allocated in a market competing for those frequencies. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why government licensing of airwaves should be any different than its involvement in many other marketplace where resources are scarce. In fact, were it not for the failure of the private sector to divide up the broadcast spectrum, government regulation would not have been necessary. The right of any party to use the airwaves should be looked at with no more or less favor than the rights of someone to pollute a stream or river; government regulation is needed in both instances in order to allow the most people to have the most access.

In addressing the issues arising from technological advances in distribution and digital compression, the majority correctly reasoned that the mere lack of a current demand for every available frequency neither negates the possibility that those frequencies could be filled nor solves the problem of frequency allocation. Licensing is still required to prevent spectrum “overlap”, regardless of total availability. We are increasingly becoming a media-centric society; to assume that demand will never outpace supply is, in my opinion, shortsighted.

It is after this point that I disagree with the majority’s reasoning, and concur in outcome only. It seems clear that Red Lion does not have a cause of action, given the nature of its broadcast license. I find no reason why, given the F.C.C’s authority to limit spectrum use, it may not also create time limitations on the use of of the spectrums in question. Red Lion’s argument seems to imply that they have a constitutional right to 24 hour control over the content broadcast over their frequency for the duration of their license term. I find no reason to conclude that the license granted by the F.C.C. confers this privilege.

If the broadcast license granted by the F.C.C. granted a complete bundle of rights, then Red Lion would have standing because the government would be forcing them to publish a particular viewpoint. This court held, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, that the freedom of the press was bound by 2 things: a sufficient number of readers, and the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers. Again, in Tornillo, we held that, “The choice of material to go into a newspaper… and treatment of public issues and public official–whether fair or unfair–constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” I see no reason to alter our holdings in either case.
Continue reading →