Trained economists are debating the various factors that have contributed to Michigan’s single-state recession. These include fiscal, regulatory, trade, and monetary policy. By contrast, too many Michigan politicians have resorted to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well in an election year.Government can't pick winners and losers better than the free market can. That means that every time politicians take money by force and spend it on job creation, investing in education, targeted tax breaks, economic incentives, or whatever the latest fad is, they make the economy worse, not better.
...
Before his untimely passing in August, Stephen Dresch advanced a neo-Hayekian critique of the Michigan government’s many failed attempts to pick economic winners with tax dollars. According to Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press, Dresch helped set in motion investigations of university economic-development activity “which led to public outcry, criminal convictions and the departure of high-level officials” at Michigan Technological University. Dresch was later elected to the state legislature as a Republican in a heavily-Democratic Upper Peninsula district.
It was Hayek who argued that governments lack the knowledge to successfully engage in central planning. And Dresch, a Yale Ph.D, was treated in a boorish manner in Lansing for defending this moral high ground. But there is cause for longer-term optimism. Dresch’s critics lost this year’s policy battle over the single-business tax, while more positive change seems inevitable in the wake of Michigan’s severe employment and income declines.
Those serious about solving Michigan’s economic problems should reflect on Dresch’s critiques and let private venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, not politically connected funds and authorities, allocate capital.
One lesson to be learned from Michigan’s single-state recession is that economics trumps politics. Another is that markets don’t wait for politicians.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Single-State Recession
An interesting article in National Review examines Michigan's single-state recession.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
More immigration inanity
Liberals continue to promote myths about immigration.
One example in a Kalamazoo Gazette editorial on America reaching a population of 300 million. At least the Gazette doesn't endorse the population bomb nonsense that we're about to run out of food and starve to death. They correctly note that much of our population gain is due to immigration.
They then dismiss any concern over this country's immigration problems by saying:
But these problems went away, right? So what is there to worry about?
This completely ignores the fact that these problems did not solve themselves. They were solved by addressing, rather than ignoring them. For one thing, immigration was entirely halted for a while. Presumably, the Gazette would also endorse this today, right? Assimilation came about thanks to a culture that demanded it. The multiculturalism that is all to prevalent today actively fights against assimilation.
Did previous immigration change American culture for the better? This is a complex question that requires study to answer, not the glib assertion that the Gazette provides. In some ways, yes; in other ways probably not.
Moreover, does this tell us anything about immigration today? The analogy between yesterday's and today's immigration is flawed in a number of ways. Today's immigration comes largely from one country that borders America. Modern communication and changes in American culture make assimilation more difficult.
Will today's immigration improve American culture? All the evidence suggest otherwise.
The Gazette also suggests that immigration is the answer to our social security problem. I would argue that the fact that social security is a pyramid scheme that depends on taking from existing workers to support today's retirees is the real problem. Of course, immigrants will also claim social security someday, including those who haven't paid anything into the system. Expecting them to fix a broken system is foolhardy.
Declining birth rates are a real problem in American society. We ought to try to address this cultural problem, not drown it out with immigration from other cultures.
Meanwhile, a speech at Western propagated more myths. My comment on the article addresses some of them.
One example in a Kalamazoo Gazette editorial on America reaching a population of 300 million. At least the Gazette doesn't endorse the population bomb nonsense that we're about to run out of food and starve to death. They correctly note that much of our population gain is due to immigration.
They then dismiss any concern over this country's immigration problems by saying:
If Americans feel their nation is under siege by the flood of immigrants, it's not the first time. Waves of Irish, Jewish, Chinese and Eastern European immigrants made native-born Americans worry that these new groups would never assimilate and would forever change American culture.Once again, the Gazette resorts to the classic assertion without any evidence. Anyone who has studied the previous waves of immigration to this country knows that they created huge problems of crime, cultural disunity, and political instability.
They did assimilate and they did forever change American culture -- for the better.
The current wave of immigrants will do the same. They will assimilate and they will change American culture -- for the better.
But these problems went away, right? So what is there to worry about?
This completely ignores the fact that these problems did not solve themselves. They were solved by addressing, rather than ignoring them. For one thing, immigration was entirely halted for a while. Presumably, the Gazette would also endorse this today, right? Assimilation came about thanks to a culture that demanded it. The multiculturalism that is all to prevalent today actively fights against assimilation.
Did previous immigration change American culture for the better? This is a complex question that requires study to answer, not the glib assertion that the Gazette provides. In some ways, yes; in other ways probably not.
Moreover, does this tell us anything about immigration today? The analogy between yesterday's and today's immigration is flawed in a number of ways. Today's immigration comes largely from one country that borders America. Modern communication and changes in American culture make assimilation more difficult.
Will today's immigration improve American culture? All the evidence suggest otherwise.
The Gazette also suggests that immigration is the answer to our social security problem. I would argue that the fact that social security is a pyramid scheme that depends on taking from existing workers to support today's retirees is the real problem. Of course, immigrants will also claim social security someday, including those who haven't paid anything into the system. Expecting them to fix a broken system is foolhardy.
Declining birth rates are a real problem in American society. We ought to try to address this cultural problem, not drown it out with immigration from other cultures.
Meanwhile, a speech at Western propagated more myths. My comment on the article addresses some of them.
Risky business
One of the stranger aspects of the debate over the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is the opposition of big business. A column in the Detroit News examines this phenomenon.
From the perspective of our economic well-being, why does it matter whether our scientists are men or women? If we want more mathematicians and scientists, why not promote these subjects to both boys and girls?
Essentially, these business leaders are saying that the way to improve Michigan's economy is to promote less qualified people in place of more qualified people. With these people running major businesses, it's no wonder that our economy is in such bad shape.
They haven't stated a compelling case, because they don't have one.Big Business bosses oppose Proposal 2 because, they say, it threatens to scuttle efforts to diversify their work forces when their customer base -- and the global economy -- is diversity writ large. Big Labor and civil rights groups oppose it. Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her challenger, Dick DeVos, oppose it.
Big names, but not enough pull and not enough big money. That's why One United Michigan, a broad coalition formed to defeat Prop 2, is holding a fund-raiser Tuesday in Detroit, why Jesse Jackson is expected to be here this week, why a Washington political consultant, the Dewey Square Group, has been hired to galvanize opposition.
Clock is ticking
Each of Detroit's automakers has contributed $250,000. Comerica and DTE Energy each spent $150,000, people close to the effort tell me, and Toyota Motor Co. has pledged $100,000. Still, organizers are concerned they are running short on cash and time.
They worry that they have not yet stated a compelling case for why the proposal would be bad for Michigan, especially as it's gutting through a brutal transition from Old Economy industrial state to, theoretically, a New Economy knowledge state.
One real-world answer: That despite the wide disparity in school systems across Michigan, applicants to state universities would be treated the same, even if the resources and environment of their educations are anything but -- and everyone knows it.As much as we may dislike disproportionate outcomes, they are a reflection of reality. They are not going to go away by pretending they don't exist. We can't use universities to fix bad public schools.
Another real-world answer: That Michigan risks providing a legal template for challenging myriad programs -- say a university's outreach to girls interested in math and science -- when it most needs to attract and nurture talent. How does that help?
From the perspective of our economic well-being, why does it matter whether our scientists are men or women? If we want more mathematicians and scientists, why not promote these subjects to both boys and girls?
Essentially, these business leaders are saying that the way to improve Michigan's economy is to promote less qualified people in place of more qualified people. With these people running major businesses, it's no wonder that our economy is in such bad shape.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Government
This update focuses on government. Government takes about half of everything that we earn. It spends money in ways that make us all worse off. It takes away our freedom through regulations and programs. Government is based on force and it is always looking for new ways to expand its power.
Lew Rockwell shows how government regulations damage America.
Thomas DiLorenzo argues that the Homeland Security Department threatens freedom.
Terry Jeffrey shows that government bureaucrats waste our money.
Thomas DiLorenzo lists many ways that government threatens our freedom.
Congressman Ron Paul explains how the IRS threatens free speech.
Walter Williams explains how government tyranny hurts Africa.
Congressman Ron Paul explains why the estate tax must be repealed.
Ron Paul explains how foreign aid hurts both Americans and foreigners.
Herman Cain explains how Social Security defrauds America.
James Plummer writes that government want to surveil us on our own property.
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Lew Rockwell shows how government regulations damage America.
Thomas DiLorenzo argues that the Homeland Security Department threatens freedom.
Terry Jeffrey shows that government bureaucrats waste our money.
Thomas DiLorenzo lists many ways that government threatens our freedom.
Congressman Ron Paul explains how the IRS threatens free speech.
Walter Williams explains how government tyranny hurts Africa.
Congressman Ron Paul explains why the estate tax must be repealed.
Ron Paul explains how foreign aid hurts both Americans and foreigners.
Herman Cain explains how Social Security defrauds America.
James Plummer writes that government want to surveil us on our own property.
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Taking the fight to Canada
I had to laugh at Debbie Stabenow's most recent campaign ad. It goes along with other recent liberal efforts to demonize people for political gain.
The ad focuses on the "issue" of Canadian trash. It attacks Mike Bouchard for what he supposedly did concerning the issue, and contrasts this with what Stabenow supposedly did in Washington. I don't know about the truth of the specific claims, though given the source, I strongly suspect that they aren't true.
What cracked me up was the line that after Republican wouldn't act, Stabenow "took the fight directly to Canada and got something done."
Took the fight to Canada!
Recently I heard a Democratic operative say that they would focus on issues that affect people's lives, like Canadian trash. How does Canadian trash affect your life? With all the caterwauling from liberals like Stabenow, you'd think that people were being buried alive under mountains of Canadian trash.
As far as I know, Canadian trash isn't any different from American trash. Trash isn't a good thing, but it can be managed efficiently in our free market system. We bury it in landfills designed to prevent any environmental damage. When they are full, they are capped, and can be used as parks or golf courses. It's not as if we're running out of land.
The irony here is that liberals are setting themselves in opposition to Canadian environmental regulations. The ridiculous government regulations in Canada are the reason that it is more cost-effective to drive hundreds of miles to Michigan than dispose of trash locally.
The fact is that trash-hauling is a part of our economy. Banning Canadian trash imports would result in hundreds of lost jobs. It's pretty ironic that liberals are touting every hundred jobs here and there while simultaneously advocating banning hundreds more jobs. The Canadian regulations are wrong; but they hurt Canada, not America.
Once again, liberals use demagoguery to advance their political fortunes.
The ad focuses on the "issue" of Canadian trash. It attacks Mike Bouchard for what he supposedly did concerning the issue, and contrasts this with what Stabenow supposedly did in Washington. I don't know about the truth of the specific claims, though given the source, I strongly suspect that they aren't true.
What cracked me up was the line that after Republican wouldn't act, Stabenow "took the fight directly to Canada and got something done."
Took the fight to Canada!
Well, Blame Canada!What do liberals have against Canada? Isn't Canada the northern wonderland with socialized medicine, "gay marriage," and gun control that liberals are always trying to foist on us?
It seems that everything's gone wrong
since Canada came along
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country anyway.
...
The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!
Recently I heard a Democratic operative say that they would focus on issues that affect people's lives, like Canadian trash. How does Canadian trash affect your life? With all the caterwauling from liberals like Stabenow, you'd think that people were being buried alive under mountains of Canadian trash.
As far as I know, Canadian trash isn't any different from American trash. Trash isn't a good thing, but it can be managed efficiently in our free market system. We bury it in landfills designed to prevent any environmental damage. When they are full, they are capped, and can be used as parks or golf courses. It's not as if we're running out of land.
The irony here is that liberals are setting themselves in opposition to Canadian environmental regulations. The ridiculous government regulations in Canada are the reason that it is more cost-effective to drive hundreds of miles to Michigan than dispose of trash locally.
The fact is that trash-hauling is a part of our economy. Banning Canadian trash imports would result in hundreds of lost jobs. It's pretty ironic that liberals are touting every hundred jobs here and there while simultaneously advocating banning hundreds more jobs. The Canadian regulations are wrong; but they hurt Canada, not America.
Once again, liberals use demagoguery to advance their political fortunes.
Unity through demagoguery
One of the ironies of liberalism is that liberals claim to support diversity and tolerance and multiculturalism, and oppose racism and hatred. Then, they turn around and demonize anyone when it is politically convenient.
This isn't "hypocrisy," once you understand the real meaning of terms like "multiculturalism" and "political correctness." Still, it's interesting to see that the ethics of liberalism allows the violation of all its supposed noble principles in pursuit of political power.
One example is the demonization of China. The Granholm campaign and state Democratic Party have run a number of ads attacking China during the gubernatorial campaign. There's nothing wrong with attacking China, which certainly has plenty to criticize. But China is not the reason that Michigan is suffering through a single-state recession. If Republicans had run similar ads, you can bet liberals would call them racist.
If Granholm and the Democrats had any shame, they would be afraid to show their faces in public with the record they have. Instead, they decided to lie like there's no tomorrow. This means saying whatever it takes win, including demagoguery.
Another example is the opponents of the MCRI. One of the liberals' talking points is that the initiative is being foisted on us by outsiders from California.
Of course, liberals aren't telling the truth. The the campaign for the MCRI was initiated by Michigan citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings in the University of Michigan cases. They contacted Ward Connerly, who had experience promoting similar initiatives.
Given the wacko liberals who run the California legislature, California should practically be paradise for liberals. Why attack them? Michigan liberals are hoping to subtly play on the revulsion of conservatives and other normal people to the radical liberalism of Hollywood, San Francisco, and the California legislature.
The real issue is not who is sponsoring the MCRI, and whether they live in Michigan, but whether it is a good idea. Of course, liberals are lying about that, too.
The third example is the absurd debate over "Canadian trash." But this post is getting longer than I thought it would, so I'll save that for my next post.
This isn't "hypocrisy," once you understand the real meaning of terms like "multiculturalism" and "political correctness." Still, it's interesting to see that the ethics of liberalism allows the violation of all its supposed noble principles in pursuit of political power.
One example is the demonization of China. The Granholm campaign and state Democratic Party have run a number of ads attacking China during the gubernatorial campaign. There's nothing wrong with attacking China, which certainly has plenty to criticize. But China is not the reason that Michigan is suffering through a single-state recession. If Republicans had run similar ads, you can bet liberals would call them racist.
If Granholm and the Democrats had any shame, they would be afraid to show their faces in public with the record they have. Instead, they decided to lie like there's no tomorrow. This means saying whatever it takes win, including demagoguery.
Another example is the opponents of the MCRI. One of the liberals' talking points is that the initiative is being foisted on us by outsiders from California.
This is a California campaign run by California people with California ideas on how to change Michigan's constitution, which is working very well," said David Waymire, spokesman for Citizens for a United Michigan, which was formed to oppose the ballot proposal.What do liberals have against California?
Of course, liberals aren't telling the truth. The the campaign for the MCRI was initiated by Michigan citizens in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings in the University of Michigan cases. They contacted Ward Connerly, who had experience promoting similar initiatives.
Given the wacko liberals who run the California legislature, California should practically be paradise for liberals. Why attack them? Michigan liberals are hoping to subtly play on the revulsion of conservatives and other normal people to the radical liberalism of Hollywood, San Francisco, and the California legislature.
The real issue is not who is sponsoring the MCRI, and whether they live in Michigan, but whether it is a good idea. Of course, liberals are lying about that, too.
The third example is the absurd debate over "Canadian trash." But this post is getting longer than I thought it would, so I'll save that for my next post.
Doom! Doom!
If anyone doubts that the opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will say anything to stop it from passing, look no further than this article from the Detroit News.
Not to belabor the obvious, but 9/11 and Katrina both killed more than a thousand people. The opponents of proposal 2 know that most people oppose racial discrimination. Their strategy from day one has been lying and fear-mongering.
Don't be too surprised if you hear before November that the MCRI will resurrect the confederacy.
Despite the attacks, the MCRI continues to hold a narrow lead, 50-41 in the latest poll. To push the MCRI to victory, we need to expose the lies of "One United Michigan" and BAMN. We can all play a part in making that happen.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Opponents of a ballot proposal that would ban some affirmative action programs in Michigan are running a statewide radio ad that likens the measure to the Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina disasters.We're all going to die!
"If you could have prevented 9/11 from ever happening, would you have?" an announcer asks in the ad. "If you could have prevented Katrina from ever happening, what would you have done? On November 7th, there's a national disaster headed for Michigan: the elimination of affirmative action."
The announcer then urges listeners to "take a stand" and vote against the proposal.
Backers of the anti-affirmative-action proposal swiftly condemned the 60-second ad Friday.
"This is very disgusting. How can they talk to a widow of a fireman and say that this is equivalent to 9/11?" said Doug Tietz, spokesman for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
A spokesman for One United Michigan, the group airing the ad, stood by it.
"Taking away opportunities from families and women is exactly like taking away their lives," Dave Waymire said. "We think this ad is a wake-up call to Michigan about the damage this proposal will do to our state."
Not to belabor the obvious, but 9/11 and Katrina both killed more than a thousand people. The opponents of proposal 2 know that most people oppose racial discrimination. Their strategy from day one has been lying and fear-mongering.
Don't be too surprised if you hear before November that the MCRI will resurrect the confederacy.
Despite the attacks, the MCRI continues to hold a narrow lead, 50-41 in the latest poll. To push the MCRI to victory, we need to expose the lies of "One United Michigan" and BAMN. We can all play a part in making that happen.
The facts about North Korea
Ann Coulter's latest column reminds us of the history leading up to North Korea's nuclear test that liberals don't want you to know. Read it all.
Why might China want such a regime to have nuclear weapons?
Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.It's also worth pointing out that North Korea continues to exist thanks to aid from China. If China cut off the oil pipelines, North Korea would collapse. If they really didn't want Korea to get nukes, all they would nave to do is but off aid. Given this, should we really believe that this is something that China didn't want?
In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."
Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.
Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.
Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.
The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.
If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."
At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."
And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."
So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"
Why might China want such a regime to have nuclear weapons?
Saturday, October 07, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Judges
This update focuses on judges. Judicial activists continue to impose their will on America. This does great damage to our country. The power of judges must be restrained, and honest judges must be confirmed to the bench.
George Detweiler says a constitutional convention isn't the answer to judicial activism.
Phyllis Schlafly writes that lower court judges threaten our freedom.
Thomas Sowell writes that judges threaten our national security.
Schlafly writes that the Roberts court has been seduced by trying to create "consensus".
Schlafly writes that judges have ordered tax increases in Texas.
Schlafly lists many ways judges damage sovereignty, marriage, border security, and more.
George Detweiler says a constitutional convention isn't the answer to judicial activism.
Phyllis Schlafly writes that lower court judges threaten our freedom.
Thomas Sowell writes that judges threaten our national security.
Schlafly writes that the Roberts court has been seduced by trying to create "consensus".
Schlafly writes that judges have ordered tax increases in Texas.
Schlafly lists many ways judges damage sovereignty, marriage, border security, and more.
End eminent domain abuse
One of the proposal on the ballot in November would restrict the situations in which government can use eminent domain.
Eminent domain is the principle under which the government can buy land that the owner does not want to sell. This has traditionally been reserved for government projects like roads and airports. But some governments have taken land to give it to private developers or politically connected corporations. The theoretical justification for this is that the new owners will pay more taxes, thus enriching the government, a "public benefit."
In 1981, more than a thousand homeowners in a traditionally Polish neighborhood were forcibly displaced to make way for a new factory in Hamtramck, Michigan. In what became known as the Poletown case, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this. In 2004, the now conservative court overruled the Poletown case.
In 2005, this issue exploded in the public mind with the Supreme Court case Kelo v. Hew London. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this practice. This sparked a movement to abolish this practice. Michigan is currently only protected by a court ruling. Thus the legislature moved to amend the state Constitution to stop eminent domain abuse. The amendment passed both houses with more than two thirds of the vote, and must now be approved by a popular vote. Proposal 4 would end eminent domain abuse and require government to pay 125% of the value of property to prevent theft by underassessment.
Eminent domain is a huge violation of private property rights. Most basically, it is wrong to take land unless absolutely necessary. It is also a huge avenue for corruption, as corporations can contribute to politicians to get them to take land that they can't buy. It also assumes that government can better decide how best to use property than the people who own it. This is the basic assumption of socialism.
Phyllis Schlafly provides information on the nationwide movement to protect property rights, and argues that taking land to increase tax revenue is unconstitutional.
Thomas Sowell calls eminent domain abuse "socialism for the rich," as wealthy developers can take property at below-market rates.
Proposal 4 must be passed.
Eminent domain is the principle under which the government can buy land that the owner does not want to sell. This has traditionally been reserved for government projects like roads and airports. But some governments have taken land to give it to private developers or politically connected corporations. The theoretical justification for this is that the new owners will pay more taxes, thus enriching the government, a "public benefit."
In 1981, more than a thousand homeowners in a traditionally Polish neighborhood were forcibly displaced to make way for a new factory in Hamtramck, Michigan. In what became known as the Poletown case, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this. In 2004, the now conservative court overruled the Poletown case.
In 2005, this issue exploded in the public mind with the Supreme Court case Kelo v. Hew London. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with this practice. This sparked a movement to abolish this practice. Michigan is currently only protected by a court ruling. Thus the legislature moved to amend the state Constitution to stop eminent domain abuse. The amendment passed both houses with more than two thirds of the vote, and must now be approved by a popular vote. Proposal 4 would end eminent domain abuse and require government to pay 125% of the value of property to prevent theft by underassessment.
Eminent domain is a huge violation of private property rights. Most basically, it is wrong to take land unless absolutely necessary. It is also a huge avenue for corruption, as corporations can contribute to politicians to get them to take land that they can't buy. It also assumes that government can better decide how best to use property than the people who own it. This is the basic assumption of socialism.
Phyllis Schlafly provides information on the nationwide movement to protect property rights, and argues that taking land to increase tax revenue is unconstitutional.
Thomas Sowell calls eminent domain abuse "socialism for the rich," as wealthy developers can take property at below-market rates.
Proposal 4 must be passed.
Dove Hunting
One of the propositions on the ballot in Michigan would allow dove hunting. The Michigan legislature passed a bill to allow this which was signed by the Governor, but opponents collected enough signatures to force the issue on the ballot. This article provides much good information on the issue.
Don't let the animal rights extremists win this one.
Dove hunting on the ballot in NovemberI love the "symbols of peace" argument. Aren't eagles symbols of war? If so, can we hunt them?
When the dove-Americans win the right to vote, our only game birds will be hawks.
But only regular Americans get to vote. In Michigan, they'll decide whether we'll have rational, science-based hunting or if we'll base laws on the emotional needs of extremists.
The issue on the ballot is dove hunting. The bigger issue, though, is who should be in charge of determining public policy in our state. Should we have laws based on facts, or should we let demagogues make the rules? Dove-Americans? The idea of dog-Americans and cat-Americans is attributed to Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, the group behind efforts to ban dove hunting. I think blaming the HSUS for the concept of citizenship for animals was meant as a joke.
But the group is not funny.
In a 2004 Washington Post article, he included in his goals: Ending animal acts in circuses, ending the use of animals in medical research, and ending hunting.
That's what the dove vote is about: Ending hunting.
HSUS is working to get the people who raise the beef, pork or chicken you had for dinner out of business.
But it wants to protect those blamed for things like firebombing veterinary schools. Pacelle and his organization are opposed to dove hunting and labeling animal-rights criminals as terrorists.
HSUS stands alone in opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The act would strengthen penalties for lunatics who blow people up to protect laboratory rats.
So think of Proposal 3 as a referendum on good sense. Vote yes for intelligent game management by wildlife biologists. Or vote no because Pacelle wants you to.
Anti-hunters are pushing three arguments against dove hunting: Doves are too small to eat, doves don't make a mess, and the Bible says doves are the bird of peace, doves are songbirds, and doves mate for life.
In the fields, those are called easy targets.
First, how big is big enough to eat? Cows are bigger than turkeys, so goodbye to that Thanksgiving tradition?
Second, the doves are harmless is an argument from people who live in New York City or wherever HSUS has its offices. Farmers, particularly those who grow seed or grain crops such as sunflowers, know the mourning dove is good at stealing crops.
Third, the "bird of peace" is a Eurasian turtledove, an entirely different genus and species from the mourning doves that are hunted in very nearly every state across the country.
Next, doves aren't songbirds. If making noises qualifies a bird as a songbird, squawking chickens would be songbirds.
And finally, the whole mating-for-life thing defies the evidence and good sense. Mourning doves have an annual mortality rate of about 70%. That means three in four mourning doves alive this fall will be gone by next fall, whether because of weather, predation, disease, accident or hunting. The idea that the one in four that remains will be wearing their widow weeds forever is just silly.
Vote yes on Proposal 3.
Don't let the animal rights extremists win this one.
Why we need English
Why do we need English as our official language? Because if we don't speak a common language, we can't communicate. Case in point is a recent controversy in the Herald. Many students have great difficulty communicating with foreign students. This illustrates the problems that can and will arise if we don't all speak the the same language. This comment summarizes the problem.
With both legal and illegal immigration out of control, this situation is only going to get worse. We need to create a culture that makes learning English imperative. Passing official English is one part of making that happen.
TamaraMany commenters offer insights on this problem. Students from other countries can't speak English, and so hang out by themselves. Professors accommodate them with special treatment, which creates resentment. Criticizing this situation is politically incorrect, and will quickly get you labeled racist. There is a huge double standard for how Americans and foreign students are treated in parallel situations.
posted 9/29/06 @ 6:32 PM EST
Here is one thing you never, never want to do. Don't tell a professor you don't want to be in another group with an international student who won't pull his or her weight. I had the bad luck to be assigned to a group with two foreign students who I knew from class sessions didn't speak much English.
I had been in a group my prior, Sophomore year with a foreign student and had to do my portion of the work and hers because of her language and cultural difficulties. In other words you had to talk at half speed while she checked her dictionary and when she talked, which wasn't much, wait for her to go back and forth in her little dictionary looking for words in English. The cultural difficulties were that she didn't know how things work here so a lot of things made no sense to her even when she understood the literal translation of the words.
I would do no better in her country but I didn't go to her country and I ended up doing twice as much work and got dinged on the grade because she didn't participate in the class presentation of our work.
So, I didn't want to go through that double with two foreign students. When I asked to be assigned to a different group I got the kind of lecture Jonathan Silver would give me about cultural insensitivity, blah, blah, blah and my relationship with the professor went South and I got hurt on my grade.
Supposedly it is a great life skill to be able to deal with someone who doesn't speak much English or understand much about us but I don't imagine there are many companies in America where they hire a lot of people who barely speak any English and don't know anything about America except what they see on dubbed tv. The fact that I would do just as badly in their country is irrelevant because I'm not going to their country to impose myself on them.
With both legal and illegal immigration out of control, this situation is only going to get worse. We need to create a culture that makes learning English imperative. Passing official English is one part of making that happen.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Stop the spin so I can get off
OK, I was flipping through the channels here and I saw something completely unacceptable. I came accross Lou Dobbs on CNN. They did a story titled "War on the Middle Class." Can you guess what the news story was about? If you guessed raising the minimum wage, then you're right. It's a little known fact that most people consider themselves middle class regardless of where they really are. So even though the story was a bunch of people saying why we need to raise the minimum wage (note it was a one sided arguement. They didn't present a single person saying why it shouldn't be raised) which only directly effects those below the poverty line, they got people assuming the story was about them by tagging the label "Middle Class" to it.
Another case I saw in less than a minute. I saw the CBS Evening News had a leadoff story about Dennis Hastert. They said there are people in the Republican party calling for Hastert's resignation, but didn't name a single one. They implied Hastert had something to do with the Mark Foley situation but failed to submit any evidence that he had anything to do with the situation. Unless you're really paying attention, what you take away from the story is that the Republicans are in trouble.
A few years back we tried pushing legislation through the WSA calling for the addition of Fox News in the dorms. I'm starting to reconsider the idea. Maybe we should push it through again. Anyone interested in working with me on this, let me know.
Another case I saw in less than a minute. I saw the CBS Evening News had a leadoff story about Dennis Hastert. They said there are people in the Republican party calling for Hastert's resignation, but didn't name a single one. They implied Hastert had something to do with the Mark Foley situation but failed to submit any evidence that he had anything to do with the situation. Unless you're really paying attention, what you take away from the story is that the Republicans are in trouble.
A few years back we tried pushing legislation through the WSA calling for the addition of Fox News in the dorms. I'm starting to reconsider the idea. Maybe we should push it through again. Anyone interested in working with me on this, let me know.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Wackos can't wait
The deranged left on campus is staging an event tomorrow entitled "World Can't Wait: Drive out the Bush Regime." Michelle Malkin provides some details on this event.
The indispensable Discover the Networks site provides much more information on this group. "World Can't Wait" is actually a front group for none other than the Revolutionary Communist Party!
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is coming to speak on campus. Ritter took $400,000 from an agent of Saddam Hussein to finance a documentary. This money came from the Oil for Food Program, and hence from the oppression of the Iraqi people. Ritter has also had legal trouble for trying to meet with underage girls.
The indispensable Discover the Networks site provides much more information on this group. "World Can't Wait" is actually a front group for none other than the Revolutionary Communist Party!
Founded in June 2005 by Charles Clark Kissinger, a longtime leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, World Can't Wait (WCW) is a direct action movement seeking to organize "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration." The organization asserts that removing President Bush from office "will be like removing a forty-pound tumor from your gut." WCW vows "to send Bush, Cheney and the rest of those fascists packing. ... After that, there are people in 'World Can't Wait' who are working for everything from reforming the Democratic party, to building a 3rd party, to revolution."Read it all. Once again, liberals are either supportive of or indifferent to communism. The eagerly ally with America's enemies.
...
On September 20, 2006, WCW ran another ad in The New York Times, promoting its upcoming October 5 rally "to drive out the Bush regime." Billed as a set of concurrent "protests in cities all across the country," the ad exhorted people to skip work and school that day in order to participate in the demonstrations. The declared aim of the protests was to bring "to a halt" the U.S. government's alleged pursuit of "endless wars," its routine use of "torture," its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina (in 2005), and its quest to transform the United States into a "theocracy."
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is coming to speak on campus. Ritter took $400,000 from an agent of Saddam Hussein to finance a documentary. This money came from the Oil for Food Program, and hence from the oppression of the Iraqi people. Ritter has also had legal trouble for trying to meet with underage girls.
Ritter has been criticized for accepting $400,000 from Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji for the financing of his 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq[15]. According to a Washington Times article, Al-Khaffaji obtained the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions [16].
...
Ritter came under further criticism following a September 14, 2002, Time article where he refused to provide details regarding the conditions of the children's prison at the Iraqi General Security Services headquarters he inspected in January 1998. Ritter refused to provide details on the prison, containing "toddlers up to pre-adolescents," for fear that the information "...can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq." [18]
[edit]
Legal problems
In 2001, Ritter was arrested near Albany, NY. News reports say Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions (in April and June), both involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet.[19] [20]
Prosecutors initially agreed to charge Ritter with a misdemeanor with a view to dropping the charges if no further allegations against him arose in the following six months, and asked for court records to be sealed. Ritter himself says all charges were dismissed. However, it was claimed by WTEN-TV citing unnamed sources, that Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.[21]
Monday, October 02, 2006
Kalamazoo Peace Center
This week has been declared "Peace Week" by liberals on campus. So this seems like a good time to examine some of the nutty liberals on campus. Many of their efforts seem to revolve around the "Kalamazoo Peace Center," located in the Wesley foundation on campus.
According to their website, the Peace Center is a group of "students and others" dedicated to promoting liberalism. The center also refers to "the collective:"
In the 1980's, it was used to promote the Nuclear Freeze movement. This movement demanded that the United States unilaterally stop building our nuclear capacities. Strangely, this was exactly what the Soviet Union wanted us to do. So what happened? Ronald Reagan did exactly the opposite of what the liberals wanted. He increased military spending. The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up, was demoralized, and collapsed. Four hundred million people were freed from communist tyranny, and there was no war. Today, the peace center's website acknowledges how wrong they were. Yes, I'm kidding.
Their "coalition" included the "anti-nuclear Valley Alliance, Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Pushkin Institute, United Nations Association, and many faith-based groups such as the Presbyterian Church and Pax Cristi." I'm pretty sure that the "people of El Salvador" means the communists trying to overthrow the government of El Salvador.
Today, the Peace Center works with the Progressive Student Alliance, uniting such leftist organizations as "Students Against Sweatshops, Students' Kalamazoo Non-violent Opponents to War, NAACP, Western's Organization for Women and many more."
Then, the Progressive Student Alliance made a "daring" step--becoming the "Progressive Community Alliance." They work with organizations such as "Beehive Collective, Global Exchange, Oxfam and other national and international organizations." That's the Peace Center's "herstory."
As an organization championing peace, the Peace Center naturally supports banning jobs and racial discrimination. They demand a "living wage," which would ban any jobs that pay less. Of course, they oppose the MCRI:
Their community and links pages provide links to plenty more crazy liberal organizations. Ugh--I need to read Ann Coulter.
According to their website, the Peace Center is a group of "students and others" dedicated to promoting liberalism. The center also refers to "the collective:"
CollectiveThe Center was started 25 years ago as a project of the West Michigan Conference of the United Methodists, which says a lot about the decline of mainline Protestant denominations.
The role of the Collective is to keep the Peace Center alive and productive.
Members of the Collective volunteer their time to cooperatively staff the office. The Collective participates in day-to-day activities and in long-term developmental goals of the Peace Center. If you are interested in being a volunteer or joining the collective feel free to download an application, send us an email, or stop by!
In the 1980's, it was used to promote the Nuclear Freeze movement. This movement demanded that the United States unilaterally stop building our nuclear capacities. Strangely, this was exactly what the Soviet Union wanted us to do. So what happened? Ronald Reagan did exactly the opposite of what the liberals wanted. He increased military spending. The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up, was demoralized, and collapsed. Four hundred million people were freed from communist tyranny, and there was no war. Today, the peace center's website acknowledges how wrong they were. Yes, I'm kidding.
Their "coalition" included the "anti-nuclear Valley Alliance, Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Pushkin Institute, United Nations Association, and many faith-based groups such as the Presbyterian Church and Pax Cristi." I'm pretty sure that the "people of El Salvador" means the communists trying to overthrow the government of El Salvador.
Today, the Peace Center works with the Progressive Student Alliance, uniting such leftist organizations as "Students Against Sweatshops, Students' Kalamazoo Non-violent Opponents to War, NAACP, Western's Organization for Women and many more."
Then, the Progressive Student Alliance made a "daring" step--becoming the "Progressive Community Alliance." They work with organizations such as "Beehive Collective, Global Exchange, Oxfam and other national and international organizations." That's the Peace Center's "herstory."
As an organization championing peace, the Peace Center naturally supports banning jobs and racial discrimination. They demand a "living wage," which would ban any jobs that pay less. Of course, they oppose the MCRI:
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban both discrimination and affirmative action programs. This campaign exists to bring awareness to the community on the unethical aspects of this proposal and to get citizens to VOTE NO ON PROP 2 in November.The Peace Center's calendar of events includes meetings of the Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network, which has provided some of the funnier moments in local politics.
Their community and links pages provide links to plenty more crazy liberal organizations. Ugh--I need to read Ann Coulter.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Environmentalism
This update focuses on environmentalism. Environmentalists continue to promote socialism and battle against human prosperity and well-being. Their policies sometimes damage the environment as well. They promote a number of myths to advance their cause.
Deroy Murdock shows that many environmentalists support genocide against humanity.
Lew Rockwell explains how a government ban of DDT led to millions of deaths.
Thomas Sowell explains one way environmentalism hurts the poor.
Alan Caraba exposes the myth of global warming and how it hurts America.
WorldNetDaily destroys the myth that oil is a "fossil fuel" that we are running out of.
Lew Rockwell debunks environmentalism and explains why he opposes the environment.
"It's as if the socialists discovered that their plan created poverty, and so decided to change their names to environmentalists and make poverty their goal."
--Lew Rockwell
Deroy Murdock shows that many environmentalists support genocide against humanity.
Lew Rockwell explains how a government ban of DDT led to millions of deaths.
Thomas Sowell explains one way environmentalism hurts the poor.
Alan Caraba exposes the myth of global warming and how it hurts America.
WorldNetDaily destroys the myth that oil is a "fossil fuel" that we are running out of.
Lew Rockwell debunks environmentalism and explains why he opposes the environment.
"It's as if the socialists discovered that their plan created poverty, and so decided to change their names to environmentalists and make poverty their goal."
--Lew Rockwell
Competitive Legislative Seats
MIRS recently ranked what it believes to be the most competitive Michigan Senate and Legislature seats. The articles are available on Saul Anuzius' blog.
The most competitive Senate races are available here. (Scroll down about 40%.)
The most competitive House races are available here. (Scroll about half way down.)
The most competitive Senate seat is Kalamazoo's own Tom George:
The most competitive Senate races are available here. (Scroll down about 40%.)
The most competitive House races are available here. (Scroll about half way down.)
The most competitive Senate seat is Kalamazoo's own Tom George:
1. Sen. Tom GEORGE (R-Texas Twp.) v. Rep. Alexander LIPSEY (D-Kalamazoo), 20th District *6Meanwhile, this made the races to watch:
The panic button is being pushed in Republican land. The GOP is realizing George wasn't dialed into the "incumbency protection plan" as much as he should have been and the Democrats realize George's numbers are the weakest among sitting Republican Senators. The impression in Lansing is that the anesthesiologist has been practicing too much medicine and too little politics. It's easy to fall asleep when your incumbent rakes up 56 percent of the vote in 2002.
Now that Lipsey's knees have healed up, he's walking all over the place with his likeable father. Democrats believe Lipsey will be able to bring out the base vote in the urban center, something 2002 Democratic candidate Ed LaFORGE was unable to do. The anti-Republican Jon STRYKER-funded Coalition for Progress group is paying for George attack ads.
In the meantime, this Kalamazoo County district is changing. Western Michigan University is growing. The county went 51 percent for Democratic presidential nominee John KERRY in 2004 and Lipsey's numbers in Kalamazoo are huge.
69th District, Mark MEADOWS (D) v. Johnny KNOWLES (R) *NR
This seat is trending Democratic in a hard, fast way and it's hard to see Meadows blowing this, but you can't drive through East Lansing without seeing at least three Knowles signs. Johnny Knowles is, seriously, everywhere.
More MCRI nonsense
The western herald dipped into the MCRI controversy, and not surprisingly, provided some of the worst coverage so far.
This editorial is a calumny of misinformation. Here's my response:
This opinion column on foreign students and "offensive" speech sparked many interesting comments, including what studying abroad in France was like.
You can leave your own comments on the Herald site.
This editorial is a calumny of misinformation. Here's my response:
Your editorial reveals significant ignorance about the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.This news story on the MCRI couldn't find any supporters to talk to.
First, Proposition 209 was a California ballot initiative that passed a decade ago. The MCRI is denoted as Proposition 2.
Second, the MCRI only bans racial and sexual discrimination in government hiring, contracting, and college admissions. The private sector would not be affected at all. Private sector hiring and bank loans would not change.
Third, The MCRI would not ban "affirmative action." It would ban racial and sexual discrimination. Programs that seek greater recruitment of minorities and judge all applicants by the same standards would be unaffected.
Racial discrimination is wrong, and the MCRI will stop the government from doing it.
This opinion column on foreign students and "offensive" speech sparked many interesting comments, including what studying abroad in France was like.
You can leave your own comments on the Herald site.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Presidential Search Panel
Western has appointed a panel to search for the next President of Western. The Gazette reports:
The 12-member search team that will help find Western Michigan University's next president has been assembled.The panel will also include a WMU student.
The committee of faculty members, students, administrators, community members and two WMU trustees will work with a professional search consultant, then present a short list of candidates to the board of trustees, which will choose the president.
Andrew Hooley, a junior at WMU selected to serve on the committee, is one of two students on the committee; the other is a graduate student.
"Our next leader has to be responsive to the students,'' said Hooley, who is vice president of the Western Student Association, which represents some 19,000 undergraduate students.
"I'd really like to see someone who's willing to be dedicated and has a passion for keeping the students at the university,'' he said.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Liberals versus mathematics
Phyllis Schlafly has an excellent column on what liberals have done to mathematics education. Read it all. Thankfully, after years of miseducation, things are finally starting to head back in the right direction.
First, it's interesting to note that every progressive education fad is an unmitigated disaster.
Second, if you ever doubt that there's anything good that liberals won't destroy, remember "ethnomathematics" and "rainforest math."
Third, this sort of thing can only happen in a socialist government monopoly. As Schlafly points out, parents hated this all along. If they could choose where their children went to school, they would choose schools that used the traditional approach to math. This would force the other schools to cancel "new new math." Thanks to our government monopoly, people's only choice was to pay thousands of dollars to send their children to private schools. Of course, now millions of parents are homeschooling, and the number continues to increase.
Fourth, there is a subtext to this story that even Schlafly doesn't pick up on. Remember, we are talking about two different approaches to learning mathematics. In the first, a teacher drills the children until they have memorized basic facts. In the second, the children discuss the subject amongst themselves and try to discover it without the teacher's help. The other thing you need to know is that teachers' unions have a significant amount of influence over what is taught in the classroom.
Think on this: which of the two approaches are they more likely to favor?
Ding! Time's up. Set down your pencils.
Of course, the union will favor the approach in which the teacher does less work. As union boss Al Shanker once said, "When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." This goes a long way to explain the popularity of "whole math."
It took parents 17 years to overturn the tragic 1989 curriculum mistake made by so-called education experts who demanded that schools abandon traditional mathematics in favor of unproven approaches. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics finally reversed course on Sept. 12 and admitted that elementary schools really should teach arithmetic, after all.Several points need to be made here.
The new report called "Curriculum Focal Points for Pre-kindergarten Through Grade 8 Mathematics" is a back-to-basics victory that rejects the type of math curricula that parents had derided as "fuzzy math" or "rain forest math." Experts preferred such hoity-toity titles as "New New Math," "Connected Math," "Chicago Math," "Core-Plus Math," "Whole Math," "Interactive Math" or "Integrated Math."
Whatever the title, these curricula imbedded the notion that estimates are acceptable in lieu of accurate answers to math problems so long as students feel good about what they are doing and can think up a reason for doing it. Fuzzy curricula were big on discussion, coloring, playing games, and early use of calculators.
The 1989 report, which gives the word "standards" a bad name, flatly opposed drilling students in basic math facts, taught that memorization of math facts was bad, and failed to systematically build from one math concept to another. Children were encouraged to "discover" math on their own, construct their own math language, and flounder with their own approaches to solving problems.
This silliness is based on the false notion that children can develop a deeper understanding of mathematics when they invent their own methods for performing basic calculations.
Despite widespread parental opposition, in October 1999 Bill Clinton's Department of Education officially endorsed 10 new math courses, based on the 1989 "standards," for grades K-12, calling them "exemplary" or "promising." Local school districts were urged to adopt one of them, and were baited with federal money inducements.
One department-approved "exemplary" course, "MathLand," directed children to meet in small groups and invent their own ways to add, subtract, multiply and divide. It's too bad the kids weren't told that wiser adults have already discovered how to do all those basic computations rapidly and accurately.
It wasn't only parents who quickly sized up fuzzy math curricula as subtracting rather than adding to the skills of schoolchildren. On Nov. 18, 1999, more than 200 prestigious mathematicians and scholars, including four Nobel laureates and two winners of the Fields Medal, the highest math honor, published a full-page ad in the Washington Post criticizing the "exemplary" curricula.
But Clinton's Education Secretary Richard Riley refused to back away from the department's endorsements and the 1989 "standards" adopted by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
With such vague parameters for courses in math, trendy instructors began advancing their political agenda by injecting ethnic studies into math textbooks. Some taught what Diane Ravitch calls "ethnomathematics," the far out notion that traditional math is too Western and therefore students should be taught in ways that relate to their ancestral culture.
The diversion of math into the teaching of political correctness was illustrated by the "anti-racist multicultural math" curriculum adopted by Newton, Mass. It's no wonder that test scores dropped after this "math" curriculum's top priority became "Respect for Human Differences."
First, it's interesting to note that every progressive education fad is an unmitigated disaster.
Second, if you ever doubt that there's anything good that liberals won't destroy, remember "ethnomathematics" and "rainforest math."
Third, this sort of thing can only happen in a socialist government monopoly. As Schlafly points out, parents hated this all along. If they could choose where their children went to school, they would choose schools that used the traditional approach to math. This would force the other schools to cancel "new new math." Thanks to our government monopoly, people's only choice was to pay thousands of dollars to send their children to private schools. Of course, now millions of parents are homeschooling, and the number continues to increase.
Fourth, there is a subtext to this story that even Schlafly doesn't pick up on. Remember, we are talking about two different approaches to learning mathematics. In the first, a teacher drills the children until they have memorized basic facts. In the second, the children discuss the subject amongst themselves and try to discover it without the teacher's help. The other thing you need to know is that teachers' unions have a significant amount of influence over what is taught in the classroom.
Think on this: which of the two approaches are they more likely to favor?
Ding! Time's up. Set down your pencils.
Of course, the union will favor the approach in which the teacher does less work. As union boss Al Shanker once said, "When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." This goes a long way to explain the popularity of "whole math."
Too conservative for the CRNC
Thanks to Save the GOP for this item. Read it all.
The College Republican National Committee wasn't amused. The organization fired her [Morgan Wilkins] on Friday.
The creation of the Facebook group was the final straw for the CRNC. The national committee put Wilkins on probation on Sept. 12 when she told The Michigan Daily that she wanted to plan recruiting events where participants would shoot BB guns at cardboard cutouts of Democratic leaders like John Kerry and try to catch someone posing as an illegal immigrant.
The suggestions prompted an outcry from both Republicans and Democrats, including the University chapters of the College Republicans and College Democrats. Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean also condemned Wilkins's ideas.
...
The CRNC responded by telling Wilkins to stay away from the University. Wilkins thought the University's College Republicans had caved to pressure from those who decried her ideas.
"The U of M College Republicans are a bunch of appeasers," she said. "They have this na've outlook on the world that we can work together with the Democrats and la la la things will happen. But working together with the Democrats doesn't mean hiding in some closet and not offending anybody. That's not what we do."
Scott disagreed, saying Wilkins's confrontational style has no place at the University.
"Our public statements about it are pretty clear. Those events undermined the goals of our group," he said. "Those events were not appropriate for our campus."
Some endorsements
An item from Saul Anuzius' blog:
Michigan Equality Endorses Granholm
Today, the Michigan Equality PAC, which is a group that focuses on ending discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, endorsed Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM, 38 other Democratic candidates and three Republicans.
The Michigan Equality PAC endorsed the following Republicans: Sam DURANTE, who is running for the 18th District House seat, Armando ROMERO, who is running for the 60th District House seat and Rep. Lorence WENKE (R-Richland), who is running for re-election in the 63rd House District.
George Will on the MCRI
George Will's latest column updates the status of the MCRI.
DETROIT -- A feisty 29-year-old white woman and a pugnacious 67-year-old black man are performing two services this autumn for Michigan and the nation. Their Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is promoting colorblind government. And they are provoking remnants of the civil rights movement, which now is just a defender of a racial spoils system, to demonstrate its decadence, even thuggishness.
In November, Michiganders will vote on this ballot initiative: ``A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes." Almost identical measures were passed by referendums in California in 1996 and Washington state in 1998, in similar conditions to those here: They were opposed by both parties, all so-called civil rights organizations, most newspapers and many business leaders. What is different in Michigan is the involvement of a particularly nasty organization and an egregiously political judge.
At age 19, Jennifer Gratz, denied admission to the University of Michigan, fought the university all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It endorsed her argument that it was an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the law for the university to add 20 points to the scores of black, Hispanic and Native American applicants. (The maximum score was 150; a perfect 1,600 SAT earned just 12 points.)
Ward Connerly is a California businessman and former member of the University of California Board of Regents. He propelled to victory the measures mandating colorblind government in California and Washington state.
With Gratz as its executive director, and Connerly lending hard-earned expertise, MCRI collected 508,000 signatures, more than ever gathered for a Michigan initiative. In response, some opponents of MCRI have adopted four tactics, none of which involve arguing the merits of racial preferences, and all of which attempt -- in the name of ``civil rights,'' of course -- to prevent Michiganders from being allowed to vote on MCRI. The tactics have included:
-- Pressuring signers of MCRI petitions to say they did not understand what they were signing. Some talk radio stations have broadcast the names of signers, and opponents of MCRI have gone to signers saying, ``Did you know you signed a petition against equal opportunity?" Two who recanted their signatures, saying they had signed without reading the measure, are federal judges.
-- Violently intimidating the state Board of Canvassers, which certifies that initiatives have qualified for the ballot. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) disrupted the board's deliberations, shouting and overturning a table. Video of this can been seen at www.michigancivilrights.org.
-- Asking a court to rule that MCRI committed ``fraud" because many who signed the petition supposedly were confused -- the signers were, presumably, not competent to read and understand the initiative, the full text of which was printed at the top of each petition. A federal judge -- Arthur Tarnow, a Clinton appointee -- sadly said he could not rule that way because, although he thinks MCRI is a fraud, whites as well as blacks were confused about it, and even if all signatures gathered in majority black cities were invalidated, there still were enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot. So Tarnow contented himself with an extrajudicial smear of Gratz, charging that her ``deception" had confused all Michigan voters, regardless of race.
-- Michigan ballots are printed by counties, so BAMN says it is asking local officials to assert an extralegal ``moral authority" to leave MCRI off the ballot.
Because the plain language of MCRI is appealing, some opponents argue that MCRI would have terrible ``unintended consequences." It might, they say, eliminate single-sex public schools (Michigan has none; eight of 3,748 schools have a few voluntary single-sex classes) and breast-cancer screening, or might stop a Department of Natural Resources' program aimed at helping Michigan women become hunters (the initiative concerns only hiring, contracting and public schools).
Given the caliber of opposition arguments, it is no wonder a Detroit News poll published Sept. 15 shows MCRI with an 11-point lead. Gratz says that if her group is outspent ``only" five to one -- Connerly was outspent that heavily while winning in Washington state -- MCRI will become Michigan law.
Anti-MCRI demonstrators chant, ``They say Jim Crow, we say hell no." So, the rancid residue of what once was the civil rights movement equates Jim Crow -- the system of enforced legal inferiority for blacks -- with opposition to treating blacks as wards of government, in need of infantilizing preferences, forever. To such Orwellian thinking, Gratz and Connerly -- and soon, perhaps, Michigan -- say: Hell no.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--North American Union
This update focuses on North American Union (NAU). Some elites are planning to integrate the US, Canada and Mexico through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and a continental highway system. This plan threatens our national sovereignty.
Dennis Behreandt examines the resemblance of the SPP to the European Union.
Phyllis Schlafly summarizes the history of the North American Union.
Jerome Corsi debunks government myths about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
WorldNetDaily provides more information on the status of the NAU.
Congressman Ron Paul condemns the SPP as a threat to American sovereignty.
Corsi explains how the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is connected.
Pat Buchanan reveals that NAFTA super-highways are being planned across America.
Corsi argues that Interstate-69 is another NAFTA super-highway.
Alan Caruba argues that the SPP is unconstitutional.
Dennis Behreandt examines the resemblance of the SPP to the European Union.
Phyllis Schlafly summarizes the history of the North American Union.
Jerome Corsi debunks government myths about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
WorldNetDaily provides more information on the status of the NAU.
Congressman Ron Paul condemns the SPP as a threat to American sovereignty.
Corsi explains how the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is connected.
Pat Buchanan reveals that NAFTA super-highways are being planned across America.
Corsi argues that Interstate-69 is another NAFTA super-highway.
Alan Caruba argues that the SPP is unconstitutional.
Barrett in the Herald
Thursday's Western Herald features an article profiling Tom Barrett's run for County Commission. The article is straightforward and unbiased. You can leave a comment on the Herald site, if you want.
They profile the College Republicans. The article is unbiased, but it has two errors. They misspell AJ's name, and misdate Pat Buchanan's speech (it was two years ago, not one).
The College Democrats have withered away to nothing, and are now inactive.
The College Greens have "moved their efforts exclusively into" Students Against Sweatshops, one of several affiliated groups that have existed for awhile. Their main goal is imposing a "living wage" on Western. Does this mean that they think that Western is a sweatshop? They refer specifically to CSM, a janitorial company Western contracts with.
But not to worry:
Not to belabor the obvious, but where will the money come from to pay janitors more? Will it fall from the sky? If Western demands that CSM pay its employees more, they will raise the price that they charge to Western. That will cost students more.
The next thing you know, these people will want the government to run a coffee mug business.
Barrett served two years in the military right out of high school and four years in the Michigan National Guard. He was stationed in South Korea with the military for a year and a half, then he was deployed to Guantanamo Bay from 2003 to 2004 with the National Guard.The day before, the Herald featured an article concerning campus politics. The article is not online; the Herald seems to be rather hit-or-miss in this regard.
"It was an eye-opening experience," Barrett said of his service. "An experience that I am very proud of, but not one that I would like to see again."
The last message of his campaign is to encourage people, mainly students, to get out and vote, he said."
People have died to secure our right to vote," he said. "It's sad to have half, or less than half, vote. It's too great of a right to pass up and not be involved in."
Barrett is up against two other candidates for the position of Fourth District County Commissioner. The election will take place on Tuesday, Nov. 7, and the voting for precincts four and five will be held at Arcadia Elementary School.
In the meantime, students can find Barrett all around campus and up and down the nearby neighborhoods in an effort promote his campaign and to encourage students to vote."
I'm working hard to get my name out and to get students involved," he said. "You can sit back and do nothing or you can participate and try to change something for the better."
For more information on Barrett's campaign trail, where or how to vote or any questions regarding the commission, contact Tom Barrett at: tom.barrett@wmich.edu or visit his Web site at: votetombarrett.com.
They profile the College Republicans. The article is unbiased, but it has two errors. They misspell AJ's name, and misdate Pat Buchanan's speech (it was two years ago, not one).
The College Democrats have withered away to nothing, and are now inactive.
The College Greens have "moved their efforts exclusively into" Students Against Sweatshops, one of several affiliated groups that have existed for awhile. Their main goal is imposing a "living wage" on Western. Does this mean that they think that Western is a sweatshop? They refer specifically to CSM, a janitorial company Western contracts with.
But not to worry:
Because Western doesn't pay these employees directly, organizers say that getting CSM to raise their employees wages would not cost students more.Do people really think this way? Sadly, they do.
Not to belabor the obvious, but where will the money come from to pay janitors more? Will it fall from the sky? If Western demands that CSM pay its employees more, they will raise the price that they charge to Western. That will cost students more.
The next thing you know, these people will want the government to run a coffee mug business.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Your stupidity shouldn't constitute an expense on my part
So I saw this story on Foxnews.com. In it, the CDC says that HIV testing should be as common as a cholesterol check. This is the most outrageous claim I've ever heard. Everyone eats food. Lots of foods have cholesterol. Therefore, a cholesterol check is makes sense. I do not partake in any actions that would cause me to have HIV. Therefore, an HIV test on me is just stupid.
Now for some people out there, it's proper for them to get tested for HIV regularly. But that's their fault. However, because of this CDC statement, it is more likely that doctors will start testing more people for this virus. But let me tell you have that effects people like me.
When I get a job, I'll be paying into a health insurance plan. Now if more and more people start getting tested for HIV, then that means more costs for doctors. That cost is passed on to the insurance company. The cost is then passed on to people who pay into it. That means I end up paying for it in part. And what happens if this gets covered under MediCare? All tax payers will start paying for it.
I'm sorry but this is one of those things were I have little sympathy for people who become a victim. There's a small few who have become infected by no fault of their own. But these cases are becoming fewer and fewer. But many today basically choose to become infected. For those who skipped health class, let me tell you how to avoid getting HIV. 1. Don't use medical needles that could have possibly been used by someone else. Hospitals already take care of it so unless you're experimenting with drugs, you're probably safe from this avenue of infection. 2. If you see someone else's blood, don't touch it. Just think red means stop. 3. (and this is the big one) DON'T SLEEP AROUND! It's rather simple. Keep your pants on unless you're with the person you've married. It's pretty simple.
It's kind of like those people who have an abortion because they slept with their boyfriend (or some random dude) and got pregnant. If you weren't ready to have a kid, you should have kept your pants on. Now the life you helped create has to die. You stupid moron.
I'm convinced the biggest problem we have in our culture is a lack of self control. If you sleep around, you could get HIV or get pregnant. If you're not willing to deal with those possibilities, you shouldn't sleep around. Same with smoking. Who in their right mind starts smoking when there's a big label on the side of the box saying "If you do this, you WILL get cancer"? We need to remember that one of the founding principles of our party is personal responsibility. People should take responsibility for their own actions.
Now for some people out there, it's proper for them to get tested for HIV regularly. But that's their fault. However, because of this CDC statement, it is more likely that doctors will start testing more people for this virus. But let me tell you have that effects people like me.
When I get a job, I'll be paying into a health insurance plan. Now if more and more people start getting tested for HIV, then that means more costs for doctors. That cost is passed on to the insurance company. The cost is then passed on to people who pay into it. That means I end up paying for it in part. And what happens if this gets covered under MediCare? All tax payers will start paying for it.
I'm sorry but this is one of those things were I have little sympathy for people who become a victim. There's a small few who have become infected by no fault of their own. But these cases are becoming fewer and fewer. But many today basically choose to become infected. For those who skipped health class, let me tell you how to avoid getting HIV. 1. Don't use medical needles that could have possibly been used by someone else. Hospitals already take care of it so unless you're experimenting with drugs, you're probably safe from this avenue of infection. 2. If you see someone else's blood, don't touch it. Just think red means stop. 3. (and this is the big one) DON'T SLEEP AROUND! It's rather simple. Keep your pants on unless you're with the person you've married. It's pretty simple.
It's kind of like those people who have an abortion because they slept with their boyfriend (or some random dude) and got pregnant. If you weren't ready to have a kid, you should have kept your pants on. Now the life you helped create has to die. You stupid moron.
I'm convinced the biggest problem we have in our culture is a lack of self control. If you sleep around, you could get HIV or get pregnant. If you're not willing to deal with those possibilities, you shouldn't sleep around. Same with smoking. Who in their right mind starts smoking when there's a big label on the side of the box saying "If you do this, you WILL get cancer"? We need to remember that one of the founding principles of our party is personal responsibility. People should take responsibility for their own actions.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Stop government gun grabs
The National Rifle Association is pushing legislation to stop the confiscation of guns during emergencies.
One of the most underreported stories of 2005 was the gun confiscation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A disaster that lead to the collapse of law and order was when decent citizens needed firearms most. But the government decided to steal the guns of law-abiding citizens. The New Orleans Police were responsible for this outrage, though it is not clear whether anyone from the federal government was involved. Since then, the NRA and other pro-gun groups have been trying to hold them to account.
Gun rights continue to advance in the Michigan legislature.
The Michigan legislature is taking up pro-gun state of emergency legislation.Several other states have already passed similar legislation.
On Tuesday, the Michigan House Government Operations Committee unanimously approved (7-0) legislation that prevents the government seizure of lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition in a declared state of emergency. House Bill 6363 and House Bill 6364, sponsored by Representative Scott Hummel (R-93), prevent Hurricane Katrina-like confiscations and amend the governor’s state of emergency powers accordingly. The bill will now go to the Michigan House for approval.
Please keep checking your e-mail and http://www.nraila.org/ for updates on HB 6363 and HB 6364.
One of the most underreported stories of 2005 was the gun confiscation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A disaster that lead to the collapse of law and order was when decent citizens needed firearms most. But the government decided to steal the guns of law-abiding citizens. The New Orleans Police were responsible for this outrage, though it is not clear whether anyone from the federal government was involved. Since then, the NRA and other pro-gun groups have been trying to hold them to account.
Gun rights continue to advance in the Michigan legislature.
Ax the bus tax
The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association has come out in opposition to the proposed transportation tax increase.
The Kalamazoo County Taxpayers Association recently announced its opposition to the tax, questioning whether key services would be lost if it was rejected.The KCTA has plenty of good information on its website. In addition, they have even more information in a fact sheet on the subject. This tax hike richly deserves to go down to defeat.
...
"When citizens see almost four out of every five bus seats empty, and realize that there are only about 1,500 Car-A-Van riders, and only 670 that live outside the city, they're going to scratch their heads at this proposed tax hike,'' said the group's president, Isaac Morehouse.
"A 1 percent cut in Metro (Transit's) budget could solve this 'problem,' yet they want a 25 percent budget increase? There's simply no justification for this new tax.''
Enrollment down
Enrollment has declined at Western once again. This time, it's down by 5.3% to 24,841. Still, the consensus seems to be that there will be a turnaround next year, thanks in part to the firing of Judy Bailey and the completion of construction on campus.
Haenicke said, "Everybody now has to say, 'How can I help you?' -- not 'What do you want?' It's taking hold much more quickly than I thought it would. There's lots more smiling faces. Right now, I think we are beginning to serve students very well.''I have to agree that the mood on campus has improved. I can't say that I'm sad about the decline in enrollment, though. When enrollment was around 29,000, parking was practically impossible. Sometimes you would have to park in a completely different part of campus or just keep driving around until someone left. Enrollment around 25,000 leaves more room for everyone.
Beacon and others said the change in campus morale is palpable. Beacon refers to "a new sense of optimism.'' Rosana Alsaud, chairwoman of the Graduate Student Advisory Committee, says momentum has shifted in a positive direction.
"I think students are actually beginning to become excited again,'' said Amanda Grove, a WMU senior and president of the Western Student Association. "They think the university is on the right track, with the provost and president being gone. It doesn't make us look very stable, but I think we have the right interim people in there.''
Haenicke and Beacon predict enrollment will turn around by next fall.
"Next year will be entirely different,'' Haenicke said. "It's a given.''
Monday, September 18, 2006
Now there's a good idea
Here's a story I found interesting. Apparently pro-life groups are buying the buildings that house abortion clinics as a way to shut them down. I think it's a rather brilliant idea.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Immigration
This update focuses on immigration. Competing bills are stalemated in Congress for now, but America continues to suffer damage from illegal immigration. A new book by Pat Buchanan, State of Emergency, has garnered some attention.
Phyllis Schlafly explains the reasons for immigration betrayals.
Thomas Sowell destroys fraudulent arguments for immigration.
Senator Jeff Sessions explains what's wrong with the Pence-Hutchinson immigration plan.
Kris Kobach explains that the DREAM act would give in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Tony Blankley and Phyllis Schlafly review Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency.
Pat Buchanan remembers Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail's warnings about immigration.
Buchanan warns that immigration will lead to the dissolution of America.
Mac Johnson argues that today's flood of immigration is unprecedented.
Lynn Woolley reveals that the Senate bill would cost America $126 million in ten years.
Congressman Ron Paul explains how to solve the immigration problem.
Phyllis Schlafly explains the reasons for immigration betrayals.
Thomas Sowell destroys fraudulent arguments for immigration.
Senator Jeff Sessions explains what's wrong with the Pence-Hutchinson immigration plan.
Kris Kobach explains that the DREAM act would give in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
Tony Blankley and Phyllis Schlafly review Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency.
Pat Buchanan remembers Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail's warnings about immigration.
Buchanan warns that immigration will lead to the dissolution of America.
Mac Johnson argues that today's flood of immigration is unprecedented.
Lynn Woolley reveals that the Senate bill would cost America $126 million in ten years.
Congressman Ron Paul explains how to solve the immigration problem.
Constitution Day
Today is Constitution Day, the anniversary of the day in 1787 when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution. Today, however, most people know next to nothing about the Constitution, as Walter Williams writes.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be."
To learn the truth about the Constitution that you'll never hear in a political science class, read our sheet entitled "Facts about the Constitution."
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be."
To learn the truth about the Constitution that you'll never hear in a political science class, read our sheet entitled "Facts about the Constitution."
Thursday, September 14, 2006
English on the move
After months of inaction, the bill to make English the official language of Michigan is once again moving through Lansing. Back in May the State House passed State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk's bill by a vote of 73-32. Now, a State Senate committee has passed the bill. It is expected to be voted on soon in the full Senate. Hopefully, it will soon be on Governor Granholm's desk.
A Muslim in Congress?
Last Tuesday, Democrats nominated Muslim Keith Ellison for Congress in Minnesota's 5th district. Given that the Minneapolis-based district is heavily Democratic, Ellison is likely to be elected to Congress.
Ellison has a long history of involvement with Anti-semitism and ties to supporters of terrorism. From Human Events:
Ellison has a long history of involvement with Anti-semitism and ties to supporters of terrorism. From Human Events:
At a fundraiser two weeks ago that the campaign estimates raised approximately $15,000 to $20,000, one of two speakers besides Ellison was Nihad Awad, the founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
This wasn’t Awad’s first assist. A month earlier, he apparently delivered to the campaign “bundled” checks amounting to just over $10,000. (“Bundling” is the practice of one person soliciting multiple checks for a campaign.) The campaign denies the contributions were bundled, but seven checks from residents of Virginia, Awad’s home state, and Texas, where Awad has strong ties, were received by the campaign on July 22. One of the checks was for $2,000 from Awad himself, and on the next day, the campaign logged a contribution from CAIR’s director of government affairs, Corey Saylor.
Though it claims to be simply a civil rights group for Muslims, CAIR is at best agnostic on Islamic terror, and at worst, a cheerleader for it. Two of its officials have been convicted on terrorism charges, and as an organization, while CAIR forcefully attacks critics of radical Islam, it has yet to condemn by name any Islamic terror organization other than al Qaeda—which it denounced only reluctantly several months after 9/11.
CAIR’s former communications and civil rights coordinator was convicted in 2004 on terror-related charges of plotting to wage violent jihad against the U.S., and the founder of its Texas branch last year was convicted of terror-related charges.
So what's your arguement now?
Today I saw This story (the Fox News version is here. I had to point out this isn't just Fox News stuff for those leftists who hate Fox News) saying that the US has captured a key Al Qaeda member in Iraq. While this capture is great for the US and our war against these terrorists, as Glen Beck would put it, we need to look at the real story here.
The real story is that we caught a key member of Al Qaeda (the people the left say we should be focusing on instead of Iraq) in Iraq. This shows that the enemies who hit us on 9/11 and want to continue attacking us use Iraq as a location to retreat to. If we were not in Iraq, do you think we would have made this capture? If Bin laden was to hide in Iraq, do you really think Saddam would let us walk in and get him? This proves that Iraq is a key ground in this war with these terrorists.
But do you think the left will give any value to this? No. They will continue to argue that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on the terrorists. But we would have not made this bust if it wasn't for the war in Iraq.
I think the left look at this war all wrong. They think if we cut off the head of the dragon (bin Laden) then all will be right with the world. I wonder if they're more concerned with revenge than preventing another attack. But the terrorists are more like a starfish than a snake. We can't cut off part of it because it will grow back. We have to wipe it out in all forms and regardless of where it is.
The sad thing is that there are people in this country so brainwashed, they'll ignore this story and continue with the rhetoric that "Bush lied, people died," or "Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror." I think we all need to point this out to them. We can't let this story slide under the rug. So for all my conservative friends, I want you to take note of this story and be sure to point this out to anyone on the left who says Iraq has no value to the war with the terrorists.
The real story is that we caught a key member of Al Qaeda (the people the left say we should be focusing on instead of Iraq) in Iraq. This shows that the enemies who hit us on 9/11 and want to continue attacking us use Iraq as a location to retreat to. If we were not in Iraq, do you think we would have made this capture? If Bin laden was to hide in Iraq, do you really think Saddam would let us walk in and get him? This proves that Iraq is a key ground in this war with these terrorists.
But do you think the left will give any value to this? No. They will continue to argue that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on the terrorists. But we would have not made this bust if it wasn't for the war in Iraq.
I think the left look at this war all wrong. They think if we cut off the head of the dragon (bin Laden) then all will be right with the world. I wonder if they're more concerned with revenge than preventing another attack. But the terrorists are more like a starfish than a snake. We can't cut off part of it because it will grow back. We have to wipe it out in all forms and regardless of where it is.
The sad thing is that there are people in this country so brainwashed, they'll ignore this story and continue with the rhetoric that "Bush lied, people died," or "Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror." I think we all need to point this out to them. We can't let this story slide under the rug. So for all my conservative friends, I want you to take note of this story and be sure to point this out to anyone on the left who says Iraq has no value to the war with the terrorists.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Remembering and reflecting
So we have recently observed the 5th anniversary of 9-11. As we reflect, I think we need to look at the focus of our country. Take President Bush's recent speech commemorating the event. It seems that much of the left can only cry "foul!" about it all.
And it's really sad. They say he's using the moment as a political move. Leave it to people who don't care about what happened to us on that day to do such a thing.
The left complains that Bush never provided details on how he plans to go after the terrorists in his speech. I consider that a good thing. We don't need the terrorists knowing how we plan to take them down. Even more, we don't need the left knowing what we're doing so they can interfere.
The fact of the matter is we were attacked. Thousands on innocent civilians were murdered. They want to do the same again.
We need to be tapping phone conversations going in and out of this country. Customs has a right to search packages, letters, and whatnot going in and out of this country, how do phone calls differ?
How can we be complaining about the conditions at Gitmo? The people there live better than some Americans! Air Conditions, meals daily, that would be the good life for a lot of people out on our own street.
The fact of the matter is the terrorists have not lost their resolve. I hope that most of you reading this here haven't lost any of your resolve to go after these guys.
And it's really sad. They say he's using the moment as a political move. Leave it to people who don't care about what happened to us on that day to do such a thing.
The left complains that Bush never provided details on how he plans to go after the terrorists in his speech. I consider that a good thing. We don't need the terrorists knowing how we plan to take them down. Even more, we don't need the left knowing what we're doing so they can interfere.
The fact of the matter is we were attacked. Thousands on innocent civilians were murdered. They want to do the same again.
We need to be tapping phone conversations going in and out of this country. Customs has a right to search packages, letters, and whatnot going in and out of this country, how do phone calls differ?
How can we be complaining about the conditions at Gitmo? The people there live better than some Americans! Air Conditions, meals daily, that would be the good life for a lot of people out on our own street.
The fact of the matter is the terrorists have not lost their resolve. I hope that most of you reading this here haven't lost any of your resolve to go after these guys.
First Meeting
The first meeting of the school year for the WMU College Republicans is today at 9 PM in the Brown and Gold Room of the Bernhard Center. We will kick off another action-packed year for our group. To learn more, visit our group's news page.
Rumors of whether we will debate the burning issue of whether students should stand during football games remain unconfirmed.
Rumors of whether we will debate the burning issue of whether students should stand during football games remain unconfirmed.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Education
This update focuses on education. A new school year is underway. Government control and liberalism continue to damage education. Meanwhile, teachers' unions are striking in the Detroit Public Schools and Eastern Michigan University.
Phyllis Schlafly shows how courts and the NEA are imposing liberalism on education.
Schlafly explains that government schools stifle debate about evolution.
Walter Williams exposes liberalism and miseducation on college campuses.
Bob Williams explains how unions take their members' money and give it to liberals.
Dan Lips explains how technology is improving education.
Andrew Young and Walter Block argue that education should be privatized.
Phyllis Schlafly shows how courts and the NEA are imposing liberalism on education.
Schlafly explains that government schools stifle debate about evolution.
Walter Williams exposes liberalism and miseducation on college campuses.
Bob Williams explains how unions take their members' money and give it to liberals.
Dan Lips explains how technology is improving education.
Andrew Young and Walter Block argue that education should be privatized.
Football follies
Western opened its football season on "CommUniverCity" night. The result, a 31-10 Bronco win over Toledo, left no reason for complaint. I have a couple other complaints, however.
It is practically impossible to park for the game without paying. Western has blocked off all the lots within half a mile of the stadium. To account for the parking shortage, Western set up a shuttle bus from Lawson Arena. However, they also require payment for those lots as well. They even blocked off the Miller ramp and surrounding lots--even though these lots stood almost completely empty. The only purpose for blocking them off was to stop people from getting free parking within a reasonable walking distance of the stadium.
Private property owners are within their rights to charge whatever they want for parking. But Western isn't private. It also has a near-monopoly on parking in the area. Western students pay good money for parking permits ($300 per year at last count). They shouldn't be denied access to what they paid for because Western wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of people.
My other complaint has to do with the students. Normal paying fans will stand up when there's a big play, and then SIT BACK DOWN. Western students, on the other hand, STAY STANDING THE ENTIRE GAME. I don't know about you, but standing in place for an hour at a time isn't my idea of fun. Of course, in the student section, you can't sit down if you want to see anything. The view isn't any better than if everyone sat down. And yet everyone stands. (UPDATE: Ok, it's not Western, it's an odd tradition.) There's a reason I don't sit in the student section anymore.
It is practically impossible to park for the game without paying. Western has blocked off all the lots within half a mile of the stadium. To account for the parking shortage, Western set up a shuttle bus from Lawson Arena. However, they also require payment for those lots as well. They even blocked off the Miller ramp and surrounding lots--even though these lots stood almost completely empty. The only purpose for blocking them off was to stop people from getting free parking within a reasonable walking distance of the stadium.
Private property owners are within their rights to charge whatever they want for parking. But Western isn't private. It also has a near-monopoly on parking in the area. Western students pay good money for parking permits ($300 per year at last count). They shouldn't be denied access to what they paid for because Western wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of people.
My other complaint has to do with the students. Normal paying fans will stand up when there's a big play, and then SIT BACK DOWN. Western students, on the other hand, STAY STANDING THE ENTIRE GAME. I don't know about you, but standing in place for an hour at a time isn't my idea of fun. Of course, in the student section, you can't sit down if you want to see anything. The view isn't any better than if everyone sat down. And yet everyone stands. (UPDATE: Ok, it's not Western, it's an odd tradition.) There's a reason I don't sit in the student section anymore.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Bronco Bash
Bronco Bash, the annual event where student organizations, businesses, and churches can promote themselves to students, will be held today. It will take place in the area between Rood and Wood halls, roughly between 3 PM and 7 PM.
The WMU College Republicans will have a booth where we will recruit new members, register voters, distribute literature and information, and give away posters. Members of the group are encouraged to stop by and help out. Conservative college students are encouraged to stop by and join our group.
Other worthy groups like the Kalamazoo County Republican Party, Students for Life and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship will also have booths.
The WMU College Republicans will have a booth where we will recruit new members, register voters, distribute literature and information, and give away posters. Members of the group are encouraged to stop by and help out. Conservative college students are encouraged to stop by and join our group.
Other worthy groups like the Kalamazoo County Republican Party, Students for Life and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship will also have booths.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Welcome Back!
Welcome back to another year at Western!
The first day of classes is now on the books.
Western has torn down enough of the barb-wire fence to make campus passable one again. The sidewalks on the west side of the new chemistry building are complete. Work continues inside the building.
The Western Herald has revamped its website. They now allow comments on the articles. Tuesday's back-to-school issue features an article on tuition that extensively quotes State Representative Jack Hoogendyk. (It doesn't seem to be online.)
The WMU College Republicans are ready for another action-packed year promoting conservative culture, policies, and candidates.
The first day of classes is now on the books.
Western has torn down enough of the barb-wire fence to make campus passable one again. The sidewalks on the west side of the new chemistry building are complete. Work continues inside the building.
The Western Herald has revamped its website. They now allow comments on the articles. Tuesday's back-to-school issue features an article on tuition that extensively quotes State Representative Jack Hoogendyk. (It doesn't seem to be online.)
The WMU College Republicans are ready for another action-packed year promoting conservative culture, policies, and candidates.
Right to Work
Labor day is a day when nobody works, which is a pretty good summary of the labor movement these days. The labor movement is not a natural product of the worker solidarity, if it ever was. Instead, it is a creature of legal privilege. Specifically, if a given employer is unionized, the government forces all workers to pay union dues whether they want to or not.
This is outrageous. People should not be forced to give money to a union if they don't want to. Apparently, a majority of Michiganders agree. An article in the Free Press states that a poll shows that voters support repealing mandatory union dues by a 56-35 margin. This is true in a heavy union state, with 42% of union members supporting the change.
The unions aren't happy about this.
I'd love to see how liberals would like to see the "free rider" argument used against them. For example, we know that gun ownership reduces crime. This benefits everyone, not just the people who own guns. The National Rifle Association defends gun ownership. Therefore, everyone should be required to pay dues to the NRA.
Or how about this. Some people who are now alive would have been killed without the current restrictions on abortion. Therefore everyone should be forced to pay dues to Right to Life.
Then there's this.
If unions want my money, they should have to work for it. But that's not the union way.
This is outrageous. People should not be forced to give money to a union if they don't want to. Apparently, a majority of Michiganders agree. An article in the Free Press states that a poll shows that voters support repealing mandatory union dues by a 56-35 margin. This is true in a heavy union state, with 42% of union members supporting the change.
The unions aren't happy about this.
Peter Eckstein, an Ann Arbor-based economist formerly on the staff of the Michigan AFL-CIO, said that if the question had been posed not as an issue of choice, but as whether workers should be allowed to freeload off of union benefits paid for by others, the response may have been different.He's right, but freedom of choice is the right way to think about it. The fact is that you have to pay the union regardless of whether it produces the promised benefits.
I'd love to see how liberals would like to see the "free rider" argument used against them. For example, we know that gun ownership reduces crime. This benefits everyone, not just the people who own guns. The National Rifle Association defends gun ownership. Therefore, everyone should be required to pay dues to the NRA.
Or how about this. Some people who are now alive would have been killed without the current restrictions on abortion. Therefore everyone should be forced to pay dues to Right to Life.
Then there's this.
Kevin King, 34, a unionized librarian in Kalamazoo's public library system, said he would vote against attempts to make Michigan a right-to-work state. But even King, who grew up in a UAW household and is active in his union, said he can see the complexity in the issue.Kalamazoo has unionized librarians?
If unions want my money, they should have to work for it. But that's not the union way.
Detroit Public Schools
Putting the interests of the children ahead of anything else, "teachers" in the Detroit Public Schools are planning an illegal strike. The only good thing that one can say about them is that given the disastrous state of the Detroit Public Schools, perhaps it would be better if they just stayed on strike. From Human Events:
The Detroit school district faces a $105 million budget shortfall this year, which is why officials proposed the pay cut for teachers. In recent years, the school system has hemorrhaged, with as many as 10,000 students leaving each year to attend charter schools, private schools, and suburban school districts, according to the Detroit News.
There is a good reason students are leaving in droves: Just 22 percent of Detroit public school students graduate. That’s the lowest graduation rate among the nation’s 50 largest school districts, according to a recent report published by the Council of the Great City Schools. The system with the second-worst graduation rate is Baltimore City, where 39 percent of students graduated -- a pitiful performance but nearly twice Detroit’s rate. About 26,000 Detroit students are currently enrolled in chronically failing public schools, as defined under No Child Left Behind.
...
The lesson of the Thompson donation controversy, as well as the current teachers’ union strike, is clear: The public education establishment has different interests than children and families. While the Detroit public schools systematically fail their students, the greatest concerns of the teachers union and the public school bureaucracy are to protect their own interests and prevent any competition, without regard for what would benefit students.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
POLITICAL UPDATE--Communism
This update focuses on communism. Whatever the fate of Fidel Castro, communists remain in control of Cuba. Meanwhile, Red China continues to plot against freedom.
Humberto Fontova shows how liberals have defended Castro.
Bruce Bartlett tells how the New York Times helped put Castro in power.
Jerome Corsi exposes China's use of slave labor.
Ed Timperlake argues that China is responsible for North Korea's nuclear weapons.
Timperlake exposes Chinese espionage in America.
Ron Paul explains how our taxes subsidize China.
Pratik Chougule explains how the Venona project proved communist subversion.
Walter Williams examines communism in American academia.
Humberto Fontova shows how liberals have defended Castro.
Bruce Bartlett tells how the New York Times helped put Castro in power.
Jerome Corsi exposes China's use of slave labor.
Ed Timperlake argues that China is responsible for North Korea's nuclear weapons.
Timperlake exposes Chinese espionage in America.
Ron Paul explains how our taxes subsidize China.
Pratik Chougule explains how the Venona project proved communist subversion.
Walter Williams examines communism in American academia.
The Great Deception
Something is rotten in Europe. That is the inescapable conclusion after reading The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union by Christopher Booker and Richard North.
Booker and North provide a detailed history of the construction of the European Union. As the title implies, every stage of this long process has been cloaked in deception.
The real goal of the European Union is to create a supernational government that will control all of Europe. It will have common economic, monetary, foreign and military policies, along with its own constitution, flag, anthem, and all the other trappings of a state. It will have practically limitless power to interfere with every aspect of its subjects' lives. Furthermore, the EU would not be democratic in any meaningful way, but would be dominated by a small elite.
In fact, much of this already exists. This is not an accident. It was foreseen from the beginning by its founder, Jean Monnet, who was plotting a United States of Europe as early as the 1920s. However, Monnet realized that the people did not support his schemes. Thus he decided that his plans would have to be implemented gradually and by using deception.
Hence the book's title. Monnet and the plan's proponents consistently lied about the true nature of the European project. Whatever step was being considered was always small and innocuous, without any broader implications. It was always directed towards some laudable goal, such as improving cooperation with other countries, promoting peace, improving the economy, and reducing regulation. In truth, the nations of Europe were progressively surrendering their sovereignty.
Particularly interesting is the use of "free trade" in this debate. Proponents of the European project often argued that it was just a free trade agreement or that it would promote free trade. But instead of reducing taxes and regulation, it transferred them to a higher level. It reduced national tariffs and regulation, but increased European tariffs and regulation. The European bureaucrats, or Eurocrats, have created thousands of new laws governing almost everything imaginable. Europeans ended up with less economic freedom, not more.
In fact, the European project bears a disturbing resemblance to the efforts of American elites to destroy our sovereignty through "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the SPP.
The authors show that the European Union is not democratic. It has elections, but they have virtually no impact on the decisions that the EU makes. The real powers are the unelected, unaccountable Eurocrats and judges.
Booker and North are prominent British Euroskeptics, and they approach the EU from a British perspective. British prime ministers have either outright betrayed their country by participating in the deception or have been naive proponents of Europe who were consistently maneuvered into surrendering more sovereignty.
Margaret Thatcher began as a proponent of "Europe." As Prime Minister, she became increasingly opposed to the EU. Eventually, EU leaders inspired members of her own party to launch a coup to remove her from office.
Awareness of the true nature of Europe has grown of late, leading to the rejection of the proposed European constitution by referenda in France and The Netherlands. The future of the European project is now uncertain. But even if it goes no further, a great deal has already been lost.
The Great Deception is packed with detail and at times can make for difficult reading. But it is well worth it for anyone who is interested in protecting national sovereignty.
Booker and North provide a detailed history of the construction of the European Union. As the title implies, every stage of this long process has been cloaked in deception.
The real goal of the European Union is to create a supernational government that will control all of Europe. It will have common economic, monetary, foreign and military policies, along with its own constitution, flag, anthem, and all the other trappings of a state. It will have practically limitless power to interfere with every aspect of its subjects' lives. Furthermore, the EU would not be democratic in any meaningful way, but would be dominated by a small elite.
In fact, much of this already exists. This is not an accident. It was foreseen from the beginning by its founder, Jean Monnet, who was plotting a United States of Europe as early as the 1920s. However, Monnet realized that the people did not support his schemes. Thus he decided that his plans would have to be implemented gradually and by using deception.
Hence the book's title. Monnet and the plan's proponents consistently lied about the true nature of the European project. Whatever step was being considered was always small and innocuous, without any broader implications. It was always directed towards some laudable goal, such as improving cooperation with other countries, promoting peace, improving the economy, and reducing regulation. In truth, the nations of Europe were progressively surrendering their sovereignty.
Particularly interesting is the use of "free trade" in this debate. Proponents of the European project often argued that it was just a free trade agreement or that it would promote free trade. But instead of reducing taxes and regulation, it transferred them to a higher level. It reduced national tariffs and regulation, but increased European tariffs and regulation. The European bureaucrats, or Eurocrats, have created thousands of new laws governing almost everything imaginable. Europeans ended up with less economic freedom, not more.
In fact, the European project bears a disturbing resemblance to the efforts of American elites to destroy our sovereignty through "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the SPP.
The authors show that the European Union is not democratic. It has elections, but they have virtually no impact on the decisions that the EU makes. The real powers are the unelected, unaccountable Eurocrats and judges.
Booker and North are prominent British Euroskeptics, and they approach the EU from a British perspective. British prime ministers have either outright betrayed their country by participating in the deception or have been naive proponents of Europe who were consistently maneuvered into surrendering more sovereignty.
Margaret Thatcher began as a proponent of "Europe." As Prime Minister, she became increasingly opposed to the EU. Eventually, EU leaders inspired members of her own party to launch a coup to remove her from office.
Awareness of the true nature of Europe has grown of late, leading to the rejection of the proposed European constitution by referenda in France and The Netherlands. The future of the European project is now uncertain. But even if it goes no further, a great deal has already been lost.
The Great Deception is packed with detail and at times can make for difficult reading. But it is well worth it for anyone who is interested in protecting national sovereignty.
Judge commits fraud
Responding to the latest sham lawsuit filed against the MCRI, a Clinton-appointed federal judge allowed it so stay on the ballot while attacking it for supposedly committing fraud. The claim is that the backers of the petition drive lied to get signatures to get the MCRI on the ballot.
The claims of fraud are debunked in a detailed report on the Michigan Civil Rights website.
An excellent article in the Wall Street Journal describes the tactics that the communist front-group BAMN used to pressure and intimidate signers of the petition. Mainstream media reports continue to ignore the background of this extremist group in their reports.
The article is well worth reading in its entirety. Here is an excerpt.
The claims of fraud are debunked in a detailed report on the Michigan Civil Rights website.
An excellent article in the Wall Street Journal describes the tactics that the communist front-group BAMN used to pressure and intimidate signers of the petition. Mainstream media reports continue to ignore the background of this extremist group in their reports.
The article is well worth reading in its entirety. Here is an excerpt.
So the group launched an "investigation." They systematically called and personally visited blacks who'd signed the petition. In some cities, they had friendly talk show hosts read the names of black signers over the radio. In all cases BAMN's message was the same: How could you, a black person, sign a petition to roll back affirmative action?
BAMN's high-pressure tactics worked. Some signers and even gatherers decided they'd been deceived. In some cases they recalled being told that the petition was to "support affirmative action" and to help get their "children into college." Using pre-printed affidavits (some "signed" over the phone), BAMN collected statements from dozens of individuals and started a legal campaign to get the referendum pulled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)