You can get national and statewide results lots of other places. This post will focus on Kalamazoo area election results.
See the raw numbers from Election Magic.
Obama won 58.9% in Kalamazoo County, to 39.4% for McCain.
Carl Levin won 59.1% in Kalamazoo County to 37.6% for Jack Hoogendyk.
Fred Upton got 53.6% in Kalamazoo County to 43.8% for Don Cooney.
In the 60th state house district, Robert Jones won 30135 (73.9%) to 10658 (26.1%) for Charles Ybema.
In the 61st state house district, Larry DeShazor won 28303 (51.1%) to 27122 (48.9%) for Julie Rogers. The 61st district still leans Republican.
In the 63rd state house district, James Bolger won 15600 to 11870 over Phyllis Smith in Kalamazoo County and 12041 to 9309 in Calhoun County, for a total of 27641 (56.6%) to 21179 (43.4%). This district is still Republican, and it didn't have a hotly contested primary this time.
Prosecutor: Republican Jeff Fink was reelected 62676 (52.2%) to 57326 (47.8%) over Robert Champion. Fink worked very hard for this.
Sheriff: Republican Michael Anderson lost reelection 56010 (46.7%) to 63859 (53.3%) to democrat Richard Fuller. This is what happens when you're an incumbent who doesn't campaign at all.
Clerk: Republican Tim Snow was reelected 61282 (52.1%) to 56285 (47.9%) for democrat David Kinsey. Snow didn't campaign that much.
Treasurer: Republican Mary Balkema won a very narrow victory 59603 (50.5%) to 58434 (49.5%) for democrat Julie Kaufman. Mary worked very hard and Kaufman didn't even campaign.
Drain Commissioner: Republican Pat Krause was crushed 49419 (42.4%) to 67173 (57.6%) by democrat Pat Crowley.
Surveyor: Republican Bill Hahn was unopposed. If the democrats could have found someone to run for this seat they would have won it.
County commission:
District 9: Republican Nasim Ansari narrowly survived 3585 (51.9%) to 3326 (48.1%) against Dorphine Payne.
District 10: Republican James Graham lost the seat of the retiring Tom Drabik 3569 (49.7%) to 3605 (50.3%) to Michael Quinn.
District 12: Republican Chris Haenicke lost 4298 (46.7%) to 4906 (53.3%) to democrat John Nieuwenhuis.
District 15: Republican Ann Nieuwenhuis defeated incumbent democrat Leroy Crabtree 3849 (54.5%) to 3224 (45.5%).
This means the Republicans and democrats traded a pair of seats, so the county commission will stay 9-8 democrat.
Townships:
Republicans got wiped out in Kalamazoo Township. Ditto in Comstock Township. In Oshtemo, Republican Bob Brink was defeated for supervisor by Libby Heiny-Cogswell. Democrats Grace Borgfjord and Scott McCormick, who did absolutely no campaigning, won trustee positions, along with incumbent Republicans Dave Bushouse and Jim Grace.
8th district court: Julie Phillips defeated Bill Murphy 49271 (55.2%) to 39994 (44.8%). Score one for Republicans, thanks to not having party labels on the ballot. Women have an advantage in judicial races in the general election.
The transportation millage was overwhelmingly defeated, 69993 (58%) to 50653 (42%), despite there not being any organized campaign against it.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Health News
Partners need knowledge in cases of HIV
Two arrests were recently made in Kalamazoo where the offenders were charged with not alerting their sexual partner of an HIV-positive diagnosis, said Carrie Klein, chief assistant prosecuting attorney in Kalamazoo County.Project Light prevents LGBT suicide
In light of the arrests, doctors at the Sindecuse Health Center want Western Michigan University students to know the risks associated with HIV and other STDs, said Marci Ellis, assistant medical director at Sindecuse.“If a student is diagnosed with HIV, they should seek support from a primary care clinician and infectious disease specialist,” said Lisa Marshall, M.D., medical director at Sindecuse. “A primary care clinician will be able to coordinate care and services needed and an infectious disease specialist will monitor and treat the disease process.”
The arrests were made after rumors began to spread that certain people had HIV-positive diagnoses and the sexual partners found out, Klein said. “When the sexual partners found out, some of them went to police and filed the complaint.”
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election Day
See the 2008 Election Preview for information on the candidates and races.
See the Election Results links after the polls close.
See the Election Results links after the polls close.
Why Voting is Rational
In this election season, the conventional wisdom says that Americans should vote. Indeed, this message is pounded into our heads through overwhelming repetition. But those spreading this message often cast into doubt their own case by making such arguments as the this, from a public service announcement: "it doesn't matter how you vote, just that you vote". But if it doesn't matter how we vote, why bother?
There is, however, a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that holds that voting is basically irrational. This argument begins with the observation that the chances of any one person's vote changing the outcome of a major election (president, congress, statewide office) is infinitesimal. Someone did the math and concluded that you are more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the polls than to change the outcome of an election. Since your expected outcome is negative, the argument concludes that it is irrational to vote. This has become something close to conventional wisdom amongst economists.
One critique of this argument points out that it is only true on the margin. That is, it assumes that lots of other people are already voting. The fact that there are so many people voting is the reason why your vote is so unlikely to sway the outcome. If everyone followed the advice of this argument and stayed home, then nobody would vote. But if nobody voted, then casting a single vote would decide the outcome of every race.
Others point out some of the reasons why people vote. People may vote because they enjoy voting, or because they feel it is their 'civic duty', or because they would feel guilty about not voting. Others may believe that their vote is likely to change the election results. But none of these explanations address whether voting is rational.
Yet it is. The real flaw in the argument against voting is that it is confused about the purpose of voting. It addresses someone's ability to determine who occupies an office. But most voters don't vote simply because they want a particular person to occupy an office (though that may be a factor) but because they hope to affect public policy.
Certainly who wins elections affects public policy. But it is not the only factor. Consider the following thought experiment. In election outcome #1, candidate A wins 99% of the vote to candidate B's 1%, even after a vigorous campaign. In election outcome #2, candidate A wins 51% of the vote to candidate B's 49%.
On the question of who wins the election, these two outcomes are identical. But they do not have equal outcomes on public policy. That is because the actions of elected officials are not predetermined. They are affected by public opinion, which is expressed (among other places) at the polls.
In outcome #1, candidate A is likely think something like "The people love me. I can feel free to pursue my platform with their full support. I can do almost anything within reason and still get reelected." However, in outcome #2, candidate A is likely to think something like "Almost half the voters did not want me to win the election. I have to be very careful about pursuing my platform. I may have to amend or abandon parts of it. If I misstep I may be voted out of office."
While most politicians are not perfectly pliable, neither are they perfectly rigid in their positions. The one exception on the federal level is Ron Paul. Politicians who refuse to respond to public demand generally don't get elected or reelected. Even politicians with deeply-held beliefs rationalize voting against their own beliefs as "recognizing political reality".
Even if a politician is perfectly principled in his votes, he can still respond to public opinion in what bills he introduces and what causes he champions.
The effects of public opinion change on the margin. That is, one additional person supporting a cause changes the actions of politicians. The amount of change may be quite small, of course, in a large electorate. But it is greater than zero. This contrasts with the question of who holds an office, which does not change on the margin. Switching one vote does not shift a little bit of an office from one candidate to another. Your vote either swings the whole thing or does nothing.
Ironically, the case for voting is weakest regarding referenda, since ballot propositions do not respond to public opinion. Yet even here, the margin of victory or defeat can affect future attempts to pass referenda or other legislation.
Thus the conventional wisdom is right, if not for the right reason. Voting is rational, after all.
There is, however, a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that holds that voting is basically irrational. This argument begins with the observation that the chances of any one person's vote changing the outcome of a major election (president, congress, statewide office) is infinitesimal. Someone did the math and concluded that you are more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the polls than to change the outcome of an election. Since your expected outcome is negative, the argument concludes that it is irrational to vote. This has become something close to conventional wisdom amongst economists.
One critique of this argument points out that it is only true on the margin. That is, it assumes that lots of other people are already voting. The fact that there are so many people voting is the reason why your vote is so unlikely to sway the outcome. If everyone followed the advice of this argument and stayed home, then nobody would vote. But if nobody voted, then casting a single vote would decide the outcome of every race.
Others point out some of the reasons why people vote. People may vote because they enjoy voting, or because they feel it is their 'civic duty', or because they would feel guilty about not voting. Others may believe that their vote is likely to change the election results. But none of these explanations address whether voting is rational.
Yet it is. The real flaw in the argument against voting is that it is confused about the purpose of voting. It addresses someone's ability to determine who occupies an office. But most voters don't vote simply because they want a particular person to occupy an office (though that may be a factor) but because they hope to affect public policy.
Certainly who wins elections affects public policy. But it is not the only factor. Consider the following thought experiment. In election outcome #1, candidate A wins 99% of the vote to candidate B's 1%, even after a vigorous campaign. In election outcome #2, candidate A wins 51% of the vote to candidate B's 49%.
On the question of who wins the election, these two outcomes are identical. But they do not have equal outcomes on public policy. That is because the actions of elected officials are not predetermined. They are affected by public opinion, which is expressed (among other places) at the polls.
In outcome #1, candidate A is likely think something like "The people love me. I can feel free to pursue my platform with their full support. I can do almost anything within reason and still get reelected." However, in outcome #2, candidate A is likely to think something like "Almost half the voters did not want me to win the election. I have to be very careful about pursuing my platform. I may have to amend or abandon parts of it. If I misstep I may be voted out of office."
While most politicians are not perfectly pliable, neither are they perfectly rigid in their positions. The one exception on the federal level is Ron Paul. Politicians who refuse to respond to public demand generally don't get elected or reelected. Even politicians with deeply-held beliefs rationalize voting against their own beliefs as "recognizing political reality".
Even if a politician is perfectly principled in his votes, he can still respond to public opinion in what bills he introduces and what causes he champions.
The effects of public opinion change on the margin. That is, one additional person supporting a cause changes the actions of politicians. The amount of change may be quite small, of course, in a large electorate. But it is greater than zero. This contrasts with the question of who holds an office, which does not change on the margin. Switching one vote does not shift a little bit of an office from one candidate to another. Your vote either swings the whole thing or does nothing.
Ironically, the case for voting is weakest regarding referenda, since ballot propositions do not respond to public opinion. Yet even here, the margin of victory or defeat can affect future attempts to pass referenda or other legislation.
Thus the conventional wisdom is right, if not for the right reason. Voting is rational, after all.
Monday, November 03, 2008
John Niewenhuis Can't Spell
John Nieuwenhuis is the democratic Kalamazoo County Commissioner representing district 12, which covers most of Oshtemo Township. He has giant signs scattered around Oshtemo, asking voters to, well, something.
His Republican opponent is Chris Haenicke, who can spell.
His Republican opponent is Chris Haenicke, who can spell.
The Carl Levin Record
Note: This post remains a work in progress.
The Carl Levin Record
Occupations
US Senator (1978-present)
Detroit City Council (1969-1977)
Attorney
Websites
US Senate: http://levin.senate.gov/
Campaign: http://www.carllevin.com/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin
General Politics
Levin is very liberal. He has a lifetime 7% rating from the American Conservative Union.
Abortion
Carl Levin supports abortion on demand, including the most extreme cases. He voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion, when a baby is born except for the head and then killed. Levin also voted against criminal penalties for crimes that harm an unborn baby.
Levin even voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions. He even voted against notifying parents that their daughter has gotten an out-of-state abortion. One of the main purposes of parental notification laws is to prevent statutory rapists from destroying the evidence of their crimes by pressuring or coercing young women into having abortions. If one state requires parental notification, rapists will drive to another state that doesn't. But Carl Levin voted against this protecting against statutory rape.
On The Issues: Carl Levin on Abortion
Core Principles: Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda
Core Principles: I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.
Scotty Boman: Levin votes to allow federal funds to support forced abortions
Energy
Carl Levin has consistently opposed energy production and supported government regulations. Levin has promoted government meddling in the energy sector, increased government regulations, ineffective 'alternative energy', and poverty-increasing 'conservation'. He supported the 2007 energy bill which included a bundle of bad regulations, including banning traditional light bulbs. 'Alternative energy' is inefficient and ineffective, and only exists due to government spending of taxpayer money.
Levin supported CAFE fuel economy standards that lead to thousands of additional car crash deaths per year. This is because mandating higher gas mileages forces people into lighter cars. They are less safe, and lead to more traffic fatalities. CAFE standards also hurt Michigan's already struggling auto industry, and lead to more Michigan job losses.
Levin has been a leader in promoting conspiracy theories of oil company price manipulation. Investigations have repeatedly debunked these claims.
Levin also voted for higher gas taxes. The so-called 'windfall profits tax' would have reduced the profit motive, thus discouraging energy production and increasing gas prices.
Levin supported cloture on the Lieberman-Warner bill to raise taxes via a 'cap-and-trade' system to fight the supposed threat of global warming. He said that he would have voted against final passage, however.
Meanwhile, Levin was opposing increasing energy production, the only policy that can really reduce energy prices. He has repeatedly opposed new drilling for oil in Alaska. Drilling in a tiny portion on ANWR could produce millions of barrels of American oil, lowering gas prices and creating jobs. This would not hurt the environment at all. But time after time, year after year, Carl Levin opposed drilling for oil in Alaska.
The Western Right: How Carl Levin Helped Hike Gas Prices
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Energy & Oil
Core Principles: Carl Levin: We Can't Drill Our Way Out
Foreign Policy
Gun Rights
Carl Levin has a long anti-gun voting record. He voted against protecting gun manufacturers against lawsuits designed to bankrupt them. He voted to impose more regulations on guns shows. He opposed prohibiting government from confiscating guns. Levin offered an amendment to make it impossible for gun manufacturers to file for bankruptcy. Levin supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons". He has F ratings for both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
Perhaps Levin's most outrageous attack on gun rights involved a provision of the 2001 defense authorization bill passed shortly after 9/11. This provision involved the "demilitarization" of former military weapons. An NRA alert explains the issue.
Levin fought to protect the provision and offered several "compromises" attempting to preserve it, as related in this GOA alert. The provision was eventually stripped out of the bill. A later GOA alert concludes
The Western Right: Carl Levin's Plan to Ban Guns
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Gun Control
Jim Zumbo: Jim Zumbo Letter to the U.S. Senate Opposing a Ban on "Assault Weapons"
National Rifle Association: Congress Considers "Demilitarization" Requirement
The Washington Times: Bill provision has military collectors up in arms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Warner Still Holds the Key to Stopping Confiscation of Firearms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Smith Announces Victory on Gun "Demil" Provision
Gun Owners of America: Backdoor Gun Control To Be Voted On In The Senate
Immigration
Marriage
In 1996, Levin voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that prevents one state from opposing its definition of marriage on another. However, Levin voted against a federal constitutional definition of marriage. He also refused to support the 2004 Michigan marriage amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He supports so-called "civil unions", which are the same in all but name to so-called "gay marriage".
Levin has voted to punish employers who take sexual behavior into account in their hiring decisions. He has also voted for 'hate crimes' bills including homosexuality that would criminalize certain thoughts under certain circumstances. He has voted to spend taxpayers' money on benefits for 'domestic partners' of government employees.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Civil Rights
Carl Levin: Statement of Senator Carl Levin on Gay Marriage
Regulation
Sovereignty
Carl Levin has been a consistent supporter of the United Nations. He has voted to give billions to the International Monetary Fund. He has voted for sending UN troops to Darfur in the Sudan.
Levin voted for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which contained an endorsement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Levin voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he voted for most-favored-nation trading status with China.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Foreign Policy
Carl Levin: Senate Fast Track Vote
Spending
Taxes
The Carl Levin Record
Occupations
US Senator (1978-present)
Detroit City Council (1969-1977)
Attorney
Websites
US Senate: http://levin.senate.gov/
Campaign: http://www.carllevin.com/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin
General Politics
Levin is very liberal. He has a lifetime 7% rating from the American Conservative Union.
Abortion
Carl Levin supports abortion on demand, including the most extreme cases. He voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion, when a baby is born except for the head and then killed. Levin also voted against criminal penalties for crimes that harm an unborn baby.
Levin even voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions. He even voted against notifying parents that their daughter has gotten an out-of-state abortion. One of the main purposes of parental notification laws is to prevent statutory rapists from destroying the evidence of their crimes by pressuring or coercing young women into having abortions. If one state requires parental notification, rapists will drive to another state that doesn't. But Carl Levin voted against this protecting against statutory rape.
On The Issues: Carl Levin on Abortion
Core Principles: Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda
Core Principles: I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.
Scotty Boman: Levin votes to allow federal funds to support forced abortions
Energy
Carl Levin has consistently opposed energy production and supported government regulations. Levin has promoted government meddling in the energy sector, increased government regulations, ineffective 'alternative energy', and poverty-increasing 'conservation'. He supported the 2007 energy bill which included a bundle of bad regulations, including banning traditional light bulbs. 'Alternative energy' is inefficient and ineffective, and only exists due to government spending of taxpayer money.
Levin supported CAFE fuel economy standards that lead to thousands of additional car crash deaths per year. This is because mandating higher gas mileages forces people into lighter cars. They are less safe, and lead to more traffic fatalities. CAFE standards also hurt Michigan's already struggling auto industry, and lead to more Michigan job losses.
Levin has been a leader in promoting conspiracy theories of oil company price manipulation. Investigations have repeatedly debunked these claims.
Levin also voted for higher gas taxes. The so-called 'windfall profits tax' would have reduced the profit motive, thus discouraging energy production and increasing gas prices.
Levin supported cloture on the Lieberman-Warner bill to raise taxes via a 'cap-and-trade' system to fight the supposed threat of global warming. He said that he would have voted against final passage, however.
Meanwhile, Levin was opposing increasing energy production, the only policy that can really reduce energy prices. He has repeatedly opposed new drilling for oil in Alaska. Drilling in a tiny portion on ANWR could produce millions of barrels of American oil, lowering gas prices and creating jobs. This would not hurt the environment at all. But time after time, year after year, Carl Levin opposed drilling for oil in Alaska.
The Western Right: How Carl Levin Helped Hike Gas Prices
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Energy & Oil
Core Principles: Carl Levin: We Can't Drill Our Way Out
Foreign Policy
Gun Rights
Carl Levin has a long anti-gun voting record. He voted against protecting gun manufacturers against lawsuits designed to bankrupt them. He voted to impose more regulations on guns shows. He opposed prohibiting government from confiscating guns. Levin offered an amendment to make it impossible for gun manufacturers to file for bankruptcy. Levin supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons". He has F ratings for both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
Perhaps Levin's most outrageous attack on gun rights involved a provision of the 2001 defense authorization bill passed shortly after 9/11. This provision involved the "demilitarization" of former military weapons. An NRA alert explains the issue.
This week, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1438, the Department of Defense (DoD) annual authorization bill, which contains a provision that is of grave concern to hunters and sport shooters. Section 1062 of this bill provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder. "Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD. However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item.The provision was passed by the Senate, then under democrat control, but was stripped out of the corresponding bill in the House, which was under Republican control. Then, as now, Michigan Senator Carl Levin was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was one of the negotiators in the conference committee to iron out the differences between the two bills.
Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for non-compliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization. This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been regularly—and legally—bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed.
Levin fought to protect the provision and offered several "compromises" attempting to preserve it, as related in this GOA alert. The provision was eventually stripped out of the bill. A later GOA alert concludes
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made several attempts to keep the provision by offering compromise after compromise, but the loud outcry from grassroots activists strengthened the bargaining position of pro-gun legislators.In summary, Carl Levin fought hard to give government the authority the confiscate and destroy millions of privately owned firearms. These firearms were based on military designs, but are no more dangerous than any other civilian firearms. They include some of the hunting rifles that democrats claim to like so much. Adding insult to injury, this provision, which Carl Levin fought so hard to protect, was almost smuggled through shortly after the attacks of 9/11.
The Western Right: Carl Levin's Plan to Ban Guns
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Gun Control
Jim Zumbo: Jim Zumbo Letter to the U.S. Senate Opposing a Ban on "Assault Weapons"
National Rifle Association: Congress Considers "Demilitarization" Requirement
The Washington Times: Bill provision has military collectors up in arms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Warner Still Holds the Key to Stopping Confiscation of Firearms
Gun Owners of America: Sen. Smith Announces Victory on Gun "Demil" Provision
Gun Owners of America: Backdoor Gun Control To Be Voted On In The Senate
Immigration
Marriage
In 1996, Levin voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that prevents one state from opposing its definition of marriage on another. However, Levin voted against a federal constitutional definition of marriage. He also refused to support the 2004 Michigan marriage amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He supports so-called "civil unions", which are the same in all but name to so-called "gay marriage".
Levin has voted to punish employers who take sexual behavior into account in their hiring decisions. He has also voted for 'hate crimes' bills including homosexuality that would criminalize certain thoughts under certain circumstances. He has voted to spend taxpayers' money on benefits for 'domestic partners' of government employees.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Civil Rights
Carl Levin: Statement of Senator Carl Levin on Gay Marriage
Regulation
Sovereignty
Carl Levin has been a consistent supporter of the United Nations. He has voted to give billions to the International Monetary Fund. He has voted for sending UN troops to Darfur in the Sudan.
Levin voted for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which contained an endorsement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Levin voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he voted for most-favored-nation trading status with China.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Foreign Policy
Carl Levin: Senate Fast Track Vote
Spending
Taxes
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Seen in the New York Times
From the New York Times:
------------------
On Campuses, McCain Supporters Are Running on a Shoestring and Conviction. (National Desk).
...
On Saturdays, the campaign sometimes holds 45-minute conference calls with students, said Megan Buwalda, a McCain volunteer and senior at Western Michigan University.
''They give us talking points,'' Ms. Buwalda said. ''Like '10 reasons why the youth would be excited to vote for McCain.' '' (One reason, she said, is ''McCain will be the first to bring global warming as an issue to the Republican Party.'')
But those talking points do not always go over well, she said, especially when so many other students are focused on Mr. McCain's lack of tech-savvy, his out-of-date cultural references and, most of all, his age.
''People do make a big deal out of that,'' Ms. Buwalda said. '' 'McCain, he's out of touch, he's old,' things like that. But I really think, Barack Obama might use his BlackBerry more often, but McCain spent his life serving the country.''
--------------
The Kids Aren't Diggity-Down for John McCain
Megan states that she was misquoted by the New York Times.
------------------
On Campuses, McCain Supporters Are Running on a Shoestring and Conviction. (National Desk).
...
On Saturdays, the campaign sometimes holds 45-minute conference calls with students, said Megan Buwalda, a McCain volunteer and senior at Western Michigan University.
''They give us talking points,'' Ms. Buwalda said. ''Like '10 reasons why the youth would be excited to vote for McCain.' '' (One reason, she said, is ''McCain will be the first to bring global warming as an issue to the Republican Party.'')
But those talking points do not always go over well, she said, especially when so many other students are focused on Mr. McCain's lack of tech-savvy, his out-of-date cultural references and, most of all, his age.
''People do make a big deal out of that,'' Ms. Buwalda said. '' 'McCain, he's out of touch, he's old,' things like that. But I really think, Barack Obama might use his BlackBerry more often, but McCain spent his life serving the country.''
--------------
The Kids Aren't Diggity-Down for John McCain
Megan states that she was misquoted by the New York Times.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Whither the Bradley Effect?
Heading into election 2008, most polls show Barack Obama with a small but significant lead over John McCain. But can the polls be trusted?
In recent weeks there has been increasing discussion of the 'Bradley effect'. This is the phenomenon that black candidates do better in polls than they do in actual election results. It is named after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who had a significant lead in the polls in the race for California governor in 1982, yet lost to the Republican candidate.
Similar occurrences have been observed in the 1989 race for governor of Virginia and 1989 race for mayor of New York.
What explains this phenomenon? The standard explanation is that a certain percentage of voters lie to pollsters. They say that they will vote for the black candidate when they will actually vote for the white candidate.
This has been denounced as racism by many on the left. But this does not follow. Why would a racist claim to be voting for a minority candidate at all? Instead, it is political correctness. That is, the politically correct thing to do is to vote for the minority, so some voters will say that they are going to do so to avoid being considered racist, even though they have legitimate reasons for their vote.
On the other hand, others have denied that the Bradley effect is real, or that it still exists. Bradley's loss has been alternately blamed on high turnout of Armenian voters voting for his opponent or high turnout of rural voters opposing a gun control initiative on the ballot that year. Meanwhile, one recent study purports to show that the Bradley effect used to exist but no longer does, supposedly finding no evidence of it since 1996.
But there have been elections since then that fit the same pattern. In 2003, Republican Bobby Jindal (who is Indian), polled ahead going into the election for governor but lost after a late campaign by the democrat party including ads that darkened his skin and urged white voters to vote democrat before it was "too late". Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana in 2007.
In 2006, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) appeared on the ballot in Michigan. This ballot proposition eliminated racial preferences in government hiring, contracting, and college admissions. Polls months before the election showed the MCRI with about 60% support. As the election approached and debate over the MCRI became increasingly heated, its support in polls continually declined, falling as low as 40% (with a large number of undecideds) the week before the election. These polls led the normally accurate Evans-Novak Political Report to predict that the MCRI would "fail by a large margin".
When election day came, the MCRI passed with 58% of the vote, roughly the level of support that it started with. This is all the more remarkable since the usual rule with ballot propositions is that most of the undecideds will vote no since change is riskier than the status quo. The only conclusion one can come to is that a significant number of voters were simply lying to the pollsters about their intentions.
So will there be a Bradley effect in the presidential election this year? There is no way to know for sure. Since it is a problem with polling, it is always possible that it could be corrected by different polling techniques.
But the polling techniques that are being employed raise serious questions. Pollsters more-or-less arbitrarily pick the percentages of Republicans, democrats, and independents to weight their samples. Many pollsters are assuming much higher turnout of the black and youth vote when weighting their samples. While higher black turnout appears to be all but certain, it is unclear to what extent there will be higher white turnout and to what extent this will counterbalance it. As for the youth vote, projections of much higher youth turnout in past elections have never been borne out.
It could be that Republican prospects are actually much better than what the polls suggest. Or this could be wishful thinking. We'll find out soon enough.
In recent weeks there has been increasing discussion of the 'Bradley effect'. This is the phenomenon that black candidates do better in polls than they do in actual election results. It is named after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who had a significant lead in the polls in the race for California governor in 1982, yet lost to the Republican candidate.
Similar occurrences have been observed in the 1989 race for governor of Virginia and 1989 race for mayor of New York.
What explains this phenomenon? The standard explanation is that a certain percentage of voters lie to pollsters. They say that they will vote for the black candidate when they will actually vote for the white candidate.
This has been denounced as racism by many on the left. But this does not follow. Why would a racist claim to be voting for a minority candidate at all? Instead, it is political correctness. That is, the politically correct thing to do is to vote for the minority, so some voters will say that they are going to do so to avoid being considered racist, even though they have legitimate reasons for their vote.
On the other hand, others have denied that the Bradley effect is real, or that it still exists. Bradley's loss has been alternately blamed on high turnout of Armenian voters voting for his opponent or high turnout of rural voters opposing a gun control initiative on the ballot that year. Meanwhile, one recent study purports to show that the Bradley effect used to exist but no longer does, supposedly finding no evidence of it since 1996.
But there have been elections since then that fit the same pattern. In 2003, Republican Bobby Jindal (who is Indian), polled ahead going into the election for governor but lost after a late campaign by the democrat party including ads that darkened his skin and urged white voters to vote democrat before it was "too late". Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana in 2007.
In 2006, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) appeared on the ballot in Michigan. This ballot proposition eliminated racial preferences in government hiring, contracting, and college admissions. Polls months before the election showed the MCRI with about 60% support. As the election approached and debate over the MCRI became increasingly heated, its support in polls continually declined, falling as low as 40% (with a large number of undecideds) the week before the election. These polls led the normally accurate Evans-Novak Political Report to predict that the MCRI would "fail by a large margin".
When election day came, the MCRI passed with 58% of the vote, roughly the level of support that it started with. This is all the more remarkable since the usual rule with ballot propositions is that most of the undecideds will vote no since change is riskier than the status quo. The only conclusion one can come to is that a significant number of voters were simply lying to the pollsters about their intentions.
So will there be a Bradley effect in the presidential election this year? There is no way to know for sure. Since it is a problem with polling, it is always possible that it could be corrected by different polling techniques.
But the polling techniques that are being employed raise serious questions. Pollsters more-or-less arbitrarily pick the percentages of Republicans, democrats, and independents to weight their samples. Many pollsters are assuming much higher turnout of the black and youth vote when weighting their samples. While higher black turnout appears to be all but certain, it is unclear to what extent there will be higher white turnout and to what extent this will counterbalance it. As for the youth vote, projections of much higher youth turnout in past elections have never been borne out.
It could be that Republican prospects are actually much better than what the polls suggest. Or this could be wishful thinking. We'll find out soon enough.
POLITICAL UPDATE--The Economy
This update focuses on the economy. The fallout from the massive trillion-dollar government bailout continues. The causes of our economic problems continue to be probed.
Terry Jeffrey: Will Government Give Up Ownership in the Banks?
William Jasper: From Henry Morgenthau to Henry Paulson
Gary North: The Smashing of Dreams Is Not Over
George Reisman: The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis
Ron Paul: Spending the Economy into Oblivion
Thomas DiLorenzo: How Crackpot Egalitarianism Caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis
Terry Jeffrey: The Price of Banking on Government
Ernest Istook: Democrats Behind CRA Cover-Up
Gary North: Keynesianism's Last Stand
See also:
The Recession Reader
The Bailout Reader
Terry Jeffrey: Will Government Give Up Ownership in the Banks?
William Jasper: From Henry Morgenthau to Henry Paulson
Gary North: The Smashing of Dreams Is Not Over
George Reisman: The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis
Ron Paul: Spending the Economy into Oblivion
Thomas DiLorenzo: How Crackpot Egalitarianism Caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis
Terry Jeffrey: The Price of Banking on Government
Ernest Istook: Democrats Behind CRA Cover-Up
Gary North: Keynesianism's Last Stand
See also:
The Recession Reader
The Bailout Reader
Mary Balkema for Kalamazoo County Treasurer
Mary Balkema was appointed Kalamazoo County Treasurer in 2007 after the incumbent resigned from office. Now Mary is running for a term of her own. Her democrat opponent is Julie Kaufman.
Mary is well-qualified to be Kalamazoo County Treasurer. She has an extensive accounting background. She worked for many years in the banking industry dealing with investments. She also has political experience, having served three terms on the Kalamazoo City Commission.
Mary has performed well as Kalamazoo County Treasurer. The county's investments have continued to perform well.
Mary has continued to look for ways to save the county money. She opened up the county's banking for competitive bidding and saved the taxpayers money.
How about Mary's opponent? Julie Kaufman appears to not even be running a campaign. She has no yard signs and hasn't even responded to questionnaires. But in a year that many expect to be good for democrats, there is always a risk that she might win simply due to straight ticket voting. That's why conservatives need to make sure that Mary Balkema wins this election.
Mary is well-qualified to be Kalamazoo County Treasurer. She has an extensive accounting background. She worked for many years in the banking industry dealing with investments. She also has political experience, having served three terms on the Kalamazoo City Commission.
Mary has performed well as Kalamazoo County Treasurer. The county's investments have continued to perform well.
Mary has continued to look for ways to save the county money. She opened up the county's banking for competitive bidding and saved the taxpayers money.
How about Mary's opponent? Julie Kaufman appears to not even be running a campaign. She has no yard signs and hasn't even responded to questionnaires. But in a year that many expect to be good for democrats, there is always a risk that she might win simply due to straight ticket voting. That's why conservatives need to make sure that Mary Balkema wins this election.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Herald on Levin
To no one's surprise, the Western Herald endorsed Carl Levin. But some of the comments in their endorsement make it clear that (once again) they don't know what they're talking about.
HERALD EDITORIAL: Levin’s focus on education, ending war and energy earn him Herald’s vote
They also provide no evidence of his 'bipartisan cooperation'.
Of course, this is the Herald as usual.
HERALD EDITORIAL: Levin’s focus on education, ending war and energy earn him Herald’s vote
We feel Levin shares a perspective more in-line with the Western Michigan University community, where Levin is a centrist Democrat and Hoogendyk leans far to the right. More importantly Levin has a proven record of bipartisan cooperation allowing him to implement legislation.How is Levin 'centrist'? The Herald provides no evidence for this assertion. Levin has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 7%.
They also provide no evidence of his 'bipartisan cooperation'.
Both candidates acknowledge the bailout bill does not specifically address access to higher education.Why would it?
Of course, this is the Herald as usual.
Carl Levin and American Sovereignty
Where does Senator Carl Levin stand on the issue of American sovereignty?
Levin has been a consistent supporter of the United Nations. He has voted to give billions to the International Monetary Fund. He has voted for sending UN troops to Darfur in the Sudan.
Levin voted for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which contained an endorsement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Levin voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he voted for most-favored-nation trading status with China.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Foreign Policy
Carl Levin: Senate Fast Track Vote
Levin has been a consistent supporter of the United Nations. He has voted to give billions to the International Monetary Fund. He has voted for sending UN troops to Darfur in the Sudan.
Levin voted for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which contained an endorsement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Levin voted against NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. But he voted for most-favored-nation trading status with China.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Foreign Policy
Carl Levin: Senate Fast Track Vote
Gazette Endorsements
The Kalamazoo Gazette has made its endorsements. Most are not too surprising.
'No' on state Proposal 1
Vote 'yes' on Proposal 2
With reservations, we back transportation tax
Two good candidates, but we recommend DeShazor
Gazette recommendations in other House races
Gazette's recommendations for Kalamazoo County posts
Bill Murphy is best choice for District Court judgeship
No endorsement for either candidate for Supreme Court
Our recommendations for Kalamazoo County Board
Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington
'No' on state Proposal 1
Vote 'yes' on Proposal 2
With reservations, we back transportation tax
Two good candidates, but we recommend DeShazor
Gazette recommendations in other House races
Gazette's recommendations for Kalamazoo County posts
Bill Murphy is best choice for District Court judgeship
No endorsement for either candidate for Supreme Court
Our recommendations for Kalamazoo County Board
Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington
Local Election News
News about local elections.
Chamber takes neutral stance on county transit millage
Tactics become the issue
PAC spends $2.3M on state House candidates
Students help swell voter rolls
Record registrations in Michigan
Two competing for prosecutor job
Four-year incumbent facing challenge
Republican Hoogendyk offers change
Senate candidates differ on government's roleIncumbent Levin a vigilant watchdog
Baillargeon, Cronin running for circuit judge in Allegan
Judgeship candidates differ in legal experience
Chamber takes neutral stance on county transit millage
Tactics become the issue
PAC spends $2.3M on state House candidates
Students help swell voter rolls
Record registrations in Michigan
Two competing for prosecutor job
Four-year incumbent facing challenge
Republican Hoogendyk offers change
Senate candidates differ on government's roleIncumbent Levin a vigilant watchdog
Baillargeon, Cronin running for circuit judge in Allegan
Judgeship candidates differ in legal experience
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Gazette Attacks Jack Again
The Gazette has once again attacked Jack Hoogendyk in an editorial endorsing his opponent.
Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington
The Gazette also attacked Jack in their 2006 primary election endorsement. Once again, their arguments are either factually incorrect or poorly reasoned.
They fail to mention Jack's more recent focus on economic issues. Jack fought against the job-killing tax increase passed by the legislature. He has pushed for transparency in government spending. He has fought wasteful government spending, from the giveaway to movie makers, to the new state police headquarters, to the proposed taxpayer-funded Detroit River bridge. Jack passed a bill to give schools more flexibility in scheduling.
The Gazette may disagree with these measures, or think them ineffective, but not to acknowledge them at all is dishonest.
They make it sound as if the culture war was something started by conservatives. In truth, it was started by liberals to overthrow traditional western culture. Michigan's bad economy hasn't stopped liberals from pushing an embryonic stem-cell research ballot initiative, letting millions of illegal aliens into the country, and trying to create same-sex benefits funded by taxpayers. When has the Gazette ever attacked liberals for these things?
The Gazette's real problem with Jack is that they disagree with his views. But they prefer to call such issues 'divisive' rather than debate their merits.
Meanwhile, what does the Gazette say about Carl Levin?
Kalamazoo is growing increasingly weary of the Gazette.
Previous: Gazette attacks Jack
Let Mr. Upton, Mr. Levin go back to Washington
The Gazette also attacked Jack in their 2006 primary election endorsement. Once again, their arguments are either factually incorrect or poorly reasoned.
While Michigan's economy has remained stagnant throughout Hoogendyk's Lansing career -- something we certainly cannot blame on him -- he has spent too much time fighting embryonic stem-cell research, making English the official language of Michigan and battling the University of Michigan, and not enough time finding pragmatic solutions to Michigan's problems.This editorial echoes what the Gazette said in 2006. What they don't say is that most of Jack's focus on social issues was during his first term.
Hoogendyk, proudly an ideologue, would do little in Washington to advocate for the state and its residents. We expect he would be too busy waging culture wars that this nation is growing increasingly weary of.
They fail to mention Jack's more recent focus on economic issues. Jack fought against the job-killing tax increase passed by the legislature. He has pushed for transparency in government spending. He has fought wasteful government spending, from the giveaway to movie makers, to the new state police headquarters, to the proposed taxpayer-funded Detroit River bridge. Jack passed a bill to give schools more flexibility in scheduling.
The Gazette may disagree with these measures, or think them ineffective, but not to acknowledge them at all is dishonest.
They make it sound as if the culture war was something started by conservatives. In truth, it was started by liberals to overthrow traditional western culture. Michigan's bad economy hasn't stopped liberals from pushing an embryonic stem-cell research ballot initiative, letting millions of illegal aliens into the country, and trying to create same-sex benefits funded by taxpayers. When has the Gazette ever attacked liberals for these things?
The Gazette's real problem with Jack is that they disagree with his views. But they prefer to call such issues 'divisive' rather than debate their merits.
Meanwhile, what does the Gazette say about Carl Levin?
He has been an effective voice for Michigan, defending the domestic auto industry, the state's bread and butter, and seeking support for protection of the Great Lakes.And the auto industry is doing so well for his efforts! They neglect to mention that Levin voted for increasing CAFE standards that are hurting American auto makers so much.
Kalamazoo is growing increasingly weary of the Gazette.
Previous: Gazette attacks Jack
Taking on Levin
Human Events reports that a new group is attacking Senator Carl Levin. They are called Levin Too Liberal for Michigan.
---------------
Could the Murtha Effect Hit Michigan?
Carl Levin’s free pass just expired.
A new group called Levin Too Liberal for Michigan launched a website this morning quizzing constituents on the candidate’s liberal record in the U.S. Senate, including several questionable positions taken by the member of the Armed Services Committee on national defense. The group also took out a full page ad Sunday in Michigan’s Battle Creek Enquirer. The ad outlined Levin’s actions in the Senate, such as his opposition to missile-defense and his blockage of several key military appointments.
The group also takes Levin to task for using his powerful committee chairmanship to thwart the reappointment of Marine General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and "smearing" White House and Pentagon officils who made tough decisions about terrorist interrogations.
Erik Diana, chairman of Levin Too Liberal for Michigan, said Levin has been given a free pass from the media after 29 years in the U.S. Senate.
“We’re just basically asking people to hold him accountable,” Diana told HUMAN EVENTS.
One example Diana cites -- and which appeared in Sunday’s ad – is Levin’s refusal to condemn MoveOn.org for their New York Times ad calling Gen. David Petraeus a traitor. A resolution came before Congress to condemn the group for the ad, but Levin -- then chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- voted against doing so.
-------------
Read it all.
---------------
Could the Murtha Effect Hit Michigan?
Carl Levin’s free pass just expired.
A new group called Levin Too Liberal for Michigan launched a website this morning quizzing constituents on the candidate’s liberal record in the U.S. Senate, including several questionable positions taken by the member of the Armed Services Committee on national defense. The group also took out a full page ad Sunday in Michigan’s Battle Creek Enquirer. The ad outlined Levin’s actions in the Senate, such as his opposition to missile-defense and his blockage of several key military appointments.
The group also takes Levin to task for using his powerful committee chairmanship to thwart the reappointment of Marine General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and "smearing" White House and Pentagon officils who made tough decisions about terrorist interrogations.
Erik Diana, chairman of Levin Too Liberal for Michigan, said Levin has been given a free pass from the media after 29 years in the U.S. Senate.
“We’re just basically asking people to hold him accountable,” Diana told HUMAN EVENTS.
One example Diana cites -- and which appeared in Sunday’s ad – is Levin’s refusal to condemn MoveOn.org for their New York Times ad calling Gen. David Petraeus a traitor. A resolution came before Congress to condemn the group for the ad, but Levin -- then chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- voted against doing so.
-------------
Read it all.
National City Takeover
Michelle Malkin passes on a report from Rep. Steven LaTourette that money from the trillion-dollar government bailout recently passed by Congress was used to finance the takeover of National City Bank by PNC Bank. National City Bank is a major employer in Kalamazoo since it bought First of America Bank in 1997.
Let's hope no one in Kalamazoo loses their jobs because of the bailout Congress passed.
----------------
GOP Rep. Steve LaTourette, one of the consistent opponents of socialism in the House, reports:
U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) says he fears that John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, steered $7.7 billion of taxpayer bailout money to his former client, PNC, so it could buy National City Bank.
LaTourette today sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outlining his concerns and asking for an investigation. He also asked House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to hold a hearing on the Fed’s decision to have one regional bank (PNC) gobble up regional bank (National City) using bailout money. LaTourette is a senior member of the Financial Services panel.
The Pittsburgh-based PNC, which bought National City on Friday at a fire-sale price with federal bailout money, was one of Dugan’s clients just before he was sworn in as Comptroller of the Currency in August 2005, LaTourette said. Prior to becoming Comptroller, Dugan was a partner at Covington and Burling, a DC law firm that specializes in banking regulation.
Let's hope no one in Kalamazoo loses their jobs because of the bailout Congress passed.
----------------
GOP Rep. Steve LaTourette, one of the consistent opponents of socialism in the House, reports:
U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) says he fears that John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, steered $7.7 billion of taxpayer bailout money to his former client, PNC, so it could buy National City Bank.
LaTourette today sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson outlining his concerns and asking for an investigation. He also asked House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to hold a hearing on the Fed’s decision to have one regional bank (PNC) gobble up regional bank (National City) using bailout money. LaTourette is a senior member of the Financial Services panel.
The Pittsburgh-based PNC, which bought National City on Friday at a fire-sale price with federal bailout money, was one of Dugan’s clients just before he was sworn in as Comptroller of the Currency in August 2005, LaTourette said. Prior to becoming Comptroller, Dugan was a partner at Covington and Burling, a DC law firm that specializes in banking regulation.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Vote NO on Proposal 2
Proposal 2 on the ballot in Michigan in November concerns embryonic stem cell research. A stem cell is a human cell that can become many different types of cells. Some people believe that stem cell research has potential to cure some diseases.
There are several different types of stem cells. There are embryonic stem cells, which are the components of embryos that help them grow in babies. There are also adult stem cells that are in everyone's bodies, and there are umbilical cord stem cells, and induced stem cells, which are other cells conditioned to act like embryonic stem cells.
Research using all forms of stem cells is legal in America and in Michigan. The only thing that is illegal in Michigan is the destruction of human embryos for research. This is legal nationally, and embryonic stem cells can be imported into Michigan. There is no "ban" on embryonic stem cell research, much less all stem cell research. The only "restriction" on this research is that it currently cannot receive federal or state funding. In the same sense, government could be said to "ban" stamp-collecting because it does not subsidize it.
Proposal 2 would overturn Michigan's ban on the destruction of human embryos for research. Make no mistake. Embryos are human beings. Destroying an embryo is killing a human life. They are at the earliest stages of human development, and they are younger and smaller than us, but stage of development, age, and size do not affect whether someone is human or deserving of protection.
Don't be distracted by the argument that embryos "would be destroyed anyways". This is not some cosmic law of nature. It is a choice made by human beings. It could be otherwise. It is shameful that human embryos are treated this way, but it does not make destroying them for research OK. It wouldn't be right to kill elderly people for research because "they're going to die anyways". Frozen human embryos could be adopted and given a chance at life, and some have been. Can anyone tell the people who came from adopted embryos that they should have been killed for research?
Is embryonic stem cell research necessary to cure diseases? There is no reason to believe so. While stem cell research may be promising, it has been going on for a while now and it has not resulted in any cures as of yet. Adult stem cell research has resulted in treatments of diseases, while embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in a single treatment. Nor is it particularly promising, since embryonic stem cells are designed to grow into human beings, not a single type of healthy tissue. Use of embryonic stem cells in medical tests has led to tumors, not cures. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any cure or treatment that could be achieved with embryonic stem cells (assuming there are any) couldn't be achieved with the other types of stem cells, which present no ethical issues.
This issue has been shamefully demagogued by the supporters of embryo destruction. There is no reason to expect the cures for millions of people that they promise. One of the worst claims of this sort was the claim by John Edwards that if he were elected Vice-President, Christopher Reeve would get up out of his wheelchair and walk.
Proposal 2 would do a lot more than just allow embryo destruction, though. This is a constitutional amendment, not a law, and it could not be changed in the slightest short of another constitutional amendment. This makes every detail even more worth considering. A careful reading of the language reveals several largely unknown consequences of this proposal.
The proposal says that "any research permitted under federal law maybe conducted in Michigan". "Under federal law" may sound tough, but federal law does not restrict embryo research at all. And federal law would supersede Michigan law anyways, so this provision does nothing.
The proposal places the limitation that the "embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment". "Fertility treatment" could certainly include human cloning or some other technique. This provision would be difficult to enforce in practice, as people could always say that they were creating embryos for fertility treatment and then "change their minds" later.
The proposal says that no one may "purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research for stem cell therapies and cures". Thus they could be bought or sold for any other reason.
State and local laws could not "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research" or "create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research". This would prevent state or local legislators from regulating a significant and growing field with lots of serious ethical questions surrounding it. The Michigan Constitution does not give any other industry such a blanket ban on regulation.
The proposal does not appropriate money for stem cell research. However, it would legalize embryo destruction and hence create the possibility of government spending to support this. Other state legislatures have spent many millions on embryo research at the behest of its proponents, and you can bet that they will make the same demands in Michigan. Further, it isn't hard to imagine some liberal court deciding that the prohibition on creating "disincentives" actually mandates funding, since not funding embryo research is a disincentive to conducting it.
If embryo research is so promising, why does it need government funding? Cures for diseases that affect millions of people would be worth many billions of dollars. Lots of private companies conduct medical research. So why can't embryonic stem cell research be funded through the market? Because the market believes that it isn't likely to work.
So why is embryonic stem cell research such a popular cause on the left? It's all about abortion. Leftists are desperate to find a moral justification for killing tiny human beings stronger than the "woman's right to choose" to kill any baby she finds inconvenient. A decade or so back they touted fetal tissue research. Now it's destroyed embryo research.
The slogan used by opponents of Proposal 2 is "2 goes 2 far". But 2 doesn't go too far, it goes in the wrong direction.
Vote NO on Proposal 2.
For more information: http://www.micause.com/
See also:
Proposal 2 is Bad News. Vote NO!
Prop 2 supporters think you are stupid
Embryonic stem cell research obsoleted... AGAIN!
There are several different types of stem cells. There are embryonic stem cells, which are the components of embryos that help them grow in babies. There are also adult stem cells that are in everyone's bodies, and there are umbilical cord stem cells, and induced stem cells, which are other cells conditioned to act like embryonic stem cells.
Research using all forms of stem cells is legal in America and in Michigan. The only thing that is illegal in Michigan is the destruction of human embryos for research. This is legal nationally, and embryonic stem cells can be imported into Michigan. There is no "ban" on embryonic stem cell research, much less all stem cell research. The only "restriction" on this research is that it currently cannot receive federal or state funding. In the same sense, government could be said to "ban" stamp-collecting because it does not subsidize it.
Proposal 2 would overturn Michigan's ban on the destruction of human embryos for research. Make no mistake. Embryos are human beings. Destroying an embryo is killing a human life. They are at the earliest stages of human development, and they are younger and smaller than us, but stage of development, age, and size do not affect whether someone is human or deserving of protection.
Don't be distracted by the argument that embryos "would be destroyed anyways". This is not some cosmic law of nature. It is a choice made by human beings. It could be otherwise. It is shameful that human embryos are treated this way, but it does not make destroying them for research OK. It wouldn't be right to kill elderly people for research because "they're going to die anyways". Frozen human embryos could be adopted and given a chance at life, and some have been. Can anyone tell the people who came from adopted embryos that they should have been killed for research?
Is embryonic stem cell research necessary to cure diseases? There is no reason to believe so. While stem cell research may be promising, it has been going on for a while now and it has not resulted in any cures as of yet. Adult stem cell research has resulted in treatments of diseases, while embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in a single treatment. Nor is it particularly promising, since embryonic stem cells are designed to grow into human beings, not a single type of healthy tissue. Use of embryonic stem cells in medical tests has led to tumors, not cures. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any cure or treatment that could be achieved with embryonic stem cells (assuming there are any) couldn't be achieved with the other types of stem cells, which present no ethical issues.
This issue has been shamefully demagogued by the supporters of embryo destruction. There is no reason to expect the cures for millions of people that they promise. One of the worst claims of this sort was the claim by John Edwards that if he were elected Vice-President, Christopher Reeve would get up out of his wheelchair and walk.
Proposal 2 would do a lot more than just allow embryo destruction, though. This is a constitutional amendment, not a law, and it could not be changed in the slightest short of another constitutional amendment. This makes every detail even more worth considering. A careful reading of the language reveals several largely unknown consequences of this proposal.
The proposal says that "any research permitted under federal law maybe conducted in Michigan". "Under federal law" may sound tough, but federal law does not restrict embryo research at all. And federal law would supersede Michigan law anyways, so this provision does nothing.
The proposal places the limitation that the "embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment". "Fertility treatment" could certainly include human cloning or some other technique. This provision would be difficult to enforce in practice, as people could always say that they were creating embryos for fertility treatment and then "change their minds" later.
The proposal says that no one may "purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research for stem cell therapies and cures". Thus they could be bought or sold for any other reason.
State and local laws could not "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research" or "create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research". This would prevent state or local legislators from regulating a significant and growing field with lots of serious ethical questions surrounding it. The Michigan Constitution does not give any other industry such a blanket ban on regulation.
The proposal does not appropriate money for stem cell research. However, it would legalize embryo destruction and hence create the possibility of government spending to support this. Other state legislatures have spent many millions on embryo research at the behest of its proponents, and you can bet that they will make the same demands in Michigan. Further, it isn't hard to imagine some liberal court deciding that the prohibition on creating "disincentives" actually mandates funding, since not funding embryo research is a disincentive to conducting it.
If embryo research is so promising, why does it need government funding? Cures for diseases that affect millions of people would be worth many billions of dollars. Lots of private companies conduct medical research. So why can't embryonic stem cell research be funded through the market? Because the market believes that it isn't likely to work.
So why is embryonic stem cell research such a popular cause on the left? It's all about abortion. Leftists are desperate to find a moral justification for killing tiny human beings stronger than the "woman's right to choose" to kill any baby she finds inconvenient. A decade or so back they touted fetal tissue research. Now it's destroyed embryo research.
The slogan used by opponents of Proposal 2 is "2 goes 2 far". But 2 doesn't go too far, it goes in the wrong direction.
Vote NO on Proposal 2.
For more information: http://www.micause.com/
See also:
Proposal 2 is Bad News. Vote NO!
Prop 2 supporters think you are stupid
Embryonic stem cell research obsoleted... AGAIN!
Coulter on Education Professors
Ann Coulter calls out education professors in her latest column. She mentions the petition to support Bill Ayers that this blog noted recently. The count of Western professors supporting Ayers is now 7.
Regarding Coulter's point that education professors are dumb, it's worth pointing out that Thomas Sowell documented in Inside American Education that education schools are widely considered the intellectual dregs on campus even by other liberal professors, education students are much less smart than average students, and education schools serve to make teachers worse than they would be without them.
---------------
First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.
Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he's teaching at a university -- even when you consider that it's an ed school -- except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors -- 99 percent if you don't include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison -- i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.
Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI's most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).
While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!
Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master's degree in "writing" through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.
But Obama thinks it's a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.
Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I've got the letter right here!
Regarding Coulter's point that education professors are dumb, it's worth pointing out that Thomas Sowell documented in Inside American Education that education schools are widely considered the intellectual dregs on campus even by other liberal professors, education students are much less smart than average students, and education schools serve to make teachers worse than they would be without them.
---------------
First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.
Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he's teaching at a university -- even when you consider that it's an ed school -- except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors -- 99 percent if you don't include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison -- i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.
Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI's most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).
While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!
Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master's degree in "writing" through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.
But Obama thinks it's a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.
Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I've got the letter right here!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Local Election News
News about local elections.
State House candidates report their campaign spending
Yard signs in Kalamazoo-area lawns can boost candidates' name recognition in local races
Snow and Kinsey differ over drawing up new commissioner districts
Supervisor race pits incumbent against activist
Citizen who filed lawsuit against Comstock Township last year decides to challenge incumbent supervisor in election
Two seek to replace retiring Kalamazoo Township supervisor
7 vie for 4 trustee seats in K-Township
Experienced rivals vie for open Oshtemo supervisor seat
6 candidates seek 4 trustee seats in Oshtemo
State House candidates report their campaign spending
Yard signs in Kalamazoo-area lawns can boost candidates' name recognition in local races
Snow and Kinsey differ over drawing up new commissioner districts
Supervisor race pits incumbent against activist
Citizen who filed lawsuit against Comstock Township last year decides to challenge incumbent supervisor in election
Two seek to replace retiring Kalamazoo Township supervisor
7 vie for 4 trustee seats in K-Township
Experienced rivals vie for open Oshtemo supervisor seat
6 candidates seek 4 trustee seats in Oshtemo
POLITICAL UPDATE--News from Abroad
This update focuses on news from abroad. During election season, events continue to unfold in China, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The United Nations continues to be an enemy of American sovereignty.
Oliver North: The Secret War on the Dollar
Phyllis Schlafly: China Poisons Its Infant Formula
John McManus: Behind the Olympic News
Nima Sanandaji: Swedish Welfare
Robert Spencer: After Musharraf, the Deluge
Brian Darling: U.S. Shouldn’t Be Supporting ICC
Larry Kilgannon: Voting Practices at the United Nations
Jerome Corsi: North American Union: The dream 'is dead'
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Oliver North: The Secret War on the Dollar
Phyllis Schlafly: China Poisons Its Infant Formula
John McManus: Behind the Olympic News
Nima Sanandaji: Swedish Welfare
Robert Spencer: After Musharraf, the Deluge
Brian Darling: U.S. Shouldn’t Be Supporting ICC
Larry Kilgannon: Voting Practices at the United Nations
Jerome Corsi: North American Union: The dream 'is dead'
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Carl Levin and Marriage
Where does Michigan Senator Carl Levin stand on the issue of marriage?
In 1996, Levin voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that prevents one state from opposing its definition of marriage on another.
However, Levin voted against a federal constitutional definition of marriage. He also refused to support the 2004 Michigan marriage amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He supports so-called "civil unions", which are the same in all but name to so-called "gay marriage".
Levin has voted to punish employers who take sexual behavior into account in their hiring decisions. He has also voted for 'hate crimes' bills including homosexuality that would criminalize certain thoughts under certain circumstances. He has voted to spend taxpayers' money on benefits for 'domestic partners' of government employees.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Civil Rights
Carl Levin: Statement of Senator Carl Levin on Gay Marriage
In 1996, Levin voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that prevents one state from opposing its definition of marriage on another.
However, Levin voted against a federal constitutional definition of marriage. He also refused to support the 2004 Michigan marriage amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He supports so-called "civil unions", which are the same in all but name to so-called "gay marriage".
Levin has voted to punish employers who take sexual behavior into account in their hiring decisions. He has also voted for 'hate crimes' bills including homosexuality that would criminalize certain thoughts under certain circumstances. He has voted to spend taxpayers' money on benefits for 'domestic partners' of government employees.
On the Issues: Carl Levin on Civil Rights
Carl Levin: Statement of Senator Carl Levin on Gay Marriage
WMU Security Report
From the Department of Public Safety
You must certainly be relieved that there were no hate crimes on campus in the last three years.
You must certainly be relieved that there were no hate crimes on campus in the last three years.
A Surprising Endorsement
HERALD EDITORIAL: Western Herald supports Ybema for Michigan State House
See also the discussion in the comments on privatization.
See also the discussion in the comments on privatization.
CRs in the Herald
From the Herald:
College Republicans remain active as they prepare for ‘crunch time’
By Ashley WioskowskiNews Editor
(Michael Paeplow / Western Herald) Junior Brendan Cole, vice president of Students for Life, spoke to Western Michigan University’s College Republicans on Wednesday night in the Bernhard Center.
The College Republicans met on Oct. 22 to discuss their last plans to help promote candidates before Election Day.
Last weekend the Republicans went door-to-door in Vicksburg to promote Republican candidates, and this week the group will continue in Vicksburg.
Anyone who is interested can meet the Republicans at the Bernhard Center at 3 p.m. for carpooling.
Addressing the limited time before the election, Dan Mack, treasurer for the RSO, stressed how important it is to go door-to-door promoting the candidates.
“It’s crunch time,” Mack said.
David Bell, elections vice chairman, addressed the group about last week’s absence of Jack Hoogendyk, who is running for U.S. Senate against Sen. Carl Levin, due to a time conflict in scheduling.
Bell said that Hoogendyk plans to re-schedule sometime in the future.
Bell also brought up that the RSO finally has got the funding to bring Ben Stein, who is most popular for his quiz show, “Win Ben Stein’s money,” or his part in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”
Beyond comedic entertainment, Stein has political affiliation.
Stein has worked as an economist, poverty and trial lawyer.
Also, in 1973 and 1974, he became a speechwriter and lawyer for Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford.The date is yet to be planned, but Bell said he foresees it taking place in the spring.
The Republicans plan to go door-to-door Nov. 1 for Larry DeShazor who is running for State Representative in the 61st district.
On Nov. 3, the Republicans will be putting up yard signs.
Kelly MacDonell, chief of operations, added that these signs will be put up “everywhere we can.”On Nov. 5, the group will be going to Roadhouse for a celebratory dinner.
College Republicans member Brendan Cole, who is the vice president for Students for Life, announced speaker Chris Gast, a political activist, will be at 2304 Sangren Hall on Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. to address Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
College Republicans remain active as they prepare for ‘crunch time’
By Ashley WioskowskiNews Editor
(Michael Paeplow / Western Herald) Junior Brendan Cole, vice president of Students for Life, spoke to Western Michigan University’s College Republicans on Wednesday night in the Bernhard Center.
The College Republicans met on Oct. 22 to discuss their last plans to help promote candidates before Election Day.
Last weekend the Republicans went door-to-door in Vicksburg to promote Republican candidates, and this week the group will continue in Vicksburg.
Anyone who is interested can meet the Republicans at the Bernhard Center at 3 p.m. for carpooling.
Addressing the limited time before the election, Dan Mack, treasurer for the RSO, stressed how important it is to go door-to-door promoting the candidates.
“It’s crunch time,” Mack said.
David Bell, elections vice chairman, addressed the group about last week’s absence of Jack Hoogendyk, who is running for U.S. Senate against Sen. Carl Levin, due to a time conflict in scheduling.
Bell said that Hoogendyk plans to re-schedule sometime in the future.
Bell also brought up that the RSO finally has got the funding to bring Ben Stein, who is most popular for his quiz show, “Win Ben Stein’s money,” or his part in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”
Beyond comedic entertainment, Stein has political affiliation.
Stein has worked as an economist, poverty and trial lawyer.
Also, in 1973 and 1974, he became a speechwriter and lawyer for Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford.The date is yet to be planned, but Bell said he foresees it taking place in the spring.
The Republicans plan to go door-to-door Nov. 1 for Larry DeShazor who is running for State Representative in the 61st district.
On Nov. 3, the Republicans will be putting up yard signs.
Kelly MacDonell, chief of operations, added that these signs will be put up “everywhere we can.”On Nov. 5, the group will be going to Roadhouse for a celebratory dinner.
College Republicans member Brendan Cole, who is the vice president for Students for Life, announced speaker Chris Gast, a political activist, will be at 2304 Sangren Hall on Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. to address Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thinking About Medical Marijuana
Proposal 1 on the ballot in Michigan in November concerns medical marijuana. It would allow people who say that they need marijuana for pain treatment to register with the state of Michigan. This would allow them to use and grow small amounts of marijuana without violating Michigan law. It would not change federal law that makes marijuana illegal, but it would mean that only the federal government could prosecute marijuana possession. Similar proposals have passed in about a dozen other states.
What should we think of this proposition? Both supporters and opponents agree that marijuana can be used to relieve pain. They disagree about whether smoked medical marijuana is more effective than the pill form which contains the chemical in marijuana that relieves pain.
Whichever form is more effective, it should not be hard to conclude that people who legitimately use marijuana to relieve pain should not be prosecuted. At present, this is uncommon, but not unheard of.
The question then is whether Proposal 1 would only protect legitimate users, or whether it would create other undesirable consequences. The proposal's backers have been accused of wanting to legalize drugs, and in many cases this is probably true. Nonetheless, the proposal should be considered on its own merits unless it would somehow create a 'slippery slope' to drug legalization. As none of the other states that passed such proposals has gone further, this does not seem to be a serious objection.
Another potential problem is whether the proposal would allow people who do not really have a medical need to get marijuana. Could users forge prescriptions, or obtain them from a handful of sympathetic doctors willing to bend the rules? Something like this seems to have occurred in California, which previously passed a medical marijuana proposal. Supporters and opponents of this proposal disagree about whether the Michigan proposal is different in a way that fixes these problems.
Of course, forthright advocates of marijuana legalization will not find these to be compelling objections. Before one advocates such a position, some questions should be asked. Is there reliable data on the health effects of marijuana use? Does drug addiction nullify the autonomy necessary for someone to have a right to liberty? Is marijuana a 'gateway drug' that leads to the use of harder drugs? Would legalizing marijuana result in higher crime rates than keeping it illegal?
This author does not claim to have good answers to these questions. Most of these questions are technical and depend on empirical data. Existing studies seem to have conflicting conclusions. Neither advocates of drug legalization or the government are necessarily credible sources of information.
Another objection raised by opponents of the proposal is that it would mandate that employers not prohibit legal marijuana users from employment. If so, then the proposal would advance freedom for one group while restricting it for another. In such case, one could reasonably side with the group one favors more. Supporters dispute that the proposal would do this, however.
You can learn something about a proposal from who supports it and who opposes it. Most newspapers seem to support the proposal. Various law enforcement and family values groups oppose it. Most democrats and libertarians support it. Most conservative Republicans oppose it. There are exceptions, however, as very conservative state rep. Fulton Sheen supports the proposal.
If a voter is unsure about a proposal, is there a default position that should be taken? For conservatives, the default position is to oppose change (support the status quo) because there are more ways to make things worse than better. In other words, there are more bad ideas than good ideas. On the other hand, the libertarian default position is to support freedom.
This essay has no definite conclusion. But the questions contained herein are the sort that a voter debating Proposal 1 should ask.
For more information see the following organizations.
Oppose: Citizens Protecting Michigan's Kids
Support: Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care
What should we think of this proposition? Both supporters and opponents agree that marijuana can be used to relieve pain. They disagree about whether smoked medical marijuana is more effective than the pill form which contains the chemical in marijuana that relieves pain.
Whichever form is more effective, it should not be hard to conclude that people who legitimately use marijuana to relieve pain should not be prosecuted. At present, this is uncommon, but not unheard of.
The question then is whether Proposal 1 would only protect legitimate users, or whether it would create other undesirable consequences. The proposal's backers have been accused of wanting to legalize drugs, and in many cases this is probably true. Nonetheless, the proposal should be considered on its own merits unless it would somehow create a 'slippery slope' to drug legalization. As none of the other states that passed such proposals has gone further, this does not seem to be a serious objection.
Another potential problem is whether the proposal would allow people who do not really have a medical need to get marijuana. Could users forge prescriptions, or obtain them from a handful of sympathetic doctors willing to bend the rules? Something like this seems to have occurred in California, which previously passed a medical marijuana proposal. Supporters and opponents of this proposal disagree about whether the Michigan proposal is different in a way that fixes these problems.
Of course, forthright advocates of marijuana legalization will not find these to be compelling objections. Before one advocates such a position, some questions should be asked. Is there reliable data on the health effects of marijuana use? Does drug addiction nullify the autonomy necessary for someone to have a right to liberty? Is marijuana a 'gateway drug' that leads to the use of harder drugs? Would legalizing marijuana result in higher crime rates than keeping it illegal?
This author does not claim to have good answers to these questions. Most of these questions are technical and depend on empirical data. Existing studies seem to have conflicting conclusions. Neither advocates of drug legalization or the government are necessarily credible sources of information.
Another objection raised by opponents of the proposal is that it would mandate that employers not prohibit legal marijuana users from employment. If so, then the proposal would advance freedom for one group while restricting it for another. In such case, one could reasonably side with the group one favors more. Supporters dispute that the proposal would do this, however.
You can learn something about a proposal from who supports it and who opposes it. Most newspapers seem to support the proposal. Various law enforcement and family values groups oppose it. Most democrats and libertarians support it. Most conservative Republicans oppose it. There are exceptions, however, as very conservative state rep. Fulton Sheen supports the proposal.
If a voter is unsure about a proposal, is there a default position that should be taken? For conservatives, the default position is to oppose change (support the status quo) because there are more ways to make things worse than better. In other words, there are more bad ideas than good ideas. On the other hand, the libertarian default position is to support freedom.
This essay has no definite conclusion. But the questions contained herein are the sort that a voter debating Proposal 1 should ask.
For more information see the following organizations.
Oppose: Citizens Protecting Michigan's Kids
Support: Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care
Bad Writing
Two recent editorials in the Herald are practically case studies in bad writing.
HERALD EDITORIAL: Groups at WMU should be pairing up and working together, not apart
HERALD EDITORIAL: Religious groups free to give political insight, but should not endorse any one candidate
The opinions are pretty silly, too.
HERALD EDITORIAL: Groups at WMU should be pairing up and working together, not apart
HERALD EDITORIAL: Religious groups free to give political insight, but should not endorse any one candidate
The opinions are pretty silly, too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Election News
News about 2008 election campaigns.
State's Senate hopefuls clash on ideology
Merciful or menacing?
Groups argue over proposal to legalize medical use of marijuana
Money-saving ideas divide candidates in sheriff race
Ethical issues key in voting on stem cells
Gazette profiles of 6th district Congressional candidates.
• Fred Upton's profile
• Don Cooney's profile
• Greg Merle's profile
County Commission race profiles.
• John Nieuwenhuis doesn't hesitate to ask hard questions
• Chris Haenicke would focus on building consensus
• District 1
• District 4
• District 5
• District 8
• District 9
• Graham, Quinn vie for District 10
• District 11
• District 13
• District 14
• District 16
Previous: Election News Politics News
State's Senate hopefuls clash on ideology
Merciful or menacing?
Groups argue over proposal to legalize medical use of marijuana
Money-saving ideas divide candidates in sheriff race
Ethical issues key in voting on stem cells
Gazette profiles of 6th district Congressional candidates.
• Fred Upton's profile
• Don Cooney's profile
• Greg Merle's profile
County Commission race profiles.
• John Nieuwenhuis doesn't hesitate to ask hard questions
• Chris Haenicke would focus on building consensus
• District 1
• District 4
• District 5
• District 8
• District 9
• Graham, Quinn vie for District 10
• District 11
• District 13
• District 14
• District 16
Previous: Election News Politics News
Sunday, October 19, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--The Culture War
This update focuses on the culture war. The 2008 election campaign is well underway. Cultural battles continue in party conventions, courts, movies, academia, and more.
Phyllis Schlafly: Contrasting the Party Platforms
Phyllis Schlafly: Feminists against Palin - shame on you
James Fulford: “Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird”—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule
William Jasper: From Homosexual Marriage to Bestiality
Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Left
Phyllis Schlafly: Title IX Tied Our Hands at Olympics
William Jasper: Recreating Riots
Thomas Sowell: Amateurs Outdoing Professionals
Phyllis Schlaly: One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda
Allan Ryskind: Hollywood Still Loves Very Red Dalton Trumbo
Don Devine: Old Right War Lessons
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Phyllis Schlafly: Contrasting the Party Platforms
Phyllis Schlafly: Feminists against Palin - shame on you
James Fulford: “Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird”—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule
William Jasper: From Homosexual Marriage to Bestiality
Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Left
Phyllis Schlafly: Title IX Tied Our Hands at Olympics
William Jasper: Recreating Riots
Thomas Sowell: Amateurs Outdoing Professionals
Phyllis Schlaly: One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda
Allan Ryskind: Hollywood Still Loves Very Red Dalton Trumbo
Don Devine: Old Right War Lessons
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Carl Levin and Abortion
Few politicians are more pro-abortion than Carl Levin.
Levin doesn't just support abortion some of the time, or most of the time. He supports it in the most indefensible cases. He voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion, when a baby is born except for the head and then killed. Defending infanticide is no problem for Levin.
Levin also voted against criminal penalties for crimes that harm an unborn baby. Apparently, punishing criminals who attack women might threaten abortion.
Levin even voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions. He even voted against notifying parents that their daughter has gotten an out-of-state abortion. One of the main purposes of parental notification laws is to prevent statutory rapists from destroying the evidence of their crimes by pressuring or coercing young women into having abortions. If one state requires parental notification, rapists will drive to another state that doesn't. But protecting rapists is no problem if it protects abortion.
If you love abortion, you'll love Carl Levin.
On The Issues: Carl Levin on Abortion
Core Principles: Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda
Core Principles: I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.
Scotty Boman: Levin votes to allow federal funds to support forced abortions
Levin doesn't just support abortion some of the time, or most of the time. He supports it in the most indefensible cases. He voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion, when a baby is born except for the head and then killed. Defending infanticide is no problem for Levin.
Levin also voted against criminal penalties for crimes that harm an unborn baby. Apparently, punishing criminals who attack women might threaten abortion.
Levin even voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to get abortions. He even voted against notifying parents that their daughter has gotten an out-of-state abortion. One of the main purposes of parental notification laws is to prevent statutory rapists from destroying the evidence of their crimes by pressuring or coercing young women into having abortions. If one state requires parental notification, rapists will drive to another state that doesn't. But protecting rapists is no problem if it protects abortion.
If you love abortion, you'll love Carl Levin.
On The Issues: Carl Levin on Abortion
Core Principles: Carl Levin's Extremely Radical Abortion Agenda
Core Principles: I Guess this Question is Above Carl Levin’s Pay Grade, Too.
Scotty Boman: Levin votes to allow federal funds to support forced abortions
Campus Alert
The following alert appears on GoWMU.
------------------
Four students assaulted near campus
The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety is investigating four assaults that were reported to have occurred on the 1200 block of Red Pine, off West Michigan Avenue, at approximately 2 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 11.
According to police reports, four victims were assaulted without provocation on Red Pine. Victims and witnesses said a group of about 30 unknown black males, approximately 18 to 24 years old, came uninvited to a gathering at 1225 Red Pine. In groups of four or five, they proceeded to attack each of the four victims individually in an area behind 1234 Red Pine, a neighboring residence.
WMU officials urge all students to follow these safety guidelines:
Be alert and aware of your surroundings.
Do not walk alone at night, especially in dimly lit areas or areas that have been targeted by predators in the past.
Even when you are with a large group of friends, report all unwanted visitors, intruders and suspicious activities immediately. Unwanted visitors often crash student gatherings to steal or start trouble.
For emergencies, call 911. For non-emergencies, call the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety at (269) 337-8994. If you have information regarding this incident, provide an anonymous tip through Silent Observer at (269) 343-2100.
WMU Public Safety
(269) 387-5555
http://www.wmudps.wmich.edu/
----------------
Why isn't this on the main WMU website?
------------------
Four students assaulted near campus
The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety is investigating four assaults that were reported to have occurred on the 1200 block of Red Pine, off West Michigan Avenue, at approximately 2 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 11.
According to police reports, four victims were assaulted without provocation on Red Pine. Victims and witnesses said a group of about 30 unknown black males, approximately 18 to 24 years old, came uninvited to a gathering at 1225 Red Pine. In groups of four or five, they proceeded to attack each of the four victims individually in an area behind 1234 Red Pine, a neighboring residence.
WMU officials urge all students to follow these safety guidelines:
Be alert and aware of your surroundings.
Do not walk alone at night, especially in dimly lit areas or areas that have been targeted by predators in the past.
Even when you are with a large group of friends, report all unwanted visitors, intruders and suspicious activities immediately. Unwanted visitors often crash student gatherings to steal or start trouble.
For emergencies, call 911. For non-emergencies, call the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety at (269) 337-8994. If you have information regarding this incident, provide an anonymous tip through Silent Observer at (269) 343-2100.
WMU Public Safety
(269) 387-5555
http://www.wmudps.wmich.edu/
----------------
Why isn't this on the main WMU website?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Cliff Taylor for Michigan Supreme Court
The battle for the Michigan Supreme Court has gone on intermittently for years, but it seems to be approaching a climax this year. In 2000, the democrats launched an all-out attack against Republican-nominated judges "Markman and Taylor and Young". But all of them went on to win easily. The next few elections were relatively muted, with only some smears from the likes of Jeffrey Feiger. All the incumbents since then have been reelected.
But it appears that democrats are increasingly desperate to take control of the court. This year, the democrat party sponsored a ballot initiative deceitfully named the Reform Michigan Government Now (RMGN) initiative. Among other things, RMGN would have eliminated the seats of Republican justices Robert Young and Steven Markman. This amendment was eventually thrown out for being far to long to qualify as a constitutional amendment. The Michigan democrat party spent $1.4 million from unidentified donors on the effort.
Taylor, Young, Markman, and Maura Corrigan form a conservative 'block' of four on the seven-member court. The court also has two liberal democrats and one erratic Republican who has vehemently attacked Taylor and often sides with the democrats. Replacing Taylor with a democrat would swing the court far to the left.
Taylor has served on the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997. He is a Navy veteran, former assistant prosecutor, and formerly served on the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Taylor is a strict constructionist who believes in applying the law as written, not making it up to suit his own political preferences. He has protected the principle of personal responsibility against trial lawyers who want to blame others so they can rob them of their money. By keeping damages to reasonable levels, Taylor not only protects individual businesses, but protects a better business climate, benefiting Michigan's economy.
One frequent charge democrats make against Taylor is that he favors big business against the little guy. But this is patently false. Taylor favors liberty and the rule of law against all their opponents, occasionally including big business. Taylor led the court in overturning the infamous Poletown case, which had said that government could take people's property and give it to business for redevelopment. Taylor sided with individual rights over the interests of big business. Taylor also rebuffed legal actions against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), a measure to eliminate governmental racial preferences which was opposed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Taylor supports law and order, and is tough on crime. He supports punishing criminals, not embarking on a quest to find the 'root causes' of crime. But this does not mean that he will necessarily side with government law enforcement agencies over individual liberties. He ruled against efforts to block Michigan's 2000 concealed carry law, which was opposed by many law enforcement officials at the time. Thus he sided with individual liberties over government power.
Taylor's opponent, Diane Hathaway, endorsed the RMGN proposal, which was described in an internal democrat party presentation as "changing the rules of politics to help democrats". This doesn't speak well to her respect for the rule of law.
Cliff Taylor is a highly respected and accomplished justice who has defended individual liberties and the rule of law time and again. He deserves to be reelected.
See Taylor's website: http://www.clifftaylor.com/
But it appears that democrats are increasingly desperate to take control of the court. This year, the democrat party sponsored a ballot initiative deceitfully named the Reform Michigan Government Now (RMGN) initiative. Among other things, RMGN would have eliminated the seats of Republican justices Robert Young and Steven Markman. This amendment was eventually thrown out for being far to long to qualify as a constitutional amendment. The Michigan democrat party spent $1.4 million from unidentified donors on the effort.
Taylor, Young, Markman, and Maura Corrigan form a conservative 'block' of four on the seven-member court. The court also has two liberal democrats and one erratic Republican who has vehemently attacked Taylor and often sides with the democrats. Replacing Taylor with a democrat would swing the court far to the left.
Taylor has served on the Michigan Supreme Court since 1997. He is a Navy veteran, former assistant prosecutor, and formerly served on the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Taylor is a strict constructionist who believes in applying the law as written, not making it up to suit his own political preferences. He has protected the principle of personal responsibility against trial lawyers who want to blame others so they can rob them of their money. By keeping damages to reasonable levels, Taylor not only protects individual businesses, but protects a better business climate, benefiting Michigan's economy.
One frequent charge democrats make against Taylor is that he favors big business against the little guy. But this is patently false. Taylor favors liberty and the rule of law against all their opponents, occasionally including big business. Taylor led the court in overturning the infamous Poletown case, which had said that government could take people's property and give it to business for redevelopment. Taylor sided with individual rights over the interests of big business. Taylor also rebuffed legal actions against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), a measure to eliminate governmental racial preferences which was opposed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Taylor supports law and order, and is tough on crime. He supports punishing criminals, not embarking on a quest to find the 'root causes' of crime. But this does not mean that he will necessarily side with government law enforcement agencies over individual liberties. He ruled against efforts to block Michigan's 2000 concealed carry law, which was opposed by many law enforcement officials at the time. Thus he sided with individual liberties over government power.
Taylor's opponent, Diane Hathaway, endorsed the RMGN proposal, which was described in an internal democrat party presentation as "changing the rules of politics to help democrats". This doesn't speak well to her respect for the rule of law.
Cliff Taylor is a highly respected and accomplished justice who has defended individual liberties and the rule of law time and again. He deserves to be reelected.
See Taylor's website: http://www.clifftaylor.com/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Students for Life in the Herald
Students for Life advocates rejection of Proposal 2
Students for Life is a registered student organization that focuses on informing the local community, both on and off campus about the importance of the Pro‑Life message.
“The Pro‑Life message is undervalued and under appreciated on campus,” said Brendan Cole, vice president of the Students for Life organization. They attempt to raise student awareness and support.
Chris Gast, a political activist currently advocating the rejection of Proposal 2, will be speaking Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. in Sangren Hall. Students for Life does not yet have a room number, but for more information contact: rso_sfl@wmich.edu.
Proposal 2 is a state of Michigan proposal on the ballot this upcoming election year that has direct language that would be amended to the state constitution regarding the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
Gast will be speaking on behalf of rejecting the proposal in terms of the stem cell provisions it allows.Any student interested in hearing Gast speak on the issue can get information from Students for Life or can keep an eye peeled for chalk and flyers around campus.
----------------
Read it all.
Students for Life is a registered student organization that focuses on informing the local community, both on and off campus about the importance of the Pro‑Life message.
“The Pro‑Life message is undervalued and under appreciated on campus,” said Brendan Cole, vice president of the Students for Life organization. They attempt to raise student awareness and support.
Chris Gast, a political activist currently advocating the rejection of Proposal 2, will be speaking Oct. 23 at 8 p.m. in Sangren Hall. Students for Life does not yet have a room number, but for more information contact: rso_sfl@wmich.edu.
Proposal 2 is a state of Michigan proposal on the ballot this upcoming election year that has direct language that would be amended to the state constitution regarding the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
Gast will be speaking on behalf of rejecting the proposal in terms of the stem cell provisions it allows.Any student interested in hearing Gast speak on the issue can get information from Students for Life or can keep an eye peeled for chalk and flyers around campus.
----------------
Read it all.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Faculty for Ayers
Barack Obama's ties to 1960's and '70's terrorist William Ayers have led to increasing scrutiny of Ayers. After spending years in hiding, the government botched the case against him, and Ayers got a PhD and became a "respected" university professor. Now, some of Ayers university colleagues are defending him with a website petition.
SupportBillAyers.org
As of this writing, the petition has garnered 2853 [UPDATE: 3880] signatures, most attributed to university professors.
Barack Obama has close and extensive ties to Ayers. His political career was launched at a fundraiser at Ayers' house. They served together on the board of the Woods Foundation, and worked closely together for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, purportedly an education-reform group. Obama gave a positive review to a book by Ayers.
Ayers was a founder of the communist terrorist group the Weathermen, which bombed a number of buildings, including the Pentagon. Ayers shows no remorse for his crimes. As late as September 11, 2001, Ayers bragged about them.
But now, Ayers is a "respected" university professor doing important "academic research". Liberals had no problem with a unrepentant former terrorist as a university professor (don't question their patriotism!). As you might guess, Ayers' "research" is all about undermining America.
The statement blathers about Ayers is a victim of "McCarthyism". He's just as guilty as all the other "victims" of McCarthyism.
Seven professors from Western Michigan University are on the list.
40 Gary Miron Education
882 Joseph Kretovics Education
897 Jill Hermann-Wilmarth Education
1653 Lauren Freedman Education
2088 Allen Webb English
2112 Karen Vocke English
2643 Sue Poppink Education
(It should be noted that the website does not appear to verify whether the signatures are genuine. The list includes Kathryn Jean Lopez, #1202, the editor of National Review Online.)
Perhaps there should be a WMU Faculty Terrorist Watch List.
See also: Leftist MSU Professors Announce Support for Terrorist
SupportBillAyers.org
As of this writing, the petition has garnered 2853 [UPDATE: 3880] signatures, most attributed to university professors.
Barack Obama has close and extensive ties to Ayers. His political career was launched at a fundraiser at Ayers' house. They served together on the board of the Woods Foundation, and worked closely together for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, purportedly an education-reform group. Obama gave a positive review to a book by Ayers.
Ayers was a founder of the communist terrorist group the Weathermen, which bombed a number of buildings, including the Pentagon. Ayers shows no remorse for his crimes. As late as September 11, 2001, Ayers bragged about them.
But now, Ayers is a "respected" university professor doing important "academic research". Liberals had no problem with a unrepentant former terrorist as a university professor (don't question their patriotism!). As you might guess, Ayers' "research" is all about undermining America.
The statement blathers about Ayers is a victim of "McCarthyism". He's just as guilty as all the other "victims" of McCarthyism.
Seven professors from Western Michigan University are on the list.
40 Gary Miron Education
882 Joseph Kretovics Education
897 Jill Hermann-Wilmarth Education
1653 Lauren Freedman Education
2088 Allen Webb English
2112 Karen Vocke English
2643 Sue Poppink Education
(It should be noted that the website does not appear to verify whether the signatures are genuine. The list includes Kathryn Jean Lopez, #1202, the editor of National Review Online.)
Perhaps there should be a WMU Faculty Terrorist Watch List.
See also: Leftist MSU Professors Announce Support for Terrorist
Election News
News about local elections.
Hoogendyk: Congress should stay out of military's way
County board candidate Chris Haenicke has lived on both sides of the poverty line
Upton, rivals split on how to ease crisis
Congressman would request N.Y. mayor's aid on economy
Graham, Quinn vie for District 10
Kalamazoo County Commissioner candidates in District 15 pit farms vs. factories
63rd District candidates Bolger and Smith say they have what it takes to represent a diverse area
Republican newcomer Charles Ybema challenges Robert Jones in 60th District
Campaign enters final month
GOP workers plug awayin wake of McCain pullout
80th District race focuses on economy
Job growth the focus in 87th District
Hoogendyk: Congress should stay out of military's way
County board candidate Chris Haenicke has lived on both sides of the poverty line
Upton, rivals split on how to ease crisis
Congressman would request N.Y. mayor's aid on economy
Graham, Quinn vie for District 10
Kalamazoo County Commissioner candidates in District 15 pit farms vs. factories
Nieuwenhuis said she wants to bring more awareness to agriculture, an economic sector she said the county board takes for granted.State Rep. Lorence Wenke backed recall of fellow Comstock Republican Bill Shields
She said the county should fund alternative-energy research, which would help greenhouse owners who struggle with high energy bills.
She also wants the board to push state and federal legislators to loosen U.S. immigration laws that she said hurt both migrant workers and Michigan farmers.
63rd District candidates Bolger and Smith say they have what it takes to represent a diverse area
Republican newcomer Charles Ybema challenges Robert Jones in 60th District
Campaign enters final month
GOP workers plug awayin wake of McCain pullout
80th District race focuses on economy
Job growth the focus in 87th District
Saturday, October 11, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--The Economy
This update focuses on the economy. The stock market plunged significantly in recent weeks. The government passed a bailout bill that may cost 700 billion to one trillion dollars. This failed to stabilize the market.
Gary Wolfram: Econ 101: The Financial Crisis and Danger of Government Intervention
Don Devine: End of Capitalism?
John Stossel: Try Free Enterprise
Walter Williams: Lessons From the Bailout
Ron Paul: The Do-Something Congress
Gary North: The Month When Reality Invaded
Michelle Malkin: Dear Congress: Put the Gun Down Now
Steve Sailer: America’s Minority Mortgage Meltdown/ Diversity Recession: The Smoking Gun?
Steve Sailer: Karl Rove—Architect Of The Minority Mortgage Meltdown
Thomas Sowell: Bailout Politics
Ron Paul: Lipstick on a Bailout
See also:
The Recession Reader
The Bailout Reader
Gary Wolfram: Econ 101: The Financial Crisis and Danger of Government Intervention
Don Devine: End of Capitalism?
John Stossel: Try Free Enterprise
Walter Williams: Lessons From the Bailout
Ron Paul: The Do-Something Congress
Gary North: The Month When Reality Invaded
Michelle Malkin: Dear Congress: Put the Gun Down Now
Steve Sailer: America’s Minority Mortgage Meltdown/ Diversity Recession: The Smoking Gun?
Steve Sailer: Karl Rove—Architect Of The Minority Mortgage Meltdown
Thomas Sowell: Bailout Politics
Ron Paul: Lipstick on a Bailout
See also:
The Recession Reader
The Bailout Reader
Friday, October 10, 2008
College Republicans discuss current events
From the Herald:
College Republicans discuss current events
This weeks College Republicans’ meeting touched briefly on recent debates, and included an interesting debate of it’s own.
Along with the normal agenda, Chairperson Megan Buwalda announced a visit from Jack Hoogendyk, State Senate candidate for Michigan, running against Sen. Carl Levin that will occur on Oct. 15 at 9 p.m.
The College Republicans started their meeting by discussing their view on the recent debate between Fred Upton, United States House of Representative for Michigan’s sixth district and Don Cooney, City Commissioner that took place Oct. 4 in the Kalamazoo Public Library.
----------------
There's more.
College Republicans discuss current events
This weeks College Republicans’ meeting touched briefly on recent debates, and included an interesting debate of it’s own.
Along with the normal agenda, Chairperson Megan Buwalda announced a visit from Jack Hoogendyk, State Senate candidate for Michigan, running against Sen. Carl Levin that will occur on Oct. 15 at 9 p.m.
The College Republicans started their meeting by discussing their view on the recent debate between Fred Upton, United States House of Representative for Michigan’s sixth district and Don Cooney, City Commissioner that took place Oct. 4 in the Kalamazoo Public Library.
----------------
There's more.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Julie Phillips for 8th District Judge
The race for the open seat on the 8th District Court comes down to two candidates. They are Bill Murphy, and Julie Phillips.. Candidates Jeff Gagie and Sondra Nowak were eliminated in the August primary election. The seat is open due to the retirement of Judge Quinn Benson.
Judicial races are different because they are non-partisan and candidates aren't allowed to talk about issues. Both candidates have solid experience which they tout on their websites.
Some information can be gleaned from examining endorsements. Murphy lists the endorsements of several moderate Republicans on his website. Julie Phillips has the endorsement of conservative Republican Mary Balkema. Right to Life found that Phillips and Murphy meet their criteria.
You can also get a sense of the candidates from who the local trial lawyers are supporting. A number of area trial lawyers have signs for Murphy in front of their offices. These same trial lawyers have consistently supported the most liberal judicial candidates, including democrat-nominated candidates for Michigan Supreme Court. Trial lawyers usually support the candidates who will award them the largest judgements.
One troubling aspect of Murphy's campaign is his placement of several large signs in the city of Kalamazoo contrary to city ordinance.
None of this is to say that Murphy would be a bad judge, but there are several red flags about his candidacy. Based on endorsements and experience, the best candidate is Julie Phillips. Conservatives should support her election.
See Julie's website: http://www.phillipsfordistrictcourt.com/
Previous: Julie Phillips for 8th District Judge
Judicial races are different because they are non-partisan and candidates aren't allowed to talk about issues. Both candidates have solid experience which they tout on their websites.
Some information can be gleaned from examining endorsements. Murphy lists the endorsements of several moderate Republicans on his website. Julie Phillips has the endorsement of conservative Republican Mary Balkema. Right to Life found that Phillips and Murphy meet their criteria.
You can also get a sense of the candidates from who the local trial lawyers are supporting. A number of area trial lawyers have signs for Murphy in front of their offices. These same trial lawyers have consistently supported the most liberal judicial candidates, including democrat-nominated candidates for Michigan Supreme Court. Trial lawyers usually support the candidates who will award them the largest judgements.
One troubling aspect of Murphy's campaign is his placement of several large signs in the city of Kalamazoo contrary to city ordinance.
A question about whether his 4-feet-by-8-feet signs are allowed under a Kalamazoo city ordinance is being researched, Murphy said. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled municipalities may limit sign size, but it must be enforced across the board. Murphy contends there are many signs, as large or larger, in town that have not been challenged.Murphy's attitude toward the signage law is troubling for someone running for a job to enforce the law. While the law might ultimately be unconstitutional, it has not been ruled so, and it is unwise for him to substitute his opinions for the law as it stands.
None of this is to say that Murphy would be a bad judge, but there are several red flags about his candidacy. Based on endorsements and experience, the best candidate is Julie Phillips. Conservatives should support her election.
See Julie's website: http://www.phillipsfordistrictcourt.com/
Previous: Julie Phillips for 8th District Judge
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Club for Walberg, Schwarz for Schauer
The Club for Growth released a new television ad for Congressman Tim Walberg.
Former Congressman Joe Schwarz, who Walberg defeated in the primary in 2006, decided to endorse Schauer because of this ad. But why? The ad is true. Is Schwarz upset that Schauer is being criticized for voting for tax increases? Perhaps. Schwarz did run for governor in 2002 pledging to raise taxes.
Schwarz was elected a Battle Creek city councilman and mayor. He was elected to the state senate for 16 years. He was a member of Congress for two years. In 2006, practically every member of the Republican establishment endorsed him in the primary. But when he lost one election, he ditched the party and endorsed the democrat.
The tax-hikers can have Schwarz and Schauer. The tax-cutters have Walberg and the Club for Growth.
Former Congressman Joe Schwarz, who Walberg defeated in the primary in 2006, decided to endorse Schauer because of this ad. But why? The ad is true. Is Schwarz upset that Schauer is being criticized for voting for tax increases? Perhaps. Schwarz did run for governor in 2002 pledging to raise taxes.
Schwarz was elected a Battle Creek city councilman and mayor. He was elected to the state senate for 16 years. He was a member of Congress for two years. In 2006, practically every member of the Republican establishment endorsed him in the primary. But when he lost one election, he ditched the party and endorsed the democrat.
The tax-hikers can have Schwarz and Schauer. The tax-cutters have Walberg and the Club for Growth.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Julie Rogers Already Wasted Your Money
Julie Rogers has yet to be elected to anything, but she has already managed to waste taxpayers' money. Back in 2006, Rogers ran for the 61st state house seat. She did better than expected against Republican Jack Hoogendyk, but still lost by 474 votes.
Rogers demanded a recount, even though there was no good reason for one. The margin was close enough that the state had to give her one, even though the chance that such a recount would overturn the election result was astronomical.
Rogers claimed there were voting "irregularities", which is not the same thing as any actual problem. Even after two-thirds of the precincts were recounted and there was a net change of only seven votes, she still did not concede.
The recount may have cost "only" thousands of dollars, but the principle was clear. Julie Rogers put Julie Rogers ahead of the taxpayers. She just didn't care about wasting our money.
Do Michigan taxpayers really want to put Julie Rogers in charge of a lot more of our money?
See also the WMUGOP's press release: Rogers' Campaign Wastes Taxpayers' Money
Rogers demanded a recount, even though there was no good reason for one. The margin was close enough that the state had to give her one, even though the chance that such a recount would overturn the election result was astronomical.
Rogers claimed there were voting "irregularities", which is not the same thing as any actual problem. Even after two-thirds of the precincts were recounted and there was a net change of only seven votes, she still did not concede.
The recount may have cost "only" thousands of dollars, but the principle was clear. Julie Rogers put Julie Rogers ahead of the taxpayers. She just didn't care about wasting our money.
Do Michigan taxpayers really want to put Julie Rogers in charge of a lot more of our money?
See also the WMUGOP's press release: Rogers' Campaign Wastes Taxpayers' Money
Sunday, October 05, 2008
POLITICAL UPDATE--Government
This update focuses on government. Government continues to cause much harm in many areas. Discussion of the DC gun case continues.
Walter Williams: Destroying Liberty
William Jasper: Turn Off the TV, Dust Off the Constitution
Gary North: The Cause of Gasoline Shortages
Brian Farmer: I.O.U.S.A. How Much?!
Becky Akers: The Tragedy of the Commons
Mac Johnson: Live Free and Die
Alex Newman: Examining Healthcare
Don Devine: Small Government Failure?
Ron Paul: Freedom is Golden
Larry Elder: Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms'? Part 1
Larry Elder: Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? Part 2
Phyllis Schlafly: Lessons of The Gun Decision
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Walter Williams: Destroying Liberty
William Jasper: Turn Off the TV, Dust Off the Constitution
Gary North: The Cause of Gasoline Shortages
Brian Farmer: I.O.U.S.A. How Much?!
Becky Akers: The Tragedy of the Commons
Mac Johnson: Live Free and Die
Alex Newman: Examining Healthcare
Don Devine: Small Government Failure?
Ron Paul: Freedom is Golden
Larry Elder: Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms'? Part 1
Larry Elder: Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? Part 2
Phyllis Schlafly: Lessons of The Gun Decision
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
Politics News
News about Michigan politics.
Economy looms large in Michigan's US Senate race
Alternative energy forum highlights algae oil use
Where they stand: Three candidates for Michigan's 6th Congressional House seat debate
Teacher, retired manager vie in 88th District
Republican DeShazor
Democrat Rogers
Sheriff, retired teacher viefor 59th state House seat
Complaint filed against judicial candidate
Economy looms large in Michigan's US Senate race
Alternative energy forum highlights algae oil use
Where they stand: Three candidates for Michigan's 6th Congressional House seat debate
Teacher, retired manager vie in 88th District
Republican DeShazor
Democrat Rogers
Sheriff, retired teacher viefor 59th state House seat
Complaint filed against judicial candidate
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Carl Levin Voted for the Bailout
Michigan Senator Carl Levin voted for corporate welfare for Wall Street firms bankrupted by bad lending. An email from Jack Hoogendyk elaborates further.
------------------
Hoogendyk: Levin is on the Side of Big Government
US Senate Candidate Calls for Action in Favor of the Market
Michigan - October 3, 2008 - US Senate Candidate Jack Hoogendyk expressed his strong disagreement with Senator Carl Levin's vote in favor of the bailout package. Two days ago, Michigan's US senators split on the bill: Senator Stabenow voted against it, whereas Senator Levin voted for it.
"I applaud Senator Stabenow's 'no' vote," Hoogendyk said, "but it does not come as a surprise that, once again, Senator Carl Levin has chosen to put himself on the side of the 'we-know-better-than-you' government rather than on the side of the people, individual potential, and the free market. If Congress does indeed pass this legislation, we will have missed a golden opportunity to reduce the burden of taxation and misguided regulation."
"The capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and the mark to market rule of accounting are all examples of government burdens that, if removed, would produce immediate results for the economy. While I recognize the urgency of this crisis, I cannot support a government solution that may provide short-term relief but will further hamper economic growth in the long run."
------------------
Hoogendyk: Levin is on the Side of Big Government
US Senate Candidate Calls for Action in Favor of the Market
Michigan - October 3, 2008 - US Senate Candidate Jack Hoogendyk expressed his strong disagreement with Senator Carl Levin's vote in favor of the bailout package. Two days ago, Michigan's US senators split on the bill: Senator Stabenow voted against it, whereas Senator Levin voted for it.
"I applaud Senator Stabenow's 'no' vote," Hoogendyk said, "but it does not come as a surprise that, once again, Senator Carl Levin has chosen to put himself on the side of the 'we-know-better-than-you' government rather than on the side of the people, individual potential, and the free market. If Congress does indeed pass this legislation, we will have missed a golden opportunity to reduce the burden of taxation and misguided regulation."
"The capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and the mark to market rule of accounting are all examples of government burdens that, if removed, would produce immediate results for the economy. While I recognize the urgency of this crisis, I cannot support a government solution that may provide short-term relief but will further hamper economic growth in the long run."
Bailout Passed
Well, it didn't talk long for Congress to revive the bailout plan. After the initial failure, there was a lot of earmarking and arm-twisting to put Congress back in line.
The Senate passed it by a vote of 74-25.
The House passed it by a vote of 263-171.
It has been signed by the President.
The bill was passed despite overwhelming public opposition at the behest of the Wall Street elite.
This bill will mean more socialism, more inflation, more bad lending, more bankruptcies, and more bailouts to come.
Tough times are ahead.
The Senate passed it by a vote of 74-25.
The House passed it by a vote of 263-171.
It has been signed by the President.
The bill was passed despite overwhelming public opposition at the behest of the Wall Street elite.
This bill will mean more socialism, more inflation, more bad lending, more bankruptcies, and more bailouts to come.
Tough times are ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)