Sunday, October 31, 2010
Who Knew?
A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left. - Ecclesiastes 10:2
Saturday, October 30, 2010
"Rally to Restore Sanity" pledges to "strictly prohibit filming' at National Mall
"There’s the real irony: While this rally seeks to make fun of Tea Party activists who advocate for freedom, Comedy Central is looking to tightly control the event as much as possible. Lame."The First Amendment: Void where prohibited on public land by smarmy liberal comedy shows?
TY L
Friday, October 29, 2010
U.S. State Dept Wishes Ahmadinejad
Happy Birthday Via Twitter
Aaw.
In the same tweet, Hillary Clinton's "State Dept. Spokesman P.J. Crowley urged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) to send American hikers Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer home."
Such courage. Such daring.
How fortunate is our nation to have such a champion?
Other nations tremble.
In the same tweet, Hillary Clinton's "State Dept. Spokesman P.J. Crowley urged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) to send American hikers Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer home."
Such courage. Such daring.
How fortunate is our nation to have such a champion?
Other nations tremble.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Ballot Initiatives For Jackson County, Missouri
The complete ballot can be found here.
Your obstinate, no-talent hack offers the correct way to vote this November 2nd:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
NO on Constitutional Amendment 1:
The residents of St. Louis County already voted on a similar matter regarding their county assessor during the local August elections, amid a hotly contested county executive race (with Jeff City probably fed up with the b*tching and moaning from St. Louis).
Many other Missouri counties already choose to elect their county assessors. They can do that, if they so desire. Local government should be controlled locally.
So why do we need this 'ballot clutter' and state meddling in county government? We don't.
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 1.
YES on Constitutional Amendment 2:
Yet, when we consider the one group who sacrificed nearly all they have in this world for the defense and survival of this nation - former prisoners of war who have a total service-connected disability - exemption from property taxes is the least we can do to say "Thank you."
Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 2
YES on Constitutional Amendment 3:
This amendment will preclude any future attempt to legislate a real estate sales tax in Missouri.
Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 3
STATUTORY MEASURES
YES on Proposition A:
For all intents and purposes, the only two cities effected by Proposition A are Kansas City & St. Louis, as they are the only cities in Missouri that currently use an earnings tax on individual income and business profits to raise municipal revenue.
Normally, I would stick with the basic philosophy of The Conservative Code: "local government should be controlled locally", and deem this mere 'ballot clutter' and state meddling in local government. Except the requirement for the earnings tax was imposed upon Kansas City & St. Louis by the state legislature over 50 years ago. It's Missouri law. And the boys in Jeff City haven't been too responsive to those wishing to repeal that state imposed requirement for an earnings tax.
Ergo, Proposition A.
Proposition A simply allows for the possibility to eliminate the earnings tax in Kansas City & St. Louis on a local ballot, sometime in the near future. Local voters could then say 'yes' or 'no' to continuation or repeal of the tax. If approved, the phase-out would be over ten years, not all at once.
Opponents say that elimination of the earnings tax will severely cut city revenue and necessitate gutting essential services, like fire and police - as if fire & police are the only first choice for trimming a budget (when all such claims really are is the first choice in fear mongering and demagoguery).
Proponents say that cities should have local control over local taxes, and that eliminating the earnings tax will stop the slow hemorrhage of businesses voting with their feet to relocate to other municipalities without such a tax. Their employees relocate elsewhere, too, along with the dollars they spend in the local economy.
But wait. Aren't there critics to the wording of Prop A? Specifically, "• prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?" Isn't that meddling in local govt. and a violation of "The Conservative Code?"
Actually, the code is more like.... guidelines. Besides, the possibility to eliminate an old tax always trumps the prohibition against a possible new tax. Always. The Conservative Code.
Vote YES on Proposition A:
NO on Proposition B:
Animal rights groups, like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which helped draft Proposition B, and the Humane Society of the U.S., are for Prop B.
A lot of shed tears, tugged heart strings, and outside money have gone into Missouri TV and radio spots trying to convince voters that Prop B will end this cruelty.
But will Proposition B end this cruelty?
NOPE.
Why not?
Missouri already has numerous laws on the books regulating commercial breeders, and many more laws prohibiting cruelty to animals (see State Criminal Statues 578.009 RSMo. Animal Neglect and Abandonment, & 578.012 RSMo. Animal Abuse; and the Code of State Regulations, Rules of the Department of Agriculture, Division 30 Animal Health, Chapter 9 Animal Care Facilities) .
The Missouri Department of Agriculture is responsible for enforcement of these laws, but has an increasingly limited state budget, and only 12 inspectors to comb the entire state. The passage of Prop B would allow for more inspectors - at an annual cost of a half a million dollars - but that's not a realistic goal amid shrinking state revenue & severe budgets cuts during the current, protracted economic malaise and deliberate malfeasance embraced in Washington D.C.
More regulations could put the honest breeders out of business, while those who have been acting illegally will continue to act illegally. It's what criminals do.
Better enforcement of existing laws is the answer, not more regulations.
Tell Animal rights groups, like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and the Humane Society of the U.S., to quit trying to spend Missouri's money so they can duplicate laws already on the books.
Vote NO on Proposition B
Your obstinate, no-talent hack offers the correct way to vote this November 2nd:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
NO on Constitutional Amendment 1:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999?In other words, one county in Missouri will be exempt from an amended state constitution: Jackson County, which includes the Kansas City metro area. Jackson County's property assessor is appointed by the County Executive.
The residents of St. Louis County already voted on a similar matter regarding their county assessor during the local August elections, amid a hotly contested county executive race (with Jeff City probably fed up with the b*tching and moaning from St. Louis).
Many other Missouri counties already choose to elect their county assessors. They can do that, if they so desire. Local government should be controlled locally.
So why do we need this 'ballot clutter' and state meddling in county government? We don't.
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 1.
YES on Constitutional Amendment 2:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?As it stands now, everyone in Missouri who owns real estate pays property taxes. Of all the things that should apply equally and evenly to all citizens it is taxes. This includes the poor. Everyone needs to put something in the pot to pay the bills.
Yet, when we consider the one group who sacrificed nearly all they have in this world for the defense and survival of this nation - former prisoners of war who have a total service-connected disability - exemption from property taxes is the least we can do to say "Thank you."
Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 2
YES on Constitutional Amendment 3:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?As I stated above, everyone in Missouri who owns real estate pays property taxes. Currently, there is no real estate transfer tax (sales tax) in Missouri, but politicians are addicted to spending other people's money. They love to weasel ways to get their hand into your wallet. A real estate transfer tax (sales tax) would be a tax in addition to the property taxes already paid for real estate. In essence, double taxation for the same property.
This amendment will preclude any future attempt to legislate a real estate sales tax in Missouri.
Vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 3
STATUTORY MEASURES
YES on Proposition A:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:Earnings taxes are relatively rare in this country. Only 25 of the nation's 150 largest cities impose earnings taxes. In simplest terms, it is a third layer of income tax, after the federal and state income tax.
• repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
• require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax
at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
• require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a
period of 10 years; and
• prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?
For all intents and purposes, the only two cities effected by Proposition A are Kansas City & St. Louis, as they are the only cities in Missouri that currently use an earnings tax on individual income and business profits to raise municipal revenue.
Normally, I would stick with the basic philosophy of The Conservative Code: "local government should be controlled locally", and deem this mere 'ballot clutter' and state meddling in local government. Except the requirement for the earnings tax was imposed upon Kansas City & St. Louis by the state legislature over 50 years ago. It's Missouri law. And the boys in Jeff City haven't been too responsive to those wishing to repeal that state imposed requirement for an earnings tax.
Ergo, Proposition A.
Proposition A simply allows for the possibility to eliminate the earnings tax in Kansas City & St. Louis on a local ballot, sometime in the near future. Local voters could then say 'yes' or 'no' to continuation or repeal of the tax. If approved, the phase-out would be over ten years, not all at once.
Opponents say that elimination of the earnings tax will severely cut city revenue and necessitate gutting essential services, like fire and police - as if fire & police are the only first choice for trimming a budget (when all such claims really are is the first choice in fear mongering and demagoguery).
Proponents say that cities should have local control over local taxes, and that eliminating the earnings tax will stop the slow hemorrhage of businesses voting with their feet to relocate to other municipalities without such a tax. Their employees relocate elsewhere, too, along with the dollars they spend in the local economy.
But wait. Aren't there critics to the wording of Prop A? Specifically, "• prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?" Isn't that meddling in local govt. and a violation of "The Conservative Code?"
Actually, the code is more like.... guidelines. Besides, the possibility to eliminate an old tax always trumps the prohibition against a possible new tax. Always. The Conservative Code.
Vote YES on Proposition A:
NO on Proposition B:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:Sounds real good, doesn't it? Everybody hates animal cruelty and wants to end it. Especially, the 'puppy mill cruelty' for profit. Yet, agriculturalists, legitimate Missouri dog breeders, and the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association are opposed to Prop B.
• require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient
food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate
rest between breeding cycles;
• prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their
puppies as pets; and
• create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?
It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.
Animal rights groups, like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which helped draft Proposition B, and the Humane Society of the U.S., are for Prop B.
A lot of shed tears, tugged heart strings, and outside money have gone into Missouri TV and radio spots trying to convince voters that Prop B will end this cruelty.
But will Proposition B end this cruelty?
NOPE.
Why not?
Missouri already has numerous laws on the books regulating commercial breeders, and many more laws prohibiting cruelty to animals (see State Criminal Statues 578.009 RSMo. Animal Neglect and Abandonment, & 578.012 RSMo. Animal Abuse; and the Code of State Regulations, Rules of the Department of Agriculture, Division 30 Animal Health, Chapter 9 Animal Care Facilities) .
The Missouri Department of Agriculture is responsible for enforcement of these laws, but has an increasingly limited state budget, and only 12 inspectors to comb the entire state. The passage of Prop B would allow for more inspectors - at an annual cost of a half a million dollars - but that's not a realistic goal amid shrinking state revenue & severe budgets cuts during the current, protracted economic malaise and deliberate malfeasance embraced in Washington D.C.
More regulations could put the honest breeders out of business, while those who have been acting illegally will continue to act illegally. It's what criminals do.
Better enforcement of existing laws is the answer, not more regulations.
Tell Animal rights groups, like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and the Humane Society of the U.S., to quit trying to spend Missouri's money so they can duplicate laws already on the books.
Vote NO on Proposition B
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sugar Envy
Nancy Pelosi had another cranial diarrhea movement: “Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in.”
Pelosi is making reference to the Citizens United ruling from SCOTUS this past January which allows unions and corporations to make unlimited donations to 501(c)4 groups.
Conservatives have been more successful at taking advantage of this change in the contribution law.
Liberals are upset at this fact, and are even (surprise) becoming unhinged with their ridiculous rhetoric:
Wizbang's Kim Priestap tells us that Rep. Peter DeFazio(D-OR) is angry about Citizens United decision & wants to bring articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts.
Please remember DeFazio's rant next time some loon toon Lib wants to tell you all about how those racist tea baggers want to impeach Obama.
Volokh concludes that impeachment is highly unlikely since the Robert's Court is the most restrained in decades.
But facts and logic don't matter much to the unhinged.
I say Rep. Peter DeFazio(D) needs to find his spot in the unemployment line. This is his 12th term in Oregon's 4th district and he's up for re-election.
His opponent in this heavily democrat district is Art Robinson(R), and needs he all the help he can get.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Heard 'round the NPR Water Cooler...
..from our informant inside NPR:
"Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel , "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses & camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."
Nearly 75 years ago, FDR said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, & light up a Camel. This is the Promised Land."
Today, Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land!
I was so depressed last night thinking about ObamaCare, the economy, Afghanistan, lost jobs, the nat'l debt and Juan Williams being fired . . . I called a Suicide Hotline.
I had to press 1 for English. I was connected to a call center in Pakistan .I told them I was suicidal.
They got excited and asked if I could drive a truck......
Meanwhile, over at Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon proposes "The Juan Williams Law:"
"This legislation would outlaw all government funding for any news organization, whether private or non-governmental in nature. This restriction would include not only National Public Radio but all domestic news outlets, whatever their ideology or bias, or even if they claim to have none. (I am not talking here, of course, of international operations such as Voice of America, which have the legitimate task of representing American interests abroad.)
The legislation would further outlaw any future stimulus funding or bailouts for news organizations, again irrespective of ideology.
It’s easy to understand that government financing of the news is at best unseemly and at worst totalitarian. The possibilities for corruption are myriad. I am not one to dwell on what the Founders intended, but I am reasonably certain they didn’t want a Fourth Estate that was bought and paid for by the government, even in part."
Last, but not least, Andrew Klaven's head nearly explodes trying to explain an excrement storm inside the Overton Window.
(messy, yet safe for work)
America’s Worst Politician
Although Pete Stark "raving mad" (D-Cal) is a close second.
The erudite George Will demonstrates, once again, why he makes the big bucks with The short, ugly career of Alan Grayson (D).
The erudite George Will demonstrates, once again, why he makes the big bucks with The short, ugly career of Alan Grayson (D).
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Why Does NPR Hate Black People?
Let's play a little game.
Do you recognize this woman?
What about all these folks?
That's the entire Board of Directors at NPR.
And a lot of white faces. Oh, sure. There's some Hispanic surnames in there, but Hispanics come from Europe, and Europeans are, you know, bad.
Mr. Lyle Logan is the only black man on the entire NPR board of Directors. Go ahead. Try and spot him.
Earlier this week, in a predictable move, uber-liberal, mega-rich white doood, George Soros, donated 1.8 million dollars through his uber-liberal Open Society Foundations to NPR for the express purpose of hiring 100 new journalists.
Now comes word that one of America's leading Black journalists, Juan Williams, and NPR's only on-air television personality, has been fired by NPR.
This blogger questions the timing.
Firing Williams was a hasty decision that NPR now admits was poorly handled. To add insult to injury, NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller, insinuated that Mr. Williams was in need of psychiatric care. Or something.
It would appear that NPR - like their fellow liberal travelers on the information highway (CNN, MSNBC, etc) - talk a good game about diversity, yet when it comes to the upper echelons of their organizations, whether in front of the camera or behind the scenes, it looks like white bread and mayonnaise is the main course.
This blogger wants to know, "Why does NPR hate black people?" It's the only explanation. It's a conclusion in search of a report issued by the NAACP. The evidence is overwhelming. The NAACP must seek justice and right this wrong against a clean and articulate black man!
Or not.
I guess the NAACP is busy elsewhere with a broad brush and a big bucket of demagoguery.
Obligatory disclaimer to the obtuse or humorless: All of the above is satire. I do not believe for a Massachusetts' minute that the fine folk who sit on NPR's board of Directors are a bunch of bigots or racialists who hate black people. I'll leave that sort of juvenile race-baiting slander to other cretins.
NPR is a government subsidized, non-profit entity with rules and regs, like most other organizations. It can hire and fire whomever it likes (no, it's not like the Helen Thomas incident). NPR states that it terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims.
Sorry, Juan. I disagree. I think NPR merely used that as a pretext. The real problem was you being too cozy with the evil FOX News. From 2008:
NPR substantiated the point in its public memo about firing Juan Williams:
Meanwhile, Fox News just signed Juan Williams to a new three-year contract worth $2 million, and Mr. Williams wasted no time in airing his opinions about his former employer: Political correctness, character assassination, and intolerance at National Public Radio.
All things considered, I'd say Juan Williams is the big winner in this kerkuffle.
(also posted at wizbang)
Update: Michelle Malkin's latest column says, "Defund State-Sponsored Media."
Do you recognize this woman?
Probably not.
She is Vivian Schiller, President and CEO of NPR.
Do you recognize this man?
Doubtful.
He is Antoine W. van Agtmael, Chairman of the NPR Foundation. He's also a big wig in the World Bank.
What about all these folks?
And a lot of white faces. Oh, sure. There's some Hispanic surnames in there, but Hispanics come from Europe, and Europeans are, you know, bad.
Mr. Lyle Logan is the only black man on the entire NPR board of Directors. Go ahead. Try and spot him.
Earlier this week, in a predictable move, uber-liberal, mega-rich white doood, George Soros, donated 1.8 million dollars through his uber-liberal Open Society Foundations to NPR for the express purpose of hiring 100 new journalists.
Now comes word that one of America's leading Black journalists, Juan Williams, and NPR's only on-air television personality, has been fired by NPR.
This blogger questions the timing.
Firing Williams was a hasty decision that NPR now admits was poorly handled. To add insult to injury, NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller, insinuated that Mr. Williams was in need of psychiatric care. Or something.
It would appear that NPR - like their fellow liberal travelers on the information highway (CNN, MSNBC, etc) - talk a good game about diversity, yet when it comes to the upper echelons of their organizations, whether in front of the camera or behind the scenes, it looks like white bread and mayonnaise is the main course.
This blogger wants to know, "Why does NPR hate black people?" It's the only explanation. It's a conclusion in search of a report issued by the NAACP. The evidence is overwhelming. The NAACP must seek justice and right this wrong against a clean and articulate black man!
Or not.
I guess the NAACP is busy elsewhere with a broad brush and a big bucket of demagoguery.
Obligatory disclaimer to the obtuse or humorless: All of the above is satire. I do not believe for a Massachusetts' minute that the fine folk who sit on NPR's board of Directors are a bunch of bigots or racialists who hate black people. I'll leave that sort of juvenile race-baiting slander to other cretins.
NPR is a government subsidized, non-profit entity with rules and regs, like most other organizations. It can hire and fire whomever it likes (no, it's not like the Helen Thomas incident). NPR states that it terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims.
"When I get on a plane," Williams told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, "I've got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."Williams claims, "I was fired for telling the truth."
Sorry, Juan. I disagree. I think NPR merely used that as a pretext. The real problem was you being too cozy with the evil FOX News. From 2008:
"NPR has asked Fox News not to identify its news analyst, Juan Williams, with NPR branding when he appears on Fox News because of outrage among its largely liberal listener-base. And Fox News has happily agreed to do so.Obviously, 378 open minded, progressive, all things considered complaints.
NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard wrote Wednesday that in 2008 she received 378 "complaints and frustrations about things Williams said on Fox," including claims that Williams "dishonors NPR" and is an "embarrassment to NPR" and that "NPR should severe [sic] their relationship with him."
NPR substantiated the point in its public memo about firing Juan Williams:
"Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives."My guess is NPR's uber-liberal, mega-rich white doood benefactor, George Soros, doesn't care much for the evil FOX News, either.
Meanwhile, Fox News just signed Juan Williams to a new three-year contract worth $2 million, and Mr. Williams wasted no time in airing his opinions about his former employer: Political correctness, character assassination, and intolerance at National Public Radio.
All things considered, I'd say Juan Williams is the big winner in this kerkuffle.
(also posted at wizbang)
Update: Michelle Malkin's latest column says, "Defund State-Sponsored Media."
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Speaking Truth to Power
"I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States . Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed.Shamelessly stolen from Boortz.
"Wow...what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents still aren't speaking to me."
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Rural Residents Seek Changes in Fire Policy After House Allowed to Burn
"But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:29
This is a sad tale of some poor soul whose house burned down while a neighboring fire dept. watched:
When Cranick's fire spread to a neighbor’s property, the South Fulton Fire Dept. responded to protect that property. The neighbor had paid their $75 annual subscription fee.
Another sad tale, to be sure. No one wants to see his neighbor's house burn down, but by my calculations, $75.00 per year divided by 12 months equals $6.25 per month. I don't like to kick a man when he's down, but that spells "irresponsible cheap-skate" in my part of the world. And I'd sure hate to look my family in the eye after such a preventable conflagration.
South Fulton is located in N.W. Tennessee. It's 2009 population was 2,391. 2008 Per capita income: $19,740. It has one high school school, 5 grocery stores, one mayor, four council men, and, obviously, a (mostly volunteer) municipal fire department, which operates on a annual budget of $205,000 a year. The big city, it ain't.
South Fulton residents are provided fire service via their city taxes. For rural fire protection, someone has to pay for the equipment and manpower. The $75.00 / yr annual fee is simply a down payment on a contract for services. According the the city's fire regulations, an additional $500.00 is charged to the subscribing property owner each time the South Fulton fire department responds to a rural fire emergency, probably billed through home owner's insurance. For rural residents, it sounds like a fair deal to me, and much preferable to the pre-1990 arrangement in which there was no agreement for any sort of fire protection, from anyone - including the Obion county. South Fulton's mayor, David Crocker, summed it up succinctly - "you either accept it or don't."
Yet, it's the small town politicos of South Fulton, Tenn. who are being portrayed as the devil's own spawn for not providing a deep pocket of tax dollars and man-power upon which to care for any non-paying county resident who haphazardly strays into South Fulton's tiny sphere of influence. According to some indolent critics, responsibility for not burning down your neighbor's house is a one way street, and a mess for other citizens to clean up.
The liberal trolls at the likes of the Daily Kuss, Huffy-poo, and the oddly named Think Progress use this tragedy of to demonize -of all things- the TEA party, and pursue reductio ad absurdum as proof for the pernicious and cruel nature of limited government. After all, the Cranick's pet died. The fire chief must resign. The Cranick's son simply cannot be held responsible for burning barrels of trash, which started the blaze. Logic is further tortured to (erroneously) conclude that since evil Republicans were responsible for this subscription fire service, social security is in eminent danger of being dismantled. Or something.
According to the Fulton News Leader, in 1990, a yellow dog democrat Mayor, Dr. Charles Rice, and his 2 man city council, extended the offer of fire protection to their neighbors in the outlying rural areas. Resolution 90-6 was passed. It was their response to Luke 10:29.
But they knew their small town's limited resources would not bear that burden, so the rural residents were asked to share in the cost. Those residents agreed. That was the rural neighbors response to Luke 10:29 - helping their neighbors by sharing the burden. It works both ways. Fire fighters - who have jobs and families and risk their lives - are your neighbors, too. And, like any good Baptist community, it was democratic and voluntary: "you either accept it or don't."
Now, one can argue the rightness or wrongness of such a model for emergency service, invoking Aristotle's 'greater good' ethic, or moral hazard arguments, or silly 'WWJD?' discussions, and whether there should be an 'exception clause' (there is), but these people are human beings doing the best they can in an imperfect world full of hazards. This is the model in place. This was agreed. What is the alternative? Turn the clock back to pre-1990? Or respond to any and all regardless of payment till the system is upside down, under water, and South Fulton unable to provide fire protection for even it's own tax paying citizens? Who would that benefit?
And isn't that a microcosm of the macro disasters we see bankrupting our Western states flooded with people swamping an alphabet soup of social welfare agencies when these people contribute little or nothing to support those welfare systems? Of course, that attitude is blasphemous to any big government liberal. Our entitlement society demands anything must be provided to everyone who asks. After all, there must be a money tree out back, someplace. Or an evil rich person to force tax dollars from.
Last I looked, Obion County had no fire department and the citizens have made no plans to levy county taxes to start one, yet there is no discussion about the irresponsibility in that non-action, merely demonization of those trying to work within an imperfect system, under agreed upon terms, that other citizens pay to provide. But this seems to be where we are at in our national discussion, self-absorption and entitlement rule the day.
So, who is my neighbor? My neighbor should be one who asks not what I will do for him, but what he could do for me. Like raising rural county funds to provide their own fire service - and maybe put out fires in neighboring towns. I'll even help pay for it.
~Also posted at WizBang
This is a sad tale of some poor soul whose house burned down while a neighboring fire dept. watched:
"...a group of about 25 rural residents who showed up (at the South Fulton Municipal Building ) to voice their concern over a July 2 fire on Lakeview Drive in which service was refused because the property owner/resident had not paid a $75 rural fire protection annual fee.What's most interesting is this story is from 2008, and South Fulton, Tennessee never did change its fire policy. It's plainly stated that the policy had been in effect since 1990, yet it appears some folks never learned the lesson:
It has been a part of the city’s fire policy since 1990 to refuse service to non- subscribers.
The house, occupied by the Richard Cruse family, was a total loss."
When Cranick's fire spread to a neighbor’s property, the South Fulton Fire Dept. responded to protect that property. The neighbor had paid their $75 annual subscription fee.
Another sad tale, to be sure. No one wants to see his neighbor's house burn down, but by my calculations, $75.00 per year divided by 12 months equals $6.25 per month. I don't like to kick a man when he's down, but that spells "irresponsible cheap-skate" in my part of the world. And I'd sure hate to look my family in the eye after such a preventable conflagration.
South Fulton is located in N.W. Tennessee. It's 2009 population was 2,391. 2008 Per capita income: $19,740. It has one high school school, 5 grocery stores, one mayor, four council men, and, obviously, a (mostly volunteer) municipal fire department, which operates on a annual budget of $205,000 a year. The big city, it ain't.
South Fulton residents are provided fire service via their city taxes. For rural fire protection, someone has to pay for the equipment and manpower. The $75.00 / yr annual fee is simply a down payment on a contract for services. According the the city's fire regulations, an additional $500.00 is charged to the subscribing property owner each time the South Fulton fire department responds to a rural fire emergency, probably billed through home owner's insurance. For rural residents, it sounds like a fair deal to me, and much preferable to the pre-1990 arrangement in which there was no agreement for any sort of fire protection, from anyone - including the Obion county. South Fulton's mayor, David Crocker, summed it up succinctly - "you either accept it or don't."
Yet, it's the small town politicos of South Fulton, Tenn. who are being portrayed as the devil's own spawn for not providing a deep pocket of tax dollars and man-power upon which to care for any non-paying county resident who haphazardly strays into South Fulton's tiny sphere of influence. According to some indolent critics, responsibility for not burning down your neighbor's house is a one way street, and a mess for other citizens to clean up.
The liberal trolls at the likes of the Daily Kuss, Huffy-poo, and the oddly named Think Progress use this tragedy of to demonize -of all things- the TEA party, and pursue reductio ad absurdum as proof for the pernicious and cruel nature of limited government. After all, the Cranick's pet died. The fire chief must resign. The Cranick's son simply cannot be held responsible for burning barrels of trash, which started the blaze. Logic is further tortured to (erroneously) conclude that since evil Republicans were responsible for this subscription fire service, social security is in eminent danger of being dismantled. Or something.
According to the Fulton News Leader, in 1990, a yellow dog democrat Mayor, Dr. Charles Rice, and his 2 man city council, extended the offer of fire protection to their neighbors in the outlying rural areas. Resolution 90-6 was passed. It was their response to Luke 10:29.
But they knew their small town's limited resources would not bear that burden, so the rural residents were asked to share in the cost. Those residents agreed. That was the rural neighbors response to Luke 10:29 - helping their neighbors by sharing the burden. It works both ways. Fire fighters - who have jobs and families and risk their lives - are your neighbors, too. And, like any good Baptist community, it was democratic and voluntary: "you either accept it or don't."
Now, one can argue the rightness or wrongness of such a model for emergency service, invoking Aristotle's 'greater good' ethic, or moral hazard arguments, or silly 'WWJD?' discussions, and whether there should be an 'exception clause' (there is), but these people are human beings doing the best they can in an imperfect world full of hazards. This is the model in place. This was agreed. What is the alternative? Turn the clock back to pre-1990? Or respond to any and all regardless of payment till the system is upside down, under water, and South Fulton unable to provide fire protection for even it's own tax paying citizens? Who would that benefit?
And isn't that a microcosm of the macro disasters we see bankrupting our Western states flooded with people swamping an alphabet soup of social welfare agencies when these people contribute little or nothing to support those welfare systems? Of course, that attitude is blasphemous to any big government liberal. Our entitlement society demands anything must be provided to everyone who asks. After all, there must be a money tree out back, someplace. Or an evil rich person to force tax dollars from.
Last I looked, Obion County had no fire department and the citizens have made no plans to levy county taxes to start one, yet there is no discussion about the irresponsibility in that non-action, merely demonization of those trying to work within an imperfect system, under agreed upon terms, that other citizens pay to provide. But this seems to be where we are at in our national discussion, self-absorption and entitlement rule the day.
So, who is my neighbor? My neighbor should be one who asks not what I will do for him, but what he could do for me. Like raising rural county funds to provide their own fire service - and maybe put out fires in neighboring towns. I'll even help pay for it.
~Also posted at WizBang
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Extortion Mob Rule
The sad fact is this extortion & intimidation of business had been imposed by the Feds long before Obama won his turf war. Obama has simply exacerbated the process at breakneck speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)