Yesterday, we saw another round of Congress playing at its updated version of "Bread and Circuses" with its hearing with US "Big Oil" companies.
Senators, Durbin and Schumer were in particularly good form. Durbin plaintively asked how these oil tycoons could live with themselves while causing damage to the American economy. Schumer lectured the executives and asked them how they could work with the regime in Burma.
Two things strike me here. First, it is pathetic that our Congress is reduced to these "spectacles" where political "leaders" try to outdo each other in showing the American people how much they care. There hasn't been a sincere comment coming out of Washington in decades. At least Bill Clinton was able to make us believe he could "feel our pain".
More important, the sheer lunacy of our energy (non) policy is mind boggling. These idiotic Senators berate oil executives for causing the price of gas to go up. This, while our government has become captive of environmental interests that have caused us to lose sight of the appropriate balance between good economic policy and good environmental policy.
We obviously need to protect our physical environment. But there has to be some middle ground between the rape of our natural world and eschewing all attempts to increase our domestic production of oil. This PowerLine post is quite telling in that regard. The PowerLine story is like many others I have read from commentators who wonder how long we will keep subsidizing our enemies while refusing to access our own resources.
I wonder how long the American people will continue to be misled by the diversions from Washington? The hearings excoriating oil execs. The false piety of the environmentalists. How about some more government programs like the rush to subsidize ethanol production?
I wonder if there are any leaders left in America?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Blood In The Water
Hillary Clinton is finished.
The media sharks are circling in for the kill in the aftermath of her reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
And, its more of the same baloney from the usual Obamistas like Jonathan Alter and Keith Olberman.
Hillary was obviously pointing out that previous Democratic nomination processes ran into June. To allege that she was implying that Obama could be killed is lunatic, except for the pro-Obama media forces who want Hillary out.
Unfortunately for Hillary, she gave them the pretext. Unfortunately for the country, this is what now passes for journalism in the U.S.
Jefferson is turning in his grave!
The media sharks are circling in for the kill in the aftermath of her reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
And, its more of the same baloney from the usual Obamistas like Jonathan Alter and Keith Olberman.
Hillary was obviously pointing out that previous Democratic nomination processes ran into June. To allege that she was implying that Obama could be killed is lunatic, except for the pro-Obama media forces who want Hillary out.
Unfortunately for Hillary, she gave them the pretext. Unfortunately for the country, this is what now passes for journalism in the U.S.
Jefferson is turning in his grave!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Would You Buy A Used Ferry From This Man?
Former Rochester Mayor, William A. "Bill" Johnson, has appeared as a guest essayist this past week in both the Democrat & Chronicle and the Messenger Post Newspapers. Mr. Johnson is a member of former Lt. Governor Stan Lundine's Commission on Local Government Consolidation. Johnson has been a long-time proponent of metro government in the Rochester area. Apparently he was chosen to be the local "salesman" for the Commission's recommendations.
Is it just me, or do others find it incredibly ironic that the man most responsible for the Fast Ferry and High Falls fiascoes is lecturing us on ways to cut local government spending and taxes? Bill Johnson is going to convince us that he has a plan to bring efficient, business-like, and rational government to the area? And the way to do that is to abolish the mostly prosperous and efficient Town governments and replace them with a super-sized City (metro) government, run by the people (like him) who ran the City to the brink of bankruptcy?
I still vote no.
Is it just me, or do others find it incredibly ironic that the man most responsible for the Fast Ferry and High Falls fiascoes is lecturing us on ways to cut local government spending and taxes? Bill Johnson is going to convince us that he has a plan to bring efficient, business-like, and rational government to the area? And the way to do that is to abolish the mostly prosperous and efficient Town governments and replace them with a super-sized City (metro) government, run by the people (like him) who ran the City to the brink of bankruptcy?
I still vote no.
Is It Over?
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination appears to be over.
Sen. Obama's big win in North Carolina, combined with Sen. Clinton's slim margin in Indiana, have probably done her in. There are two big reasons. First and foremost, Hillary can't match Obama's spending. His better than expected showing on Tuesday has to be attributed, to some significant measure, to the fact that he has vastly outspent her. The second reason is the media fawning over Obama, which, after these results, has returned to full throat. There had been a short hiatus caused by Clinton's big night in Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago and the Jeremiah Wright saga.
The funny thing is that I think Hillary is the stronger candidate. The Democrat's nominating process seems to elevate "fairness" over all other considerations. The proportional delegate system has led to a situation where Obama wins despite having never carried a big "battleground" (except his home state of Illinois) state. This may not bode well for him in November.
I realize, of course, that the Democrats will "bind up their wounds" after the process ends. The loser will praise the winner and campaign for him or her. Maybe party leaders will be able to convince the candidates to form the dream ticket (although I can't for the life of me believe Hillary will go back to the White House as number two again).
But there is going to be one lasting effect of the Democrat primary season. It has paved the way for John McCain to make certain criticisms of Barack Obama which, had McCain been first to voice, would have led to a great outcry in the media regarding racism. Instead, McCain can preface his remarks with "As Sen. Clinton said"...or..."Lets look at this video of Sen Clinton talking about Sen. Obama". It will be much harder for the media to assail McCain's efforts (though I'm sure they will) in light of Hillary's opening the door.
Sen. Obama's big win in North Carolina, combined with Sen. Clinton's slim margin in Indiana, have probably done her in. There are two big reasons. First and foremost, Hillary can't match Obama's spending. His better than expected showing on Tuesday has to be attributed, to some significant measure, to the fact that he has vastly outspent her. The second reason is the media fawning over Obama, which, after these results, has returned to full throat. There had been a short hiatus caused by Clinton's big night in Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago and the Jeremiah Wright saga.
The funny thing is that I think Hillary is the stronger candidate. The Democrat's nominating process seems to elevate "fairness" over all other considerations. The proportional delegate system has led to a situation where Obama wins despite having never carried a big "battleground" (except his home state of Illinois) state. This may not bode well for him in November.
I realize, of course, that the Democrats will "bind up their wounds" after the process ends. The loser will praise the winner and campaign for him or her. Maybe party leaders will be able to convince the candidates to form the dream ticket (although I can't for the life of me believe Hillary will go back to the White House as number two again).
But there is going to be one lasting effect of the Democrat primary season. It has paved the way for John McCain to make certain criticisms of Barack Obama which, had McCain been first to voice, would have led to a great outcry in the media regarding racism. Instead, McCain can preface his remarks with "As Sen. Clinton said"...or..."Lets look at this video of Sen Clinton talking about Sen. Obama". It will be much harder for the media to assail McCain's efforts (though I'm sure they will) in light of Hillary's opening the door.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
They Know What's Best For Us
"They" would be former Lt. Gov. Stan Lundine and the Democrat & Chronicle editorial board.
Today's D&C has an editorial entitled "Rock N.Y.'s Boat". Here's a link to the online version, entitled "Gov. Paterson should lead rally for efficient N.Y. government". The editorial is the latest in the D&C's long-running push for metro government in our community.
I won't go through my usual rant against the false claims and overblown promises of benefit from local government consolidation. I'm saving myself for the debate that's sure to come in the next few years.
Today, however, I was struck by the anti-democratic nature of the Lundine Commission's recommendations and the D&C's thorough endorsement of them. One Commission recommendation is to convert certain elected positions into appointed ones. The D&C editorial calls this a "sensible strateg[y]".
Its "sensible" to take away our right to vote for the people who represent us and work for us? Who is going to "appoint" these officials who will we no longer be allowed to choose? Some more distant, more powerful, and, of course, more knowledgeable government official. You know, someone who won't be swayed by petty local prejudices of the kind we voters suffer from. Moreover, how does this sensible strategy save us any money? It seems that the officials will still be there; we just won't get to choose them.
Another recommendation is one of Lundine's personal favorites. That's the one that gives the State Education Commissioner the right to consolidate School Districts whether or not the voters in those districts want to consolidate. I previously noted Lundine's apparent disdain for the will of the voters on this issue as part of this post. Incredibly, (but, not surprisingly) the D&C editorial board finds this idea "radical but reasonable". Well, they were half right.
Finally, the board chides Gov. Paterson for his "lukewarm" response to the report. They state that Paterson should resist the temptation to avoid rocking the boat because its already beginning to sink. Well, they're half right again. N.Y. State is sinking under the weight of too much government spending and too high taxes. But focusing on local government is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
I'm willing to agree that some consolidation of services and, possibly certain local government jobs or even government units themselves, may be logical. But eliminating all duplication and waste in local government will result in savings that are a drop in the bucket unless there is reform in Albany. Further, local government consolidation on the scale contemplated by Lundine and the D&C will result in major reductions in service levels to local residents.
The fact is that consolidation efforts serve two ends and purposes; thus the quick kudos given to the plan by the editorial board. For Lundine and State government officials, consolidation talk distracts voters from the fact that reform is needed in Albany. For the D&C editorialists, Lundine's Commission and its recommendations give credibility to their never ending quest to redirect suburban resources to the bankrupt City of Rochester, through metro government.
Today's D&C has an editorial entitled "Rock N.Y.'s Boat". Here's a link to the online version, entitled "Gov. Paterson should lead rally for efficient N.Y. government". The editorial is the latest in the D&C's long-running push for metro government in our community.
I won't go through my usual rant against the false claims and overblown promises of benefit from local government consolidation. I'm saving myself for the debate that's sure to come in the next few years.
Today, however, I was struck by the anti-democratic nature of the Lundine Commission's recommendations and the D&C's thorough endorsement of them. One Commission recommendation is to convert certain elected positions into appointed ones. The D&C editorial calls this a "sensible strateg[y]".
Its "sensible" to take away our right to vote for the people who represent us and work for us? Who is going to "appoint" these officials who will we no longer be allowed to choose? Some more distant, more powerful, and, of course, more knowledgeable government official. You know, someone who won't be swayed by petty local prejudices of the kind we voters suffer from. Moreover, how does this sensible strategy save us any money? It seems that the officials will still be there; we just won't get to choose them.
Another recommendation is one of Lundine's personal favorites. That's the one that gives the State Education Commissioner the right to consolidate School Districts whether or not the voters in those districts want to consolidate. I previously noted Lundine's apparent disdain for the will of the voters on this issue as part of this post. Incredibly, (but, not surprisingly) the D&C editorial board finds this idea "radical but reasonable". Well, they were half right.
Finally, the board chides Gov. Paterson for his "lukewarm" response to the report. They state that Paterson should resist the temptation to avoid rocking the boat because its already beginning to sink. Well, they're half right again. N.Y. State is sinking under the weight of too much government spending and too high taxes. But focusing on local government is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
I'm willing to agree that some consolidation of services and, possibly certain local government jobs or even government units themselves, may be logical. But eliminating all duplication and waste in local government will result in savings that are a drop in the bucket unless there is reform in Albany. Further, local government consolidation on the scale contemplated by Lundine and the D&C will result in major reductions in service levels to local residents.
The fact is that consolidation efforts serve two ends and purposes; thus the quick kudos given to the plan by the editorial board. For Lundine and State government officials, consolidation talk distracts voters from the fact that reform is needed in Albany. For the D&C editorialists, Lundine's Commission and its recommendations give credibility to their never ending quest to redirect suburban resources to the bankrupt City of Rochester, through metro government.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Wasn't He Going To Stop Talking?
Someone should remind Governor Paterson of his plan to quit talking to reporters about his personal life.
The latest story comes from a radio interview in which Paterson stated that he decided to reveal his marital infidelity due to fear of exposure from "rogue state troopers". According to Paterson, he believes there are "10 or more" state troopers who are out to get politicians. They are apparently targeting Albany pols with traffic stops, investigations into private affairs, and the like.
He did say that these out of control state cops were going after both Republicans and Democrats. Whew! I'm sure glad these guys aren't partisan!
Seriously, Governor, time to zip it up...at both ends.
The latest story comes from a radio interview in which Paterson stated that he decided to reveal his marital infidelity due to fear of exposure from "rogue state troopers". According to Paterson, he believes there are "10 or more" state troopers who are out to get politicians. They are apparently targeting Albany pols with traffic stops, investigations into private affairs, and the like.
He did say that these out of control state cops were going after both Republicans and Democrats. Whew! I'm sure glad these guys aren't partisan!
Seriously, Governor, time to zip it up...at both ends.
Dirt Leads to Mud at Water Authority
The Democrat & Chronicle had a lead local story regarding the Monroe Co. Water Authority and its practice of hauling fill dirt to employee's homes.
The D&C broke the story last week, reporting that dirt from a Water Authority work site was dumped and spread over an employee's private property. Edward Marianetti, the Executive Director of the Water Authority, indicated that the Authority always sought to dump fill from its projects at private locations, rather than paying to dump it at landfills.
As would be expected, Monroe County Legislature Democrats, spearheaded by Travis Heider of Brighton, are outraged. They have questions! They want answers! After all, the Water Authority is second only to COMIDA in the eyes of Democrats, as a target of political opportunity.
The simple fact is that, like many businesses, the Water Authority gives its employees things that have value but which would cost the business more to "discard" than to give away. As an example, my office gives older computer hard drives and monitors to our employees for private use, because the cost of proper disposal is higher than the value of the items. More pertinent to this situation, I have heard that the State DOT often dumps construction fill on private property near its work sites, due to the same cost considerations that the Water Authority cited.
This strikes me as another "tempest in a teapot". Don't we have enough real problems to deal with that we shouldn't need partisans to gin up non-issues into faux controversies?
The D&C broke the story last week, reporting that dirt from a Water Authority work site was dumped and spread over an employee's private property. Edward Marianetti, the Executive Director of the Water Authority, indicated that the Authority always sought to dump fill from its projects at private locations, rather than paying to dump it at landfills.
As would be expected, Monroe County Legislature Democrats, spearheaded by Travis Heider of Brighton, are outraged. They have questions! They want answers! After all, the Water Authority is second only to COMIDA in the eyes of Democrats, as a target of political opportunity.
The simple fact is that, like many businesses, the Water Authority gives its employees things that have value but which would cost the business more to "discard" than to give away. As an example, my office gives older computer hard drives and monitors to our employees for private use, because the cost of proper disposal is higher than the value of the items. More pertinent to this situation, I have heard that the State DOT often dumps construction fill on private property near its work sites, due to the same cost considerations that the Water Authority cited.
This strikes me as another "tempest in a teapot". Don't we have enough real problems to deal with that we shouldn't need partisans to gin up non-issues into faux controversies?
Free To Do What?
The Democrat & Chronicle noted that today is World Press Freedom Day.
The article referred to the fact that a free press is vital to Democracy.
While the D&C's underlying point is correct, I'm sad to say that the D&C and most of our major media outlets fall far short of Jefferson's vision of the press providing the populace with the information it needs to make good decisions about government.
Today, editorial bias seeps into news reporting. The media makes itself part of the story. As an example, the D&C editorial board seeks the opportunity to "play a more active role in how the story ultimately progresses". One only has to read the D&C for a week or so to see that the same "goal" has spilled over into the news pages, as well. College students go to journalism school to "make a difference" rather than to report the news.
Unfortunately, freedom of the press has come to mean that the press is free to criticize the government regarding policies the media doesn't like and to press upon us (the great unwashed) their political and social viewpoints.
After all, they do know what's best for us, and, by God, they are going to force us to accept it.
The article referred to the fact that a free press is vital to Democracy.
While the D&C's underlying point is correct, I'm sad to say that the D&C and most of our major media outlets fall far short of Jefferson's vision of the press providing the populace with the information it needs to make good decisions about government.
Today, editorial bias seeps into news reporting. The media makes itself part of the story. As an example, the D&C editorial board seeks the opportunity to "play a more active role in how the story ultimately progresses". One only has to read the D&C for a week or so to see that the same "goal" has spilled over into the news pages, as well. College students go to journalism school to "make a difference" rather than to report the news.
Unfortunately, freedom of the press has come to mean that the press is free to criticize the government regarding policies the media doesn't like and to press upon us (the great unwashed) their political and social viewpoints.
After all, they do know what's best for us, and, by God, they are going to force us to accept it.
Good News Is No News?
An independent audit of the financial statements of the Town of Gates showed that the Town ended fiscal 2007 with a surplus of approximately $700,000.00. You may recall that three years ago, the Town was facing a deficit of $2.2 million. That nearly $3,000,000.00 improvement was accomplished while maintaining vital services and keeping taxes low.
So, has this remarkable and positive turnaround led to many laudatory news stories and editorials? Not yet, anyway.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a few snide and critical editorials, angry letters to the editor and pointed blog posts when the deficit loomed large. The State Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, (you remember him, the guy who resigned in disgrace after pleading guilty to personal use of State funds), piled on with a politically motivated audit which accused the Supervisor and Town Board of fiscal mismanagement. That "unbiased" audit erroneously predicted that our fiscal policies would lead to a $4,000,000.00 deficit by the end of 2006. Let's not forget that Sue "Cassandra" Swanton encouraged and echoed Hevesi's error-laden hit job.
It might be nice if even one of these critics had a congratulatory word for Mr. Esposito and the Town Board. Since this good news doesn't jibe with the fantasy the critics like to spin, I won't hold my breath.
So, has this remarkable and positive turnaround led to many laudatory news stories and editorials? Not yet, anyway.
Funny, I seem to recall quite a few snide and critical editorials, angry letters to the editor and pointed blog posts when the deficit loomed large. The State Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, (you remember him, the guy who resigned in disgrace after pleading guilty to personal use of State funds), piled on with a politically motivated audit which accused the Supervisor and Town Board of fiscal mismanagement. That "unbiased" audit erroneously predicted that our fiscal policies would lead to a $4,000,000.00 deficit by the end of 2006. Let's not forget that Sue "Cassandra" Swanton encouraged and echoed Hevesi's error-laden hit job.
It might be nice if even one of these critics had a congratulatory word for Mr. Esposito and the Town Board. Since this good news doesn't jibe with the fantasy the critics like to spin, I won't hold my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
