"The taxpayers in my estimation are concerned about layoffs, furloughs and services."
That quote was from Mayor Dickert and can be found here as part of a larger discussion about a 2.7% tax increase.
I am just one Racine taxpayer who would prefer not to have my concerns estimated. I prefer to be direct.
Here are my concerns Mayor Dickert: As you know, Racine continues to have high unemployment. Also, our properties have lost value. What this means is that Racine taxpayers have even less money and or net worth than they did a year ago. I am concerned about those people, many of whom will have great difficulty paying their taxes. I am less concerned about city employees. They have jobs with benefits that no longer exist in the private sector. They are doing just fine. But alas, something must be done. Sacrifices must be made. My concern is that all the sacrifices are being made by the taxpayers. I am also concerned about your apparent view of the role of government. It is not to ensure full employment for city workers. Rather it is to provide for the needs of taxpayers, constrained of course, by their ability to pay. I am concerned that we have reached a point in Racine where the tax burden is simply too high for many individuals and businesses to thrive in Racine. I am concerned that this burden will lead to more unemployment, more foreclosures and a weakened private economy. If you were to introduce layoffs of city employees, or furloughs, or reduction in city services with a commensurate savings to taxpayers, you would show Racine taxpayers that you understand their struggles. My final concern is that my concerns will not be shared, expressed, or represented by any Racine officials.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
No to Corporate Welfare
I'll be glad to have 189 new jobs in Racine if they ever materialize (read story here). That said, isn't $5.7 million in corporate welfare from the state an admission that Wisconsin has a burdensome tax and or regulatory environment? Do we want government using our money to pick business winners and losers? My answers are yes and no respectively. Let us level the playing field and make life easier for the only people who can actually grow our economy, entrepreneurs.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Be Afraid
'I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I 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."
Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for making this statement on the O'Reilly show the other day.
Note that Williams was not advocating any kind of different treatment of apparent Muslims. He was simply nervous and worried. Some Americans might recall that several years ago some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Might that historical event have contributed to Williams anxiety?
It is not clear whether the fireable offense was being nervous or speaking about said nervousness, but I suspect the latter. After all, being nervous is not something we can easily control. I am often a bit nervous when flying, usually on takeoffs and landings. I suppose now I should be careful not to share my anxiety lest I offend all airline pilots. But somehow I don't think Williams would have been fired if he merely offended pilots.
No, Williams was fired for speaking truthfully about his anxiety about Muslims and airplanes. Obviously, speaking truthfully is not something that one should be punished for. Therefore, the answer is to address Williams' fears.
I suggest nationwide reeducation camps. We all need to learn about the benign nature of all adherents to Islam. We need to pretend that 9-11 had no connection to Islam whatsoever. The culprits were extremists. All extremists are equally dangerous.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Just don't tell anyone.
Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for making this statement on the O'Reilly show the other day.
Note that Williams was not advocating any kind of different treatment of apparent Muslims. He was simply nervous and worried. Some Americans might recall that several years ago some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Might that historical event have contributed to Williams anxiety?
It is not clear whether the fireable offense was being nervous or speaking about said nervousness, but I suspect the latter. After all, being nervous is not something we can easily control. I am often a bit nervous when flying, usually on takeoffs and landings. I suppose now I should be careful not to share my anxiety lest I offend all airline pilots. But somehow I don't think Williams would have been fired if he merely offended pilots.
No, Williams was fired for speaking truthfully about his anxiety about Muslims and airplanes. Obviously, speaking truthfully is not something that one should be punished for. Therefore, the answer is to address Williams' fears.
I suggest nationwide reeducation camps. We all need to learn about the benign nature of all adherents to Islam. We need to pretend that 9-11 had no connection to Islam whatsoever. The culprits were extremists. All extremists are equally dangerous.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Just don't tell anyone.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
WW Sean Cranley Do?
Whenever you challenge the pro abortion crowd, as I have been doing recently at Kay's Blue Racine, they inevitably bring up the small percentage of abortions that pose genuine moral quandaries, such as when the pregnancy is caused by rape or if the life of the mother is at risk etc...
So I figured I would present an atypical abortion decision and see if abortion is acceptable to Sean Cranley et al under the following hypothetical circumstance:
Husband and wife are expecting their fourth child, a boy after three girls. Everything is going just fine with the pregnancy until wife discovers that husband had an affair. She files for divorce and tells anyone willing to listen that she will not give that good-for-nothing husband the boy he wanted. She even posts on Facebook her intent to abort the baby to spite her husband. Should this be legal Sean?
Husband files suit, wife makes appointment for the abortion. The fateful day arrives only the little fellow doesn't cooperate. Actually, he's just a little lucky. The abortion doc only crushes the jaw and shoulder and misses the brain. He's still alive when the husband rushes in with a duffle bag filled with cash accompanied by the world's most reknowned pediatric surgeon eager to save the boy. The abortion doc doesn't know what to do so he calls the Chief Ethicist at Burlington Secular Progressive Hospital, one Sean Cranley.
We already know what our president would do. He would nudge the little boy (or delegate the task) into the red biohazard bin. But WWSCD? Go ahead Sean, play god.
So I figured I would present an atypical abortion decision and see if abortion is acceptable to Sean Cranley et al under the following hypothetical circumstance:
Husband and wife are expecting their fourth child, a boy after three girls. Everything is going just fine with the pregnancy until wife discovers that husband had an affair. She files for divorce and tells anyone willing to listen that she will not give that good-for-nothing husband the boy he wanted. She even posts on Facebook her intent to abort the baby to spite her husband. Should this be legal Sean?
Husband files suit, wife makes appointment for the abortion. The fateful day arrives only the little fellow doesn't cooperate. Actually, he's just a little lucky. The abortion doc only crushes the jaw and shoulder and misses the brain. He's still alive when the husband rushes in with a duffle bag filled with cash accompanied by the world's most reknowned pediatric surgeon eager to save the boy. The abortion doc doesn't know what to do so he calls the Chief Ethicist at Burlington Secular Progressive Hospital, one Sean Cranley.
We already know what our president would do. He would nudge the little boy (or delegate the task) into the red biohazard bin. But WWSCD? Go ahead Sean, play god.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Kay's Bad Religion
I have been making the point, at Kay's Blue Racine, that dehumanization is the intellectual foundation upon which the pro-abortion argument is built. Which prompted this challenge from Kay:
"Denis, the thing about being human involves, for most people, the concept that all humans have souls. Another widespread belief is that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent then why would he put a soul into a cellular mass or a fetus that is not destined to be born? Are you questioning God's wisdom? Can you explain why a soul would be created not to have the ability to experience a single breath on Earth?"
Allrighty then. Let's break down Kay's theology here. Humans have God given souls. God knows all. God will not give a soul to a cellular mass that will be scooped out and discarded in the garbage bin behind the abortion clinic. Therefore, that cellular mass, without a soul, is not human. Therefore again, it doesn't matter what is done with said cellular mass. When abortion occurs, it is because God wanted an abortion.
Now that does rather convincingly prove my original point about dehumanization does it not? According to Kay's religion, a pregnant woman is carrying a soulless cellular mass. When you make that appointment at the clinic, you are doing God's work.
Kay's is a truly scary religion. Everything is known to God and part of the plan. Anything whether good or evil is part of the plan. Basically, anything goes in Kay's world since it is part of God's plan.
Ironically, Kay goes on to accuse me of playing God, as follows:
" I firmly believe that people like you are trying to play God by taking away free will from women who may die from a forced birth, lose the ability to have more children in the future or have been told that their fetus is so deformed that it will either die inside them or within minutes to days after taken from their bodies. Who are you to make those decisions for another person? What about women who cannot mentally cope with giving birth? Do you claim to be able to see into their hearts and minds? Is that not playing God? Or at the very least assuming you have a God like ability? "
Kay's accusations are ironic because, if you believe in Kay's religion, if I am indeed playing God, it would (like abortion) be known and approved by God. And I am accused of "taking away the free will from women." What free will? There is no free will with predestination. We are all going to do what we are going to do and it is because God wants it that way.
Now who is playing God here, Kay or me? In Kay's world, a woman who does not abort her child gives birth to a human with a soul. The child, oops I meant soulless cellular mass, that is aborted didn't have a soul anyway. Note that gift of a soul is entirely dependent on the woman's abort or not decision. It is the woman that decides whether the soulless cellular mass becomes a human being. The woman is playing God.
"Denis, the thing about being human involves, for most people, the concept that all humans have souls. Another widespread belief is that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent then why would he put a soul into a cellular mass or a fetus that is not destined to be born? Are you questioning God's wisdom? Can you explain why a soul would be created not to have the ability to experience a single breath on Earth?"
Allrighty then. Let's break down Kay's theology here. Humans have God given souls. God knows all. God will not give a soul to a cellular mass that will be scooped out and discarded in the garbage bin behind the abortion clinic. Therefore, that cellular mass, without a soul, is not human. Therefore again, it doesn't matter what is done with said cellular mass. When abortion occurs, it is because God wanted an abortion.
Now that does rather convincingly prove my original point about dehumanization does it not? According to Kay's religion, a pregnant woman is carrying a soulless cellular mass. When you make that appointment at the clinic, you are doing God's work.
Kay's is a truly scary religion. Everything is known to God and part of the plan. Anything whether good or evil is part of the plan. Basically, anything goes in Kay's world since it is part of God's plan.
Ironically, Kay goes on to accuse me of playing God, as follows:
" I firmly believe that people like you are trying to play God by taking away free will from women who may die from a forced birth, lose the ability to have more children in the future or have been told that their fetus is so deformed that it will either die inside them or within minutes to days after taken from their bodies. Who are you to make those decisions for another person? What about women who cannot mentally cope with giving birth? Do you claim to be able to see into their hearts and minds? Is that not playing God? Or at the very least assuming you have a God like ability? "
Kay's accusations are ironic because, if you believe in Kay's religion, if I am indeed playing God, it would (like abortion) be known and approved by God. And I am accused of "taking away the free will from women." What free will? There is no free will with predestination. We are all going to do what we are going to do and it is because God wants it that way.
Now who is playing God here, Kay or me? In Kay's world, a woman who does not abort her child gives birth to a human with a soul. The child, oops I meant soulless cellular mass, that is aborted didn't have a soul anyway. Note that gift of a soul is entirely dependent on the woman's abort or not decision. It is the woman that decides whether the soulless cellular mass becomes a human being. The woman is playing God.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Spoiling for a Dog Fight
Kay at Blue Racine has a lengthy diatribe about aggressive dogs that morphs, predictably, into the dangers posed by Sarah Palin and her followers.
According to Kay:
Their problem is that at some point she may take that group of people to the point of no return in regards to behavior. How soon before we see a surge of shootings of gays? Afterall, Sarah thinks they're sinful and immoral. Abnormal. Is it easier for someone who might not want to kill someone they can identify with to kill someone they believe is born of Satan and isn't even "normal"?
My response to Kay:
Yes, probably. However, the best justification to kill is to claim that the victim is not even a human. I have heard them called "potentials" on this site (Kay's Blue Racine). You don't have to worry about a wave of such killings because we are already awash in their dead bodies.
I now await the gnashing of teeth, baring of fangs etc... in keeping with the aggressive dog theme.
According to Kay:
Their problem is that at some point she may take that group of people to the point of no return in regards to behavior. How soon before we see a surge of shootings of gays? Afterall, Sarah thinks they're sinful and immoral. Abnormal. Is it easier for someone who might not want to kill someone they can identify with to kill someone they believe is born of Satan and isn't even "normal"?
My response to Kay:
Yes, probably. However, the best justification to kill is to claim that the victim is not even a human. I have heard them called "potentials" on this site (Kay's Blue Racine). You don't have to worry about a wave of such killings because we are already awash in their dead bodies.
I now await the gnashing of teeth, baring of fangs etc... in keeping with the aggressive dog theme.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Having It Both Ways
Have you ever noticed that Racine Unified supporters are quick to blame parents for the school children that fail? Have you also noticed that Racine Unified will point out to critics that many students do quite well, graduate, go to college etc...?
It took me a while to figure this out, but notice that Unified and their apologists take credit for successful outcomes while placing blame for lousy outcomes. In short, the education profession can do no wrong. Forget about reform, just give those heroes anything they ask for and more.
This is a great marketing strategy by Unified. But we don't have to buy it. Either we should expect Unified to own both the success and failure of its students or own neither. If they choose the former, they need to hold them accountable for poor results. If they choose the latter, it will be a de facto admission that teachers can't impact students and they should all be fired. Let's not let them have it both ways any longer.
It took me a while to figure this out, but notice that Unified and their apologists take credit for successful outcomes while placing blame for lousy outcomes. In short, the education profession can do no wrong. Forget about reform, just give those heroes anything they ask for and more.
This is a great marketing strategy by Unified. But we don't have to buy it. Either we should expect Unified to own both the success and failure of its students or own neither. If they choose the former, they need to hold them accountable for poor results. If they choose the latter, it will be a de facto admission that teachers can't impact students and they should all be fired. Let's not let them have it both ways any longer.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Waiting Forever
What are the odds that RUSD teachers will show Waiting for Superman in any of their classes that deal with current issues?
For those of you not yet aware, Waiting for Superman is a documentary produced by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame. The committed liberal takes an honest look at our public schools.
For those of you not yet aware, Waiting for Superman is a documentary produced by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame. The committed liberal takes an honest look at our public schools.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Clash of Perverts?
A recent post of mine entitled Universalist Truth has generated some interesting discussion so I thought I would reintroduce it here. Sean Cranley maintains that when religious folks do some crazy things, like fly airplanes into buildings, they are perverting their religion. Maybe so in some cases, but certainly there are religious (or philosophical) differences between people such that it isn't so easy slap on the "perversion" label and walk away. For example, Christian denominations disagree on the issue of homosexuality. Which ones are perverting their religion and who decides? Sean responded as follows:
"We all make those judgments and we arrive at a general consesus on the big issues. It's called civilization. Clearly threatening or inflicting phyical harm crosses the line of reasonable people in all cultures."
Oh really? This ranks right up there with Sean's "schools can't fail" theory. Note the moral relativism in arriving at a general consensus. But clearly inflicting physical harm crosses of reasonable people in all cultures, says Sean. What about war Sean? Can civilizations clash? Was England being unreasonable in declaring war on Germany?
Lets move beyond war. For thousands of years slavery was, by consensus of non slaves, an institution that was commonplace across many civilizations. Was that consensus OK Sean, or are we correct today in our revulsion of slavery? Lest you think we are in an uninterrupted march toward greater civilization, consider that at one time Muslim women were able to work, reveal their faces, drive cars, keep their clitori and what not, yet, in some Muslim civilizations, by consensus of those with power, well, those rights don't exist.
Write them off as perversions Sean, pretend it is just a handful of crazies, bury your head in the sand. As for me, I will recognize it for what it is. It is a clash of civilizations. Some things are right, others wrong, irrespective of consensus. But I suppose that makes me one of the perverts, eh Sean?
"We all make those judgments and we arrive at a general consesus on the big issues. It's called civilization. Clearly threatening or inflicting phyical harm crosses the line of reasonable people in all cultures."
Oh really? This ranks right up there with Sean's "schools can't fail" theory. Note the moral relativism in arriving at a general consensus. But clearly inflicting physical harm crosses of reasonable people in all cultures, says Sean. What about war Sean? Can civilizations clash? Was England being unreasonable in declaring war on Germany?
Lets move beyond war. For thousands of years slavery was, by consensus of non slaves, an institution that was commonplace across many civilizations. Was that consensus OK Sean, or are we correct today in our revulsion of slavery? Lest you think we are in an uninterrupted march toward greater civilization, consider that at one time Muslim women were able to work, reveal their faces, drive cars, keep their clitori and what not, yet, in some Muslim civilizations, by consensus of those with power, well, those rights don't exist.
Write them off as perversions Sean, pretend it is just a handful of crazies, bury your head in the sand. As for me, I will recognize it for what it is. It is a clash of civilizations. Some things are right, others wrong, irrespective of consensus. But I suppose that makes me one of the perverts, eh Sean?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Profiling Double Standard
A Racine man carrying a firearm was arrested in Madison after refusing to produce identification that the police demanded to determine whether or not he was a felon.
In other words, the man was profiled as a potential felon because he was engaging in the legal act of carrying a firearm.
Not to worry folks. Any minute now President Obama will scold the State of Wisconsin. Soon the federal government will sue the state for profiling. Demonstrations will break out throughout the country for the unfairness of it all. States will refuse to do business with Wisconsin. And finally, we will plead guilty to the United Nations civil rights commission and beg for forgiveness.
In other words, the man was profiled as a potential felon because he was engaging in the legal act of carrying a firearm.
Not to worry folks. Any minute now President Obama will scold the State of Wisconsin. Soon the federal government will sue the state for profiling. Demonstrations will break out throughout the country for the unfairness of it all. States will refuse to do business with Wisconsin. And finally, we will plead guilty to the United Nations civil rights commission and beg for forgiveness.
RUSD Dreams
The following is a sentence by sentence rebuttal of Al Levie's letter to the JT. Levie is a teacher at Horlick High School.
Al: RUSD supporting the DREAM Act is the right thing to do.
Me: How so Al?
Al: Our country was based on the guiding principal of liberty and justice for all.
Me: For illegal immigrants as well? Do you really teach this nonsense to your students?
Al: Students who work hard in school should be given an opportunity to pursue their dreams of a college education.
Me: Really Al? I had to pay for my college education. Besides, are the illegals really prevented from attending our universities or are they just required to pay the out of state tuition rate?
Al: As a society, we tell our children if you work hard in school and do the best you can will be rewarded with a good education and a bright future.
Me: I don't recall society ever saying such a thing to me.
Al: RUSD needs to advocate for those students who society has made false promises to.
Me: Who are they Al?
Al: Undocumented students do not have access to student loans and in many states have to pay out-of-state tuition.
Me: When did society ever promise in-state tuition to people who have broken our immigration laws?
Al: Upon graduation in order to get a good job they must lie about their status.
Me: What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Al: Do we really want to put our best and brightest in that position?
Me: Our evil society didn't put them there Al, their parents did.
Al: Is it fair?
Me: Its more than fair Al. Despite breaking our immigration laws, they were given a free elementary and high school education. This costs the rest of us in the neighborhood of $12,000 per illegal immigrant.
Al: Is it just?
Me: Yes, but let me tell you what would be unjust. It would unjust to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants with in-state tuition while legal residents of other states have to pay the full amount. Giving more rights to illegal immigrants than to legal citizens is very unjust.
Al:There are those who qualify their application of the ideals embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance by not extending the rights of citizenship to hardworking students.
Me: The Pledge of Allegiance reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now if the pledge read: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice and in-state tuition and citizenship for hard working students who have disregarded our immigration laws" .... well, then I would concede the argument.
Al: RUSD do not be pressured by them. They need to be educated, not catered to.
Me: RUSD does catering? I'll have sloppy Joes, tator tots and sugar free desserts for our next tea party planning session. Want to join us Al?
Al: If the mission of RUSD is to educate all children, then we need to advocate for them and help them realize their dreams.
Me: Educate all children Al? Even citizens of foreign countries? Better double check that RUSD mission statement.
Al: Support the DREAM Act.
Me: Dream on.
Al: RUSD supporting the DREAM Act is the right thing to do.
Me: How so Al?
Al: Our country was based on the guiding principal of liberty and justice for all.
Me: For illegal immigrants as well? Do you really teach this nonsense to your students?
Al: Students who work hard in school should be given an opportunity to pursue their dreams of a college education.
Me: Really Al? I had to pay for my college education. Besides, are the illegals really prevented from attending our universities or are they just required to pay the out of state tuition rate?
Al: As a society, we tell our children if you work hard in school and do the best you can will be rewarded with a good education and a bright future.
Me: I don't recall society ever saying such a thing to me.
Al: RUSD needs to advocate for those students who society has made false promises to.
Me: Who are they Al?
Al: Undocumented students do not have access to student loans and in many states have to pay out-of-state tuition.
Me: When did society ever promise in-state tuition to people who have broken our immigration laws?
Al: Upon graduation in order to get a good job they must lie about their status.
Me: What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Al: Do we really want to put our best and brightest in that position?
Me: Our evil society didn't put them there Al, their parents did.
Al: Is it fair?
Me: Its more than fair Al. Despite breaking our immigration laws, they were given a free elementary and high school education. This costs the rest of us in the neighborhood of $12,000 per illegal immigrant.
Al: Is it just?
Me: Yes, but let me tell you what would be unjust. It would unjust to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants with in-state tuition while legal residents of other states have to pay the full amount. Giving more rights to illegal immigrants than to legal citizens is very unjust.
Al:There are those who qualify their application of the ideals embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance by not extending the rights of citizenship to hardworking students.
Me: The Pledge of Allegiance reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now if the pledge read: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice and in-state tuition and citizenship for hard working students who have disregarded our immigration laws" .... well, then I would concede the argument.
Al: RUSD do not be pressured by them. They need to be educated, not catered to.
Me: RUSD does catering? I'll have sloppy Joes, tator tots and sugar free desserts for our next tea party planning session. Want to join us Al?
Al: If the mission of RUSD is to educate all children, then we need to advocate for them and help them realize their dreams.
Me: Educate all children Al? Even citizens of foreign countries? Better double check that RUSD mission statement.
Al: Support the DREAM Act.
Me: Dream on.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Just Trust Us
The Journal Times has a commentary today warning readers to be aware of impending political spin as November 2nd approaches. As an antidote they suggest, you guessed it, reading the Journal Times. Who needs The Onion?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Universalist Truth
The Racine Post has a little article centered around a statement issued by Racine's Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church. Read the article here. The church issued the following statement:
“We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We deplore the senseless destruction of their places of worship and we denounce all acts of intolerance against Islam and other religions. We support the right of Muslims and those of all religions, as affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, to worship in their faith tradition.”
Should read:
We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We will continue to pretend as though there are serious efforts to curtail the free exercise of religion by Muslims in this country. We will continue to actively ignore the real issue at hand, that is, whether it is highly insensitive of Muslims to build an enormous mosque so near to the former World Trade Center grounds and the national tragedy inflicted upon us by radical Muslims. In taking this difficult and courageous stand, we will demonstrate once again our moral superiority to the unenlightened masses.
“We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We deplore the senseless destruction of their places of worship and we denounce all acts of intolerance against Islam and other religions. We support the right of Muslims and those of all religions, as affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, to worship in their faith tradition.”
Should read:
We, the undersigned members and friends of the Olympia Brown Universalist Church, along with Unitarian Universalists throughout the country, stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters and their right to the free exercise of their religion in these United States. We will continue to pretend as though there are serious efforts to curtail the free exercise of religion by Muslims in this country. We will continue to actively ignore the real issue at hand, that is, whether it is highly insensitive of Muslims to build an enormous mosque so near to the former World Trade Center grounds and the national tragedy inflicted upon us by radical Muslims. In taking this difficult and courageous stand, we will demonstrate once again our moral superiority to the unenlightened masses.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Tea Party Protesters Lack Diversity
I just came back from Racine's Tea Party gathering. I will leave it to the mainstream press to accurately characterize the event and the participants. I want to focus on the protesters.
I was struck by the complete lack of diversity among the five protesters. They were all young white males. There was absolutely no representation from women, blacks, or Latino's - can't be sure about gays- I'm a don't ask kind of guy. Speaking of homogeneity, their hand held messages were uniformly devoid of original thought. "If you can read this, you're smarter than Sarah Palin" and "go home racist sexist homophobes" and similar deep thoughts.
On second thought, they did use a variety of bright and cheery colors for their hateful messaging.
I was struck by the complete lack of diversity among the five protesters. They were all young white males. There was absolutely no representation from women, blacks, or Latino's - can't be sure about gays- I'm a don't ask kind of guy. Speaking of homogeneity, their hand held messages were uniformly devoid of original thought. "If you can read this, you're smarter than Sarah Palin" and "go home racist sexist homophobes" and similar deep thoughts.
On second thought, they did use a variety of bright and cheery colors for their hateful messaging.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Free Merchandise Offer
Regular readers of Free Racine probably know that I own a business downtown and that I rarely mention it by name on this blog as I prefer to separate my business interests from my political interests as much as possible.
Today however I am faced with an awkward dilemma. There is a rather large Tea Party rally scheduled for downtown Racine tomorrow and merchants have been asked to give a symbolic tax break (note to WI Department of Revenue, I really mean a discount) of 5.1% to customers.
I normally participate in any and all downtown events but this one has a decidedly political tone about it despite claims to contrary. Additionally, the attendants are regularly met with scorn and accusations of racism, sexism, homophobism, Islamaphobism etc... from a good portion of the electorate. I would rather not have my business associated with those disgusting attributes.
So what to do? I am damned if I participate and damned if I don't.
I think I have a solution. Yes, I will offer a 5.1% discount to any and all customers on Saturday. But in an effort to distance myself from the ism and phobia crowd, I will make an even better offer to their detractors. I hereby announce, in a spirit of nonpartisan inclusiveness, free merchandise, yes you read that correctly, free merchandise, 100% off, to anyone and everyone who can prove that they are not, pick one, a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe or a homophobe.
Dimple's LLC is located at 416 Main Street, downtown Racine.
Today however I am faced with an awkward dilemma. There is a rather large Tea Party rally scheduled for downtown Racine tomorrow and merchants have been asked to give a symbolic tax break (note to WI Department of Revenue, I really mean a discount) of 5.1% to customers.
I normally participate in any and all downtown events but this one has a decidedly political tone about it despite claims to contrary. Additionally, the attendants are regularly met with scorn and accusations of racism, sexism, homophobism, Islamaphobism etc... from a good portion of the electorate. I would rather not have my business associated with those disgusting attributes.
So what to do? I am damned if I participate and damned if I don't.
I think I have a solution. Yes, I will offer a 5.1% discount to any and all customers on Saturday. But in an effort to distance myself from the ism and phobia crowd, I will make an even better offer to their detractors. I hereby announce, in a spirit of nonpartisan inclusiveness, free merchandise, yes you read that correctly, free merchandise, 100% off, to anyone and everyone who can prove that they are not, pick one, a racist or a sexist or an Islamaphobe or a homophobe.
Dimple's LLC is located at 416 Main Street, downtown Racine.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
License to Discriminate
I walked by Gingers (local bar in trouble with the city) today and noticed a sign that went pretty much like this:
Must be 25 or older to enter. 21 to 24 must be members.
Pretty straightforward example of age discrimination it seems to me. Now lest there be any misunderstanding, I think Gingers ought to be able do business with whomever they please. But I am not so sure the law is quite so accommodating.
Now I don't think for one second that Gingers wants to discriminate against young people. Rather, this is a preemptive move to please the city council that is threatening to take away their liquor license.
Just another example of the city forcing or at least nudging businesses to discriminate.
Maybe its time to revoke the city's discrimination license.
Must be 25 or older to enter. 21 to 24 must be members.
Pretty straightforward example of age discrimination it seems to me. Now lest there be any misunderstanding, I think Gingers ought to be able do business with whomever they please. But I am not so sure the law is quite so accommodating.
Now I don't think for one second that Gingers wants to discriminate against young people. Rather, this is a preemptive move to please the city council that is threatening to take away their liquor license.
Just another example of the city forcing or at least nudging businesses to discriminate.
Maybe its time to revoke the city's discrimination license.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Plan B
Mayor John Dickert has released his ten year plan for the city of Racine. You can read it here. Clearly Mayor Dickert has confidence that he and our local government can dramatically transform Racine for the better. I don't share his confidence that government will lead Racine's transformation.
So I got to thinking what my plan for Racine would be. It would not be anything like Mayor Dickerts.
For starters, my plan would reflect my pessimism about centralized planning by elites and my optimism in free people acting in accordance with their own interests. In other words, Racine government should do the basics, namely police, fire, courts and little else. The role of government is not to create a wonderful city but rather to ensure the conditions that make the spontaneous creation of a wonderful city possible.
So the city government must be small and focussed. Canceling whole departments like the development department, UNIT, and the Fair Housing Department would be a good place to start. Put all non-essential city owned properties for sale and vow to get out and stay out of the housing/real estate business. Use the money to lower property taxes.
Don't pay too much for labor. Privatize trash, snow plowing, parks and as many other operations as possible. This will result in private sector jobs and will decrease the looming and crippling health care and retirement obligations. Yes, the unions will fight this with everything they have. Explain to voters that ensuring lifetime labor for union members is not part of the city's mission.
To spur investment, place a tax increase moratorium on investment in Racine. Presently, there is almost zero investment in Racine because investors know they will get slammed with tax increases. If the city would wait 5 or 10 years before they cash in on someone else's efforts, we will get more entrepreneurialism and hence more jobs. This might require law changes at the state level, so lobby the state loudly and often.
These are just a few examples of what needs to be done in Racine. It will never happen if we keep electing people with an unshakeable faith in government. Feel free to offer your own ideas and or your reaction to mine.
So I got to thinking what my plan for Racine would be. It would not be anything like Mayor Dickerts.
For starters, my plan would reflect my pessimism about centralized planning by elites and my optimism in free people acting in accordance with their own interests. In other words, Racine government should do the basics, namely police, fire, courts and little else. The role of government is not to create a wonderful city but rather to ensure the conditions that make the spontaneous creation of a wonderful city possible.
So the city government must be small and focussed. Canceling whole departments like the development department, UNIT, and the Fair Housing Department would be a good place to start. Put all non-essential city owned properties for sale and vow to get out and stay out of the housing/real estate business. Use the money to lower property taxes.
Don't pay too much for labor. Privatize trash, snow plowing, parks and as many other operations as possible. This will result in private sector jobs and will decrease the looming and crippling health care and retirement obligations. Yes, the unions will fight this with everything they have. Explain to voters that ensuring lifetime labor for union members is not part of the city's mission.
To spur investment, place a tax increase moratorium on investment in Racine. Presently, there is almost zero investment in Racine because investors know they will get slammed with tax increases. If the city would wait 5 or 10 years before they cash in on someone else's efforts, we will get more entrepreneurialism and hence more jobs. This might require law changes at the state level, so lobby the state loudly and often.
These are just a few examples of what needs to be done in Racine. It will never happen if we keep electing people with an unshakeable faith in government. Feel free to offer your own ideas and or your reaction to mine.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Buffaloing Readers on Stimulus Impact
When I see a letter written by a union representative, I expect muddled thinking on economic issues. Steven Buffalo of Operating Engineers Local 139 does not disappoint. Read it here.
To paraphrase his point of view, hundreds of members of his union are working this summer on road projects, thanks to the stimulus. These jobs are proof that the stimulus has created jobs and those who suggest otherwise are lying or believing a lie. In his industry they "measure how much work is getting done by counting hours worked" (a rather disturbing means of measuring work IMHO) and his members hours have been in decline in recent years. According to Buffalo, building construction and underground utility work is down 64 and 26% respectively, but road building has increased by 4%. He thanks Reps Cory Mason and Bob Turner and Senator John Lehman for the road work.
I won't quibble with Buffalo's stats. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume they are correct. What Buffalo misses of course is that the money for road projects comes from taxing current or future profitable activities. Do a bit too much of that and you get less entrepreneurial activity. This might help explain the 64% decrease in building construction. And it might help explain the high and getting higher unemployment numbers conveniently overlooked by Buffalo. But his members have jobs and perhaps that is the extent of his concerns. For those of us concerned about the general welfare, we need to judge the stimulus by a different measure, namely, the employment numbers. And by that measure, the stimulus is a failure. And that is no lie Mr. Buffalo.
To paraphrase his point of view, hundreds of members of his union are working this summer on road projects, thanks to the stimulus. These jobs are proof that the stimulus has created jobs and those who suggest otherwise are lying or believing a lie. In his industry they "measure how much work is getting done by counting hours worked" (a rather disturbing means of measuring work IMHO) and his members hours have been in decline in recent years. According to Buffalo, building construction and underground utility work is down 64 and 26% respectively, but road building has increased by 4%. He thanks Reps Cory Mason and Bob Turner and Senator John Lehman for the road work.
I won't quibble with Buffalo's stats. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume they are correct. What Buffalo misses of course is that the money for road projects comes from taxing current or future profitable activities. Do a bit too much of that and you get less entrepreneurial activity. This might help explain the 64% decrease in building construction. And it might help explain the high and getting higher unemployment numbers conveniently overlooked by Buffalo. But his members have jobs and perhaps that is the extent of his concerns. For those of us concerned about the general welfare, we need to judge the stimulus by a different measure, namely, the employment numbers. And by that measure, the stimulus is a failure. And that is no lie Mr. Buffalo.
On Feingold's Snub
The Racine Post has a story, read it here, about Senator Feingold's visits to some of Racine's downtown businesses.
From the article: Feingold's staff had been well-briefed: Although he walked Main Street from 3rd Street to 5th, and back, he skipped past Eye-OpenerZ, whose owner, Ken Brown is a TEA Party organizer, and Dimples, whose co-owner, Denis Navratil has a blog that frequently criticises Democrats. (Navratil was on vacation anyway.)
I am not sure how to interpret Feingold's decision not to visit my store. Was he really "well-briefed" by his staff? If he was accurately briefed, he would know that I am a politically active with a principled conservative/libertarian bent. As such, it is true that I frequently criticize Democrats. But I also criticize Republicans. In short, I am critical of bad ideas no matter from whom or what political party they emanate. You could say that this makes me something of a maverick. Hey, isn't that what they call Senator Feingold?
Anyway, it is true I wasn't at my store and it is unlikely he would earn my vote. I vote according to the actions of politicians, not their words or promises. Though I have at times had a grudging respect for Feingold, his vote for Obamacare was something I can't overlook, insofar as it is blatantly unconstitutional and passed only with the help of a corrupt process. It is time for a new senator.
From the article: Feingold's staff had been well-briefed: Although he walked Main Street from 3rd Street to 5th, and back, he skipped past Eye-OpenerZ, whose owner, Ken Brown is a TEA Party organizer, and Dimples, whose co-owner, Denis Navratil has a blog that frequently criticises Democrats. (Navratil was on vacation anyway.)
I am not sure how to interpret Feingold's decision not to visit my store. Was he really "well-briefed" by his staff? If he was accurately briefed, he would know that I am a politically active with a principled conservative/libertarian bent. As such, it is true that I frequently criticize Democrats. But I also criticize Republicans. In short, I am critical of bad ideas no matter from whom or what political party they emanate. You could say that this makes me something of a maverick. Hey, isn't that what they call Senator Feingold?
Anyway, it is true I wasn't at my store and it is unlikely he would earn my vote. I vote according to the actions of politicians, not their words or promises. Though I have at times had a grudging respect for Feingold, his vote for Obamacare was something I can't overlook, insofar as it is blatantly unconstitutional and passed only with the help of a corrupt process. It is time for a new senator.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Trash for Sale
Owe the city of Racine money? Have some garbage? If you answered yes to both questions, the city of Racine might just take both off your hands.
According to this Journal Times article, the city is accepting four houses, two of which need to be destroyed, to "clear up the debt" owed by the Racine Mutual Housing Association. RMHA had borrowed $380,000 to rehab 19 properties but they can't make ends meet, so the city is accepting the homes in lieu of the remaining debt of $194,000.
Now it would be one thing for the city to suggest that these losses are a necessary consequence of their efforts to help the less fortunate. But keep in mind the city in general, Mayor John Dickert in particular, are touting their real estate forays - buying houses, fixing them, selling them - as a major economic development initiative.
Last time I checked, buying liabilities is not a sure fire path to profits. But what do I know? Next Monday, I will be leaving some trash in the alley behind my building. I will give it to the city in exchange for my property tax obligations.
According to this Journal Times article, the city is accepting four houses, two of which need to be destroyed, to "clear up the debt" owed by the Racine Mutual Housing Association. RMHA had borrowed $380,000 to rehab 19 properties but they can't make ends meet, so the city is accepting the homes in lieu of the remaining debt of $194,000.
Now it would be one thing for the city to suggest that these losses are a necessary consequence of their efforts to help the less fortunate. But keep in mind the city in general, Mayor John Dickert in particular, are touting their real estate forays - buying houses, fixing them, selling them - as a major economic development initiative.
Last time I checked, buying liabilities is not a sure fire path to profits. But what do I know? Next Monday, I will be leaving some trash in the alley behind my building. I will give it to the city in exchange for my property tax obligations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)