The Racist Left

The voter ID law is considered racist by the unhinged, not because voting requirements differ by race, but because the law will have a disparate impact on minorities, supposedly.

Very well, but if a greater negative impact on minorities is the standard by which a policy is deemed to be racist, then the public school system and minimum wage laws are also racist as they result in lower test scores, graduation rates, and lower employment rates among minorities.

Indeed the entire liberal progressive agenda has been nothing but a disaster for minorities, and is therefore racist, by the standard created by liberals.

What Voter Suppression?

OUR VOTING RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK.

So says the Racine Mirror, a local free paper. This "aggressive attack" includes a "voter suppression measure," that is, a voter ID requirement. If you care to join the battle for voter rights or would like assistance overcoming the "aggressive attack" on your rights, you may call the Racine Branch of the NAACP.

Luckily, I have not found the recent ID requirement quite so sinister. I recently took a trip to the DMV to assist a lovely lady in exchanging her drivers license for a state ID. The entire process took about a half an hour and was free. Granted, the "whites only" line at the DMV was most helpful. Thanks Governor Walker!

Benefits, End or Extend?

Great news!! Racine evidently has resolved all its fiscal challenges such that we can now contemplate adding domestic partnership benefits for city employees.

Racine has in recent years seen a 50% drop in property values without a commensurate reduction in property values or property taxes. The population has been in a fairly steady decline for a few decades, leaving fewer to bear the tax burden. Is this really the time to consider adding a huge new entitlement to partners, boyfriends, girlfriends, roommates etc....of city employees? Obviously not.

But what about basic fairness? Should the city discriminate against unmarried couples and in favor of married ones? Is marriage an institution that we should favor over other relationships?

It seems to me the city has two separate questions to address. First the alderman must determine whether marriage is an institution that should be treated favorably relative to other relationships. And If their answer is no, it should not be assumed that the proper course of action is to add benefits for unmarried partners. Another option would be to eliminate benefits for anyone other than the employee.

I am sure the latter option would bring out some unlikely defenders of marriage. Might be fun to watch.

Levie's Disturbing Vision

RUSD activist/indoctrinator Al Levie has a commentary in the JT today that should concern anyone interested in ensuring a fair and balanced education for children attending our public schools.

Levie assumes that the ideals of our country can be summarized in a few quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, and that equality of economic outcomes and "concerns of humanity over narrow individual wants" should be our goal as a society. The problem with Levie's assumptions and his more specific objectives -next paragraph - is that they can so easily run afoul of our actual priorities as they have been enshrined in our constitution.

Levie pledges to "redouble my efforts in the struggle for social and economic justice. Concretely, that means fighting to roll back the power of the corporate elite in our society, making the ultra-rich pay their fair share in taxes, fighting for adequate funding for our public schools, restoring collective bargaining for public employees, fair and humane immigration reform, and restoring the voting rights for all people living within our state and country."

Now to parse Levie's vague and flowery language.

Rolling back the power of corporate elites means curtailing the rights of free speech guaranteed in our constitution. In Levie's vision, it is just fine for one organization, a union, to forcibly remove cash from the paychecks of members forced by virtue of their profession to be members, and to use that money for political speech, but that it is not ok for corporations to similarly participate in the election process.

Fair share taxes and adequate funding for public schools are of course never quantified. The reason this is so is because enough is never enough. As a nation we pump more money into public schools than virtually every other nation and all we get is Levie's indoctrinating our children while failing to teach the fundamental skills needed to compete in society. Of course Levie doesn't want people to have to compete as he has a utopian vision for society. Anyway, while it is debatable whether Levie's tax-hell vision runs afoul of our constitution, it certainly runs afoul of economic realities and would leave us all much poorer, though perhaps equal.

Restoring collective bargaining for public employees means creating or recreating an inequitable system that grants powers to union bosses not available to other citizens. Wouldn't you just love to bargain over your property taxes? Thanks Governor Walker for restoring equal protections for the rest of us.

Fair and humane immigration reform of course is code for open borders and citizenship for people who violate our immigration laws. Levie is a big proponent of the DREAM Act which would elevate illegal immigrants above citizens insofar as the former would be granted in-state tuition, despite being unlawful residents of said state, while the latter citizens would pay out-of -state rates.

And lastly, restoring voting rights probably refers to Levie's efforts to ensure that people can vote without producing a valid identification. This of course enables voter fraud which disenfranchises legitimate voters.

Be concerned for our public school children, be very concerned.

County Board Corruption

The Journal Times gets one right in this commentary opposing the Racine County Board's two tiered health insurance compensation program.

In a nutshell, the board has eliminated health insurance for any new county supervisors while keeping it for incumbent supervisors. This is no small matter insofar as the insurance is worth far more than the monetary compensation. So the board has created considerable incentives for themselves to continue as supervisors while creating disincentives to any challengers. Not only is this wrong, I have a hard time believing it could be legal.

If nothing else, we should vote out anyone who is benefitting from such a corrupt program.

Fire Away!

Mitt Romney has come under fire for saying he likes to fire people. Perhaps he will back away from the notion, but I think it needs an unapologetic defense.

We all fire people every day. Every consumer choice involves hiring one while in effect firing everyone else. Would anyone want it any other way? If you hire someone to mow your lawn and they show up late and do a lousy job, you wouldn't want to be stuck with that employee.

Now lets take a look at the people whom we can't easily fire. Tenured teachers are one example. Many civil servants have great job security. Yet not all off these folks are performing well, but we are stuck with them. Are we better off for this?

The more people there are that we can't fire, the less free we are. Enjoy what remains of your right to fire, and hire.

Crime Season

Don't you just love the change in seasons? In Milwaukee my ilk are steeling cars to celebrate.

Now I enjoy a good joy ride just like you, but the onset of colder temps means its time to climb into the attic and get out the box of ski masks. I'm not a skier of course, I just can't wait to paw through my favorite accessory. There is nothing quite like enjoying the fruits of a well planned liquor store robbery. It hardly even seems like work.

And then there is spring. Don't you want to just get out of the house after a long winter? Well your victims do as well, and that means easy pickins and less hassles. Now stop your snickering. Until you have walked a mile in my shoes.... through snow drifts....with a flat screen, you just don't understand the hardships of winter.

Summer is my favorite time of year as I enjoy a more direct relationship with my victims. Summer is assault time baby. And purse snatching. And pistol whipping etc... And after a day of fun you can usually find a good after-bar melee. But summer has its dark side too. No doubt somewhere along the way you have been cold cocked in a bar fight or someone "forgot" to pay his protection tax. But that is what fall is for.

Harvest time! Time to get reaped for what you've sown. Nothing like ushering in revenge season with a well, er executed, drive by on a cool crisp evening. Settle a few scores and settle in for a long winter.

With what liquor should I pair my roasted chestnuts?

Look Who's Shredding Now

"Shredding the constitution" was one of the more promiscuously used phrases employed during the Bush administration. I can't wait to hear the howls of protest from the purists on the left over these transgressions.

Union Ethics Part 2

This story is still evolving but does seem to shed some light on the union mindset. It seems a few dozen of the usual suspects - can't wait to learn their names - were ticketed for illegal demonstrations in a residential area. They were oh so cleverly dressed with top hats and what not to evoke a 1%er image while they harassed Paul Ryan and others at a private fundraiser. By a stroke of luck we have union fingerprints on this illegal behavior as the limo driver -staying with the 1% theme - indicated that he picked up the rabble rousers at a union hall. I think it will prove a tad difficult for them to distance themselves from this illegal activity.

So once again we have an organized disregard for the law no doubt coupled with an ends-justifies-the-means ethic. No thanks.

Union Ethics

I was listening to the Ed Schultz show the other day. His guest was a union leader of national renown who's name I don't recall. Anyway, the guest was speaking favorably about many "occupy" offshoots, including a movement to "occupy" homes slated for foreclosure. The stated justification for the occupation was because the banks were unable to prove ownership of the homes.

Perhaps so, but then I somehow doubt that the "occupiers" had any proof whatsoever that the home belonged to them either. So what you have is a double standard endorsed by the union thug. Banks must have impeccable proof of ownership absent any clerical errors or they lose their property to a mob with no reasonable claim of ownership.

Another reason why the union thugs lost me years ago. Envy is the only reason to side with them on this issue and most others. No thanks.