Category: government
Dishonesty in Political Mailings?
Written by Troglodad
Sunday, 02 May 2010 10:55
No Comments

so I checked my mail yesterday and there was this flyer for Ron Grooms, a Republican candidate running for State Senator. I kind of remembered the name, but that was about it. Who was this guy.

Well, according to "Mayor" Dale Orem, he's great. Oh, and "Mayor" Regina Overton thinks he's swell too. And "Sheriff" Randy Hubbard likes him as well. Oh, and so does "joe Theobald".

First off, where's Joe's title? Who the hell is Joe Theobald? A Google search shows he once ran for State Rep- guess that's why he didn't get to use a title. He never earned one.

And that's my gripe- Dale Orem was once a mayor, but not anymore. I know that, because I used to live in Jeffersonville, where he was the Mayor. But what about some of the other folks getting this flyer? Do they know he's a FORMER Mayor? And Ms. Overton- isn't she the FORMER Mayor? I therefore assume Mr. Hubbard is the FORMER Sheriff.

It really irritates me how people use titles like this. It'd be different if someone retired from a position- military folks do that all the time. But just because you served one or two terms in a public position, why do you get to use the title over and over? And if Ron Grooms wants us to believe he's a swell guy, why is he listing folks who didn't get re-elected? What is their standing that makes them such good references? Are we supposed to know about their political history? If so, why give them these titles?

I think the whole thing is dishonest. Like actors pretending to be doctors in TV commercials, hawking medicines. Mr. Grooms, it's all fine and dandy that former-Mayor Dale Orem loves you, but what does the current Mayor think? I'd be much more interested in that. I mean, there are tons of former mayors in our region- anybody running for office is bound to be able to get an endorsement from one of them. You're coming across to me as being a little too desperate to get a qualified reference.

And that doesn't inspire confidence.

So let's look at your website. Ah. You run a business and were on the Jeffersonville Town Council for 13 years. That's much more interesting to me than a bunch of former politicos endorsements. And I see that you're for: Full Day Kindergarten, building an East-end Bridge, Capping property taxes and increasing funds for schools. That would also be great information to put on your flyer.

But I have to take offense at your flier's slogan of "The Leader Our Leaders Trust" and "He's the one our leaders can turn to for advice and leadership." That's not what your website says- it's all about your experience.

See, I don't think a State Senator is a leader of anything. It's a representative. I'm not voting for you to think for me- I'd be voting for you to represent me in the State Senate. To work for me and do what I would want you to do. Leader? Leader of what? A Conga-line during voting sessions?

If you can't get the job function straight (representation) than I surely don't want to vote for you. I think you're in this for you. So for the rest of your life you can go around introducing yourself as "Senator". I title that arrogant.

 
Dang It! More fun from the looney left on health care
Written by Matt Bennett
Friday, 15 May 2009 17:33
9 Comments

FROM THE AP: WASHINGTON – House Democrats are crafting a plan  that would require all Americans to carry health insurance and would help families making less than $88,000 pay the premiums. Employers, too, would have to help foot the bill.

It's the latest development in President Barack Obama's push to fix the ailing U.S. health care system by getting the government more deeply involved.

Obama has said the final legislation must rein in costs, guarantee choice of health plans and medical providers, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable coverage. But he's leaving it to Congress to work out the details. (emphasis mine)

I promised myself that I wasn't going to get political at all on this blog. But the phrase in red hit me so hard I had to comment. I"ll make it short. The "ailing" health care system is only ailing because the government is already deeply involved. Every time the government gets "deeply involved" in something, it functions less effectively at greater costs. One small step towards socialism for a man, one great leap towards socialism for mankind. This is health care we're talking about. And it's worrisome.

But even more worrisome is the word in the first bolded sentence in purple, is the word "required" – Require all Americans to carry health insurance. Require a free citizen to do something that the government thinks may be
good for his health. This is scary stuff, boys and girls. This goes way beyond socialism. I guess liberal democrats don't care about SOME civil rights. According to them, we have the right to freedom, unless the lack of freedom
is "good for us."

This makes me angry. And scared.

Editor's Note: A former Journalist and MTW contributor, Matt Bennet blogs on anything and everything he deems relevant. Want to know more? Check him out at Life of the List.

 
U.S. Congress: On the Battlefield
Written by Ron McClure Jr.
Monday, 04 May 2009 12:44
13 Comments

The shotgun is loaded…  This could be the end… Just one minor mistake, and in just a fraction of a second, it will all be over. Minds are calculating — hearts are racing. Who will be standing in the end? Who will live another day? Who will be the one that will ultimately proclaim, "VICTORY!"?

The Captain calls for back-up, as he breathes warm air into his frigid hands. He steps back — surveying the field, as his training and strategies are replaying in his head — like a high-speed slide-show. "Go left?" He ponders. "No, the guard will surely stop us." If only he had one more rocket — one more bomb — if only he could avoid the inevitable blitzkrieg awaiting behind the enemy lines.

I wish I was talking about war. But, I’m not. No, I’m talking about football. Football, you ask? Yes. Football. Why? Well, it seems that our Congress is more concerned about college football right now. We have two war-fronts (that we are retreating from), and Congress wants to talk “football”? Great. I wish college football had a playoff system too, but I think now is not the time to address the issue. We have so many other important issues that need to be attended to, that this one, well, just seems like a convenient distraction.

Okay, I love college football, and I have long since claimed that it is the most corrupt college sport, by far. In the current system, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) rates all teams, and selects only two colleges to compete for the BCS National Championship, after the regular season. However, there are more than 30 bowl games in total. In the BCS Championship series (4 games total, with one championship game) each team receives a 17 million-dollar check. The other  bowl game checks range from around $1-2 mill.

So, what’s the problem? The problem is that big conferences have ties to most bowls, and “smaller” conferences have virtually no chance to earn the “big” bucks. For example, the NCAA Basketball Tournament is an “equal-opportunity” venture. If you make it in the basketball tournament (65 teams), you get to play for the Championship, and you get paid. In football? Well, not so much. In football, money talks.

First, like I said earlier, only two teams get the opportunity to be Champs. Plus, with all of the “conference-bowl” alliances, smaller schools with good teams often sit at home — or play for "chicken feed" in smaller bowl games. Each bowl game chooses teams primarily on how many tickets they will sell, plus, the ever-lucrative TV contracts. Only about half the time does a team get a “bowl bid” for its accomplishments — it’s usually about its “marketability.”

Okay, so there’s your football lesson. The system definitely needs to be fixed, but should Congress be the instigator? Is this just another stepping stone on our socialistic pathway? Many think that the BCS should police itself, and many, like me, think that our Congress has bigger issues to deal with right now.

It’s not just the significance of the issue, it’s also the appearance. Do we really need to be focusing on football right now? We are dealing with struggling automobile companies, folding banks and job cuts across the board. And, our Congress is investigating football? Gee whiz! I don’t like the BCS system either, but this does not make me feel like my tax dollars are really working for me.

So, I think Congress should “punt,” and try to score this one later in the game — when we don’t have so many “injured” players on the bench (autos, banks, jobs). I think Congress should be focusing on the real battlefields, not the "football" fields.