Missed Opportunity . . . Again

Once again a coal boom time has come, blessed us with temporary good times, and then passed. The Cumberland Times News this week announced that West Virginia's economy once again started a decline.

Does trouble loom ahead for the Democratic Party in West Virginia? The State Legislature had a great opportunity to make real structural changes while unemployment dropped and tax revenues rose. Instead they changed the window dressing a little. Every year that passes sees less and less of the state enamored by old fashioned New Deal type solutions. Professor Sobel has laid out in black and white, in painful detail, how other regional states have moved well past us in development.


I doubt that the governor has much to worry about. His personal popularity can withstand an economic downturn. Governor Manchin could not make the changes on his own anyway. The Legislature held the power to do a great deal of good in the past few years and sat on its hands. Well, that's not entirely true. They did work extremely hard to try and promote table games as a way to bolster revenues. See how that worked out. What's next, promoting strip clubs to get young mothers off welfare?


The long term problem remains what it has been for the past century. West Virginia remains too dependent upon one single extractive industry for its well-being. The state needs a climate that encourages not only investment, but an entrepreneurial spirit. It is time to stop condemning the coal industry and people that have have not been alive since World War II or earlier. We can blame the party that has dominated the Legislature now for several decades. Their unwillingness or inability to steer the state towards a diversified economy that supports an independent and entrepreneurial population means that it is their time to hit the road.

The Solution to Health Care Coverage For the Poor

You've got to hand it to Michael Moore, the man knows how to get his oversized mug into the news. Breaking the law to film his new docufalsity "Sicko" has resulted in a federal investigation and tremendous amounts of exposure for a movie that few people will watch.

I refuse to watch any of his movies because I do not want to put any money in the man's pocket or contribute to any statistics that support him. However, I have seen the previews showing him grandstanding outside of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base taunting the guards to let him and some uninsured 9/11 rescue workers in for medical treatment. After all, he says, they deserve the same quality of health care as Al Qua'ida. He then states that this was the only place in the United States where health care was guaranteed.

Moore and the left do not understand that health care is not a right. Health care is a commodity; it is also an incentive to educate oneself and to work hard. As with anything else, those that work towards a goal in the United States will generally achieve it. America provides more opportunity to its people than any other country anywhere, anytime. All an individual has to do is make the choice to succeed, then bust their tails doing it.

This does not mean that a solution does not exist to solve this issue of health insurance for the poor. As a matter of fact, Moore could represent part of a market solution if he wanted. Rich liberals could band together to form their own health insurance company. The company could operate on a sliding scale of payment determined by income. Rich fat cat liberals like Moore or Hillary Clinton could choose to join this company and pay massive premiums so that the poor could sign on and pay little or nothing. That way they could assuage their guilt over succeeding in a capitalist world while the rest of us work hard and continue to invest in the market economy.

Those that would force the productive to work hard and pay so that others can receive a free ride of benefits are the real sickos.

Enough Already!

Just for the information of motorists in West Virginia, make darned sure you do not get pulled over.
The West Virginia State Supreme Court of Appeals reinforced a 1976 law that requires magistrates to assess court costs in each citation given to motorists, even on the same traffic stop. A single citation means $160.50 in court costs alone. These costs have more than tripled in less than ten years. Although technically unlawful, magistrate judges traditionally only levy court costs once regardless of the number of offenses. An Ohio County magistrate never collected court costs except in cases where the defendant was found guilty after trial. Court costs generally go towards funds that operate the regional jail system, running the courts themselves and other programs. However those convicted of minor traffic offenses feel gouged and rightly so.
It is easy to sit back and say if you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. At some point almost every driver gets pulled over or ends up in an accident. Multiple offenses can mean that the most impoverished must choose between paying the fines and paying a bill or putting food on the table.
For the most part, magistrates and police officers show compassion. More warnings will be issued in lieu of tickets and magistrates will dismiss even more charges. This reflects an even bigger principle involved. When police and judges deem a law to be so harsh that they shrink from enforcing it, the time has come for the State Legislature to revise it. Every time a poor driver takes to the highways in West Virginia, he now lives on a thin margin.

Virginians even have it worse as the incoming Democratic leadership there raised court costs for traffic fines into the stratosphere. One bad traffic incident could take away an entire paycheck. We must change this law. Failing that, we must start to take into consideration the 8th Amendment that prohibits the levying of excessive fines. When the court charges an offender an amount beyond a reasonable balance with the severity of the crime, the government engages in extortion. Gouging traffic offenders clearly violates the rights of these states' citizens.

Batty

Apparently the Public Service Commission has bats in its belfry.


A 2005 Federal law passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush encourages the production of renewable energy. Plain old common sense tells us that we need to put less and less cash into the dubious pockets of Middle Easterners since some of it finds its way into the bank accounts of terrorists. I know I have been a little long winded on this subject in the past, but wind driven turbines give us a clean source of renewable energy.


The Public Service Commission cited the presence of an endangered species of bat as one reason to not approve a project for Pendleton County. Amazingly even labor unions could not prove mightier than bats in this latest bizarre twist of West Virginia's governmental decision-making.


For goodness sakes! Make a decision in favor of the environment. If not the environment, make it in favor of enhancing national security. If not for those reasons, how about keeping jobs and tax money in a county like Pendleton that desperately needs it. The life of a bat should never, ever come before the good of the county, state, or nation.

****************************************************************

Speaking of batty, Democrat Natalie Tennant launched a series of criticisms at Secretary of State Betty Ireland about her office's handling of the 2004 elections. She apparently is still angry about a ballot format that she blames in part for her primary loss. Apparently the former television personality missed the multitude of bills passed over the years reforming state elections, including one addressing the problem cited by Tennant. Thankfully, Ireland aide Ben Beakes was more than helpful, reminding her in detail through the press. Let's hope Tennant's husband, Eric Wells, knows of these reforms. His state senate committee reviewed them all.


Betty Ireland has really shown tremendous leadership over her term of office. The only criticism Democrats can muster refers to problems no longer permitted by state law. West Virginia benefits from having her as an energetic and forcefully honest leader.

The Sad Case of Senator Robert C. Byrd

I'm not one to agree with Robert Byrd much in the last several years. His New Deal approaches to development hold West Virginia back in building a private sector. Also, I do not agree with his war stand. In 2006 John Raese had a better vision for West Virginia's future than Robert Byrd. However no one can deny that Byrd loves his state and has worked extremely hard over the years for its benefit.

What the liberal left has done to Robert C. Byrd is disgraceful. From 2003 until recently he served as their point man against the Iraq War. A popular senator with respect, seniority and an untouchable seat, Byrd was perfect for their purposes. They publicized every criticism of Bush and the war while promoting him as an experienced voice of reason. The real liberal left senators, for the most part, hem hawed. John Kerry voted against the war before he voted for it, or maybe it's the other way around. Hard to tell with him and his pals. Byrd, agree or disagree, spoke his mind. In doing so he alienated a lot of people in his home state and took real risks on behalf of his party.

Liberal leftists adored Byrd right up until he secured his seat for another six years. After all in an election with no incumbents a man of John Raese's name recognition and financial support could have won it. No, they wanted that seat assuredly marked with a (D) for at least another term. Sure that meant promoting an anti-abortion, pro gun, pro school prayer octogenarian who once portrayed a Confederate general in a movie. For liberal left wingers, that could not be easy. But hey, he was anti-Bush.

But now look at the situation. Liberal leftism's official voice in the nation's capital, the Washington Post, has started publicizing some of the lapses of old age the senator occasionally shows. He went from left wing hero to an old man whose time has passed. A columnist ridiculed Senator Byrd's speech about his dog during a congressional committee hearing on pet food safety. Another on May 30th pointed out Byrd's former affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan. Somehow conservative arguments about old age and past connections with terrorism held no relevance nine months ago. Now that the liberal left is done with Byrd, let the undermining of a senator's reputation commence. Republicans have criticized Byrd for many years, for many reasons, and rightfully so. The GOP at least generally remained consistent.

Maybe liberal left wingers do not realize that a younger and more charismatic version of Joe Lieberman is all but ready to take over the seat when the opportunity presents itself. The flip flop (are we even surprised when liberal leftists do this anymore) on Byrd has ranged over into hypocrisy, well past ingratitude. They used Senator Byrd and now they are throwing him aside. A very cruel way for the liberal left to treat a man that served the Democratic Party for so long. Maybe because they no longer in any way shape or form represent the kind of Democratic Party that Senator Byrd or most other West Virginians have supported all these years.


He's not from my party and I don't always agree with him. Senator Byrd's still a West Virginian though. Although there has been a lot to criticize from the point of view of a West Virginia Republican, it's tough to watch a bunch of elitist, snobbish Washington D.C. left-wingers using an elderly man from our state for their own purposes and disposing of him so callously when he is no longer useful to them.

Quinton Andrews' Natural Rights

Quenton Andrews is a man getting a lot of unwanted attention these days. The West Virginia University starting free safety was arrested this week. News of arrests of college football players sparks a knee jerk reaction generally. Why can't these kids just respect the law? What is wrong with these thugs? Etc., etc.

This situation seems a little different though. According to all accounts, Monongalia County deputies arrested Andrews for merely refusing to show officers his identification, citing him for obstructing an officer. The officer was in the process of arresting a former football player that actually had committed the crime of underage drinking. Andrews himself did nothing criminal. He even tried to go back inside his residence.

When did it become illegal to not show your identification to police when requested? The US Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that citizens have the obligation to present ID at the request of officers at any time for any reason. It sounds too much like the KGB or the Gestapo officer demanding "Papers please!" Don't get me wrong, I am not equating our hard working and courageous law enforcement with those notorious institutions of oppression. The vast majority of police do their jobs honestly.

However this gives police too much power to harass citizens into what is now defined as criminal behavior. Sure one can argue to just give the guy the ID and save yourself some grief; if you are not doing anything wrong, why worry? That argument can easily extend to searching your car, home, mail, hard drive, or anything else. Citizens have natural rights so long as they are not harming others. Quinton Andrews did not harm anyone, nor did he obstruct an officer doing his job. He simply dared to peacefully exercise his own rights.

Now let's be honest about Andrews too. He was not standing up for some heroic principle when he left his house that night. Like a lot of other guys in their late teens, he shot off his mouth in a situation where prudence demanded he keep quiet. However he had the good sense to leave the scene and go to his home when the officer responded. Was it dumb? Absolutely. That still does not mean that Andrews gave up his rights.

Not Getting What We Paid For

During the darkest days of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia, a place called Srebrenica became one of the most hellish places on earth.


It was supposed to be a safe zone because the United Nations said so. They dispatched a handful of soldiers from the Netherlands with orders to fire only in self-defense. Ethnic Serbians under the orders of the notorious General Ratko Mladic swept into the region. Mladic's troops intimidated, but scrupulously avoided shooting at the Dutch. 8,000 men and boys died under the so-called protection of the powder blue flag. I cannot imagine an American soldier standing by and watching that kind of horror, orders or no orders, whether outgunned or not.


This certainly reinforces the idea stated here before that only warriors can be peacekeepers. How can you protect anyone if your gun is always on "safety?" Sure, many of the perpetuators have ended up tried for war crimes, but for rape and mass murder they get sentences that in the United States would be light for major drug felonies or attempted murder. It has led to another result, a lawsuit. Bosnian female relatives of the dead have filed suit against the United Nations and the Dutch government for their lack of action.


Although it is always fun to see the UN inconvenienced, the problem is that if they lose a lawsuit and actually pay up, American money goes towards the lion's share of the bill. One more reason why the taxpayer dollars from the Potomac Highlands and the rest of the United States ought not support that white elephant of an international organization.

Solving Our Law Enforcement Problems Starts With Development

The State Journal on May 31 gave extensive coverage to a relatively hidden problem in the Potomac Highlands. In the article, the Mineral and Hardy County sheriffs discussed extensively their respective problems with personnel and funding. Both counties have a handful of deputies and a huge number of square miles and back roads to cover. They also have serious drug problems and an increasing demand from newer residents for immediate police response even in remote areas.One solution, as discussed in the article, lies in raising taxes. This idea does not garner a lot of enthusiasm. Mineral County just shot down a law enforcement levy and currently the property taxes are higher than a lot of poor and middle income residents can stand.

The alternative option to raising taxes lies in economic development. One can only wonder how much a cabinet plant could have bolstered Mineral County's tax receipts. Grant County currently pays farmers to not sell land to those that would use it for industrial development. The State Journal did not cite Grant County, but one would assume they share the same funding problems as their neighbors. Can they afford to not encourage manufacturing?

Residents of the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia deserve quality services for the high taxes they pay and all too often do not get them. The primary role of government lies in protecting lives and property, but over time it has taken on many more roles. Raising taxes on an eroding base no longer represents a viable solution. We must stop discouraging development.

A National Primary

Is it time for a national primary day? The general election is always held the first Tuesday in November for all states, but in the primaries the states are free to choose their own date for the primary. New Hampshire's Constitution states that theirs will be the first in the nation, and they will move the date to make that happen. The question is why should New Hampshire be the first, or Iowa or South Carolina for that matter?


If your state is not one of the first 3 or 4 states to hold a primary, then the outcome of the presidential primaries are pretty much decided by the time the rest get to it. I do not believe it does justice to the rest of the country allowing a few states to determine the candidate for the national election. Using a few states as a pre-filter for the rest does not serve the interest of the nation.

Let's look at a national primary day. The first Tuesday in May would be a good choice, as it is 6 months from the General Election. All states on one day, so that all may have a say in who moves onto the General Election.

The Spirit of Man and How to Destroy It

When the liberal left wants to condemn the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror, often they say "We have no business telling other countries what to do" or "Things were much better when Saddam was in charge." Then the leftists turn around here and push for heavy taxation to make smoking less convenient or ordinances that will remove old cars from people's property.

It seems contradictory, this idea of where they stand on "telling people what to do." They do not mind Iraq's former government running amuck. When an individual longs for the simple joy of a cigarrette, or wants to tinker on an old car for ten years as a hobby, they scream "There oughtta be a law!"

Look closer and you see the connection in the idea of collectivism. Collectivism is the principle of order at any price. The price often asked is individuality paid towards the bill titled "Collective Societal Good." Leftists do not mind the idea of a Saddam Hussein run government because it maintained a collective that promised order to the vast majority of the people. Never mind those paltry few that suffered horrifically. They like it so much they want to impose collectivism on those of us in the United States.

Collectivism comes not at the barrel of a gun, but as on little kitten paws. It oozes into our societal thinking here and there. Collectivism does not overawe us with power at the beginning, but begs for our sacrifice and calls us greedy should we decide we want to keep what we earned. Collectivism asks us why we cannot sacrifice some of our freedom if it results in a common good defined by some authority. The Declaration of Independence articulates that the pursuit of happiness is one of our most sacred individual natural rights. It means we seek our own happiness through living our life in a state of liberty. Collectivists gain power by convincing us that happiness is a sin and that the accomplishments we worked so hard to attain were at someone else's expense even though all acted according to their own free will (an idea which collectivists try to undermine.) Mediocrity becomes a virtue and achievement something to ridicule and destroy if possible.

It is no accident that the liberal left supports ideas such as the Mineral County Courthouse being rid of junk food altogether rather than simply offering more healthy choices. When we cede the right to even determine what should be put into our digestion when and how often, what right do we have to speak freely or select our government?

Darfur, Civil Rights, and the Atlanta Braves

Recently Jesse Jackson harassed yet another mark, the Atlanta Braves. Apparently the baseball franchise happened to field a team with no blacks on it. Confronted with this horror, Jackson hauled out the old tired racial rhetoric.


Few really pay attention to Jackson anymore. Black sportscasters on ESPN slammed Jackson's position as ludicrous, asking the logical question of why the Braves would not seek to put the most competitive team possible on the field. On Pardon the Interruption, the point was raised that black children's interest in baseball has waned considerably over the years. Historically black colleges cannot even fill their rosters with black players. Jackson understands attention more than logic.


The civil rights movement for blacks has entered an era where it has nearly grown obsolete. The generation now exiting high school and entering college is less racially conscious than any in our history. Generally speaking they simply ignore color, meaning that the dream once articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. has nearly come into being.




Success means peril for any influential person of any race that gained influence by using racism and it has produced some ugly developments. Bill Cosby gets blasted for suggesting that young people get an education that can lead them into productive ways of living. Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele have suffered from racial attacks and stereotypes launched from people in the NAACP among others because they dare to support President Bush and the Republican Party. Some Baltimoreans actually threw Oreo cookies at Steele, yet condemned Trent Lott for a kind word about Strom Thurmond. I wonder what they would think of Frederick Douglas's statement that "The Republican Party is the ship. All else is the sea."




The way for groups such as the NAACP to remain relevant is to first follow Bill Cosby's ideas. Encourage education, especially in the inner city. Hold up people like Rice as models instead of demons. Rice grew up in Alabama in the 50s and 60s and that speaks for itself. Second, the NAACP and others ought to pressure Congress and others to address slavery where it exists now, not where it has not existed for over a century and a half. Black Christians continue to suffer in places like Darfur. The Moslems controlling the north of the country of Sudan enslave and massacre them routinely and America has not involved itself directly. Black leaders in America can work with President Bush to find a way for our nation to help.




That is how the NAACP, a movement with a storied and successful tradition, can stay relevant in an increasingly color blind America. Confederate flags and the Atlanta Braves are picayune compared to the potential that can be tapped through encouragement of education. They are also very minor relative to real suffering and terror experienced in Darfur and elsewhere.

A Tale of Two Hampshires

When I glanced at the Hampshire Review today, two stories stood out. The first story alerted the region that yet another politician had violated public trust. The sum of $100,000 evaporated from county coffers. Funny business with public funds is nothing new unfortunately.

Next came the story covering Hampshire High School's graduation. It accompanied a photo of 2007 graduates just as they reached up to move their tassels, symbolically marking their ascension to the next level in their lives, whatever that may be.

These young men and women represent a large part of their county's future, but how much has the past affected them? Has the county educational system's corrupt misdeeds and outrages that colored their school years angered the graduates? Or did they learn that corruption is the way it has always been done and that no one can change it? Will they make their lives in the county? Will they give up on it and hope that another place has government for the people, not for dishonest politicians and paid for by the people?

Certainly Hampshire County has people and politicians that are mad as hell and do not want to take it anymore. They thirst for clean government and honest development. Are there enough of these good, honest people to overcome the corrupt and apathetic segments? These new graduates could make the difference one way or the other.

Will enough of them have the faith in themselves and their community to stand up and demand better from all of their government officials? If they do, a prosperous future for that community is certain.

The Liberal Media Strikes (or at Least Tried to Strike) Again

For over a century the Charleston Gazette has stood at the fringes of respectable politics. This paper generally represents a left wing position somewhere to the wrong side of Vladimir Lenin and rarely sees a Republican it likes. Not for nothing did Governor Moore call it "The Morning Sick Call."


If the charges levied against it by the Department of Justice are correct, then this venerable bastion of loony lefties has found new lows. On May 7th, 2004 the Gazette purchased Charleston's afternoon Republican newspaper the Daily Mail. This in itself was not unique as morning papers had taken over afternoon publications around the country to help keep them afloat.



The Department of Justice, unfortunately for the Gazette, does not consider halting solicitations for new Daily Mail subscribers, allowing half of the reporters and staff to leave without replacing them, stopping all promotions and discounts, and cutting the newsroom budget to be helping the afternoon paper. A nineteen page report alleges that the Gazette tried to strangle the Daily Mail right out of existence. It only ceased these policies when the Justice Department launched its investigation.


Either the Charleston Gazette tried to suffocate one of the last printed conservative voices in West Virginia, or it sought to create a monopolistic stranglehold over the metropolitan region around Charleston. The second possibility must particularly delight the Gazette's enemies due to the enormous number of corporate greed sermons its editors launched over the years.

The internet means that even in the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia, we can read news about state government from those directly at the sources. When the Gazette choked off resources to the Daily Mail it reduced the conservative paper's ability to cover events. Those seeking daily news about state government had to turn to the paper with one of the most shrilly liberal biases in the nation. Already the 2004 purchase has been voided. Hopefully the courts will force the Gazette to pay damages to ensure a balance of coverage out of Charleston.

Ecomomic Growth is a Republican vs. Democrat issue

I have to disagree with Dave Peyton in his article in the Daily Mail, where he states “This is no longer a Democratic versus Republican issue, nor is it a topic that should divide liberals and conservatives.” Most of the Economic Problems in the state can be traced directly to legislation introduced by Democrats in the state house. Also legislation that would begin to fix the problem introduced by Republicans gets stopped. It goes right down party lines.

The WV Democrats constantly put the welfare of their party and special interest ahead of the welfare of the state. The result is a ranking of 50 out of 50 for West Virginia in many categories. The Republicans are gaining ground in voter registration because the people are begining to see that the Republicans believe if what is good for the state is good for the party. That is what will save West Virginia’s economy in the future, but how fast depends on how fast the citizens of the state demand the changes necessary.

Russell Sobel of WVU wrote the blue print for turning around West Virginia’s Economy in a book called, “Unleashing Capitalism.” The citizens of the state are growing increasing skeptical of Charleston’s ability to fix the problems, and books like Mr. Sobel’s are only going to fuel that skepticism.

I believe that Dave Peyton’s article stating it is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue is just and attempt to deflect the issue from the states Democratic Party. The fact of the matter is the Democratic Party has been in control of the state legislature for nearly 80 years. Right now the Democratic Party could ask the state legislature to pass every recommendation in Russell Sobel’s book, and ask the governor sign it fixing the states economy without any help from the states Republican Party. We could go from 50th best state to do business in to 1st place, if the Democrats would pass the bills needed. They have not, and it is doubtful they will. Only the Republican Party is pushing for the needed changes, so it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue and the Democrats in the WV are obstructing WV’s future economic growth.

The Democratic Congress Strikes Again Against the Little Guy

Count another victory for the Democratic Party over the interests of the small businessman.

To get the needed funding approved so our troops could continue to defend freedom, President Bush was strong armed into approving a minimum wage hike from $5.15 to $7.25. Fewer than 1.7 million workers make minimum wage, although the Democrats claim as many as 5.6 million of the nation’s 130 million workers could see their salaries rise. They cannot say for certain because a percentage of those workers will likely find themselves out of a job.

Very few working families rely on minimum wage jobs alone to support their families. The very small number that do qualify for welfare. Many of the rest work such jobs as part of a combination package of part time employment. About fifteen years ago I was supporting a family on two minimum wage jobs and one that paid a few dollars over that. Other minimum wage workers are spouses or significant others of high wage earners who work for a little extra income or to pass the time.

Before anyone starts talking corporate greed, they must understand that the majority of major corporations already pay over minimum wage. Most businesses that pay minimum wage operate on a small scale. Local bookstores, restaurants, and other small city downtown establishments pay minimum wage. One can hardly accuse these businesses with their razor thin profit margins of “corporate greed.”

How does a small business like this cope with the hike? It lays off workers while the owner him or herself works more hours. Since the cost of labor represents such an important factor in a business’s profitability, the extra pay obligation may be the determining issue in whether or not a small business fails. Certainly it presents a higher obstacle to an entrepreneur just getting started. Some owners already pay employees “under the table” and raising the minimum wage only encourages more skirting of the law. Others will pass the costs onto the consumer. Beware parents with children in day care settings, your bill is about to go up.

For the most part, the market has determined that low level service employees of companies such as McDonalds will make almost what the projected minimum wage hike will be. That means the Democrats did not overly antagonize their big business donors. As usual the small businessman bears the brunt of liberal victories over “corporate greed.” They should be sure and send a letter of appreciation to their Democratic representatives in Congress.

Table Games and the Republican Party

Officially state Republicans tend to oppose the expansion of gambling, especially when it comes to table games. Some Democrats endorse their legalization as another way to bring much needed revenue to the state to fund its various programs. The issue is more complex than simple red versus blue politics.


Republicans behind the scenes face splits on this issue because conservatism does not just exist in one form. Social conservatism, or the "Bill Bennett" form, concentrates on issues of morality. Gambling, gay marriage, and other issues must be resisted because they break down the moral fibre of the community and families. Another form of conservatism emphasizes individual freedom and it comes primarily from the British Whig traditions of the 1700s, some of which influenced the Founding Fathers. The "Bill Buckley" form of conservatism emphasizes issues such as gun rights, but also is permissive in social issues. Economic conservatism, as it is often called, argues that people have natural rights to make choices in their lives and that government ought to stay out as much as possible. Libertarians follow these ideas in a much more broad manner. Some debates, such as abortion, link the two. An economic conservative can argue that each person no matter how young has the right to life, while social conservatives argue against murdering a baby.


While the official line that conservatism means no table games remains clear, many Republicans have a difficult time reconciling that with their beliefs of individual freedom and choice. Relying on gambling as an industry brings up issues beyond morality and the destruction that some choices bring to individuals and families (though many believe they have the right to make "bad" choices in a free society.) The state continues to construct a house of cards by leaning more and more heavily on revenue sources that it tries to officially discourage. Gambling and cigarrette based revenues fund an increasing amount of the state budget and some of those monies go into discouraging the behaviors that create the revenue!


If it bothers a conservative to oppose table games because of their beliefs on individual choice, they may take comfort in opposing them because it is bad policy.

All Veterans Ought to be Able to Order a Beer

If you really want to get people's hackles raised at you, do the following. Walk into a roomful of people and suggest that the drinking age as it stands at 21 is too high.


People will blast you, condemn you, and ask how many lives the higher drinking age probably saves. A real inconsistency exists here, though. A young man or woman can sign up for the military at 18, go into battle, kill or risk being killed, get captured by the enemy and be potentially tortured, even win the Congressional Medal of Honor. If he returns alive before the age of 21, this young person can still not legally go into a bar and order a beer.


One could suggest that those with military IDs be allowed to drink, but not those under 21 outside the military. This sounds like a good compromise, but still does not offer real justice. A citizen between 18 and 21 can vote for president, get a loan and practically have credit cards shoved down his or her throat. Advocates for allowing these decisions on the part of these citizens claim that the ability to make judgments does exist. Bankers and the Democratic Party benefit most from this allowance. We all benefit from the sacrifices made by those that make the serious decision to defend their country.


Either these young men and women are citizens or they are not. Make 21 or 18 the legal age for all military, credit, and voting decisions. End the hypocrisy one way or the other.

Paris Hilton…. Yeah I’m going to talk about her too

There is a saying, “Let the punishment fit the crime,” and many are stating that Paris is being dealt with more harshly than others committing the same offense. I don’t believe she is being dealt with more harshly, but I do believe justice is being served. From all the different news sources it is my understanding that typically a fine or home confinement are the usual punishment, but I don’t think they will work for Paris.

Again the news is not real precise, but the maximum fine appears to be anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. Let’s face it to a multimillionaire like Paris Hilton even if the fine was $10,000 it would be like fining the average American $1.00. If we fined people in the US $1.00 for traffic offenses, then the interstates would quickly become Autobahns. The maximum fine to Paris Hilton is not a punishment.

Home confinement is not really a punishment when you live in a mansion. When you’re a celebrity the party comes to you. The news is reporting that a party was planned for Friday night had Paris not been returned to jail. Not being allowed to leave your mansion for 30 to 45 days when you have the money to bring all you need in is not really a punishment.

Maybe the saying should be let the punishment fit the person. The judge never went outside the law. He stayed within the guidelines given to him and gave probably the only punishment that would actually be a punishment to a millionaire. I give kudos to the judge for making sure justice was served.

Nick Joe Rahall and Alan Mollohan: Environmental Crusaders

Nick Joe Rahall, West Virginia's representative from the Third Congressional District, recently introduced legislation in Congress to severely undermine the future of wind power in the United States. Basically he, like Mollohan who represents the First District, has developed a tender concern for the birds and bats that happen to find their way into the turbines and get themselves killed. The legislation will impose rigorous standards on turbines to presumably prevent animal deaths.

According to opensecrets.org, Congressman Rahall receives a tremendous amount of financial support from mining interests. In West Virginia that of course translates to coal. In the past few elections he has received support from the United Mine Workers and the Norfolk and Southern Railroad which relies on coal to generate a great deal of income. As for Mollohan, mining interests ranked tenth among his contributing industries. On the surface there is nothing wrong with these contributions. As for the coal industry, it not only "keeps the lights on" but tax receipts from it help the state pay to keep its lights from being turned off.

Doesn't it seem strange that Rahall and Mollohan feel such compassion for the little birds when you think about who gives them their support? Think about the miniscule amount of wildlife affected by wind farms. Now consider how many animals are killed when hollows are filled in by mountaintop removal waste. For that matter would the building unions and construction outfits that support both congressmen agree to never build tall structures again? After all more birds are killed by running into buildings. I doubt that they would ever oppose the outright hunting of birds.

The point here is NOT to oppose coal mining, hunting, construction, or any other worthwhile human endeavor that might kill a bird. We have to face the fact that human activities will sometimes kill animals directly or indirectly. Civilization will grind to a halt if we do not accept that our needs create some "collateral damage" in the natural world. These men's opposition may come less from their compassion for wildlife and more from some other source. Does someone fear that wind farms on the Allegheny Front might someday compete with coal? Do they just want to shore themselves up among their environutty constituents?

In any event the result of this proposed legislation will be to kill the prospect for a few good paying jobs, a decrease in the reliance on foreign energy, and increased local tax income to support our schools and other needs.

One County's Frustration Could Be Another County's Opportunity

According to the Cumberland Times News the new shopping center once projected for a summer 2008 opening has hit more snags. Without going into specifics, the article indicated that the deal may be in trouble. At some point Target, Home Depot, and others must have determined that this region could support their business. The question is, has that changed or have other factors become obstacles?


The project was intended to resemble Morgantown's University Town Center which is an innovative way to develop rugged Appalachian terrain. A ridgetop supports the main anchor chains while terraces along the road to the top contain smaller stores and restaraunts. The businesses located there enjoy tremendous patronage, especially the restaraunt chains.



Whatever the problem is, Mineral County ought to aggressively investigate and determine if it can provide a less problematic option. If the anchor stores decided that this region cannot support them, fine. But if the problem lies in local government red tape, by all means go for the steal. Some argue that Mineral, Allegany, and Garrett Counties ought to cooperate to bring in business. However business located in Maryland does nothing to help Mineral County's tax base, meaning they continue to get more money for schools, police protection, and other services. If possible, our local leaders should at least investigate sweeping this development onto the correct side of the Potomac River.