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.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 8, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The war on terror
63 years ago today on the beaches of Normandy Americans, Brits, Free French, & Canadians with support of others began the liberation of Europe. We fought fascism. We fought the Axis powers. We fought an enemy that wore uniforms and could be identified, and we carried it through to the end. In 2007 we are in a war on terrorism. Our enemy doesn't follow any rules, the don't wear uniforms and they are not easily identified.
Nobody in their right mind wants to be in a war. I want our troops to come home from Iraq as soon as possible, but we must win first. If we quit in Iraq, then we lose. General Omar Bradley stated "In war there is no prize for the runner-up." Quiting is not an option. "In War: Resolution" said Winston Churchill and our resolve is being tested now.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir remarked, "There can only be peace when they will start to love their children more than they hate us. " She knew well the terrorist that we fight today. How do you win against and enemy like that? An enemy that doesn't put the same value on human life that we do.
There are no easy answers to ending this war on terror. Abraham Lincoln was right, "The only good part of a war is its ending. " I know this; mistakes have been made both militarily and politically, but this is a war we must win in Iraq or in the future we fight in downtown America.
Nobody in their right mind wants to be in a war. I want our troops to come home from Iraq as soon as possible, but we must win first. If we quit in Iraq, then we lose. General Omar Bradley stated "In war there is no prize for the runner-up." Quiting is not an option. "In War: Resolution" said Winston Churchill and our resolve is being tested now.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir remarked, "There can only be peace when they will start to love their children more than they hate us. " She knew well the terrorist that we fight today. How do you win against and enemy like that? An enemy that doesn't put the same value on human life that we do.
There are no easy answers to ending this war on terror. Abraham Lincoln was right, "The only good part of a war is its ending. " I know this; mistakes have been made both militarily and politically, but this is a war we must win in Iraq or in the future we fight in downtown America.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Whose Constitution?
One of the most dangerous trends in American law over the past several years lies in the blurring of the lines between citizen and non citizen. Maybe it is a failure of education that people for whatever reason assume that "Constitutional Rights" extend to anyone that happens to enter the jurisdiction of the United States.
Nationally the debate rages over detainees at Guantanamo Bay. People who ought to know better complain because those held there have been denied counsel, trial, and other legal remedies available to US citizens. Liberal judges (who are quickly overruled) support this nonsense to make a political statement against the president rather than ruling on the law. Closer to home, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have started distributing Miranda warnings in Spanish. No officer wants to work hard to get illegals off the street just so a liberal judge can wave a legal magic wand and give them Constitutional rights.
The Constitution's preamble has repeatedly been cited as part and parcel of the law of that document. This legal principle lay at the heart of every action taken by Abraham Lincoln to restore the Union. "We the people of the United States" opens the document. "The people" and "persons" used later on denotes United States citizens. Somewhere along the way, a segment of American thinkers has determined that our Constitution applies to those that sneak across our borders illegally. Even worse, they argue that enemies of our country that the military rounds up and detains have rights to our legal system. Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with this foolishness when his FBI efficiently rounded up German agents at the commencement of World War II.
We cannot allow non citizens to take advantage of our benevolence. If you are not an American citizen, you do not receive the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Those politicians that support extending legal protections, social services, and (I am not kidding here) voting rights to illegal non citizens ought to be held to account.
Nationally the debate rages over detainees at Guantanamo Bay. People who ought to know better complain because those held there have been denied counsel, trial, and other legal remedies available to US citizens. Liberal judges (who are quickly overruled) support this nonsense to make a political statement against the president rather than ruling on the law. Closer to home, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have started distributing Miranda warnings in Spanish. No officer wants to work hard to get illegals off the street just so a liberal judge can wave a legal magic wand and give them Constitutional rights.
The Constitution's preamble has repeatedly been cited as part and parcel of the law of that document. This legal principle lay at the heart of every action taken by Abraham Lincoln to restore the Union. "We the people of the United States" opens the document. "The people" and "persons" used later on denotes United States citizens. Somewhere along the way, a segment of American thinkers has determined that our Constitution applies to those that sneak across our borders illegally. Even worse, they argue that enemies of our country that the military rounds up and detains have rights to our legal system. Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with this foolishness when his FBI efficiently rounded up German agents at the commencement of World War II.
We cannot allow non citizens to take advantage of our benevolence. If you are not an American citizen, you do not receive the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Those politicians that support extending legal protections, social services, and (I am not kidding here) voting rights to illegal non citizens ought to be held to account.
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Price of Government Intervention
In the past few months we have seen gas prices jump to their highest levels since Hurricane Katrina hit. Consumers scramble to find ways to pay the price while others scramble to lay blame. Plenty of explanation exists for this most recent spike.
First is the problem of blends. Different environmental regulations for different parts of the country mean that gasoline refineries must produce a vast array of gasoline formulas, then must figure out the supply and demand for each version sent out over the country. Personally I wonder why they do not simply go with the most environmentally friendly formula for the whole nation.
Secondly, refining in the United States is almost an endangered species. Our domestic capacity has not expanded in decades due to the expensive and time consuming permit process combined with legions of environmental groups waiting to sue. Meanwhile current facilities continue to age and occasionally blow up. Increasingly we rely on foreign countries such as Mexico and Venezuela to help provide the fuel we need. The most recent price rises reflect fears that unless a short term reduction in consumption takes place, shortages will occur in some parts of the country. Yes oil companies profit from this and it is hard to work up much sympathy for them, but it is a market tool to ensure a continued supply everywhere.
Right now the supply of crude does not pose a problem. Actually oil prices have dropped recently due to increases in supply primarily from Saudi Arabia. That nation's authorities just foiled a major plot to destroy its oil facilities. We need stable domestic sources of oil and no reason exists to not tap reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In his infinite wisdom, President Carter created this sprawling reserve to prevent oil companies from drilling there, citing the potential danger to polar bear and reindeer habitats. Of course the presence of cities, interstate highways, coal mines, etc. have absolutely driven away the population of black bear and white tail deer from our region. We simply need more domestic supply in case of international turmoil.
Some want to blame the long term energy consumption of the United States, citing familiar statistics that say we use more than any other nation. This represents a typical example of America bashing with no suggested alternative. Environmentalists fail to point out that the US produces more goods and services more efficiently than any other nation. We use more because we produce more, but America also wastes less. The inefficient authoritarian Chinese economy among others wastes more energy due to their much lower productivity level.
As has been pointed out here before, that capability comes from the genius of competitive capitalism. In that philosophy lies the key to solving energy price problems. Governor Manchin called upon the president to declare a state of emergency, a move that would create panic and huge price hikes. He also asked Bush to create a national energy strategy, a policy that the president has attempted repeatedly and received no support. If the governor and others actually want an energy policy they must meet with President Bush, leave politics at the door, and work out a solution. For our economic stability and national security we need to free American industry to produce more in America for Americans.
First is the problem of blends. Different environmental regulations for different parts of the country mean that gasoline refineries must produce a vast array of gasoline formulas, then must figure out the supply and demand for each version sent out over the country. Personally I wonder why they do not simply go with the most environmentally friendly formula for the whole nation.
Secondly, refining in the United States is almost an endangered species. Our domestic capacity has not expanded in decades due to the expensive and time consuming permit process combined with legions of environmental groups waiting to sue. Meanwhile current facilities continue to age and occasionally blow up. Increasingly we rely on foreign countries such as Mexico and Venezuela to help provide the fuel we need. The most recent price rises reflect fears that unless a short term reduction in consumption takes place, shortages will occur in some parts of the country. Yes oil companies profit from this and it is hard to work up much sympathy for them, but it is a market tool to ensure a continued supply everywhere.
Right now the supply of crude does not pose a problem. Actually oil prices have dropped recently due to increases in supply primarily from Saudi Arabia. That nation's authorities just foiled a major plot to destroy its oil facilities. We need stable domestic sources of oil and no reason exists to not tap reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In his infinite wisdom, President Carter created this sprawling reserve to prevent oil companies from drilling there, citing the potential danger to polar bear and reindeer habitats. Of course the presence of cities, interstate highways, coal mines, etc. have absolutely driven away the population of black bear and white tail deer from our region. We simply need more domestic supply in case of international turmoil.
Some want to blame the long term energy consumption of the United States, citing familiar statistics that say we use more than any other nation. This represents a typical example of America bashing with no suggested alternative. Environmentalists fail to point out that the US produces more goods and services more efficiently than any other nation. We use more because we produce more, but America also wastes less. The inefficient authoritarian Chinese economy among others wastes more energy due to their much lower productivity level.
As has been pointed out here before, that capability comes from the genius of competitive capitalism. In that philosophy lies the key to solving energy price problems. Governor Manchin called upon the president to declare a state of emergency, a move that would create panic and huge price hikes. He also asked Bush to create a national energy strategy, a policy that the president has attempted repeatedly and received no support. If the governor and others actually want an energy policy they must meet with President Bush, leave politics at the door, and work out a solution. For our economic stability and national security we need to free American industry to produce more in America for Americans.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Warming Up to a Historical Perspective on the Climate
Ever tasted Scottish wine? You probably have not, but in the Middle Ages it was considered good enough that the French complained of the competition. The idea of Scottish wine may surprise those that know it is too cold to grow grapes in Scotland. From about the 1000s until the late 1300s temperatures rose to levels substantially (climactically speaking) higher than today. This allowed grapes to grow in Scotland and Viking colonizers to build cities and raise sheep in Greenland.
At this point you may be shocked. Rising global temperatures did not lead to the destruction of all mankind like Al Gore told us they would? During this period urban civilizations expanded across the planet. From central Mexico to the Great Plains to Europe trade and commerce fueled the expansion of cities and nations. The Mayan pyramids, the great burial mounds in the Ohio Valley, and the Gothic cathedrals all appeared in this era. It is called the Medieval Warm Period and it ended in the late 1300s.
The Medieval Warm Period’s warmth was replaced by the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age. The Viking colonists abandoned Greenland to expanding ice sheets, agriculture declined in northern Europe, and the great trade routes connecting eastern North America to the Aztecs and West Coast broke down. Decline in agricultural productivity coincided with the rise of imperial powers such as the English, Spanish, and Five Nations of the Iroquois League seeking to conquer new regions. Only in the 1700s did temperatures gradually climb again over the long term.
Surely this is all the fault of George W. Bush and Halliburton. Although some want to pin everything from climate change to the fall of the Roman Empire on President Bush, he does not control everything. In fact no one can say with any certainty what controls the climate, or even what the climate is doing right now. Some say it is warming, others say it is just fluctuating. NASA revealed recently that the Martian ice caps are melting and that Mars has gotten warmer. Again you could blame President Bush for that, but NASA believes that the sun’s energy output has increased lately.
Thirty years ago Newsweek and scientists warned us that the climate was cooling to dangerous levels and that industrialism was ushering in an ice age. Now these same people want us to believe that civilization is creating a hot spell that will end mankind. There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollution and trying to conserve resources. Industrial and capitalist nations have accomplished more towards those ends than any other system in the world. Using scare tactics and lies to frighten the public for a quasi-Marxist and anti-industrial political agenda is despicable.
At this point you may be shocked. Rising global temperatures did not lead to the destruction of all mankind like Al Gore told us they would? During this period urban civilizations expanded across the planet. From central Mexico to the Great Plains to Europe trade and commerce fueled the expansion of cities and nations. The Mayan pyramids, the great burial mounds in the Ohio Valley, and the Gothic cathedrals all appeared in this era. It is called the Medieval Warm Period and it ended in the late 1300s.
The Medieval Warm Period’s warmth was replaced by the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age. The Viking colonists abandoned Greenland to expanding ice sheets, agriculture declined in northern Europe, and the great trade routes connecting eastern North America to the Aztecs and West Coast broke down. Decline in agricultural productivity coincided with the rise of imperial powers such as the English, Spanish, and Five Nations of the Iroquois League seeking to conquer new regions. Only in the 1700s did temperatures gradually climb again over the long term.
Surely this is all the fault of George W. Bush and Halliburton. Although some want to pin everything from climate change to the fall of the Roman Empire on President Bush, he does not control everything. In fact no one can say with any certainty what controls the climate, or even what the climate is doing right now. Some say it is warming, others say it is just fluctuating. NASA revealed recently that the Martian ice caps are melting and that Mars has gotten warmer. Again you could blame President Bush for that, but NASA believes that the sun’s energy output has increased lately.
Thirty years ago Newsweek and scientists warned us that the climate was cooling to dangerous levels and that industrialism was ushering in an ice age. Now these same people want us to believe that civilization is creating a hot spell that will end mankind. There is nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollution and trying to conserve resources. Industrial and capitalist nations have accomplished more towards those ends than any other system in the world. Using scare tactics and lies to frighten the public for a quasi-Marxist and anti-industrial political agenda is despicable.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Who Newsweek Says They Want For President in 2008
On the May 14th issue of Newsweek, the magazine placed on their cover the model for their preferred guy to take over the office in 2009. Immediately I recognized his smiling face as one of my personal favorites in the presidency. This man approached the many foreign and domestic crises of his presidency head on. He always formed part of the solution, even if we did not know about his role until much later. Being a strong willed "decider" won him few friends as time wore on, however. This man's determination to follow through with an unpopular war lost him what little personal popularity he ever enjoyed across the board. By the middle of his second term, approval ratings plummeted to near 20%. He held middle American values which earned him the disdain of intellectuals, which he happily returned.
Media elites saw his plain spoken manner as a sign of non intelligence, also often citing his business which failed in the midst of prosperity. Others mentioned the departure of his first secretary of state, a former general who held the public's admiration and respect, as proof that this president's foreign policy had gone wrong. At the end, members of his own party turned on him and compared him unfavorably to a predecessor with a charm, brilliance, vision, and ability to communicate almost unparalleled in American history. By the end of his second term, however, the economy was stronger than it was when he started and America's leadership in the free world was unquestioned.
No, Newsweek did not have a picture of George W. Bush on the cover. Instead we saw Harry Truman under the headline that asked who the next Truman would be. Since the Man From Missouri lies safely in his grave, liberal media types can safely trumpet him as their ultimate president. Truman rightly enjoys high praise from historians now despite his second term unpopularity. Few want to admit that our current president in many ways parallels Truman and deserves the same consideration for seeing the United States through a very difficult period.
The liberal media fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush follows in the foreign policy tradition of the confrontational Harry Truman. If you want to make them fall into a fetal position and tremble, mention Franklin D. Roosevelt's desire at the end of World War II for the United States to stamp out rogue regimes before they become powerful enough to threaten the peace of their regions, much less the US itself. He learned firsthand that we ought to destroy regimes like Hussein's and Hitler's earlier, lest we commit hundreds of thousands of soldiers and uncountable resources later.
Just because liberals today want to claim Harry Truman (and many of them actually did not in his time!) does not mean they have the right. Today's liberalism was not Truman's liberalism of confident American action. Today's Democratic Party is light years away from the one he led.
Media elites saw his plain spoken manner as a sign of non intelligence, also often citing his business which failed in the midst of prosperity. Others mentioned the departure of his first secretary of state, a former general who held the public's admiration and respect, as proof that this president's foreign policy had gone wrong. At the end, members of his own party turned on him and compared him unfavorably to a predecessor with a charm, brilliance, vision, and ability to communicate almost unparalleled in American history. By the end of his second term, however, the economy was stronger than it was when he started and America's leadership in the free world was unquestioned.
No, Newsweek did not have a picture of George W. Bush on the cover. Instead we saw Harry Truman under the headline that asked who the next Truman would be. Since the Man From Missouri lies safely in his grave, liberal media types can safely trumpet him as their ultimate president. Truman rightly enjoys high praise from historians now despite his second term unpopularity. Few want to admit that our current president in many ways parallels Truman and deserves the same consideration for seeing the United States through a very difficult period.
The liberal media fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush follows in the foreign policy tradition of the confrontational Harry Truman. If you want to make them fall into a fetal position and tremble, mention Franklin D. Roosevelt's desire at the end of World War II for the United States to stamp out rogue regimes before they become powerful enough to threaten the peace of their regions, much less the US itself. He learned firsthand that we ought to destroy regimes like Hussein's and Hitler's earlier, lest we commit hundreds of thousands of soldiers and uncountable resources later.
Just because liberals today want to claim Harry Truman (and many of them actually did not in his time!) does not mean they have the right. Today's liberalism was not Truman's liberalism of confident American action. Today's Democratic Party is light years away from the one he led.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Bennie Thompson's War on the War on Terror
Looks like the Democratic Congress is already striking blows in favor of the enemy. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, launched a campaign to eliminate the immunity from civil lawsuits that tipsters now enjoy. If Thompson has his way, calling in suspicious activity aboard an airplane can result in a massive lawsuit against those that turn in the information. Why? Representative Thompson has more concern about the possibility of profiling than the possibility of a passenger filled airplane being used as a weapon. It must have been Thompson’s vast expertise in agricultural and rural issues that got him selected to one of the House’s most important chairmanships.
I will be the first to say that the Republican Congress deserved what it got in 2006. Two years of non productive power earned it a defeat. They had chances to pass legislation to reform the tax code, to save social security beyond 2040, and expand our energy resources among many other things. Instead they played prevent defense, did nothing, and let the Democrats define the issues. In a narrow sense the defeat washed away some old blood and allowed new leaders to rise to the fore, regenerating the Gallant Old Party.
In the long run that may not be good for the nation. Now we have veritable fools running Congress that do not realize that the United States faces enemies around the world. They have held up funding the military for political reasons. Now they try to erode the methods we use to help protect airline passengers every day. Thankfully some Democrats, such as the always sensible Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (whom the Democratic Party tried to run out of office last year) remember that we are at war with dangerous enemies and need the help of concerned citizens.
Yes, congressional Republicans needed a turnover in leadership and ideas. Hopefully this turnover will not mean a sacrifice in lives, property, and prestige. I tell you though, I would feel much more secure with people like Shelley Moore Capito and Chris Wakim helping to lead our House of Representatives than left wingers like Bennie Thompson and the woman that put him in charge of Homeland Security issues.
I will be the first to say that the Republican Congress deserved what it got in 2006. Two years of non productive power earned it a defeat. They had chances to pass legislation to reform the tax code, to save social security beyond 2040, and expand our energy resources among many other things. Instead they played prevent defense, did nothing, and let the Democrats define the issues. In a narrow sense the defeat washed away some old blood and allowed new leaders to rise to the fore, regenerating the Gallant Old Party.
In the long run that may not be good for the nation. Now we have veritable fools running Congress that do not realize that the United States faces enemies around the world. They have held up funding the military for political reasons. Now they try to erode the methods we use to help protect airline passengers every day. Thankfully some Democrats, such as the always sensible Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (whom the Democratic Party tried to run out of office last year) remember that we are at war with dangerous enemies and need the help of concerned citizens.
Yes, congressional Republicans needed a turnover in leadership and ideas. Hopefully this turnover will not mean a sacrifice in lives, property, and prestige. I tell you though, I would feel much more secure with people like Shelley Moore Capito and Chris Wakim helping to lead our House of Representatives than left wingers like Bennie Thompson and the woman that put him in charge of Homeland Security issues.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Gov and the GOP
Republicans derisively call him "Mojo." Democrats call him an election in the bag at this point, whatever election that might be. No doubt exists that, were it not for the lunatic left wing of the national Democratic Party, he has a definite future on the national stage if he keeps his nose clean. In West Virginia, if you say "Joe," everyone knows who you are talking about.
He can drive some people to serious distraction. Nearly everyone despises the "Open for Business" signs that will likely last until the next governor is inaugurated. The foolish intervention into West Virginia University's football schedule won him few friends outside of Cabell County. Apart from that, Governor Manchin has pushed an agenda that tends to favor reforms that might eventually make West Virginia more business friendly. He also has made statements that can be interpreted as pro war and is definitely anti-abortion.
All that being said, he is what he is. Joe Manchin remains a product of the Democratic Party's domination of West Virginia. Some might argue that puts him in a unique position to steer more comprehensive change through an otherwise hostile Legislature. Others doubt that a product of the Ruling Party has the capacity to introduce drastically revolutionary reforms necessary to make this state truly prosperous.
Few West Virginia Republicans of any stature want to take him on next year and who can blame them? That being said, the possibility exists that he could succeed an ailing Robert Byrd into the US Senate or even be selected as a running mate of the Democratic presidential nominee. The state GOP must groom a strong candidate for that eventuality. State Democrats may be less prepared for a Manchin defection than Republicans, so a candidate with ability and some stature must run. Robin Capehart comes to mind as one such possibility, but certainly there are others. A standard bearer must emerge that can represent the differences between West Virginia Republicans and Governor Manchin and also take advantage should the presumed Democratic nominee suddenly become otherwise engaged.
Despite the fact that many conservatives like Manchin, West Virginia needs to continue moving towards a real two party system. Competition in politics creates more responsible government. A non entity in the governor's race represents a step backwards not only for the state GOP, but for West Virginia as a whole. We need a man or woman with Republican values, strength of character, communication skills, and charisma to fight the good fight. After all, November 2008 is still a long way off and you never know what may happen between now and then.
He can drive some people to serious distraction. Nearly everyone despises the "Open for Business" signs that will likely last until the next governor is inaugurated. The foolish intervention into West Virginia University's football schedule won him few friends outside of Cabell County. Apart from that, Governor Manchin has pushed an agenda that tends to favor reforms that might eventually make West Virginia more business friendly. He also has made statements that can be interpreted as pro war and is definitely anti-abortion.
All that being said, he is what he is. Joe Manchin remains a product of the Democratic Party's domination of West Virginia. Some might argue that puts him in a unique position to steer more comprehensive change through an otherwise hostile Legislature. Others doubt that a product of the Ruling Party has the capacity to introduce drastically revolutionary reforms necessary to make this state truly prosperous.
Few West Virginia Republicans of any stature want to take him on next year and who can blame them? That being said, the possibility exists that he could succeed an ailing Robert Byrd into the US Senate or even be selected as a running mate of the Democratic presidential nominee. The state GOP must groom a strong candidate for that eventuality. State Democrats may be less prepared for a Manchin defection than Republicans, so a candidate with ability and some stature must run. Robin Capehart comes to mind as one such possibility, but certainly there are others. A standard bearer must emerge that can represent the differences between West Virginia Republicans and Governor Manchin and also take advantage should the presumed Democratic nominee suddenly become otherwise engaged.
Despite the fact that many conservatives like Manchin, West Virginia needs to continue moving towards a real two party system. Competition in politics creates more responsible government. A non entity in the governor's race represents a step backwards not only for the state GOP, but for West Virginia as a whole. We need a man or woman with Republican values, strength of character, communication skills, and charisma to fight the good fight. After all, November 2008 is still a long way off and you never know what may happen between now and then.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Where do you go to get your reputation back?
In a news article in the Times-News it was announced that all the charges were dropped against Sonny Alt. Not only were the charges dismissed, they were dismissed with prejudice. Prejudice implies coming to a judgement on the subject based on false beliefs.
Many people in the community believed all along that Sonny Alt was falsely accused, now the court system seems to agree. Sonny falls in the same category as the Duke Lacrosse Team. Where does he go to get his reputation back? Who do you ask to fix all the damage done to his reputation by the false accusations?
What about the voters, how should they respond? In 2004 Sonny Alt was elected to serve a 6-year term as County Clerk, so now we have disenfranchised voters because he was removed from office based on false accusations.
There were people in Mineral County ready to tar and feather Sonny based on rumor and hearsay, but in today's world you get tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Mike Nifong even when he knew the accusations were false, refused to drop the case of apologize. The Duke Lacrosse team eventually got a public apology from the North Carolina Attorney General, because he did the honorable thing when when nobody else would. Who will be the first in Mineral County government to do the honorable thing and publicly apologize to Sonny Alt for the damage done to his reputation?
Many people in the community believed all along that Sonny Alt was falsely accused, now the court system seems to agree. Sonny falls in the same category as the Duke Lacrosse Team. Where does he go to get his reputation back? Who do you ask to fix all the damage done to his reputation by the false accusations?
What about the voters, how should they respond? In 2004 Sonny Alt was elected to serve a 6-year term as County Clerk, so now we have disenfranchised voters because he was removed from office based on false accusations.
There were people in Mineral County ready to tar and feather Sonny based on rumor and hearsay, but in today's world you get tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Mike Nifong even when he knew the accusations were false, refused to drop the case of apologize. The Duke Lacrosse team eventually got a public apology from the North Carolina Attorney General, because he did the honorable thing when when nobody else would. Who will be the first in Mineral County government to do the honorable thing and publicly apologize to Sonny Alt for the damage done to his reputation?
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Memorial Day Tidings to the Troops From Rockefeller and the Left in Congress
If you criticize someone when they deserve it, you also ought to take time and praise someone. Although I disagree with Senator Robert Byrd's spoken position on the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror, it must be pointed out that his most recent vote, with the majority against cutting off funds for the war on a certain date, was for the troops. Left wing congressional Democrats have tried to undercut our troops by delaying or even halting funding for them while they still serve in the field. Byrd's vote does not indicate a change of mind so much as it demonstrates that he does not want our troops left without the tools they need to fight. Hopefully it also means that he does not support cutting out in such a humiliating fashion.
Right now left wing congressional Democrats have no concern for America's fighting men and women. They have no concern for those that have supported us and believed in us in Iraq who will suffer greatly if we leave prematurely (or come to the US in large numbers looking for assylum.) They have no concern for America's leadership position in the world, which recent European elections have shown is at a very high level right now. Count Senator Rockefeller among these people.
Except for a handful this stand does not reflect principle, but politics. They see certain opinion polls and change their stripes to reflect what they consider to be the popular mood. Many published polls show a minority supporting the war. Less publicized polls also show that most Americans do not support leaving prematurely. Rockefeller has probably not seen them. He voted for the war, but then claimed he did not understand the information presented to him as ranking Senate member on the Intelligence Committee.
Rockefeller knows that he is vulnerable, but he does not understand that this vote may have killed him should a strong and well-funded opponent appear. With so many West Virginians in the Iraq theatre needing the essentials to fight and do the job we sent them to do, Senator Rockefeller voted to cut off their funds. This will send a loud and clear message that the West Virginia GOP should make sure every West Virginian hears by next fall.
Unfortunately the message from this vote, taken so close to the day when we are supposed to honor our fighting men, sends a message to our enemies as well. It tells them to hang in there just a little longer. Unless moderate, patriotic Democrats and Republicans stand firm, the left wingers can win the war for the terrorists.
Right now left wing congressional Democrats have no concern for America's fighting men and women. They have no concern for those that have supported us and believed in us in Iraq who will suffer greatly if we leave prematurely (or come to the US in large numbers looking for assylum.) They have no concern for America's leadership position in the world, which recent European elections have shown is at a very high level right now. Count Senator Rockefeller among these people.
Except for a handful this stand does not reflect principle, but politics. They see certain opinion polls and change their stripes to reflect what they consider to be the popular mood. Many published polls show a minority supporting the war. Less publicized polls also show that most Americans do not support leaving prematurely. Rockefeller has probably not seen them. He voted for the war, but then claimed he did not understand the information presented to him as ranking Senate member on the Intelligence Committee.
Rockefeller knows that he is vulnerable, but he does not understand that this vote may have killed him should a strong and well-funded opponent appear. With so many West Virginians in the Iraq theatre needing the essentials to fight and do the job we sent them to do, Senator Rockefeller voted to cut off their funds. This will send a loud and clear message that the West Virginia GOP should make sure every West Virginian hears by next fall.
Unfortunately the message from this vote, taken so close to the day when we are supposed to honor our fighting men, sends a message to our enemies as well. It tells them to hang in there just a little longer. Unless moderate, patriotic Democrats and Republicans stand firm, the left wingers can win the war for the terrorists.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Andrew Jackson, Alive and Kicking
Why do Democrats call their yearly dinners “Jefferson-Jackson Day?” Seems to me that the Republican or Libertarian parties have more claim on both of these men’s positive legacies than the Democrats.
********************************************************************************
Andrew Jackson is alive and well in American politics and both political parties have failed to recognize him. He was President Bush’s biggest ally in his two victories. Who will he support in 2008?
Of course this doesn’t mean that President Jackson is literally here stumping for his favorite candidates. However his legacy lives on, especially in areas such as West Virginia. In 1828 and again in 1832 Andrew Jackson won the presidency due to the support of the rural backcountry common people. He won because he shared their values. Their frontier upbringing taught them the necessity of a strong national defense. However they also shared a strong distrust for the major institutions of big government and big business. They feared that either of these two elements of the American system could threaten their liberties.
The supporters of Jackson cherished their liberties which included the right to pursue and keep property, the right to defend their property by force, the right to speak openly and freely and exercise their full political rights. Jacksonian Democracy lives on in the rural South. Often Jacksonians are belittled for being reactionary in their defense of individual liberty because others see that kind of freedom as standing in the way of what they define as progress. Since Jacksonians often are poor or have some experience in that condition, they understand that when liberties are curtailed in the name of “progress,” the vulnerable usually end up exploited.
Thus we have the phenomenon of a state like West Virginia that has voted Republican in presidential races and Democratic on the state level. Jacksonian voters mistrust the big government ideals backed by national Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. They also fear the stereotype of Republicans as the party of big business (which is further from the truth than most people realize. For the most part, Republicans believe in capitalist competition as opposed to simply support of big business.) Who will “Jackson” support in 2008? Most likely the presidential and other candidates that have the most respect for liberty and freedom.
********************************************************************************
Andrew Jackson is alive and well in American politics and both political parties have failed to recognize him. He was President Bush’s biggest ally in his two victories. Who will he support in 2008?
Of course this doesn’t mean that President Jackson is literally here stumping for his favorite candidates. However his legacy lives on, especially in areas such as West Virginia. In 1828 and again in 1832 Andrew Jackson won the presidency due to the support of the rural backcountry common people. He won because he shared their values. Their frontier upbringing taught them the necessity of a strong national defense. However they also shared a strong distrust for the major institutions of big government and big business. They feared that either of these two elements of the American system could threaten their liberties.
The supporters of Jackson cherished their liberties which included the right to pursue and keep property, the right to defend their property by force, the right to speak openly and freely and exercise their full political rights. Jacksonian Democracy lives on in the rural South. Often Jacksonians are belittled for being reactionary in their defense of individual liberty because others see that kind of freedom as standing in the way of what they define as progress. Since Jacksonians often are poor or have some experience in that condition, they understand that when liberties are curtailed in the name of “progress,” the vulnerable usually end up exploited.
Thus we have the phenomenon of a state like West Virginia that has voted Republican in presidential races and Democratic on the state level. Jacksonian voters mistrust the big government ideals backed by national Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. They also fear the stereotype of Republicans as the party of big business (which is further from the truth than most people realize. For the most part, Republicans believe in capitalist competition as opposed to simply support of big business.) Who will “Jackson” support in 2008? Most likely the presidential and other candidates that have the most respect for liberty and freedom.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
What's Fashionable Isn't Always Fair
It's been fashionable for a long time to bash Wal Mart. To some the retail giant presents an easy target. It started in a poor Southern state and grew from one small general store to become one of the largest chains in the world, an all-American success story. Wal Mart caters to the average American, especially those in rural and suburban areas.
Along the way, Wal Mart eliminated many of its rivals. We don't see many G. C. Murphy Marts or Ben Franklins anymore. Low prices, high variety, and an ability to respond to what the market desired meant that Wal Mart succeeded where smaller chains and a lot of small businesses failed, giving more fodder to its critics. This is the American way too. Those that can serve the market best succeed while others adapt or disappear.
Did Wal Mart wipe out small town downtowns? I remember when I was growing up in Ripley in the 1980s, for a time that happened. Ben Franklin and O.J. Morrison's Department store went out of business because they sold the same items at higher prices. However in Ripley and other areas, downtowns rebounded. Small businesses emerged that satisfied more specific market niches. The new small town economy in many areas has seen a more vibrant array of businesses as a result.
Wal Mart serves local communities in other ways. It provides a strong tax anchor for local government and reliable levels of employment. Certainly the wages are not going to enable the workers to buy a Bentley and critics love to point this out. However, like McDonalds and other service jobs with major companies, adavncement is an option to those willing to learn and work hard. Companies with large organizations such as these provide opportunities that G. C. Murphy and O. J. Morrison could not.
Wal Mart also strives to serve communities as a good corporate citizen. On May 19th in Moorefield, Wal Mart is hosting a customer and military appreciation day with all proceeds going to children's charities. I remember a classmate receiving a full college scholarship from Wal Mart because he never missed a day of class. These types of things are discounted or ignored by critics.
As with a lot of similar situations, Wal Mart bashing reflects a deeper attitude because the chain represents capitalism. Its rise from nothing to prominence in a generation proves that anything is still possible in a capitalist America given hard work, ability and the willingness to take risks. Capitalism and success ought not be dirty words. They should be ideals that guide anyone, like Sam Walton, that dares to dream big.
Along the way, Wal Mart eliminated many of its rivals. We don't see many G. C. Murphy Marts or Ben Franklins anymore. Low prices, high variety, and an ability to respond to what the market desired meant that Wal Mart succeeded where smaller chains and a lot of small businesses failed, giving more fodder to its critics. This is the American way too. Those that can serve the market best succeed while others adapt or disappear.
Did Wal Mart wipe out small town downtowns? I remember when I was growing up in Ripley in the 1980s, for a time that happened. Ben Franklin and O.J. Morrison's Department store went out of business because they sold the same items at higher prices. However in Ripley and other areas, downtowns rebounded. Small businesses emerged that satisfied more specific market niches. The new small town economy in many areas has seen a more vibrant array of businesses as a result.
Wal Mart serves local communities in other ways. It provides a strong tax anchor for local government and reliable levels of employment. Certainly the wages are not going to enable the workers to buy a Bentley and critics love to point this out. However, like McDonalds and other service jobs with major companies, adavncement is an option to those willing to learn and work hard. Companies with large organizations such as these provide opportunities that G. C. Murphy and O. J. Morrison could not.
Wal Mart also strives to serve communities as a good corporate citizen. On May 19th in Moorefield, Wal Mart is hosting a customer and military appreciation day with all proceeds going to children's charities. I remember a classmate receiving a full college scholarship from Wal Mart because he never missed a day of class. These types of things are discounted or ignored by critics.
As with a lot of similar situations, Wal Mart bashing reflects a deeper attitude because the chain represents capitalism. Its rise from nothing to prominence in a generation proves that anything is still possible in a capitalist America given hard work, ability and the willingness to take risks. Capitalism and success ought not be dirty words. They should be ideals that guide anyone, like Sam Walton, that dares to dream big.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Reforming Apathy in City Elections
If the idea of city government affairs does not fill you with excitement, anticipation, or joy, don’t feel too bad. You are not alone.
This spring, a little over 100 voters turned out for Morgantown’s municipal elections. One hundred voters electing the leadership of the most dynamic city in the state that by 2020 could be the largest. In contrast, West Virginia University has classes with over 300 students. Charleston’s upcoming elections will fare better, already 653 took advantage of early voting. However, Election Day turnout is expected to be paltry with a popular Republican incumbent and a Democratic nominee that has not even campaigned.
Why bother and why care? Local government has more direct effect on the lives of citizens and business than the state or federal systems. Locally the parking issue in Keyser probably brought more people to city council meetings than actually voted for council and mayor in Morgantown. Particularly frightening is the election in that city. Almost any idiot (or in the case of Morgantown, perhaps a Communist) can round up a hundred people to vote for them. Then you get stuck with at best incompetence, at worse corruption. Either situation does not attract continued development and progress.
Ben Beakes of the Secretary of State’s office recommends that each municipality piggyback its elections with those for the county and state. Not only will this increase turnout, but Beakes also states that less need for poll workers and buying ballots in larger bulk saves money. Many West Virginia cities have adopted these measures already.
Voting in city elections makes as much sense as participating in those with larger stakes. A larger turnout can ensure that an extreme or corrupt candidate does not hijack the local government. Each voter gives his or her local government a fighting chance to keep moving their city ahead.
This spring, a little over 100 voters turned out for Morgantown’s municipal elections. One hundred voters electing the leadership of the most dynamic city in the state that by 2020 could be the largest. In contrast, West Virginia University has classes with over 300 students. Charleston’s upcoming elections will fare better, already 653 took advantage of early voting. However, Election Day turnout is expected to be paltry with a popular Republican incumbent and a Democratic nominee that has not even campaigned.
Why bother and why care? Local government has more direct effect on the lives of citizens and business than the state or federal systems. Locally the parking issue in Keyser probably brought more people to city council meetings than actually voted for council and mayor in Morgantown. Particularly frightening is the election in that city. Almost any idiot (or in the case of Morgantown, perhaps a Communist) can round up a hundred people to vote for them. Then you get stuck with at best incompetence, at worse corruption. Either situation does not attract continued development and progress.
Ben Beakes of the Secretary of State’s office recommends that each municipality piggyback its elections with those for the county and state. Not only will this increase turnout, but Beakes also states that less need for poll workers and buying ballots in larger bulk saves money. Many West Virginia cities have adopted these measures already.
Voting in city elections makes as much sense as participating in those with larger stakes. A larger turnout can ensure that an extreme or corrupt candidate does not hijack the local government. Each voter gives his or her local government a fighting chance to keep moving their city ahead.
Friday, May 18, 2007
2 Million People Reported Missing
This is just something to think about. In 1950 West Virginia had a population of 2,005,552; in 2000 the population was 1,808,344. I know that only works out to a loss of 197,208 persons over those 50 years, but that is not the whole story.
In 2000 there were 1,941,345 less West Virginians than there should have been had we kept pace with the rest of the United States, in 2010 the estimate shows there will be 2,287,148 less than what there should.
Since 1950, compared to the rest of the nation, West Virginia has been more than cut in half in population and power. In 1950 we had 6 congressmen, now we have 3. This is what happens when you rank last in all of the good categories, and first in all of the bad categories.
During this time there has been one constant. One political party has held power in Charleston, churning out the same bad policies year after year. At some point you have to ask; since this hasn’t worked for the last 57 years, why should it work in the 58th year? How bad does it have to get before we are willing to demand a change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)