Rochester Pundit

Obama goes to school

2009-09-07T06:44:00.000-07:00

As President Obama gears up to address the nation's school children this week, the media narrative has focused on conservatives who oppose the speech and/or plan to keep their kids from seeing it.

This is predictable politics, of course. There can be little doubt that lefties would have squawked had Bush planned a similar move. The tone of the media coverage would certainly have been different, but pointing out these media double standards is a full time job for which I don't have time.

People can certainly do what they wish, but I personally think keeping your kids out of school or making too much noise about the speech is a little silly. Obama is far too smart to get political in a speech like this. The White House has said it will be "about personal responsibility and challenging students to take their education very, very seriously." In other words, please pack a pair of Ray-Bans to protect their young eyes from the glittering generalities.

This is a shrewd political move. All BHO has to do is stand there spout phrases from "The More You Know" PSA's in his staccato baritone, and he'll be portrayed as a hero. This will be a welcome break from the barrage of very humbling developments this summer has brought, sinking his approval rating into the very human 50/50 range.

The story coming out of the speech will be how big it was of BHO to remain apolitical. The White House is certainly hoping this back to school move will move Obama back above the fray.

Check out Monroe Rising

2008-03-21T06:44:00.001-07:00

You may have noticed that this blog isn't getting updated very often. In order to offer more timely commentary, the writers of this blog have joined forces with the like minded folks at www.monroerising.com. Check it out.

What you may not know about the Midtown deal

2007-11-04T15:15:00.000-08:00

Most everyone seems ecstatic about the idea of Midtown Mall coming down to make room for the world headquarters of Paetec Communications. That happiness may be well placed, but some aspects of the project bother me.

First of all, the city isn't going to the owners of the property and negotiating a purchase. Instead, they're condemning the buildings and offering fair-market value. I don't like this approach; I don't see it as the government's role to snatch a property and decide what to do with it. If Paetec wants to build their headquarters downtown, why don't they go to the owners of the property and make an offer? The answer to that brings me to my next point.

This project is being completed on your dime. At least $50 million in state money will be spent tearing it down, and an untold sum will be paid by the city to purchase the 9-acre site. This will also certainly be in the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. So, Paetec will get a nice shovel-ready site at your expense.

My final problem with this whole thing kind of summarizes the first two. I don't like the government taking the lead in these economic development initiatives. It seems to rarely end well, and it's almost always a band aid for a host of other bad government policies, namely high taxes. We don't need to have long memories to recall such initiatives in Rochester. The millions that Bill Johnson's administration poured with blind faith into High Falls and the Fast Ferry became his sad legacy.

For all of these reasons, I think Duffy is taking a pretty big chance here. Don't get me wrong; I really hope it pays off. But even if the ends do justify the means after the final hammer swings on this thing, I'll still be just a bit squeamish about the means.

Clinton throws more crap against the wall to see if it will stick

2007-10-09T17:14:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton seems determined to throw out as many ideas for new entitlements as she can in very rapid succession. Now that people have generally rejected her ridiculous idea to give every baby born in the US a bond for $5,000, Hillary has abandoned that in favor of a $1,000 matching tax credit for lower income families who contribute to a 401(k) retirement account. She would fund this latest entitlement (estimated at $25 billion per year) by taxing estates worth $7 million or more.
This is, of course, just more socialist entitlement crap. I guess she'll wait to see whether this one sticks to the wall (i.e., what the pollsters tell her in a few days). A John Edwards mouthpiece actually had a good quote, saying that "apparently, new polling data seems to have pressured the Clinton campaign to throw out the baby bond with the bathwater."
One of the most interesting aspects of this to me is that Clinton is still dead set against the idea of any privatization of Social Security. She's busy assuring people now that this new tax credit will not replace Social Security, but rather supplement it. Apparently it's OK to give people money for them to "gamble" on their retirement as long as they do it with shiny new entitlement money.
Stay tuned for more ideas from Hillary on how to give away more and more of your money. Hey, some of it's bound to stick, right?

Stossel brings some common sense to the healthcare debate

2007-09-23T11:26:00.001-07:00

John Stossel's 20/20 special "Whose Body is it Anyway?: Sick in America" is a fantastic piece of television journalism in what I see as a pretty sad age for that profession. I've always liked Stossel, not because his views often align with my conservative sensibilities, but because he just makes sense. I think that's why liberals hate him so much.

There's a veritable mountain of good stuff in this piece, but his overriding point is that the individual should be in control of his or her health care, not the insurance companies and certainly not the government. Amen and amen! One great idea to make this happen is a combination of high-deductible insurance programs and employer-funded health savings accounts. Stossel also sits down with Michael Moore and picks apart the myths about Canada's supposed panacea of "free" health care. This is really good television, and it's a must for anyone interested in the health care debate.

It's broken out into 6 parts on Google Video. Watch them all here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Hillary continues "health"y dose of socialism

2007-09-20T07:00:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton has been busy rolling out HillaryCare 2.0 on the stump lately. Details abound, but one of the most interesting is that she envisions a day when citizens will have to prove health insurance coverage to get a job.

I won't go into all of the reasons why Hillary's plan is a bad idea now, just like it was in 1993. The real issue here is that her campaign message continues to push a brand of softly-packaged socialism, tying into her idea of an "all in it together society."

I can't wait for the real debates to begin so these sharp ideological lines can be drawn. Hillary obviously believes that the climate is right for a more socialistic approach to government. Perhaps she's been watching too many Michael Moore movies. If she were as smart as everyone seems to think, she would know that the American public is not going to swallow this brand of socialism, no matter how she packages it.

A deficit of deficit reporting...

2007-07-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

The United States Budget deficit currently sits at $205 billion. That's less than half of what it was three years ago, when all the major news outlets were reporting that the deficit would continue to soar, spiraling our economy into a disastrous state. However, despite this turn of events, the mainstream media wants you to know that this is not really good news. Here's CBS:

After years of unrelenting deficits, Washington may be experiencing a break in its fiscal weather. Strong tax revenues mean that the 2007 shortfall between U.S. income and spending will be the smallest it has been since 2002, according to new White House estimates.
But these rays of progress may be fleeting, say some experts. Revenue growth is already slowing, and defense spending and huge entitlement programs such as Medicare continue to expand at a rapid clip.

Did I just hear CBS complaining about entitlements? But I digress. Here's the AP:

The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, even as a worsening deficit picture for future years makes it more difficult for President Bush to meet his pledge of a surplus by 2012.
The deficits figures released Wednesday by the White House show red ink less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004. It's also a gain over the $244 billion that Bush predicted in February, but not as great an improvement as anticipated by other forecasters.
Nonetheless, the deficit picture remains worse than it was when Bush took office six years ago. Then, both White House and congressional forecasters projected cumulative surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade.
And the new figures Wednesday show that, instead of continuing to fall, the deficit next year will be on the rise again, to $258 billion.

No news will be good news while Bush is occupying la Casa Blanca, especially on the economic front. Has anyone else noticed the deafening silence as the Dow creeps up toward 14,000? Where is the unbridled economic cheer leading of the late '90s?

Some common sense on race from...the D&C?

2007-07-01T06:20:00.000-07:00

I feel like the prospector who just found an actual gold nugget in a two-ton pile of fool's gold. The D&C's editorial page today has an editorial on race, sparked by the Supreme Court's recent ruling that Seattle schools can't divide up their schools using a tidy little race-recipe.

However, the editorial doesn't spend much time on that issue. Instead, it focuses on the importance of personal responsibility and how that issue is playing out in the Democratic presidential primary. Here's a quote I never expected to attribute to the D&C editorial page:

"Personal responsibility is key to the improvement of any group, and it's a concept that many politicians and black leaders avoid."

This editorial even points out that Hillary Clinton is parroting the Democratic lines of the past: racism still exists and is responsible for the social ills of the black community. There's no surprise there. As the rich, white candidate, she can't afford to challenge the leaders of black America. Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to be ready to start weaving in a pinch of the Bill Cosby treatment. Here's the Obama quote from the debate:

"It is absolutely critical for us to recognize that there are going to be responsibilities on the part of African Americans and other groups to take personal responsibility to rise up out of the problems that we face."

Notice, of course, Obama's luxury in using the words "us" and "we." Will Obama really have the courage to attempt to inspire the black community rather than using the time-tested tactic of infuriating them about the persistence of racism in America? Moreover, could that actually work for a candidate? It could make for a primary with some actual substantive debate.

I must be daydreaming...

I wish Hillary Clinton would debate George Will

2007-06-03T12:40:00.000-07:00

The great conservative thinker George Will has spun a little piece of ideological gold in his most recent column under the title "The Case for Conservatism." Like almost all of his writings, this piece is filled with poignant insights. Will frames the major difference between liberals and conservatives as the natural tension between freedom and equality: conservatives being more concerned with freedom, while liberals spend their time worrying about equality.

It's a great piece of work that you should really take the time to read. However, if you don't want to, his basic point is that liberals infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes. That inference fuels their desire to drastically increase the scope of interventionist government programs in order to artificially level the playing field. The result is not equal opportunity, but equal dependence on a bloated federal bureaucracy. Conservatives, favoring freedom, tend to be optimistic about letting the chips fall where they may in a free and open society such as ours. Here's my favorite line:

"Conservatism is realism, about human nature and government's competence. Is conservatism politically realistic, meaning persuasive? That is the kind of question presidential campaigns answer."

Amen and amen. No one proves Will's point better than current presidential campaigner Hillary Clinton, who is out on the trail peddling the political fantasy of softly-packaged socialism. Just look at these recent comments. I think what we see here is a campaign message starting to take shape. She doesn't like Bush's "ownership society," which she calls an "on your own society."

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

This goes along nicely with her grossly erroneous idea of it taking a village to raise a child. It also goes along nicely with a little form of government called socialism. Don't worry; big government will take care of you, because you obviously are incapable of taking care of yourselves. I can't wait for that to be exposed in the general election (assuming Hillary wins the nomination). Let's just hope we end up with the right candidate to expose it.

Previously Unknown Facts about Fred Thompson

2007-06-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

The excellent conservative website, IMAO, has published a list of previously unknown facts about our favorite (almost) presidential candidate, Fred Thompson:

They say that after a nuclear blast, the only things that will survive will be cockroaches and Fred Thompson... except that Fred Thompson doesn't like cockroaches. So the only thing that will survive will be Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson honors the fallen on Memorial Day by setting fire to hippies. Burn long and hard in their remembrance, you filthy hippies.
Fred Thompson has enough strength to throw Rosie O'Donnell ten feet.
Usually for a bill to become a law, it has to be passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President, but once Fred Thompson made a bill into law by saying, "This bill is now the law" and punching Bill Clinton in the nads.

You get the idea. If Chuck Norris ever ended up in Congress, many of these would probably apply to him as well. See the complete list here.

I Solved the Immigration Reform Problem in Just Under an Hour

2007-05-29T15:12:00.000-07:00

By all reports, the president and congressional leaders are trying to address the illegal immigration problem, and it’s safe to say that things aren’t going well. Apparently, the electeds have gotten themselves bogged down with political posturing and all the other things that they spend their time doing instead of governing. We at the Rochester Pundit have decided to help them refocus their efforts by providing a commonsense birds-eye view of this issue. After reading this, the guys (and gals) up on the hill should be able to bang out this bill and get back banging…well, whatever it is they do.

1. According to most estimates, there are approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the country. (I’m sorry, but “undocumented worker” means the 12 year old kid who mows your lawn for $10 under the table. It does not describe an individual who has snuck across an international border and who finds ways to circumvent a host of employment and other laws). This current state of affairs – a porous border, toothless immigration enforcement, and a significant population of “illegal” individuals – cannot continue.

2. We have to lock down the border right away. First, it makes the illegal immigrant problem that much more difficult to solve if we allow it to worsen while we wring our hands and crap our pants. Second, as a matter of homeland security, we cannot be allowing every Tom Dick and Achmed to be waltzing (or doing the dance of the seven veils) back and forth across our border. I don’t think we need a dirty bomb to go off in San Antonio for this proposition to fall in the “self evident” category.

3. We cannot round up and deport 12 million people. Peggy Noonan addressed this point eloquently in her May 25st editorial in the Wall Street Journal: “Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America will never deport millions of people. It's not what we do. It's not who we are. It's not who we want to be. The American people would never accept evening news pictures of sobbing immigrants being torn from their homes and put on a bus. We wouldn't accept it because we have hearts, and as much as we try to see history in the abstract, we know history comes down to the particular, to the sobbing child in the bus. We don't round up and remove.” The tough talking Republicans in Congress need to shut up and remember that they could have done something about this issue back in the 80’s when it was manageable, but they acted like cowards and helped create the current mess.

4. The “illegals” are not stealing our jobs. Last time I checked, there weren’t any illegal doctors or school teachers or nurses. For the most part, the illegals are doing crap jobs that you or I would not do, like picking cabbage in the hot sun or caring for the spoiled children of wealthy Californians.

5. Citizenship in the United States means something. We live in the greatest country in the world, and if you are a citizen, you are entitled to all kinds of benefits. More importantly, you get to vote and to help determine our nation’s political future. People who cannot speak our language, ignore our laws, and disdain our culture should not be permitted to become citizens. It’s despicable that many Democrats would apparently trade away almost anything to get about 10 million extra votes.

Where does this leave us? We should shut down the border immediately. We should kick out illegals who have committed felonies while here in the states. We should provide a pathway to citizenship that requires assimilation (speak our language and follow our rules). And we should hold businesses (and rich Californians) accountable for hiring illegals.

If no one is going to take action on this, then at least send some illegal workers up our way. I need some cheap, competent help with a remodeling project.

The woes of a one-newspaper town: Part II

2007-05-27T20:48:00.001-07:00

The second in a multi-part series on why Rochester needs more editorial voices

Competition is good for everyone. That, of course, is the principle on which the concept of free market economics relies. When a good, established business has a strong competitor come to play in its yard, that healthy competition makes both businesses better. You know the saying; a rising tide lifts all ships.

The Democrat & Chronicle is in desperate need of some competition. Nowhere is this more evident than on the D&C's editorial page. The editorials in the D&C are predictably poor and politically one-sided. Take the example of the Thumbs up, down feature that appears every Saturday. This feature is poor in that in normally gives almost all thumbs up to people in the community who have done nice things. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not exactly hard-hitting editorial work. They almost never have the courage or insight to use this feature to offer any meaningful political or social criticism with a nice, meaty thumbs down. This past Saturday, however, they found the issue on which they finally want to take a firm stand: George Bush riding around on his ranch without his seatbelt on. Not kidding. Read it here (it's the last one). I don't want to waste any time picking it apart. It's just that dumb. I challenge anyone to find me an example of the D&C's editorial staff using this feature to take such a petty potshot at a prominent Democrat. Imagine, for example, the likelihood of them giving a thumbs down to Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio for flying around in gas-guzzling private jets while preaching at everyone else about decreasing their carbon dioxide emissions. This may be a minor point, but it's indicative of larger issues with the D&C editorial page. It's not sharp, it's not thoughtful, and it's just plain not good.

Even if another strong editorial voice (whether online or in print) also had a tendency to lean to the left, it would at least keep the D&C's editors on their toes. I believe their editorials would be more thoughtful, and I believe their page would be better. Until such a voice emerges, we're left here to lament yet another woe of being a one-newspaper town.

Read Part I of this series here.

Clinton's war conundrum

2007-05-26T05:31:00.001-07:00

There's a fascinating piece of political lore that tells the story of Hillary Clinton pulling John Kerry aside in the Senate cloak room before his fateful 'no' vote on the Iraq funding bill back in 2003. That is, of course, the vote that sparked his politically devastating comment about voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it. The story goes that Clinton told him that he really needed to vote 'yes' on the bill, even though the ant-war sentiments of Howard Dean seemed to account for Dean's lead in the 2004 Democratic primary polls. Her feeling was that voting against the funding after voting for the war would be a political kiss of death.

Whether or not that story is true, it's very interesting in light of Clinton's 'no' vote on yesterday's war funding bill. Clinton, like Kerry before her, sees a Democratic primary with highly energized anti-war voters. Her real problem, however, is that her position on the war perhaps makes even less sense than Kerry's did in 2004. She voted for the war. She has consistently defended that vote, much to the chagrin of the far-left anti-war crowd. Now she votes against funding the war. She says that her vote was the right thing to do at the time, but that Bush misused the authority given him by the congress. Now she says that she voted against funding the war because it's time to get out. I can't see how this will resonate either in a primary or a general election. Look for the war issue to continue to haunt her campaign. It's the classic case of going the way the wind is blowing and finding yourself lost. I see her coveting the consistent anti-war positions of Obama and others in the primary and the consistent pro-war positions of her eventual Republican opponent in the general election. Personally, I don't know what she's thinking.

An open letter to Fred Thompson

2007-05-20T16:25:00.000-07:00

Mr. Thompson,

I am writing this letter to ask that you seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The party needs you. Those of us who identify with the principles of modern conservatism need you. Your country needs you. Ok, I'll stop with the melodrama, but I really do want you to run.

You've no doubt noticed that the race for the Republican nomination is turning into little more than a Ronald Reagan sound-alike contest. We have the former mayor of New York and the former governor of Massachusetts waxing (kind of) eloquent about shrinking the size and scope of government. Save us, Fred. Oops. There's that melodrama again, but we really do need saving.

We need saving from the mush-mouthed moderation of Giuliani and McCain. We need saving from the nonstarters like Tancredo (who?) and Brownback (we can't have a nominee whose name sounds like a gay cowboy movie). We need you, Fred. Come on. You're an older, reasonably well-known actor with a grandfatherly (no offense) manner, a smooth delivery and bona fide conservative chops. You can win the Reagan contest before it even gets started. Perhaps that's why you're biding your time - no need to get your hands dirty so early on. Or maybe you were waiting to see if Law & Order was going to get picked up for another season, which it did. I hope that's not a bad sign. Although, I guess there's always the possibility of a Thompson/Waterston ticket.

Perhaps most important of all, as much as it pains me to say it, we need the anti-Bush. For many of the reasons I've outlined above, that's just what you are. That's what makes you so electable - not just in the primary, but in the general election. I would put my money on you against anyone in the current Democratic field. The thought of seeing you debate Hillary Clinton makes me grin the way I grin when I finish covering the toilet bowl with saran wrap. It just wouldn't be fair.

So, Fred, I guess that's all I have to say. Please run. Pretty please.

Respectfully,

Rochester Pundit Team

American Style Apartheid: The Fourth Estate is Populated Solely by Jackasses

2007-05-18T17:29:00.000-07:00

"Minorities" in the United States now constitute 1/3 of the total population. To most of us, this statistic is likely met with a collective "so what." Almost every ethnic group, at some point in American history, has been considered a "minority" (Do you ever wonder why police prisoner transports are known as "Paddy Wagons?").

However, this provides plenty of fodder those small minded souls who view all of human experience through the prism of race. Our own hometown newspaper recently addressed this issue in predictable fashion on the editorial page. After pointing to the "apparent" prejudices that still exist in our society, the editors shockingly claim that "It's that disconnect, and the underlying racial divides that remain, that have the awful potential to lead to an American-style apartheid."

WTF!? Although more original than a Hitler comparison, that statement has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in the newspaper. Last time I checked, everyone still had the right to vote, blacks were not being forcibly"resettled," and the population was not classified by the government into racial categories (oh wait a minute).

The editors further explain that "falling graduation rates such as those in the Rochester City School District, coupled with high levels of poverty and incarceration for people of color paint a dismal picture for the future."

As to the falling graduation rates, I would point to the breakdown of families and social structures that value education. And if you want to put a stop to high incarceration rates, people need to stop committing crimes. The statistics majors out there would probably say something self evident like "there is a high correlation between committing crimes and getting tossed in the pokey."

A ridiculous editorial like this can't end with a whimper - it goes out with a bang and basically calls for a good ol' fashioned race war: "And what about the fear factor among whites as this country's demographics change? It's a huge mistake to think it doesn't exist, or to ignore it. The pot's starting to steam. Don't let it boil over."

Do these people really think that the average white guy is sitting in his house analyzing demographic changes and hatching plots to screw over "people of color?" There are people who do that, but they usually live in compounds in places like Idaho with their sister-wife and kids-nephews.

New York State Campaign Finance Reform: Mission Improbable

2007-05-12T07:27:00.000-07:00

Erika Rosenberg at Policy Wonk has a nice piece outlining the problems getting in the way of any real campaign finance reform in New York State despite Spitzer's best efforts. I've always been wary of the concept of campaign finance reform, and I'm not fan of McCain-Feingold; I don't like telling people what they can and can't do. However, it's hard to argue against some kind of change in New York. The thing I find particularly galling is the gerrymandering of districts. I don't care which side it benefits, it is an inherent conflict of interest to let elected officials draw up their own boundaries. Another major obstacle, as Rosenberg points out, is that we're expecting Joe Bruno to cooperate with Spitzer on this stuff when Spitzer has vowed to erase Bruno's delicate majority in the senate. There's been a lot of talk about an independent commission to deal with these issues, which I think would be ideal. However, questions of who chooses the commission and how independent it would really be persist. See the title of this post.

ABC News could care less about injustice

2007-04-13T17:37:00.000-07:00

I've avoided commenting on the Duke rape case intentionally. I was happy to see it finally end at least somewhat well for the three players, and there's not much to be added to the conversation. Then I saw this from ABC "reporter" Terry Moran and completely lost my cool:

Don't Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies

If you don't feel like reading the condescending ramblings of a frothy-mouthed liberal hypocrite, here's a taste of his twisted logic:

...there are many, many cases of prosecutorial misconduct across our country every year. The media covers few, if any, of these cases. Most of the victims in these cases are poor or minority Americans--or both. I would hate to say the color of their skin is one reason journalists do not focus on these victims of injustices perpetrated by police and prosecutors, but I am afraid if we ask ourselves the question honestly, we would likely find that it is.

Buried in the deep sea of outraged responses to Moran's piece is this little epistle from yours truly:

Wow. Where to begin on this? Because they have means, it's OK for them to be falsely and maliciously accused of and prosecuted for rape. That's really what you're saying. Stunning. And your argument is that there are many cases of prosecutorial misconduct against poor, black people that the media doesn't cover. WHAT?!?! YOU'RE THE MEDIA!! COVER IT!! If it's not being covered, it's because lazy sensationalists in the media like you would rather appeal to the lowest common denominator of society before climbing on your high horse to write a sniveling piece of self-loathing, white, liberal hypocrisy like what you see above. It's because of people like you, Terry, that these men were wronged so viciously for so long, and you know it. Now, to make yourself feel better, you add a little insult to injury just as they're pulling their lives back together. You disgust me.

I think that sums up my feelings pretty well. I find what he wrote far more offensive than anything Don Imus has ever said (speaking of controversies I'm avoiding on purpose).

Which economy, stupid?

2007-04-11T18:11:00.000-07:00

A Bush spokesman raises eyebrows by suggesting that the current economic surge is more robust than the surge of the late '90's

Allow me to preface this post by saying that presidents always get way too much credit and blame for the state of the economy.

Having said that, it's interesting to compare the economic conditions of the Bush presidency to the Clinton presidency. Bush Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto told the Examiner that "This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways. It's much deeper and more measured."

Fratto points mostly to today's extraordinarily low unemployment numbers, which, at 4.4%, are about a full percentage point lower than they were at the same point during the Clinton expansion. The Clinton people predictably took issue with Fratto's claim. I'm not enough of a student of economics to judge which economy takes the prize, but I do know that the media acts like today's economy is shaky at best, while during the Clinton years they acted like we should all be heating our homes by burning money.

The economy was good then; don't anyone tell the mainstream media, but it's good now as well. That's good news for everyone, and it's a testament to the ongoing benefits of the Reagan Revolution. The Clinton-era surge was powered, at least in part, by a hugely unsustainable dot-com boom. Bush's economy has the specter of the so-called housing bubble. However, while the correction has already begun to a degree, I don't see the housing bubble bursting in the same dramatic fashion as the likes of Pets.com. History, as always, will be the ultimate judge.

The woes of a one-newspaper town

2007-04-01T14:41:00.000-07:00

The first in a multi-part series about why Rochester needs more editorial voices

There's something interesting going on in Seattle. Since 1981, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer have been operating under what's known as a Joint Operating Agreement. This basically means that they have separate newsrooms, but share most of their other operations, including a single sales department. To make a very long story as short as possible, the Times decided last year that it wants to dissolve the agreement. If the history of Joint Operating Agreements is any indication, this means certain death for the Post Intelligencer. There are many people in Seattle who are not willing to let their status as a two-newspaper town go gently into that good night, and they have formed a citizens committee to stop it. I don't want to go into all of the legalities of the situation here, but you can read more on the Web site of what's known as the Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town.

Obviously, my point here relates to the situation that we are in here in Rochester. These folks in Seattle seem to know what's coming with an almost prophet-like prescience. Take a look at this flyer that they are distributing. You can take that document point by point and see what Rochester is missing by having just one editorial voice. Lest you think this is all about politics, consider that it is the left-leaning paper in Seattle that looks ready to die, whereas here in Rochester the more conservative paper has been dead for about a decade.

We haven't had a strong counterpoint to the Democrat and Chronicle's chronically left-leaning editorial page since the Times Union closed its doors in 1997. As a result, our community is underserved. Don't forget that the Democrat and Chronicle endorsed Bill Johnson for County Executive. Johnson went on to lose by nearly a two to one ratio. The Democrat & Chronicle is out of touch with its readers and seemingly unaccountable.

I plan to explore the ways in which Rochester would benefit from another newspaper in a series of related posts. I'd love to see another daily, but I would certainly settle for a weekly with a strong editorial voice. I think maybe the folks in Seattle have visited Rochester or places like it. They seem to know the woes of being a one-newspaper town before they've even become one.

Read Part II of this series here.

More government spending = less satisfaction

2007-03-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

The Center for Governmental Research put together a great study in which they compared the level of and rate of satisfaction with government services in Long Island and Northern Virginia. Here are the vitals:

Long Island has 439 government agencies; northern Virginia has 17
Long Island spends 45% more per capita than northern Virginia on government services
Local property taxes are 55% higher in Long Island than northern Virginia
Citizens in northern Virginia rate the level of service provided by local governments and schools higher, and say they have better access to government officials than citizens of Long Island

Will we ever learn? As Reagan said, "..government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem." Read more of the study here.

Jacques and Pierre are at it again

2007-03-29T16:03:00.000-07:00

From reading this story in the New York Times, one would think that the French have a real problem with their unruly youth. Is it the cheese? Is it their pretentious parents and their overpriced wine? Is it the lack of a focus on personal grooming and hygiene? No, I'm afraid the problem cannot truly be ascertained by this or any other mainstream media article, because they're afraid to call the problem what it really is: a Muslim problem. These "youths" terrorizing Paris are the children of Muslim immigrants or they're Muslim immigrants themselves. They refuse, as Muslims do the world over, to assimilate into the culture of their new country, and now they are lashing out. You remember, of course, the major riots of 2005. France's Muslim problem is not an anomaly in Western Europe. It won't belong before the "youths" wreak havoc on the rest of the continent (it's already happening to some degree). I'm sure we'll all lack the guts to call a spade a spade then, too.

The teachers unions spent millions of dollars lobbying the government to get new geography textbooks for little Billy...and other tall tales

2007-03-21T18:06:00.000-07:00

Statistics are amazingly easy to manipulate. If I had my way, every newspaper subscription would come with a complimentary copy of How to Lie with Statistics to help people think critically about the numbers that are thrown their way on a regular basis.

For example, the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying recently released a report detailing the amount of money spent on lobbying in 2006. All the newspapers immediately ran front page stories breathlessly reporting that lobbying spending had risen yet again. Most also reported that “the amount spent on lobbying in New York has tripled in just 10 years.”

What the stories neglected to explain was that in the last ten years, New York has passed a slew of laws related to lobbying and campaign finance. In fact, the rules (and the interpretations of those rules) have gotten increasingly strict over the years by broadening the definition of lobbying, expanding the types of expenses that must be reported, and increasing the penalties for violating the rules.

The principal purpose of these laws is to ensure public disclosure of the amounts spent on lobbying. Are we supposed to be surprised that more spending is reported as the disclosure laws are strengthened?

But, while we're on the topic of lobbying, let's take a look at some of the numbers reported. The popular conception is that large evil corporations are the ones spending millions on lobbyists in their quest to screw over consumers. So who were the big spenders in New York? Was it Aaron Eckhart representing the evil tobacco companies? Perhaps it was the big bad NRA in their never ending quest to legalize 80mm howitzers.

Guess again: four out of the top ten spenders in New York were unions: United Teachers (NYS) $1,685,015; Public Employees Federation $1,285,703; Civil Service Employee Association & CSEA PAC $985,148; and United Federation of Teachers $890,181.

That looks like a much more interesting story to me, but I guess that's why I'm not qualified to be a member of the mainstream media.

People who make ridiculous comparisons to Hitler are worse than Stalin

2007-03-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

Last week, members of the Seneca tribe gathered at Buffalo's Niagara Square (which is actually a circle - haha). They were protesting Governor Spitzer's plan to collect taxes on tobacco sales to non-Indians. As you can see, it didn't take long for the protesters to make comparisons between Spitzer's tax plan and Hitler's plan to rid the world of the Jews.

It seems that almost anytime a group of people are agitated enough to protest about something, they have to trot out Hitler (and also the "Free Mumia" signs). Conjuring up Hitler is also seemingly pretty useful in political diatribes directed against conservatives. In response to all this, I would propose that Godwin's Law be enforced in all political discussions.

Godwin's Law (loosely) stands for the proposition that any party in a discussion that resorts to Hitler/Nazi comparisons automatically loses. The rule started in internet discussion forums, and I think it should be applied to the public square generally. Comparing a tax plan or the Patriot Act or the decision of the local Zoning Board of Appeals to Hitler and his goons trivializes what was a dark day for Western Civilization and for mankind as a whole.

Now I know the conservatives out there are complaining that abortion and embryonic stem cell research could justifiably be compared to actions of Hitler and the Nazis. Although such a comparison could be made, I have found that calling someone a Nazi has little persuasive power (just this week, I called a cashier "Hitler" for refusing to honor my expired coupon - in response, she squished my bread and put a bunch of heavy crap on top of my eggs).

And by the way, this new plan proposed by Spitzer is to simply enforce the tax law as it is written. Some might argue that he should have done this when he was Attorney General. In his defense, it is much easier and politically expedient to pick on abortion protesters, since they don't get violent and shut down the thruway when they get ticked off. But that's a topic for another day.

View The Great Global Warming Swindle Online

2007-03-17T08:19:00.000-07:00

Britain's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which we alerted you to in an earlier post, is now available for viewing online. This is an absolute must see for anyone with any kind of interest in the global warming issue. I see it as a damning condemnation of the "science" behind the lemming-like acceptance of the theory of human-induced climate change. The most compelling piece of evidence that they site has to do with the relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. This is one of the key pieces of evidence that the global warming set cites to prove that we're destroying mother earth with our SUV's. However, while there is a correlation between the two, even a cursory glance at that data will tell you that elevated CO2 levels follow rises in global temperatures rather than preceding them. Elevated levels of CO2 seem then to be an effect of rising temperatures rather than the cause. This is just one piece of compelling evidence among many in the film. I hope it can find a larger audience online. It will certainly not get so much as a blurb from the mainstream media, but I hope the new media will make this a tipping point in the climate change debate. Yes, Mr. Gore, I said debate, because the debate is far from over. It's only just begun. Ten years from now the hysteria about global warming will be nothing but a punchline. Please take the time to watch this documentary.

Some insight on (and love for) a potential Gingrich run

2007-03-16T20:26:00.001-07:00

Ben Martin, a friend and political simpatico of this blog, provides some interesting (and somewhat inside) analysis of Newt Gingrich and his potential 2008 run for president. Ben sites some appearances by Gingrich on Focus on the Family (where he appears to be cozying up to the Christian right) as evidence of his intentions to enter the Republican primary. Ben also loves Gingrich as a candidate. I agree with his assessment of Gingrich as a very good (almost Reagan-esque) articulator of the contemporary conservative world view. However, I just don't know if Newt has a chance at the White House. His political baggage makes Hillary's look like a petite carry-on. That fact makes it hard for me to support him. It does, however, make for some interesting food for thought. I guess it's a huge step forward for Gingrich that people are even seriously talking about him as a candidate. Who would have thought that possible a decade ago?