Book Review -- One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered a masterpiece. It won the Nobel prize for literature after being published in 1967. It is the one of the best selling Spanish books of all time.

With all that being said, I did not enjoy the book. To me, the title seemed appropriate because it felt like I needed 100 years of solitude to get through the 450 pages.

The book chronicles the history of several generations of the Buendia family during the rise and fall of the fictional town of Macondo. The Buendia family is the founding and most prominent family in the town.

I can appreciate the unique writing style that Garcia Marquez invented with this book. I can also appreciate the great creativity required to create an intricate and colorful fictional town. However, I just did not find the book that entertaining. There is no real plot, in the traditional sense. The book reads more like a diary of a crazy old aunt recounting family history --filled with exaggerations, superstitions, and folk legend -- rather than an actual novel. The book also combines fantasy with reality. There were descriptions of day-to-day life in the Buendia family, when suddenly some supernatural miracle would occur. For example, one character suddenly floats off to heaven while folding laundry. Other characters live to be 150 years old. In that respect, One Hundred Years of Solitude reminded me of the Old Testament of The Holy Bible.

One other criticism was that the names of the characters were too similar. Several of the characters had the same first and/or last names (as children were born and named after previous generations). This made it often difficult to keep track of the characters. When I looked up the novel on Wikipedia, there was a family tree. I wish I had such a family tree available to me while reading the novel to help keep all the characters straight.

One Hundred Years of Solitude is highly acclaimed. It has been translated into 27 different languages, and won numerous international awards. It is taught in schools as a classic and propelled the author (Gabriel Garcia Marquez) into the highest echelon of modern authors. So what do I know? Perhaps I just don't "get it" when it comes to this novel, but the bottom line is that I was not entertained by the book. Isn't the point of reading a work of fiction to be entertained (or educated) at some level?

Why Are the Red Sox Not Making Any Moves?

The Mets have signed 2 top quality back-of-the-bullpen pitchers. The Yankees have signed 2 big free agent starting pitchers, and are in discussions for another pitcher. They continue to be in the mix for top free agent sluggers. Even if they make no additional signings, the Yankess have clearly gotten better. Yet the biggest move the Red Sox have made thus far is to announce new uniforms.

The Red Sox were beat out by a divisional rival (Tampa Bay Rays) last year in the playoffs. Yet the Red Sox have done nothing to get better this winter.

In baseball, if you're standing still, you're going backwards.

Red Sox Nation is starting to get restless. The Sawx need to fire up the hot stove! Rumor has it that the Blue Jays are dangling Vernon Wells and BJ Ryan. Wells would certainly be a nice upgrade offensively in center field without sacrificing defense. BJ Ryan would finally give the Red Sox that 8th inning guy they've been struggling to find for two seasons. Oh, and let's not forget Mark Texeria. The Red Sox need to get that deal done to legitimize their Manny-less lineup. Pedroria, Ortiz, Texeria, Wells, Youkilis, Bay, Drew would be a formidable offense, especially if the bullpen were improved. The Rockies have bullpen help available. The Red Sox could still use an upgrade at shortstop, and need to deal with their catcher situation.

There are lots of moves that could be done, should be done, and need to be done. I could go on and on. The point is, Theo and the gang need to get going to bring a merry Christmas to Red Sox Nation.

There Otta Be A Law...

I spend a lot of time on this blog complaining about silly government laws, and the "nanny-state" encroaching on our personal freedoms. Smokers are a huge target of over reaching government. Whenever there's a whiff of cigarette smoke in any venue that might be detected by a non-smoker, the government tries to pass a law. The general premise is that smokers do not have the right to smoke if it inhibits someone's right to breath smoke-free air.
Today I had an experience that made me question my personal rights versus the rights of someone else. A smoker did not usurp my personal rights, but my personal space was certainly violated! Yes, I had the displeasure of spending 4.5 hours in the middle coach seat of an airplane alongside an obese woman. This woman needed a seatbelt extension because the regular seat belt would not fit around her waist. She could not enter and exit her seat without moving the armrest out of the way. She could not even think about lowering the tray table. There I was, stuck next to her. Typical of my luck. People talk about the rudeness of smokers, but I would have rather sat next to Joe Camel than this woman. She had no respect for my personal space. Her arms, legs, elbows, etc. crowded my already small coach seat. And she did not care.
I don't have a problem with this woman being whatever size she wants. That's her prerogative. However, why is she allowed to fly in coach? If smokers are not allowed to smoke because it infringes on the comfort of others, why is this woman allowed to cause me discomfort? Here's my proposal for a useful rule that someone needs to institute: If the standard seatbelt does not fit, you can't fly in a single coach seat. Here are the alternatives:
1) Don't fly.
2) Buy the bigger first class seat.
3) Buy 2 coach seats.
4) Lose some weight.

I paid for a full airline seat, not 3/4 of a seat. I'm sorry, but every person cannot be accommodated in every situation. Smoking sections in restaurants went the way of the dodo because everyone realized how ridiculous it was to think that the cigarette smoke would only stay in one area. Well, allowing obese people on coach airplanes, or any other public venue with "regular" seats needs, to follow the path of the restaurant smoking section.

I fly this airline frequently. I am going to be complaining on my return trip. Stay tuned for the results of my complaint.

Link to Book Review -- Historic Photos of Connecticut

Below is a link to a book review I published on my other blog, Connecticut Outdoors:

http://connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com/2008/12/book-review-historic-photos-of.html

Goodwin Hotel Closing a Bad Sign for Hartford

The Goodwin Hotel is an excellent hotel in the heart of downtown Hartford. It is directly across the street from Hartford’s biggest attraction, the XL center (formerly the Civic Center). The hotel is privately run, unique, and luxurious. The Goodwin hotel has hosted celebrities such as Neil Diamond, Bruce Springsteen, and Tina Turner while they were performing in Hartford. The Goodwin Hotel offers a good value with rooms available for less than $100 per night. The Goodwin Hotel is closing at the end of the year.
I had the occasion this past weekend to spend a night at the Goodwin Hotel. It felt like a stay in an old-time luxury hotel – the kind of hotel that existed before the big chains took over.

Hartford is a city that has long struggled with its image. It does not speak well to the health and vibrancy of the city that it cannot support a hotel like the Goodwin. The state of Connecticut has pumped a lot of money into Hartford in the past decade with the funding of the Adrian’s Landing project and the Connecticut Science Center. I fear that the closing of the Goodwin is a sign that the state taxpayer investment in Hartford may not have been a wise one at this time. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

2nd Amendment Protects Citizens From Incompetence As Well As Tyranny

The recent shooting in Mumbai, India could have been controlled. The bloodshed could have been significantly reduced, and maybe eliminated. The Islamic terrorists in Mumbai walked though the crowded city unimpeded by anyone. Due to laws making it close to impossible to get a firearm in India, the security guards in the various hotels and buildings were unarmed. The few police that were not fleeing only had bamboo sticks in which to fight back. Citizens only had stones in which to hurl at the attackers.

You can search the blogosphere and find several sites pointing out how if the Indian citizenry had the right to own guns, this disaster could have been largely abated. Putting that fact aside, regardless of what the citizens could have done had their rights not been impeded, the Indian government had absolutely no police or security force equipped to handle such an incident. Mumbai had no SWAT teams. No special forces units. They did not even have armed police officers! This goes beyond gun control. This is plain incompetence.

Imagine what the police response would have been to a similar incident in an American city. The terrorists my have been able to attack one place, but they would never get out. Even if the citizens did not defend themselves, police and SWAT teams would have surrounded the attackers in minutes. Streets would have been cordoned off. Snipers would have been on rooftops. Tear gas canisters would have been at the ready. A serious police force did not even arrive in Mumbai until the next day. Can you imagine gunmen running around Manhattan without any police resistance for an entire 24 hours?! It would never happen because the governments (local, state, and national) have some level of competence when it comes to fighting crime. It is hardly perfect, but comparatively, it is excellent.

Previous to this tragic incident, I had only thought of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as a tool against government tyranny. However, after this incident I have come to realize that the Second Amendment is indeed protection against government incompetence as well as tyranny. It's now evident that the Indian government cannot be trusted to competently protect their citizenry. Therefore, the Indian people, and all people, should have a right to keep and bear arms similar to the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Episodes such as the Mumbai shooting, and 9-11, prove the danger of putting too much blind trust in government to provide protection for you and your family. A person needs the right to protect themselves in situations in which the government cannot.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

-

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Why Newspapers Are Failing -- The Closing of The Bristol Press, New Britain Herald, and the Steady Decline of The Hartford Courant

It was announced last week that unless a buyer can be found, two local central Connecticut newspapers, The Bristol Press and New Britain Herald, will close within the month. This comes on the tail of a 25% newsroom reduction at the largest paper in Connecticut, The Hartford Courant. The Hartford Courant revamped (read: cut content) from their paper following this staff reduction. The paper is noticeably thinner. Despite this most recent big cut, the down slide of content and quality at the Hartford Courant is not a new trend. For years the paper has been going downhill. As a long time subscriber, I've witnessed the decline first hand. I can remember when the Sunday Courant used to be so think and so full of interesting information that I could hardly finish it in one day. Now I finish the Sunday paper before my first cup of coffee is done. Papers across the country are having a difficult time adjusting to the "new media" of 24 hour cable news and the internet. They are floundering to find a strategy in today's reality. Perhaps the most troubling trend for the newspaper business is an apathetic younger generation that seems to have no interest in serious news in any format.

This story is certainly not unique to Connecticut. All around, the newspaper business is in a bad place.

I am a dedicated newspaper reader. It's part of my routine and part of my life. I start every day with the Hartford Courant. However, these days even I'm having second thoughts. The content of the paper has never been thinner. Of the remaining content, much of it has fallen into a heavy bias. Perhaps the Hartford Cournat is simply playing to their market with Connecticut being one of the bluest of the blue states, but if that's the case it's not good journalism. Good journalism is supposed to be non-biased. I am not naive enough to believe that anything can be truly unbiased, but I do believe that a paper can at least strive to be impartial. The Hartford Courant has lost it's way. Out of the 5 significant regular columnists (Stan Simpson, Jim Shea, Susan Campbell, Helen Ubinas, Colin McEnroe) to the Courant, all 5 are unapologetic liberals. The paper has absolutely no conservative counterpoint to balance out the opinions. I wonder if I'm the only reader who's noticed this. Does the editorial staff notice? Do they care? They've sold their journalistic soul and become a shell of themselves. Intelligent readers, regardless of their political leanings, can tell the difference.

The Hartford Courant and the newspaper business in general needs to do what any business needs to do when they are losing out to competition. They need to improve the quality of their product. They can start by getting back to doing some real reporting and dropping the political agenda.

A Quick Truth About Corporate Taxes

President-Elect Obama has grand ideas to siphon tax revenue from the "greedy" corporations in the form of higher corporate tax rates, as well as a "windfall profits" tax. He has especially gone after the oil companies.

Remember and understand one thing: Corporations do not really pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. Like any business, large or small, expenses such as taxes simply get passed onto the consumer.

Therefore, a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies is nothing less than a tax on every single man and woman in this country that uses gasoline or home heating oil.
Not to be overlooked is that it's an extra tax on American oil companies that puts them at a competitive disadvantage against international companies, thereby threatening jobs.

Perhaps President-Elect Obama does not see a problem with higher gasoline prices. After all, he was quoted during his campaign to not be alarmed by this summer's gasoline prices. He was only concerned with the speed at which they got to the record high prices. I guess when you're busy chartering separate MD-80 airliners for you and your wife to separately fly to Washington DC from the same location on the same day for a 1 day trip you don't worry too much about how gasoline and heating oil prices (never mind the dreaded greenhouse gases!) might impact the "little guy" you claim to care so much about.

Temporary Hiatus

As the election season has come to an end, and the fall hunting season picks up, you can expect a slowdown (slowdown, not a full halt) to posts on Liberty Alert as I concentrate more on my other blog: connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com.

I'm still stockpiling post ideas, so there should be plenty of material stored up once winter hits.

If you have any post suggestions, or interesting stories, leave a note. If someone manages to get me riled up enough, I'll surely leave a reply.

Understanding the Liberal Mind -- Part 2

In my on-going quest to understand the liberal mind, I again try to find some analogies to display the absurdness of liberal ideology.

Let's look at some examples of what the sports world would look like if the same principles liberals wish to apply to our government applied to sports.

1) The Windfall Bating Average Tax
Alex Rodriquez, Manny Ramirez, and Albert Pujols are 3 of the best hitters of all time. They have devoted their lives to being the best at what they do. From a very young age they have spent countless hours practicing and honing their craft. They have lifted thousands of pounds of weights, and participated in thousands of drills for hand-eye coordination improvement. They have worked themselves to exhaustion in the batting cage. They have studies video and reviewed scouting reports until their eyes glazed over. They have made sacrifices to be the best. When others were relaxing, they were working to get better. This tremendous amount of work, plus the good fortune of some level of God-given talent has paved the way for them to be listed with the greats of the game, and to eventually be enshrined into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. They are without a doubt amount the best at what they do.
However, according to liberal principles, their level of achievement is not fair to many of the other players who are not as good. Therefore, Major League Baseball will institute a Windfall Bating Average Tax. This is how the tax will work: Every player that has a batting average above .300 will be deducted 1 strike. This strike will be given to every player with a batting average below .250. Since the vast majority of player have a batting average that falls between .250 and .300, this tax will only impact a relatively small number of players. With this new tax, players batting under .250 will get 4 strikes per at bat, while players batting over .300 will only get 2 strikes per at bat.

2) The "Spread the Wealth" Act
This act is inspired by Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" quote in his conversation with "Joe the Plumber". The New York Yankees have 26 World Series championships. That's 16 more than the second place team (St. Louis Cardinals with 10)! The Yankees definitely need to spread the wealth. It's totally unfair that they have done all the things necessary to bring 26 championships to their fans, while teams like the Tampa Bay Rays have none.
In 2009, MLB will be awarding an honorary World Series Championship to the Tampa Bay Rays. Celebrate Tampa! Your team did not earn it, but we know deep down inside you really, really wanted a World Series championship.

3) From "Dream Ticket" To "Dream Team"
Even with the occasional stumble, USA basketball is recognized around the world as the standard for high quality play. It is not uncommon for Team USA to blow teams out by 30 or more points. This display of domination could cause angst in teams from other countries. It is not fair that the USA is blessed with so many resources while the rest of the world suffers. We need to understand the plight of these nations, and instead of demolishing these teams, we need to learn to be our brother's keepers. Therefore, Team USA will agree to face these teams on "equal terms". To make the terms equal, Team USA will hereby spot every team 15 points at the start of every game. This will hopefully appease the basketball extremists from other countries that may refuse to play Team USA, or worst, possibly engage in "dirty play" (hard fouls, grabbing, etc.) against team USA.

4) The Travis Knight Rule
Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball in 1947. However, since that time the pendulum in all major American sports has swung considerably in the other direction. Even though African Americans make up less than 15% of the population, the players that make up the NBA are approximately 83% African American. The whites that make up some of the remaining 17% are often from European countries. The NFL also has a high percentage of African American players, and MLB is filled with Latin players.

I understand that teams try to field the best players, regardless of background, in order to give them the best chance to win. However, where does that leave diversity? Diversity, not skill or qualifications, is much more critical to creating a team. Therefore, in the name of diversity, starting in 2009 the following requirements will be added to the lineups of the 3 major team sports in the USA:

NBA:
The NBA will be required to start 2 white players, 1 Asian player, and 1 Hispanic/Latin player. This leaves one remaining wildcard spot, which will likely go to an African American player. This line up will better reflect the make up of America, and will truly be a diverse team. After all, Democrats want a presidential cabinet that "looks like America". Shouldn't your starting line up look like America?

MLB:
Baseball has plenty of white players, and plenty of Latin players, and a growing number of Asian players coming over from Japan. However, MLB is still short on African American players. Additionally, with 9 positions per team instead of 5 as in basketball, baseball has a greater opportunity for diversity. Therefore, MLB needs to consider players of Indian origin (they can tap into the cricket leagues), and Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, MLB will be required to field a team with 2 white players, 2 black players, 2 Latin players, 1 Asian, 1 Indian player, and 1 Middle Eastern player.

NFL:
With 11 positions on offense, 11 positions on defense, and 11 positions on special teams, plus many bench positions, the NFL is a treasure chest of diversity opportunity. Sadly, today the NFL is disproportionally filled with players of African American origin, with many white American players. There are almost zero players of any other background. Since there are so many available positions in the NFL, the NFL can be the champion of diversity. Although the details have not been worked out yet, the NFL will definitely be required to increase the percentage of white players, as well as integrate players from dozens of different countries.

==========================================================
Liberalism is the triumph of emotion over reason. Any logical person can see the absurdity of the above scenarios. However, all of these ideas are pushed upon our government by liberals, mostly in the name of fairness. Liberals are at war with unfairness. There is this warped feeling that there should be absolutely no hardships to be overcome in the world. Every hardship is labeled as unfair. Liberals scream "Unfair!" at every difficult situation like a kid on the school yard crying when they lose a kickball game.
Whenever liberal ideology is applied to something outside of government (parenting, sports, etc.) the illogical nature of it is clear. However, when it comes to government, emotion takes over the liberal mind and logic goes out the window.

Understanding the Liberal Mind -- Part 1

I am always on a quest to understand the liberal mind. How could other wise intelligent people view the world in such a wrong manner? It baffles me.

In an effort to better understand and explain the liberal mind, I came up with the analogy below.

Imagine this...

If We Ran Our Household in The Same Way Liberals Want The Country To Be Run -- A Scenario To Consider:

A parent has twelve year old twin sons. The sons both want to buy a new bike. The bikes they want cost $300 each. The boys fear that they will not be able to save up the money to buy the bikes before the summer is over, so the parent agrees that if the kids can save up half the cost of the bike, they will match them dollar-for-dollar for the rest.

Son #1 is diligent in saving his allowance. He gets a paper route. He mows lawns around the neighborhood. He rakes leaves and does various other jobs. At the end of the summer he saves up the $150 needed to pay for half the cost of the $300 bike.

Son #2 is not as diligent. He spends his allowance on candy. He gets a paper route, but is often late and does not do as good of a job, so his tips are low. He does not bother to look for jobs around the neighborhood. At the end of the summer he is well short of his savings goal. He has saved $100.

The two boys go to their parent. Son #1 says, "Mom, I've lived up to my part of the deal. I have my $150. I'm ready to buy my bike." Son #2 says, "Mom, I think I deserve the bike. Even though I did not save up the required amount of money, I really need and want that bike."

What are the parents to do?

Most parents would buy the bike as agreed for son #1. They would then use the opportunity to teach son #2 a lesson about work ethic, sacrifice, saving, discipline, setting and obtaining goals, etc. They would tell son #2 that he has to go back and work for the the final $50 then he too would get the bike. That's generally what a good, logical-thinking, loving parent would do.

But what would the liberal parent do?

The liberal parent would think, "It's not fair to son #2 that son #1 is such an achiever". Applying to parenting the same liberal policies that liberals want to apply to our government, the parent would then take $25 from son #1, give it to son #2 so they would both have $125. They would then buy each of them a $250 dollar bike.

Moral of The Story:

You can see from this example how the liberal policy brought down the entire standard. Both boys were forced to accept an inferior $250 dollar bike, rather than applying a little extra work and discipline to son #2 to allow both of them to get the $300 bike.

If, as a parent, you truly believe that the latter way (the liberal way) of handling this scenario is superior to the first method, I have nothing more for you. I can not ever hope to understand you. If that is your belief, I can no longer consider your liberalism to be just a difference of political outlook, but more of a mental illness. However, I suspect that most parents, even politically liberal parents, would have handled this scenario closer to as I first described. They would agree that my first solution makes more sense. If that's true, why then does this not carry over to politics? Why do liberals believe in burdening achievers with the dead weight of non-achievers? Is this a collision of logic versus emotion?

Liberals: Please weigh in!

A Classic Tax-n-Spend Liberal – That’s Change?!

It’s just over a week until Election Day, and I’ve resigned myself to a Barack Obama victory. Obama has run a campaign with the theme of “Change”. Change you can believe in. Change we’ve been waiting for. (Note: Both of these Obama slogans end in a preposition – a grammar no-no. I hesitate to point this out because I’m no grammar expert. I’m sure to have grammar faux pas in this very post. However, I’m not running to be leader of the free world, with millions of dollars at my disposal.). Change for America. Change the course of history. Change the rising tides of the seas. Change, change, change, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, there will be changes, but they won’t be the kind of changes Obama supporters are hoping.

If you think the economy is tough now, wait until Obama wins.

Despite all his grand talk, Obama is nothing more than your classic tax-and-spend liberal. A fact that cannot be disputed is that Obama plans to increase the level of federal budget spending. This is not my opinion, or some Conservative attack. It’s simply fact. Obama’s social programs, particularly his health care plan, will increase the federal budget. Even with an end to hostilities in Iraq, an Obama administration plans to increase spending. The argument here is not whether increasing federal spending is good or bad. I’m simply pointing it out as fact that spending will increase under the Obama plan. That’s the “spend” part of Obama–the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

As far as taxes go, yet another undisputable fact is that Obama plans to increase taxes. OK, one can argue that he plans to raise personal income taxes on only the top 5% of Americans (More on that later), but regardless of who will be paying the taxes, the fact remains that he certainly plans to raise taxes. When the government plans to take a higher percentage of available income in taxes, no matter who’s paying, that’s a tax increase. That’s the “tax” part of Obama-the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

Let’s delve a little deeper into Obama’s tax increase plan. In addition to raising the personal income tax on the top 5% of wage earners, Obama plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Regardless of his campaign rhetoric, this will certainly impact some of that precious 95% that Obama claims will be unaffected. On top of these taxes, Obama’s plan is to raise the capital gains tax as well as taxes on corporations. Such tax increases are indirect taxes on individuals. They don’t show up on your 1040 form in April, but they certainly impact you, whether you notice it or not. These hidden taxes play well with the populace because they tap into people’s intrinsic jealousy. They fan the fires of class envy, and eventually get passed on to the “little people” anyway.
Senator Fred Thompson used an analogy of a pool to help explain Barack Obama’s tax plan. Imagine our economy as a big pool. We are all in that pool together; corporations, working people, rich people, unemployed people, retired people – all together. So, if the corporations are on one side of the pool, and Obama takes water away from them, what happens to everyone else in the pool? The water level does not just go down on the corporation’s side; it goes down for all.
Obama is under the impression that an increase in the corporate and capital gains taxes will not have impact on most Americans. Well, again to steal a concept from Fred Thompson, raising the corporate tax will have no impact on you as long as you don’t work, invest, or buy anything from a corporation. Unlike government, which continually runs on deficit, the bottom line is not a moving target for a corporation. If the government takes away more money in the form of taxes from a corporation, that corporation will have to take actions to make up for this loss. Those actions could come in the form of tightening their corporate belts, but it can also come in the form of layoffs, reduced spending and investment, and the passing on of costs to consumers. Corporations are already meeting to layout plans for cuts to offset the Obama tax increases.
Obama likes to say that we are all in this together. In his now famous lecture to Joe The Plumber, Obama said, “spread the wealth”. Obama needs to understand that when it comes to taxes we are also all in this together. Once again, liberal policy will fall victim to unintended consequences, and instead of “spreading the wealth” the Obama tax plan will most certainly spread the pain.

Majority Should Not Rule On Gay Marriage

You may have heard that Connecticut (my home state) became the third state to allow gay marriages. The state supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage in a 4-3 split decision. This quick post is not about the issue of gay marriage. If you wish to read the details of the Connecticut decision, you can go to the Hartford Courant, or some other news source, to get the full story. I've included a link below.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gaymarriage1011.artoct11,0,5399554.story

This post is about understanding the risk of tyranny of the majority.

One of the arguments put forth by gay marriage opponents in Connecticut is that gay marriage is not supported by the majority of voters in Connecticut. Their argument is that courts should not decide the issue. They wish to put it to a state-wide referendum, knowing full well that gay marriage would be rejected in such a referendum.

At first glance, one might argue that a state-wide referendum makes sense. After all, this is a democracy. Majority rules, right?

However, even in a democracy there are some issues that can not be left up to the people. This might seem to some like democratic blasphemy. However, I leave you with this thought: What would have been the outcome if the issue of slavery were put to state-wide referendums in the mid-1800s?

Our founding fathers were wise to understand the risks of a direct democracy. I hope that risk is still understood today.

Bring on the Socialism!

After watching the second of three US presidential debates last night, it's clear that both candidates intend to move the country towards complete socialism.

In anticipation of the proliferation of socialism throughout the country, and using the logic laid out by politicians during this election season, I've listed three services that the new socialist government should provide.

New Socialist Government Service #1: Maintenance and Up-Keep of Homes
If I or my neighbor does not keep his/her house in good condition, neighborhood property values can be hurt. Through this most recent $700 billion bailout discussion we've already seen how the decline in housing values can lead to a financial-credit crisis. The government needs to take all steps necessary to bolster home values and avoid a financial crisis in the future. Therefore, the government needs to take over the maintenance of homes. This would include lawn care, painting, and general maintenance like leaky gutters, broken windows, etc. In a country with as much money as we have, our stability should not be held hostage by the laziness of a few. Also, imagine all the jobs that would be created with this new service. I'm already looking forward to the extra free time on my weekends and evenings!

New Socialist Government Service #2: Repairs to Motor Vehicles
The biggest complaint by educators and local governments regarding the "No-Child-Left-Behind Act" is that it's an unfunded mandate. No more unfunded mandates, such as the government burdening individuals with ensuring cars meet emissions and fuel economy standards! Global warming is such an immediate threat that it is too important to trust individuals with the up-keep of greenhouse gas-producing vehicles. Besides, I'm not a car expert. The government needs to take over car maintenance to make sure cars are running at peak efficiency (to limit our dependence on foreign oil), and as clean as possible. Plus, people are already burdened with such high gas prices that it would not be compassionate to expect them to shoulder the costs of repairs. Therefore, the government should take over auto repair to prevent the collapse of the economy, and the destruction of the earth.

New Socialist Government Service #3: Babysitting of Children
We all know that there is nothing more important than our children. They are our future, and there is no amount of spending that is enough for our precious children. We need to give them the best of everything. The government already controls education, and has their hands in regular daycare. However, how can we in good conscience trust our children to local teen aged girls to watch our children when we go out for dinner and a movie?! These local babysitters are largely untrained in early childhood development, and emergency medical response. This is unacceptable. Think of what damage could be done to our children's self esteem if they are continually subjected to such untrained personnel. Therefore, for the future of our country, the government should provide babysitters. The government should initiate a training program to qualify all sitters. Any parent that leaves their kids with a non-government certified supervisor should expect a visit from the local department of children and families. The stakes are just too high! Just think of the risks we are taking entrusting our children to people with no government oversight!
Come to think of it, there is no governmental oversight or training for parents either...

These are just 3 of many new services the government could, and should, offer in the near future.

My friends, we need to embrace this socialist movement. We are on the cusp of a Utopian society where we "average citizens" no longer have to worry about anything because the government will take care of it for us. The future looks bright.

Why I Can't Cancel My Newsweek Subscription

I've been a subscriber to Newsweek magazine for years now. The magazine has always had a left-ward slant, but in recent years it has become nearly unbearable. The magazine is filled with liberal opinion pieces, and liberal-biased journalism disguised as non-biased reporting. While reading the most recent issue, I became disgusted vowed to cancel my subscription. This vow has passed my lips several times before in the past. However, this time, like all the previous times, I was drawn back. I read George Will's column on the very last page of the magazine. George Will's column, once again, prevented me from canceling my subscription.

The subject of this weeks column was the erosion of election day due to the rise of pre-election day voting. You can read the column at the following link:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161202

I was appalled at the mess our election process has become.

But beyond the actual issue discussed in the article, I was taken aback once again by the skill of George Will. His use of language and ability to lay out an argument is unparalleled. No other person has had the ability to change my mind on a subject as often as Will.

George Will is known as a conservative columnist, but more often than not his articles are non-partisan. The article this week has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. He also throws in a column about sports and other various subjects on occasion.

The columns written by George Will are so good that they keep me subscribing to the liberal propaganda publication by the name of Newsweek magazine. I recommend taking the time to read his columns regardless of your political leanings.

Democrat Bail Out Logic Fails

No MBA. No PhD. Just a citizen with a belief that there has to be a better way.

Follow the logic here...


Throughout this campaign season Democrats have been claiming that this is the "worst economy since the great depression" for the working and middle class Americans that make up the majority of the populace. Democrats further claim that if we do not pass a $700 billion dollar economic bail out package, Wall Street will collapse resulting in a severe drop in stock prices. Given these two premises I pose the question: Why would a drop in stock prices hurt the struggling "little guy"? If the working and middle class are doing so bad, how would they be able to own significant amounts of stock? Using the Democrat's logic, working and middle class people are in such bad economic shape that they could not possibly afford to own significant caches of stocks. Therefore, again using Democrat logic, a stock market crash would have no impact on working class people!


Ahh, but you counter by saying "A crash on Wall Street would trickle down to Main Street." I heard this line over and over again in the first presidential debate. Wait a minute! According to Democrats there's no such thing as trickle down economics! How can this be?!

Ignoring this incongruity in Democrat economic dogma, let's suppose that a Wall Street failure could indeed trickle down to the working class, and eventually cause mass unemployment. Although highly unlikely (boardering on impossible), let's even go as far to assume that it could cause Great Depression-level unemployment. If that's the case, then why would we not let the free market purge Wall Street through the natural market forces, then set the $700 billion aside for the "little people" in anticipation of the great mass of unemployment and hardship that could follow? Let's assume the $700 billion doesn't make it to Wall Street and an economic meltdown follows. Let's do some math, using approximate numbers and some general assumptions, to see what $700 billion could do:


There are approximately 300 million people in the USA.
Out of those 300 million, about 70 million are children.
About 50 million people are already retired.
That leaves 180 million people.
There are about 14 million non-working spouses (a.k.a. stay-at-home moms/dads)
That leaves 166 million.
Out of that 166 million, let's assume 5% of the people are unemployable in any economy.
That leaves us with about 158 million workers that have the potential to lose their jobs if massive Great Depression-like job losses were to occur.
Jobless rates during the Great Depression reached into the 30% range.
30% of 158 million means that we are looking at a potential pool of 47 million unemployed workers at absolute worst case levels.

Even at those crazy-high, sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rates, $700 billion would be enough to give about $15,000 of benefits to each and every one of these unemployed people.

Now, $15,000 would not be a fortune, but remember it would be $30,000 for 2 income families. With the median annual family income in the US at about $50,000, this $30,000 could possibly keep a family afloat for nearly a year assuming they tightened their belts (which is not an outrageous assumption considering they are out of work). Also, consider that this money would be in addition to any state provided unemployment insurance that currently exists. Needless to say, even in this economic Armageddon situation, the $700 billion would go a long way in getting a family back on their feet.

Being more optimistic, assume that instead of 30% the unemployment level would double to about 12%. It sounds low compared to the 30%, but it would represent a huge economic issue in the US.

12% of 158 million is about 19 million workers.
With 19 million unemployed, the $700 billion could provide a whopping $38,000 in benefits per person. A 2-income family would get $76,000. That's $26,000 more than a median income family would make working for a year! In other words, their share of the $700 billion would be a raise.


That's the numerical look.


So, what's my point? Do I really believe the government should hold $700 billion in anticipation of 30% unemployment levels? Of course not. Do I think the government should lay back and just let the economy collapse? Definitely not. My point is that $700 billion is a lot of money, there are a lot of ways that $700 billion could be used. However, the only option being discussed is a Wall Street bail out.

Our government leaders should use this No-vote as an opportunity to reevaluate their approach. Maybe I'm dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice if the so-called economic experts came up with some innovative alternatives for $700 billion besides a Wall Street bail out? In the end, a Wall Street bail out may still be the best option, but is it too much to ask for our leaders to come up with some alternatives to at least consider?

As much as I believe it makes sense to now consider other alternatives, I my expectations remain low. After all, how can I expect anything other than a Wall Street bail out approach to the current economic slide when the Senate Banking Committee Chairman is in the back-pocket of the Wall Street banks. See the graphic below courtesy of The Hartford Courant showing the top 20 donors to Senator Chris Dodd. Jeez! Money drives behavior. With that list, why would we expect anything different. It's been said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results...

Election Over Load Creates Apathy

Typically during my normal day of work, reading, radio listening, and TV watching, I find one or two things that give me the thought "I should write a blog post about that!". Once I identify a potential topic, my mind wanders during free moments to start contemplating the pieces of the post. What are the points I can make? What research do I need to do? What format should I write in? Sometimes I'll even jot down a few random thoughts on a piece of scrap paper and fold it into my pocket until I can get to a computer. Not all of these daily epiphanies actually become posts, but almost all that do become posts have been born of this sort of haphazard process. I'm pretty sure that's not how George Will comes up with his columns, but for me, that's how the process goes. However, I've noticed that lately, I've had less of these moments. I took a moment to reflect on the cause of this observation, and I can point to one thing as the source -- election over load.

It seems that the nearly 2 years of 24-7 election coverage has finally gotten to me. Most days, much to the disappointment of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, there is nothing going on save for the typical campaign stump speech by one of the candidates. They analyze and over-analyze every word uttered by every candidate. Sick of the faux analysis, I waited weeks for the first debate to come. When it finally arrived (and there was definitely some question whether it would arrive as scheduled) I struggled to not fall asleep on my couch as the candidates repeated talking points we've all heard dozens of times before.

The vice-presidential debates are Thursday. I fear that these debates have the potential to be another yawn-fest. It seems that dialogue the caliber of the Lincoln-Douglas debates could not live up to the hype of this upcoming debate.

So, for my own selfish reasons, and the sake of this blog, I hope these next 5 weeks produce some substance. Other than that, November 4th can't pass fast enough for me!

Spending Taxpayer Money Is The One True Bipartisan Issue

Citizens constantly hear the call for bipartisanship from whinny politicians looking to divert blame away from their culture of do-nothingness, and from a left-leaning media hoping Republicans, which they view mostly as irrelevant, kooky pests, will come over to the left side of the aisle in the name of “cooperation”. But, as much as we hear these misguided pleas, gridlock and personal-attack politics between Democrats and Republicans mostly remain the standard of the day…except on one issue -- spending taxpayer money.

As congress contemplates a $700 billion bank bailout, there has been little quibbling between the parties. The Democrat-controlled congress seems to be in unprecedented agreement with the Republican Bush administration. Oh, there have been a few descending voices, especially from the right, but for the most part both branches of the government are eager to write off an jaw-dropping chuck of taxpayer money. Never before have we witnessed such a love-fest between Bush and the liberal-controlled congress.
To put $700 billion in perspective, the national debt is about $9.2 trillion. We spend over $400 billion per year servicing interest on the national debt. This bail out would be equal to 8% of the enormous national debt that has been built every year since the 1970s. The federal budget is about $2.9 trillion dollars. The $700 billion bail out would be equal to about 24% of the federal budget.
To put the proposed bailout into individual terms, if you have a total personal debt (mortgage, car loans, credit cards, etc.) of $250,000 (this is reasonable since the median home price in the US is about $212,000), the bail out would represent a one-time payout of $20,000. I don’t know about you, but I think most middle class families would have a tough time dumping $20,000.
Thinking of the bailout in terms of income, the median household income in the US is about $50,000. If you had a $50,000 household budget, this bailout would be the equivalent of dishing out $12,000.
Whether the number is $12,000, $20,000, or $700 billion, the point is that it’s a big number relative to US government finances. Republicans and Democrats both belly-up-to-the-bar when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, but seem to rarely live up to their tough talk in practice. George Bush, a supposed conservative who’s run up record spending and record deficits is a great example of the lip-service-only philosophy politicians of both parties seem to exhibit towards fiscal responsibility once they get to Washington. When it comes to politicians in practice, there seems to be no such thing as fiscal responsibility, regardless of party. Democrats don’t even bother to pretend to have fiscal responsibility. Their party platform for years has been based on reckless spending and redistribution of wealth in an attempt to buy votes with give-away programs. Their party-first philosophy gives no thought to the ramifications of their actions on the welfare of the nation. I’ve come to expect fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. However, I expected more from our so-called free market-loving, fiscally conservative Republican leaders.

Get Government Out of the Private Sector

A quick list of private business sectors screwed up or soon to be screwed up by a meddling US government:

• Mortgages (That's obvious in light of the current Freddie/Fannie situation)
• Real estate (As a result of their meddling in the mortgage business, home prices were artificially driven up by the availability of "cheap" money, thereby actually making it harder, not easier, to get people in homes. Ironic that a programs meant to make home ownership easier, actually pushed it farther out of reach. Liberal policies continue to be disasters as a result of unintended consequences.)
• Finance/banking (The recent bail outs speak to this. Why are American tax payers subsidizing risk for private industry?)
• Energy (The government is subsidizing the oil industry with our military actions intended to protect oil access. However, we ain't seen nothin' yet! Barak Obama wants to meddle in oil company profits. If the trend of government intervention in the oil industry continues, wait and see what happens to the US oil industry.)
• Auto (For example, meddling government fuel economy standards making US companies non-competitive in North America.)
• Rail (Remember Amtrack?)
• Airlines (Just wait for more bail outs when these start failing.)
• Pharmaceuticals (Bush's prescription drug bill ensnared government into this business.)
• Medical industry (Is there any doubt government health care will be an economic and logistical nightmare?)
• Insurance (US government is now the biggest private insurer in the world thanks to AIG bail out. How do you feel about being part owner of an insurance company?)
• Farming (Subsidies have made it impossible for farmers to charge what they need to charge for their goods.)
• Education (This is a tough one because colleges and universities are run by liberals, so liberal policy-makers are hesitant to meddle in this cash cow. However, don't underestimate the desire of the 2008 Democratic ticket to extend the reach of government into every sector. Even liberal colleges are no longer safe.)

How many more fiascos will it take for the American people to realize we need government out of the private sector? Although this government meddling is the result of liberal policy, it can't all be laid at the feet of Democrats. Republicans (aka Bush) have also abandoned conservative ideals and grown the scope of government tremendously these past years. Remember, these bail outs happening now are being lead by a Republican administration. Funny that Democrats so hate Bush. Many of his policies have been more liberal in execution than his predecessor (Clinton).

Some regulations are needed to ensure a fair playing field, but the US government has clearly stepped over the line.

Are there any other industries that I've forgotten from my list?

Why Does An All-Conservative Radio Station Thrive in a Blue State?

Recently while flipping through the AM dial on my way home from work I discovered a new (to me) talk radio station in Connecticut. The station calls itself the "Talk of Connecticut". The station affiliates include WDRC 1360, WMMW 1470, WWCO 1240, and WSNG 610 providing coverage through most of Connecticut. I tune in on 1360. The stations contains a continuous stream of conservative leaning talk shows starting with local radio guy Brad Davis in the morning, moving to Bill O'Reilly in mid-day, again to local radio guy Dan Lovallo in the afternoon, and ending with Michael Savage in the evening. I enjoy listening to the station, especially the shows that put a local spin on issues. The stations website is:

http://www.talkofconnecticut.com/

Keeping in mind that Connecticut is one of the top five "bluest" states in the US, how is an all-conservative radio station able to thrive? Why do conservatives unquestioningly dominate talk radio, as well as having an upper hand in the blogosphere? I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.

I have a few theories:

Theory #1: Liberals so dominate the print and TV media, that conservatives are hungry to hear their message. Rush Limbaugh is such a powerful and successful radio personality that he pushed open the door for an entire legion of conservative radio show hosts.

Theory #2: The radio format is more conducive to a conservative message. The liberal message relies more heavily on emotional manipulation. TV and print allows the use of images that can more easily play to our emotional side. In radio it's more difficult to illicit an emotional response, therefore, it becomes more difficult to convey a liberal message. Radio plays into a more logic based conservative message.

Theory #3: Outside the urban centers, America is generally a conservative-leaning country. The news media has propagated the incorrect theory that the coasts are blue states and the heartland is red. This is not the true blue-red divide within the United States. If you look at the red-blue breakdown you will see that even in the reddest states, the urban areas are solidly blue. The real red-blue divide is between urban and rural. The coastal states are blue simply because they are the most densely populated (i.e. the most urban), not because of some liberal elixir in the ocean air.

Theory #4: The Democratic base largely does not listen to talk radio. Radio stations create a format to attract listeners, which attracts advertisers, which attacks revenue. Remember, radio stations are a for-profit business.

Regardless of the reasons, there's no denying that conservative ideals dominate talk radio, even in a blue state like Connecticut.

A New Blog: Radioviceonline.com

Perhaps you've noticed that I don't have a lot of links to other blogs or websites on Liberty Alert. That's on purpose. My thinking is that generally if a reader knows what they are looking for, they can just as easily find it as I can. Therefore, I try to be selective and only include a few links to some unique, high quality sites I've stumbled upon.
Towards the bottom right of Liberty Alert there is a short list of Favorite Links. Until today, there were only 2 links on that list. One of those links was for the Jim Vicevich radio show. I'm a big fan of Jim's radio show, and I've plugged him on Liberty Alert in the past. Jim has just created a new blog (actually, he's moved to a new host/format). The blog can be found at:

http://www.radioviceonline.com/

Jim describes himself as a Republitarian. I believe he has a unique and entertaining radio show.

I've added Jim's blog to my short list of favorite links. Check out Jim's blog and radio show.

An Observation on Immigration Policy, Globalizaton

Newsweek magazine's non-election feature article this week had to do with how the United States is prepared to compete in the global market. As China and India continue to grow, how will the United States continue to stay on top economically? Will the United States be able to stay on top economically?
One of the points made in the article was that India and China are greatly outpacing the US in producing engineers and other technical professionals. According to the Newsweek article China and India now graduate 5 times more engineers than the United States. At this rate, by 2011 90 percent of all engineers in the world will be in Asia.

With that in mind, I'm forced to consider the demographics of the technical and medical majors in American universities. The engineering departments are filled with Asian students. Most of these students come to the United States on student visas. They get educated in the American universities, then many return to their home countries without ever contributing to the American economy.

In light of the continually rising global economy and the pressures US businesses are facing from all over, why does the US government continue to allow these student visas? Americans are essentially training our competition, and if these students are being trained in public universities, Americans are using tax dollars to do it. Americans are essentially subsidizing the weakening of any US technical advantage.

Why?

There was a time when a high number of foreign students in US universities did not pose a threat. Perhaps that time has passed.

I have a suggestion. Instead of limiting student visas, the State Department will still allow student visas, but with one stipulation. If you take advantage of a US education, post-graduation you have to work at least 7 years in a job within the United States or if working outside the United States it would need to be for a US company. I suggest this stipulation should be required for all foreign students looking to take advantage of the superior American university system, but especially for students looking to go to a public university.
Why did I pick 7 years? As a engineering degree-holder myself, I know that the first two years on the job are mostly training. I figured that 5 solid years would be a fair contribution. Therefore, you need 7 years; 2 for training, 5 for production.

What would be the result of such a policy? I suspect the number of student visas would go down. Universities would not like it because they make a lot of money off these students tuition. Supply and demand would dictate that Universities might actually have to lower tuition, or at least slow the tremendous growth of tuition. Is that such a bad thing? Secondly, demand for engineers and professionals may increase in the workplace. Therefore, there would be more incentive for US students to fill the gap.

I'm not suggesting that we should keep foreign students from our universities. We should accept the best qualified students regardless of location, but is it too much to ask for a little bit back in return?

Latest Target of the Nanny-State: Plastic Bags

The nanny-staters are at it again. Westport, Connecticut has become the first community on the east coast of the United States to ban plastic shopping bags. The ban, done in the name of “green”, will levy a $150 fine to any merchant that offers a plastic bag to shoppers. No word yet if there will be a solicitation fine for any customer that asks for a plastic bag.
Starting in 2009, Seattle, Washington has instituted a $.20 per bag tax on all plastic bags, again in the name of protecting the environment.

Are plastic shopping bags really the scourge of our pristine environment? Even the liberal machine MSNBC has questions about paper versus plastic. Anne Thompson writes that the debate of paper versus plastic in not so clear-cut:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/

================================================

Plastic bags
— Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide.
— Plastics do NOT biodegrade. Rather, they photodegrade, a process in which sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller and smaller pieces.
— It can take up to 1,000 years for a high-density polyethylene plastic bag to break down in the environment.
— Plastic bags are on the top 10 list of most common trash items along the American coastline (both on land and in the water).
Paper bags
— Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.
— 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds, 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 pounds. The latter takes up a lot more landfill space.
— It takes 91 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.

Sources: reusablebags.com, NRDC and International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Report from the Ocean Conservancy
================================================

Paper bags use trees. Trees require a significant amount of energy to harvest. The machines that harvest, transport, and convert trees into paper burn evil fossil fuels. Where’s the research backing the ban of plastic bags? Where’s the evidence that they are a public hazard?
Once again, liberal policy falls into the trap of unintended consequences.
I suspect a lot more anecdotal data was used over hardcore scientific research by the banning lawmakers in Seattle and Westport. Politicians have locked onto plastic bags as a cause celebre, using it to perpetuate the image of doing something, rather than actually accomplishing something useful. Image and intentions are everything to liberals.

Who is the city government to tell a merchant what they can and cannot give away to their customers? Who is the city government to burden merchants with keeping track of the number of bags they give out in order to support their tax collection? Talk about an unfunded mandate!

What if you owned a business selling plastic bags to merchants? Who compensates you for the loss of your livelihood? Isn’t the government supposed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Once again, I guess the Constitution does not apply to liberals.
Banning in general is the juvenile solution to problems. It’s the governmental equivalent of the crying child on the playground taking his ball and going home.

Bans rarely address the root of the issue, often are triggers of multitudes of unintended consequences, and generally reduce the liberty of the public. We should demand more from our lawmakers.

A Rarity: School Board Pulls Off Budget Surplus

I've been especially tough on school boards and school administrators in this space in the past, especially the school board of my local town of Bristol, CT. Since I've been so tough in the past, I found it only fair to give credit when credit is due. The Bristol, CT Board of Education announced this week that they ended the fiscal year with a surplus of nearly $800,000.

I send my kudos to the Board of Education and administrators of all Bristol schools that made this possible.

This demonstration of efficiency and fiscal responsibility in the face of rising costs (energy, food, etc.) should be applauded. The effort will go a long way towards increasing the trust of the local tax payers in the school system management.

I don't know all the details of what created the surplus, but I'm taking this one at face value.

Great job BoE and thanks for looking out for the local tax payers! Keep it up.

Book Review: Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Infidel is the memoirs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan Hirsi Ali fits so many labels it's difficult to exactly give her a title. She's a writer, a film maker, a Dutch politician, a feminist, and an opponent of Islam. She's an extraordinary person.
The book describes Hirsi Ali's life from childhood to present day. She was born in Kenya but moved around to several other Muslim countries throughout her childhood. The book describes how she survived an abusive mother, an non-present father, a religious system that treats women as property, genital mutilation ("female circumcision") at age 5, forced religious teachings, poverty, being beaten so severely by a teacher that it cracked her skull, the preventable death of her sister, forced marriage, exile from her family, the murder of her business partner, and finally her life in forced isolation due to threats on her life. Through all this Ayann Hirsi Ali survived, became a best-selling author and a member of the Dutch Parliament.
What struck me about Hirsi Ali's hardship was not how incredible they were, but how common such abuses are in the Muslim world. If fact, it is more normal for a woman to be beaten, genitally mutilated, and forced into marriage in the Muslim world than it is abnormal. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is extraordinary for how she overcame this abusive system, but not for what she went through within the system. Millions of Muslim women go through similar abuses. Hirsi Ali's main platform as a politician is to give rights to oppressed women throughout her country and the world.
The book is written in a simple, matter of fact manner. It is not written lyrically or in a fancy style. The power of the book is in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story, and not in the style of writing. She is so raw in opening up about her emotions as well as the events in her life that it evokes a powerful response in the reader. At about 351 pages it was a quick read.
The book does not just discuss the events of her life. She delves into the lessons she has learned, and how the event of her life have shaped her philosophy. She logically explains many points regarding the farce that is modern Islam. As she explains, Islam is not a religion of peace. The religion you see in practice (violence, abuse, radicalism, anti-liberty) is not radical Islam. As Ali explains, there really is no radical Islam. All these things we observe are standard Islam, right out of the Quran. Westerners can hardly imagine such a system, so we give it the label "radical-Islam" to help us make sense of it. The system set up in countries like Kenya and Saudi Arabia is totally contrary to the concepts of liberty in which western society is built. Islam is the number one threat to liberty in the world today. Islam is the number one threat to the United States. Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali has opened my eyes to the true nature of Islam in practice.
The book was highly educational for me as a westerner, relatively unfamiliar with Islam. In light of the current state of the world, this book and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's message are especially important. This is one of the most eye-opening books I have read.

Ever Wonder Where Your Local Property Taxes Go?

A Redding, CT non-partisan action group has created an on-line calculator to demonstrate how the town spends local property taxes. In the state of Connecticut nearly all local government is funded by one of the highest property taxes (taxes on real estate and registered vehicles, i.e boats, cars, motorcycles, etc.) in the nation.
Although the distribution of expenses in your town will not be exactly the same as Redding's, the calculator still gives you a general idea of what the budget requirements are for a typical town.

The calculator can be found at the following link:

http://betterredding.org/html/taxspending.html

One thing that is noticed immediately is that 71.4% of the town budget is spent on the public school. This is again typical of a Connecticut town. Connecticut spends more per pupil on public education than any state. Despite this spending, Connecticut remains in the mid-30's in standardized test scores, including SAT scores.

Thanks NABR for bring transparency to taxpayers with regards to local government spending.

Ban Baby Ban! A Short List of Items Banned by State Law in the State of Connecticut

Here is a short list of banned items, by state law, in CT. Some of the items may surprise you.

Banned:
- Sunday hunting
- Sunday alcohol sales
- Sale of alcohol past 9 PM
----------Just recently bumped up from 8 PM
- Incandescent light bulbs in state buildings
----------A mandate to require mercury filled, China manufactured, compact fluorescent bulbs

- Smoking in any public place, including bars

----------The states two mega-sized, mega-profit, mega-tax contributing Indian casinos are exempt

- Talking on a cell phone while driving

----------Listening to the radio is still allowed

- Gambling

----------Allowed in the aforementioned Indian casinos
----------Apparently the state run lottery is not considered gambling

- Fireworks

----------Legislature was duped into allowing "sparklers" a few years ago

- Hunting with a rifle on public land

- Driving without a seat belt

- "Non-healthy" snacks in public school snack machines
---------- No soda, candy, etc.
- Jarts
- Common sense----------Not really, but some times it seems like it

On the Docket:
- Transfat in restaurants
- Billboards along the highways
----------Even though the state of CT is a top purchaser of billboard advertising space

Bans Recently (within approximately 10 years) Lifted:
- Auto dealerships open on Sundays
- Radar detectors

Curiously Not Banned:
- Riding a motorcycle without a helmet
----------Seat belts, yes! Helmets, no!

-An open container of alcohol in a car

-Civil unions

Things that Should be Banned, but Are Not:

- Speedo's on the beach if you're male
- Wearing a blue tooth headset in public

Connecticut: Super-nanny of the nanny states.

Note: For some reason the formatting on this post is terrible. I tried, but the software would not let me fix it. I had to use these ridiculous dashes instead of bullets, and the spacing is all screwed up.

New Concept for Illegal Alien Problem -- Alternative to a Sanctuary City

You may have recently heard that the city of Hartford, CT USA has just passed legislation to make Hartford a "sanctuary city". What that means is that city officials are no longer able to ask if someone is a legal US citizen. The city basically turns a blind eye to illegal aliens. If an illegal alien comes to the Hartford town hall seeking some type of aid (welfare, etc), they will get it regardless of the fact that they are illegally in the United States. Apparently officials that have sworn to uphold the law believe they only have to uphold the laws they like. As ridiculous as the idea of a "sanctuary city" seems to any logically thinking individual, that's not the main point of this post. The recent legislative activities in Hartford made me spend some time contemplating the issue of illegal immigration.

What should be done with an illegal immigrant? In Hartford the answer is nothing, but that certainly does not seem like the right approach. It's so wrong on so many levels that I don't believe I should even go into further discussion here. I could write pages on why the "sanctuary city" concept is wrong. Some say illegal immigrants should summarily be pursued and deported. The argument is that they are law breakers, and the sovereignty of the US boarders needs to be honored. However, this iron fist approach does not seem right either. It's easy to say, but it shows no nuance. Proclamations like "round 'em up and ship 'em out" fuel the liberal fire of portraying conservatives as heartless, mean spirited, and uncompassionate. Besides, such approaches demonstrate no real thought on the issue. There are many hard working illegal immigrants that have achieved in this country. The US wrestler, son of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, that just won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics comes to mind. For most people their families, specifically their children, are the most important thing in their lives. I can't say that I would not come to the US to try to give my family a better life if I were poverty stricken in Mexico.

So the solution lies somewhere in between 100% deportation and 100% amnesty.

I'm here to propose a new concept. I'm not here to say it's the greatest concept, but it is at least a unique concept to try to address the issue. I have not worked out every detail, but the concept would be called socio-economic asylum. It's not a totally new concept. It's based off of political asylum that most western countries already offer. Political asylum is typically granted to people that are displaced or can not return to their native country due to issues such as civil war, or an oppressive government. The United States could grant socio-economic asylum to people that are not able to engage in the pursuit of happiness (or life or liberty) due to hopeless economic conditions in their native country. Here's how it would work: Once someone comes to this country (illegally), they would not have access to social services (welfare, permission to work, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) unless they apply for socio-economic asylum. In fact, they would not be guaranteed access to anything, including constitutional rights since the US Constitution applies only to US citizens. The requirement of applying for socio-economic asylum would need to be strictly enforced. No sanctuary. If you want services, you need to at least apply. This would do a couple of things. First, the government would have documentation on the illegal immigrants. No more guessing who is illegal, and how many are out there. Secondly, by agreeing to be a part of this asylum program, the government would have the opportunity to make special demands on the individual. Remember, this person has come to the United States illegally. In order to be granted amnesty for their crime it is not outrageous for the United States to put some demands on these individuals.
There would also be a process for people to seek socio-political asylum before coming to the US. If granted asylum, the follow-up demands from the government would be much less on these people because they do not have to work to achieve amnesty for the crime of coming to the US illegally.
First, the socio-economic asylum-seeker would need to prove that his situation was hopeless in his former country. You can not come to US simply because you want more stuff. Socio-economic asylum can only be granted if, through little fault of your own, you would not be able to improve your lot in life if you stayed in your former country. Second, you need to also prove how this would change by coming to the US. If you were living on welfare in some other country, you can't just plan to come to the United States because the welfare pay is better. You need to have a skill or some plan of how your circumstances could be improved by relocating to the United States. If you have a skill, you can not just come to the US to pursue your craft simply because the pay is better. For example, if you are a chef and your plan is to come to the United States and use your savings to start a restaurant, you would have to prove that a similar plan could not be implemented just as easily and effectively in your former country. You would need to give reasons. If the United States is going to take you in and provide this asylum, the government should have assurance that the aslyum-seeker is going to try in good faith to be a productive member of the United States. The idea is that the United States becomes a better, not a worst place for letting the person in. If the asylum-seeker's plan is solid, the government could possibly even provide some assistance in getting started, but that's open for debate.
Once the asylum seeker has proved all this, his socio-economic asylum application would be preliminarily approved pending further commitments. Within a certain time frame, these further commitments would include:

• Need to demonstrate progress towards getting off of social services.
• Need to stay "clean". That means, no illegal activity of any sort.
• Need to take English classes or demonstrate a proficiency in English. If you are able to teach yourself, that's fine, but you would eventually need to pass a basic exam.
• After getting established, need to commit to volunteer some minimal amount of hours to council other socio-economic asylum seekers through the process. Something like 2 to 4 hours per week seems fair.
• Need to be working towards eventual full citizenship.
  

If these stipulations are not met by a certain amount of time, the individual receives sanctions, and faces possible deportation. There would be a zero tolerance policy for the bullet regarding not engaging in illegal activity. That would lead to immediate deportation. However, if the illegal immigrant could make it though this process, they would first be granted asylum, then eventually possibly full citizenship.

A program such as this would produce a citizen that is ready to contribute and improve the United States, rather than drain it.

The flip side is that deportation would have to be strictly enforced for anyone that does not participate in the program, or refuses to meet the stipulations.

I'm not typically one for suggesting new government bureaucracy to address an issue. However, even the most fiscally conservative person has to agree that there are some problems that government is necessary to handle. Mostly, these illegal immigrants are trying to do the best they can to provide a life for their families. The United States provides political asylum, so why would socio-economic asylum be so outrageous to at least consider?
There are special circumstances that could fast-track a person in the asylum process. For example, a wife or child that came to the US to escape an abusive husband. Someone in need of life saving medical care that would not be available in their former country. People that are denied education. People that are victims of discrimination so severe that they can't work. These people move to the front of the asylum line, but be wary because the asylum-seeker would eventually need to produce proof other than just their word.

There are other actions that would need to go hand-in-hand with the implementation of such a program. Employers would be severely fined for hiring non-documented illegal aliens. Authorities would need to proactively go after suspected employers of non-documented illegal aliens. Secondly, US boarder patrol would need to be improved. Third, a 100% deportation policy would need to be instituted for any illegal alien that did not at least apply for socio-economic asylum.
Once the potential illegal immigrants still in their home country know that the US is serious, they would not attempt to come to the US on a whim.

I'm not arguing that this is the best idea ever. It still would have a lot of details to be figured out. However, it's a much more compassionate approach to the 100% deportation crowd, and a much more practical approach to the 100% automatic amnesty crowd.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Note: I just came up with this idea today, so feel free to let me have it.