I've found it, and it isn't Republican or Democrat, its ..... Libertarian? Who would have thought it, although the fringe usually are passionate... anyhow back to the link.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com
This is the first part of one of their posts:
The Democrat nannies are on the loose, run amok, busting out the time-worn federal funds withholding extortion to hammer the states into compliance with their latest federal fetish to control our daily habits and activities.
There is no end to the mass control freak mentality of this ilk. What's next? Mandating cars have ignition shutoff sensors triggered by use of a mobile device inside the vehicle? Hell, why not...it all makes sense in service to sating nanny's whims so nanny can make use all feel safe and happy (and nanny's helpers bloated with traffic fine revenues, btw).
Lawmakers want ban on texting while driving
Rant over. Choose your battles wisely young Libertarian (yes, I know your older than me physically.)
A little taste of political logic (with a side dose of insanity and humor to make things interesting.) My life will occassionally be brought in with some journalism.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Donna Dion Running (with three PDF pages, why?)
This 2010 Democratic candidate for governor has a website started here: http://donnajdionforgovernor2010.com/
I would link to her "Blueprint for Success Page" but it is in .pdf format and I don't wish to burden those of you without adobe readers (to the majority who do, sorry, click it on her front page). She vows to follow the Clean Elections Act that way she can have moral high ground at the end of the day. This gives me a perfect opportunity to discuss something about the morals of the "clean elections". However, thats for a later blog. Now, back to her site. She states:
Empower the communities to evaluate new businesses and make the process simpler and quicker but not at the expense of the environment or increasing the tax expenses already being carried by our citizens.
Excerpt over. So, ease business beaurocracy, but protect the environment (good)and make certain citizens have priority over businesses when discussing tax hikes (bad). She leaves the door open to tax increases on businesses. Alright, I won't have to pay new taxes. However, when the Governors down the street has to lay off someone because the taxes went up, I can still applaud them. (It is still a small, perhaps medium sized business, it employs fewer than 5 thousand people which qualifies a large business. Now you know.)
As for education after high school, she makes this statement:
They [students] should first say “where can I go?” and not “can I afford to go?”
Excerpt over. So, this alludes to cheap or free college. I know the college we currently have is not cheap. (I know because I'm going.) Somewhere over the shattering rainbow of hope I read Maine was having a budget crisis. We can call that statement an ambiguously failed statement of short sighted thoughtfulness about colleges in Maine. She goes on and mentions workers joining the workforce with the skills needed (very good). She then says this:
Work within each county to evaluate and prioritize their assets and work with them to develop a new economy specific to their needs.
Excerpt over. If only counties had Constitutions.... It sounds like funding may be determined by county and not by state program. Or, it could mean the state would want to overlook county funds and have the "government come to help". So what if it is government "helping" government, it can't work out well. Remember the former Shah of Iran? Either way it sounds like the way the federal government has been intruding on the states rights.
Yet, back to topic. She gives guidelines:
Must maintain sensitivity to:
Environment
Tax burden on Mainers
Education for the future
Training for the current and new job market
Development of new business throughout the State
Assistance to the more vulnerable population of our State, elderly and developmental disabled and our children in crisis.
Equal opportunity for all people.
Affordable health care
Excerpt over. Environment gets a thumbs up from me. Tax burden on Mainers should include businesses. Education for the future is ambiguous and a nice phrase without meaning much. Job market is thumbs up. New business, no clear plan, and will be difficult if their taxes go up. The vulnerable Democratic punchline. The elderly need care from DHS, not the governor. Look up Stillwater Healthcare in Bangor, visit it sometime. Why the police haven't stormed that place despite all the complaints to Augusta is beyond me. Ahem. Moving on. Developmental disabled? gaff. A good mentioning, I hear politicians promise us a lot, I rarely see them give any. I think it has to do with so few of us vote. Ranking below the living dead and Mickey Mouse, children with severe autism are some of the least likely voters in America. This is one who will be voting, and certainly not for - ahem, composure. Equal opportunity, I think she should run for Mayor of Lewiston instead of Governor. She would be closer to that issue. Affordable health care? I hope she means to shut down Dirigo health. Did you know it has costed 100 million dollars but only covers ten thousand people? Did you know its original goal was 5 million dollars and 100,000 people?
Finally:
We can build from the blueprint to form a strong State structure that will carry all citizens forward to a better tomorrow.
Quote from Marx, I mean excerpt over. "Strong State structure" "will carry all citizens". Only a Democrat (of the two main parties, hopefully).
This humorous, yet sadly real, blog posting brought to you by Randy Hughes-King, author of RHKINC.blogspot.com, also running for city, um, council- but remember I'm an author.
P.S. This is real, commentary is real, but I am not this stupid. Trust me. I have aspergers and one of the symptoms is I can't, or am not very good at lying(as in I've never successfully pulled one off).
I would link to her "Blueprint for Success Page" but it is in .pdf format and I don't wish to burden those of you without adobe readers (to the majority who do, sorry, click it on her front page). She vows to follow the Clean Elections Act that way she can have moral high ground at the end of the day. This gives me a perfect opportunity to discuss something about the morals of the "clean elections". However, thats for a later blog. Now, back to her site. She states:
Empower the communities to evaluate new businesses and make the process simpler and quicker but not at the expense of the environment or increasing the tax expenses already being carried by our citizens.
Excerpt over. So, ease business beaurocracy, but protect the environment (good)and make certain citizens have priority over businesses when discussing tax hikes (bad). She leaves the door open to tax increases on businesses. Alright, I won't have to pay new taxes. However, when the Governors down the street has to lay off someone because the taxes went up, I can still applaud them. (It is still a small, perhaps medium sized business, it employs fewer than 5 thousand people which qualifies a large business. Now you know.)
As for education after high school, she makes this statement:
They [students] should first say “where can I go?” and not “can I afford to go?”
Excerpt over. So, this alludes to cheap or free college. I know the college we currently have is not cheap. (I know because I'm going.) Somewhere over the shattering rainbow of hope I read Maine was having a budget crisis. We can call that statement an ambiguously failed statement of short sighted thoughtfulness about colleges in Maine. She goes on and mentions workers joining the workforce with the skills needed (very good). She then says this:
Work within each county to evaluate and prioritize their assets and work with them to develop a new economy specific to their needs.
Excerpt over. If only counties had Constitutions.... It sounds like funding may be determined by county and not by state program. Or, it could mean the state would want to overlook county funds and have the "government come to help". So what if it is government "helping" government, it can't work out well. Remember the former Shah of Iran? Either way it sounds like the way the federal government has been intruding on the states rights.
Yet, back to topic. She gives guidelines:
Must maintain sensitivity to:
Environment
Tax burden on Mainers
Education for the future
Training for the current and new job market
Development of new business throughout the State
Assistance to the more vulnerable population of our State, elderly and developmental disabled and our children in crisis.
Equal opportunity for all people.
Affordable health care
Excerpt over. Environment gets a thumbs up from me. Tax burden on Mainers should include businesses. Education for the future is ambiguous and a nice phrase without meaning much. Job market is thumbs up. New business, no clear plan, and will be difficult if their taxes go up. The vulnerable Democratic punchline. The elderly need care from DHS, not the governor. Look up Stillwater Healthcare in Bangor, visit it sometime. Why the police haven't stormed that place despite all the complaints to Augusta is beyond me. Ahem. Moving on. Developmental disabled? gaff. A good mentioning, I hear politicians promise us a lot, I rarely see them give any. I think it has to do with so few of us vote. Ranking below the living dead and Mickey Mouse, children with severe autism are some of the least likely voters in America. This is one who will be voting, and certainly not for - ahem, composure. Equal opportunity, I think she should run for Mayor of Lewiston instead of Governor. She would be closer to that issue. Affordable health care? I hope she means to shut down Dirigo health. Did you know it has costed 100 million dollars but only covers ten thousand people? Did you know its original goal was 5 million dollars and 100,000 people?
Finally:
We can build from the blueprint to form a strong State structure that will carry all citizens forward to a better tomorrow.
Quote from Marx, I mean excerpt over. "Strong State structure" "will carry all citizens". Only a Democrat (of the two main parties, hopefully).
This humorous, yet sadly real, blog posting brought to you by Randy Hughes-King, author of RHKINC.blogspot.com, also running for city, um, council- but remember I'm an author.
P.S. This is real, commentary is real, but I am not this stupid. Trust me. I have aspergers and one of the symptoms is I can't, or am not very good at lying(as in I've never successfully pulled one off).
Gubernatorial Candidate/Book Seller
These two websites were brought to my attention by the good will of Derek from "The Maine View" blog here:
http://maineview.blogspot.com/
Now, Samme Bailey has his campaign website here:
http://www.joinsamme.com/Join_Samme/Campaign.html
His slogan: Economic Revival for Maine
The slogan is only political thing on his website. (Aside from the usual sob of a life story they all present, nothing against him, just the sob life stories of most politicians. (Note to self: always cut the heaping piles of pointlessness into as little a pile as possible and get to the point when I run for offices.)) Aside from that, it looks like a promotion of his book. There is absolutely no mention of issues in Maine nor any relevence to his campaign page which lists cities in Maine but doesn't say when or where. He does say likely places will be:
Perhaps you will encounter Sam at one of the numerous places he will be while visiting your town. He may be in the local book shop autographing his book. You may see him talking with your neighbor on main street, or at the local county fair enjoying the festivities.
Excerpt over. I believe I know why he is running as an independant: None of the three parties in Maine want to be affiliated in a clear misuse of a run for political office to sell a book. One headlining section of his page is a link titled "Book" which sends you to a page where you can buy his book. It is listed before "Campaign" or "Contribute". This man's book sales driven campaign will no longer be covered by this blog. I report politics, not book sales.
Update: Bailey was on a radio show this morning and continuously said he was unqualified. I do believe not having to cover his campaign will be easy. See, Alex Hammer and Samme Bailey would make it difficult to not cover if they became front runners but since its official neither one will be, I'm not concerned.
http://maineview.blogspot.com/
Now, Samme Bailey has his campaign website here:
http://www.joinsamme.com/Join_Samme/Campaign.html
His slogan: Economic Revival for Maine
The slogan is only political thing on his website. (Aside from the usual sob of a life story they all present, nothing against him, just the sob life stories of most politicians. (Note to self: always cut the heaping piles of pointlessness into as little a pile as possible and get to the point when I run for offices.)) Aside from that, it looks like a promotion of his book. There is absolutely no mention of issues in Maine nor any relevence to his campaign page which lists cities in Maine but doesn't say when or where. He does say likely places will be:
Perhaps you will encounter Sam at one of the numerous places he will be while visiting your town. He may be in the local book shop autographing his book. You may see him talking with your neighbor on main street, or at the local county fair enjoying the festivities.
Excerpt over. I believe I know why he is running as an independant: None of the three parties in Maine want to be affiliated in a clear misuse of a run for political office to sell a book. One headlining section of his page is a link titled "Book" which sends you to a page where you can buy his book. It is listed before "Campaign" or "Contribute". This man's book sales driven campaign will no longer be covered by this blog. I report politics, not book sales.
Update: Bailey was on a radio show this morning and continuously said he was unqualified. I do believe not having to cover his campaign will be easy. See, Alex Hammer and Samme Bailey would make it difficult to not cover if they became front runners but since its official neither one will be, I'm not concerned.
Ecuador's Double Standard/ Rule Of LAW
Right now Ecuador is in a dispute with an oil company over some issue that has gone to the World Bank. They say that if the World Bank rules against them, they won't follow the ruling.
This is despite Ecuador urging Honduras to follow the OAS STATEMENTS against Honduras. There has been no judicial ruling against Honduras, but international organizations were against Honduras. Ecuador wanted Honduras to comply with those demands. However, now that an international body could rule against them, there are no signs either way, they say they will not follow it.
The rule of law is the rule of law. Laws are not meant to be broken. When the law tells you to do something, you do it no matter what (unless it violates human rights.) Honduras followed its law, its Constitution, and removed Zelaya and has followed the law regardless of what the world demands.
Ecuador, now facing a legal ruling, will defy the ruling if it is against them.
A lawless world is a dangerous world. Lawless groups are currently trying to take over countries and invent new laws to suit them. When existing laws don't go their way, they either alter their Constitutions or, as Ecuador proves, defy international rulings. This is applicable in Burma's trade with North Korea, or Venezuela's arming of FARC, or Russia's aiding of Iran with its nuclear program.
The nations have sway in global bodies such as the OAS and UN. When they get their majority, such as with the OAS, they can have international groups founded to have worldwide recognition of the law represent the next level of destroying laws. They had the OAS make demands of Honduras regardless of the laws within Honduras.
This is why Obama's statements on changing our U.S. Constitution concerns me. The Constitution does not give him what he wants, and he thinks that is enough to have it changed. (In length, he wants it changed because it doesn't allow the government to give him what he wants: more government control to provide us with things (which the government would have to supply through the taking of other things)).
We must stand with the rule of law. Currently, neither the Republican or Democratic platforms state that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. They should because it is. This explains the Obama and Bush presidency having such Constitutional line crossings without the political parties condemning them harshly.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
This is despite Ecuador urging Honduras to follow the OAS STATEMENTS against Honduras. There has been no judicial ruling against Honduras, but international organizations were against Honduras. Ecuador wanted Honduras to comply with those demands. However, now that an international body could rule against them, there are no signs either way, they say they will not follow it.
The rule of law is the rule of law. Laws are not meant to be broken. When the law tells you to do something, you do it no matter what (unless it violates human rights.) Honduras followed its law, its Constitution, and removed Zelaya and has followed the law regardless of what the world demands.
Ecuador, now facing a legal ruling, will defy the ruling if it is against them.
A lawless world is a dangerous world. Lawless groups are currently trying to take over countries and invent new laws to suit them. When existing laws don't go their way, they either alter their Constitutions or, as Ecuador proves, defy international rulings. This is applicable in Burma's trade with North Korea, or Venezuela's arming of FARC, or Russia's aiding of Iran with its nuclear program.
The nations have sway in global bodies such as the OAS and UN. When they get their majority, such as with the OAS, they can have international groups founded to have worldwide recognition of the law represent the next level of destroying laws. They had the OAS make demands of Honduras regardless of the laws within Honduras.
This is why Obama's statements on changing our U.S. Constitution concerns me. The Constitution does not give him what he wants, and he thinks that is enough to have it changed. (In length, he wants it changed because it doesn't allow the government to give him what he wants: more government control to provide us with things (which the government would have to supply through the taking of other things)).
We must stand with the rule of law. Currently, neither the Republican or Democratic platforms state that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. They should because it is. This explains the Obama and Bush presidency having such Constitutional line crossings without the political parties condemning them harshly.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
Stimulus In Maine
Alright, some details about police funding in Maine came from Susan Collins recently. It can be seen here:
http://senatorcollins.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-than-5-million-in-police-funding.html
So, here is a quick rundown of the 5 million dollar funding (each city gets 1 officer unless otherwise stated, details of officer employment after the list) :
City of Auburn (2 officers) - $374,120
• Baileyville Police Department - $209,336
• City of Bangor (4 officers) - $704,880
• Town of Boothbay Harbor - $185,180
• Caribou Police Department - $177,206
• Dexter-Foxcroft Police Department - $180,085
• Fryeburg Police Department - $143,199
• Lewiston Police Department (2 officers) - $350,412
• Mexico Police Department - $180,017
• Milo Police Department - $135,492
• Newport Police Department - $168,490
• Norway Police Department - $149, 314
• Penobscot Nation Police Department - $149,314
• City of Portland (6 officers) - $882,528
• Sanford Police Department (2 officers) - $411,362
• Town of Skowhegan - $147,308
• Westbrook Police Department (2 officers) - $375,074
• Winthrop Police Department - $175,101
The grants will provide 100 percent of the approved salary and benefits for entry level officer positions over a three-year period. Police departments receiving the grants will then be required to retain the grant-funded positions for a fourth year.
Excerpt over. So, why does one officer for three years cost Baileyville $65,000 more than an officer with the same deal in Milo?
Also, requiring the officers for a fourth year without funding is a terrible idea. What if the funds can't be raised? It means that position is saved, but an older officer will be rushed out, or a younger one with fewer benefits. That added requirement will burden those cities in four years and there will be very tough decisions. Now, the budget in my term on the council will be nearing a close, but the budget for the next year will be part of my term and this burden will have to be dealt with.
So I've decided to come up with a plan to make certain no officers are required to be laid off when that fourth year burden comes to the Bangor budget. However, the first thing I must do is see if there is a plan already in place. So I have contacted the Bangor city council and when I get a response this will have a part 2.
http://senatorcollins.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-than-5-million-in-police-funding.html
So, here is a quick rundown of the 5 million dollar funding (each city gets 1 officer unless otherwise stated, details of officer employment after the list) :
City of Auburn (2 officers) - $374,120
• Baileyville Police Department - $209,336
• City of Bangor (4 officers) - $704,880
• Town of Boothbay Harbor - $185,180
• Caribou Police Department - $177,206
• Dexter-Foxcroft Police Department - $180,085
• Fryeburg Police Department - $143,199
• Lewiston Police Department (2 officers) - $350,412
• Mexico Police Department - $180,017
• Milo Police Department - $135,492
• Newport Police Department - $168,490
• Norway Police Department - $149, 314
• Penobscot Nation Police Department - $149,314
• City of Portland (6 officers) - $882,528
• Sanford Police Department (2 officers) - $411,362
• Town of Skowhegan - $147,308
• Westbrook Police Department (2 officers) - $375,074
• Winthrop Police Department - $175,101
The grants will provide 100 percent of the approved salary and benefits for entry level officer positions over a three-year period. Police departments receiving the grants will then be required to retain the grant-funded positions for a fourth year.
Excerpt over. So, why does one officer for three years cost Baileyville $65,000 more than an officer with the same deal in Milo?
Also, requiring the officers for a fourth year without funding is a terrible idea. What if the funds can't be raised? It means that position is saved, but an older officer will be rushed out, or a younger one with fewer benefits. That added requirement will burden those cities in four years and there will be very tough decisions. Now, the budget in my term on the council will be nearing a close, but the budget for the next year will be part of my term and this burden will have to be dealt with.
So I've decided to come up with a plan to make certain no officers are required to be laid off when that fourth year burden comes to the Bangor budget. However, the first thing I must do is see if there is a plan already in place. So I have contacted the Bangor city council and when I get a response this will have a part 2.