Greg votes...

Good afternoon, y'all

Thought I'd offer some views on the bubble sheet I'll be filling in on Tuesday.  I don't think my precinct will have the touchscreen, but if they do, here's where my index finger will/would be pointing. (I know the title is lame, but it's the best I can do without sounding like Kevin Costner in "Swing Vote."

MISSOURI SENATE = Roy Blunt
Sorry, Robin Carnahan.  Both "Blunt" and "Caranhan" are well known names in Missouri politics, so no one can claim "outsider"status here.  And you've both done your share of mudslinging.  I just have no desire to see more of what I've seen over the past two years.

MISSOURI REPRESENTATIVE (8th District) = Jo Ann Emerson
Two years ago, Tommy Sowers could have REALLY made this interesting.  But, after the past two years, why reward the Democratic party with more ability to pass multi-thousand page bills at 11:30p.m. CST.  It'd only be hyperbole if they hadn't already done it TWICE...

STATE AUDITOR = Tom Schweich

CAPE COUNTY PRESIDING COMMISSIONER = Clint Tracy
I think his experience in Jefferson City as Cape Girardeau's representative will serve the county well.  Pat Wissman (D) has also voiced opposition to using the old federal courthouse as a replacement to the Common Pleas Courthouse, which would not make me want to vote for him regardless.

CAPE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS = Janet Robert
About the only Democrat I'm voting for.  She's done the job admirably while she's been in that office.  I see no reason to chance something that's working well.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH :: over in Illinois, I'd be a supporter of Republican Mark Kirk over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for the U.S. Senate, and Republican Bill Brady over Democrat Pat Quinn for Governor.  In a state that is MONTHS, bordering on YEARS paying it's obligations to schools, counties, and doctors, why would I want to reward the powers/party in charge with another term?  Take one good look at Alexander County, and tell me how things have improved over the last couple of years.  Can't run a sheriff's department with the squad cars (you can't buy save for some charity from another department in Florida!) that you can't afford to keep gassed up.  The city of Cairo, IL, is a whole set of depressed and forgotten about from the folks up in Chicago.

Those in Cape Girardeau will be asked (for the third time) if they support the licensing of gambling/gaming operations in the city.  A yes vote would allow the city to pursue the final gaming licence available in the state.  For what it's worth, I'd recommend a YES vote on this one.  Put simply, if Isle of Capri's operation puts 400-475 people to work in an area with unemployment bordering up against 10%, why not allow what would be SOUTHEAST MISSOURI'S 6 to 8TH LARGEST EMPLOYER?  The two hospitals, Southeast University, TG-Missouri (Perryville), Mary Lee-Gilster, and Noranda (I think) would be the only bigger employers.  Morality aside, it is legal in this state, and my libertarian side, seeing the pros outweigh the cons, says go for it.(See editorial, Sunday, Oct. 24, for a full perspective.)


Those in Jackson will also be asked to approve a 1/4 cent sales tax in order to allow the construction and manning of a new fire station to cover the east side of the town.  Jackson, you've been growing by leaps and bounds over the past two decades.  Part of being a bigger city is making sure you can effectively serve your population.  I'm surprised that Jackson is STILL a one-fire-station town.  I'd vote YES.

MO Proposition A would prevent cities and counties in Missouri, other than St. Louis and Kansas City (who already have them) from imposing an earnings tax, and would require the voters of St. Louis and Kansas City to hold separate votes every 5 years to determine if the earnings tax remains or is phased out over a 10 year period.  Once gone in those two cities, it could not return.  At first, I was very much in favor of this proposal -- it's no secret that I'm in favor of anything that makes it tougher for taxes to be increased, and easier for taxes to end.  And I see the success of Cape Girardeau's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) taxes (now in it's FOURTH rendition) as proof of the effectiveness of sunset clauses.  But I'm a little concerned that the entire state is being asked to vote on something that most directly affects the two largest cities in Missouri.  Why aren't the citizens of those two municipalities making that decision.  Of course, if it were just a vote of those two cities, many of those who work in St. Louis city and Kansas City wouldn't have a say in things.  A little split on this one, but I'm thinking this will get a YES vote from me.

MO Proposition B would prevent large-scale dog breeding operations from neglecting dogs, establishing new baseline handling and care standards, and would put limits on the number of dogs available for breeding at each operation.  Also creates a new misdemeanor of "puppy mill cruelty."  My question is "why?"  Outside of seeing cute fluffy puppies horribly mistreated, the arguement that current law fully enforced wouldn't correct the situation hasn't been made.  It hasn't even been offered.  Plus, considering the anti-agriculture and anti-hunting stances of the Humane Society of the United States (not to be confused with the Humane Society of Southeast Missouri or your local animal shelter) and the ASPCA, the fine print worries me.  Voting NO on this one.  Try again.

MO Constitutional Amendment 1 = Require County Assessors to be elected from all counties.  Why is the state dealing with something that is best handled at the county level?  More importantly, why are people wanting to make a position that handles how much your property is valued in regards to property taxes an elected position?  Since I can't tell why this is on the ballot, voting NO.

MO Consitutional Amendment 2 = Exempt former prisoners of war with a disability that is the direct result of their service in our armed forces from property taxes on their homestead.  Granted, if anyone deserves a property tax exemption, it's those who've served in our military, especially POWs.  Only problem with this is that I can easily see a slippery-slope on this one.  What about police/firefighters/military killed in action...    Kinda SPLIT on this one.

MO Constitutional Amendment 3 = Prevent state, county, and other political entitites from imposing any new tax regarding transfer of real estate.  Property owners already pay property taxes every year.  Plus, I'm all for eliminating any additional paperwork, fees, delays and taxes when I'm buying the largest item most people own in their life.  Voting NO on this one.

"Right To Do" vs. "Right To Do"

Yes, I know that within two blocks of Ground Zero:

• There are "gentlemen's clubs".
• There is a McDonalds, Burger King, a BBQ restaurant, and a Dunkin Donuts. (While I haven't seen a photo of it, there's gotta be a Starbucks somewhere around there...)
• There is an Off-Track Betting center.
• There is a Vitamin Shoppe.
• There is an Irish themed restaurant and pub.
• There are countless street vendors selling t-shirts and other, too numerous souvenirs of the city. Probably replete with cheezy apples and replicas of Lady Liberty.
• There are so many other enterprises, businesses and centers of commerce in that area that to save you from clicking elsewhere due to boredom, I'll end the list here.

And when 19 strippers, fast food cooks, baristas, pharmacists, thoroughbred horses, or irish pub goers take up box knives (or doughnuts, bottles of vitamins or cheezy souvenirs) and kill 3000 people in the single largest terrorist act on American soil, then I'll conceed that you may have a point.

19 men, who had a twisted, distorted view of Islam, killed themselves in the name of their god. The people involved in this sick, perversion of a religion have engaged us from the shadows in what has already become our longest war.

Coupled with that, the fact that throughout history, mosques have been built right on top of churches, synagogues, and other sites holy to other religions once conquered by those in the name of Islam. Conincidence could be plausible if it only happened once or twice. Not when the world's largest cathedral and orthodox patriarchial bascilica, St. Sophia, (located in Constantinople, Turkey) is replaced with the principal mosque of Istanbul. (It is now under the conservatorship of the Turkish government as a treasure of architectural history -- it is the first example of a round dome being placed atop a square building.) We can also look to Jerusalem, where one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Temple Mount, now is the site of the Al Aqsa mosque. We can also look to Cordoba, Spain, where after that area was under Muslim control, a mosque was built immediately atop the existing churches. (It should be noted that the developer's original name for this project was "Cordoba House.") Other examples reside in the Far East, where Hindu temples have fallen to the same fate. (h/t to Polipundit.com for this post with more examples.)

Do we, as Americans, have a right to build houses of worship without government interference? Absolutely. Do these "Park 51 / Cordoba House" developers have this same right? Absolutely. But where did we lose the ability to say that while they may have the right to do a thing, that it may not be the right thing to do, and to comment and criticize accordingly? Wouldn't calling me (and all those opposed to this project) racists, Islamophobes, and all the uneducated epitaphs imaginable have a chilling effect on my right to free speech? You mean it's acceptable to argue and debate, as long as I agree with you? Just as freedom of religion is not an incremental right, neither is freedom of speech. Calling me names is just an fancy way of saying that I win in the arena of ideas.

Do they have this right?  Yes.  Is it right?  No.

Comments of all flavors are welcome. As always, be respectful, or be deleted.

Oops, almost forgot. When we talk of "property rights," are we ignoring Kelo v. New London? Or Tourkaris v. Arnold? Just wondering...

Greg

"The Destiny Of A Free Nation"

Read through this article by Doctor Zero at , and was thouroughly impressed. A great statement on what The American ideal is, and what it should not be. Beyond that, I can add little else. Take a read, and tell me where I'm wrong, or right.

Here's the article at HotAir.com. The article at Doctor Zero's site can be found right here. Or just head to www.doczero.com and check out this and other articles.

Until later,
Greg

"Labor" Day -- Losing something?

"Labor Day reverence is lost, say historians"
[Click here for the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune]

There's a good article in today's San Diego Union-Tribune by John Wilkens that reminds us why Labor Day was created. No, it wasn't to grill up the last of the summer's supply of ribs and steaks, nor was it a last chance to take a mini-vacation before school really got into session. Over 125 years ago (127, to be exact) Labor Day was founded as a day of protest against the working conditions of the time -- 12 hour work days, 7 days a week(84 hour work-weeks? That's worth marching in a parade for), with truly horrid working conditions. From all of this spawned more than a holiday, but the beginnings of the labor unions.

Over the past century and a quarter, the power and might of the unions have seen it's highest points, and is currently in one of it's lowest points -- a recent Gallup poll found that on 49% of Americans have a favorable view of labor unions -- the first time that rating has fallen below 50% since that question started being asked around 1937.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago.

These results are from the 2009 installment of Gallup's annual Work and Education survey, conducted Aug. 6-9. The 48% of Americans now approving of unions represents the first sub-50% approval since Gallup first asked the question in the 1930s. The previous low was 55%, found in both 1979 and 1981.

Source -- "Labor Unions See Sharp Slide in U.S. Public Support" by Lydia Saad. [Article here]

And I can understand why -- at its height, unions fought for the workers and against unfair labor practices. Their efforts spearheaded the 40-hour work week, fair wages (not to be confused with minimum wages), and many of the benefits they rightfully enjoy today. (My family was able to put my sister and I through a combined 12 years of college on our dad's earnings as a railroad engineer -- so I know how good the fruits of that labor have been to us.) But right now, unions are at a low point. I think their involvement in political campaigns that go far beyond 40 hour work weeks and good working conditions is in no small part to blame. Americans are looking at the past 5 or so years, and they're not liking what they see. And with "Card Check" (a nice way of taking away the secret ballot when it comes to elections), and "health care reform," there's probably not much to change this pattern anytime soon. At the bottom are more of the results of the Gallup poll in quick hits fashion -- if you want to see the analysis, head over to the Gallup page. The current economic conditions lean toward a strengthening of the labor movement -- but their politics might blunt, or negate that trend. Granted, I strongly believe that our national holidays, formed for good reason (Independence Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas leading the way), are being lost do to apathy and neglect, but here, I wonder if the organizations that "represent" labor are shooting the holiday that honors labor in the foot? What do you think?