BYU did the right thing

March 18, 2011 — buckeyerino

March Madness.  Aside from birthdays of two of my brothers, March Madness is what makes the month of March worthwhile.

I’m not all that fond of March.  March temperatures are very fickle in Ohio.  It could be balmy, but more likely its snowy.  If it’s above freezing, March in Ohio can be very muddy.  Mud is probably my number one gripe about March.  Melting snows sometimes close roads because of too much standing water, and those in flood plains should be wary.  March is quite windy, and I don’t much care for really windy conditions.  The leaves are not back on the trees yet, so the landscape looks rather stark and inhospitable.  Not too long ago, March was made even worse by moving the start date of Daylight Savings Time from April.  I’d like to remain on Standard Time year-round.

I have plenty of similar gripes about April, too, but at least the Cleveland Indians baseball season gets underway.

Ohio gets really pretty in May.  I think the lush green beauty of Ohio reaches the peak of its perfection around Memorial Day weekend.

I’m getting ahead of myself.  I love college basketball, men’s or women’s teams. I love it far more than I do NBA basketball.  I graduated from Ohio State.  I’ve always been a fan of the Ohio State Buckeyes.  I bleed Scarlet and Gray.

The Buckeyes are expected to do well this year.  I won’t hold my breath, because I’ve seen them lose so many NCAA tourney games that they weren’t supposed to lose, but I’m not feeling nervous–on edge–apprehensive–like I usually do at this time of year.  For some reason, I feel calm.  Maybe that’s a good omen.  Maybe that means that this year, finally, OSU, a number 1 seed in the men’s tournament, triumphs.  Or, if the men stumble, perhaps the OSU women, a lower seed (4), will surprise everyone in their tournament.

I have a brother and a sister who graduated from Brigham Young University, so I keep tab on their sports teams, too.  Both the men’s and women’s teams seemed to be on autopilot, in control of their destiny, both of them dominating the Mountain West Conference, and the men’s program getting a lot of national buzz with the nation’s leading scorer, Jimmer Fredette.  There was even some anticipation that the BYU men would even receive a number 1 seed in the tournament.

Then there was a bump in the road.

The BYU women did not win the post-season tourney of the conference they dominated all season long.  They didn’t even receive an invite to the women’s NCAA tournament.  They had to settle for the WNIT, instead.

Jimmer Fredette, though wowing spectators across the nation with his stellar on-court achievements, cannot do all of the work of the men’s team by himself.  There are five men on the court for each team at all times, and Jimmer needs those four other men or Jimmermania isn’t even possible.  BYU usually has 5 solid players on the floor, but many of the players coming off the bench are unproven.  It is widely acknowledged that BYU is not a deep team.

Then, the unthinkable happened.  Brandon Davies, the team’s leading rebounder, was kicked off the team and out of school for the rest of the season.  He’d committed no crime, nor had he violated any NCAA rules, yet the decision by the university’s administration to dismiss him was final.  There was no going back on the decision.  There was no further appeal that would receive consideration.

All of a sudden, one of the nation’s premier men’s basketball teams was an also-ran, Jimmer Fredette notwithstanding.  The team was not the same team as it used to be.  Over the course of the bulk of the season, BYU had only suffered two losses.  During the very brief stretch of the season after Davies was dismissed, BYU went down to defeat two more times.

Instead of a number 1 seed, BYU received a number 3 seed.  Many sports pundits believe a number 3 seed, for a BYU team without Brandon Davies, is way too generous.  BYU was blessed with a number 3 seed as a congratulatory hat-tip for the success they’d had over the course of the season, not because anyone believes them to be that good now that Davies is gone.

BYU won its first tourney game yesterday, against Wofford.  The win was expected, but it wasn’t stellar.  The game wasn’t particularly intense, as college basketball games go.  BYU’s win would’ve been lopsided with Davies on the court, but without him, BYU never amassed much of a lead.

Even before tourney play began yesterday, the talking heads were saying that the number 11 seed, Gonzaga, would be the one to win the first two rounds and advance to the Sweet 16.  Gonzaga has fulfilled half of that expectation, already, having beaten the number 6 seed, St. John’s, last night.  Tomorrow, BYU and Gonzaga will be facing off against each other.  Is BYU really all washed up?  Maybe.  We’ll find out more about that tomorrow, I suppose.

What was the reason for Davies dismissal in the first place that caused this trainwreck and possibly have even cost the BYU Cougars a first-ever national championship? He’d violated the student honor code, a pledge of high ethical standards that all BYU students must promise to abide by prior to enrollment.

Almost all students are privately screened by Mormon pastors (there are small variations in the screening process for non-Mormon applicants, but the promise to follow the student honor code is required of all BYU applicants) to assure that the applicants already conform to the standards of the honor code prior to admission and re-enrollment.  The nature of Davies’ violation wasn’t discussed by the university, but Davies, himself, acknowledged the nature of it to his teammates, and physical intimacy (consensual) with his girlfriend was apparently at the heart of the matter.  I can’t imagine that any other NCAA Division 1 university in the U.S.A. would have dismissed Davies on these grounds.  BYU’s expectations of students are incredibly high, and, quite frankly, most late teens and 20-somethings wouldn’t put up with such stringent rules.

I think BYU did the right thing.

Brandon Davies is a much more positive role model than me.  My conduct over the course of my adult life is far more checkered than Davies’ is.  I assure everyone that I approve of Davies’ dismissal knowing full well that, by no means, am I holier than he is.  For me, it boils down to this:  Does BYU excuse a violation by a prominent student-athlete just because they want to win a national championship?  Or, instead, is BYU fair to every student because no student is excused from fulfilling the pledge, not even a star athlete whose name is famous among all die-hard men’s college hoops fans throughout the nation?  The university administration had no doubt in its mind that being fair by holding every single student to the same standard was far more important than a championship.  I think they’re right.

What about second chances?  Doesn’t everyone deserve a second chance?  Sure they do, and life will provide Brandon Davies’ with second, third, fourth, fifth (and so on) chances over the decades to come.  In my own life, I’ve been given many chances for redemption, too.  I don’t know if Davies feels as if his world has crumpled around him or not, but I know that it truly hasn’t.  The world keeps spinning.  The sun keeps rising.  The calendar keeps advancing.  Life’s journey for Brandon Davies can be a very rewarding one, and this moment of his life can become just a blip on the radar.

He just can’t play basketball for BYU right now.

Though he’ll get second chances, the immediate consequences for the violation cannot be circumvented or else the university would be entirely unfair to its whole student body.  The second chances will have to materialize in some other form.  Playing this tournament with BYU is out of the question.

Fairness to the student body, harumph!  What about fairness to the team?  Why should the team be penalized for one person’s infraction that wouldn’t count as an infraction at any other university in the nation?  Is it fair that the BYU team has to adhere to a very different standard than that of all the teams they play against?  So why is it fair to dismiss a player and hurt a whole team because of something that doesn’t matter anywhere else?

This is where it gets political, as it reminds me of one of the reasons I’m not a Libertarian.

The Libertarians I’ve known have repeatedly decried nanny-state governance.  Why should the government tell us not to grow marijuana, or even smoke it?  Why should the government restrict gambling?  Why forbid prostitution when adult participants willingly consent to it?  Why must I wear a seat belt while driving my automobile?  Why should I allow government to make decisions for me and take away my personal liberty just because they believe their decisions are for my own good?  If I make a decision that isn’t for my own good, I could create some trouble for myself, but isn’t that my concern and no one else’s?

Libertarians also decry the tyranny of the majority.  Why should a portion of revenues from a county sales tax be set aside for public transit that so few people actually use?  Why pay property tax to a school district when none of those students are my own children?  Why does city hall, against my own wishes, install speed bumps on our street just because most of my neighbors want them?  And why do zoning ordinances restrict what I can do on my own property just because those ordinances are deemed to be for the benefit of all?  If I don’t agree with the majority opinion, why can’t I opt out?

My response to all these questions is that no human being is an island.

The consequences of what we do does not stop with us.  It ripples far beyond us.  If I create trouble for myself because of my own bad decision, it IS of concern to others, because others are linked to me, and therefore are impacted.

If you choose to be an alcoholic, you might cause the rest of us to have higher insurance premiums. You might collide with me while you’re driving. You might use your money on alcohol rather than the mortgage payments and the resulting foreclosure lower my property’s value.  You might not maintain your property well and and the rest of us neighbors have to contend with the vermin that migrate from your property.  You might get in violent fights with your spouse and disturb the peace in the neighborhood.  You might act inappropriately in front of my children.  You are not the only one who would suffer from your incorrect choices, therefore the law limits your personal liberties regarding alcohol consumption.  The government isn’t just protecting you from yourself.  It’s protecting the rest of us, too.

When laws are enacted in accordance with the will of the majority, opting out would decrease cooperation, which would increase friction, which would disrupt order, which could disintegrate our society into a lawless one.  A disordered, lawless society would only increase individual liberty if one had hegemonic power over others who might stand in the way.  Somalia is a disordered lawless place, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no system of governance.  Government exists wherever people interact together.  If there isn’t a system of laws to govern those interactions, and if persuasion fails to govern those interactions, then force governs those interactions.  That’s why warlords tussle with each other in lawless regions such as Somalia, because governance of interactions is determined by successful physical aggression and cunning.  Opting out can easily lead to a far more malignant tyranny than the “tyranny of the majority” that exists in the U.S.A.

The spillover effects of Brandon Davies’ dismissal from the men’s basketball team at BYU illustrates that the impact of one person’s actions, the exercise of one person’s liberties, for good or ill, ripples beyond self.  Opting out of Davies’ obligations separated him from the community he was once a part of.  Both Davies and that BYU community suffer because of the breakdown of order.

Libertarianism, even in a nation far less ordered than the BYU community, yields these very same consequences, and at several levels of magnitude greater.

Posted in Politics in the MSM. Tags: . 2 Comments »

A link to 2011 Cuyahoga County GOP calendar

March 17, 2011 — buckeyerino

Considering all the blog visitors looking for Lincoln Day Dinner information across Ohio, I should have posted this notice about Cuyahoga County’s Lincoln Day Dinner already.  Sorry about the delay.

19th Annual Republican Party of Cuyahoga County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:30 pm VIP reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Downtown Renaissance Hotel Ballroom, 24 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113
  • Cost: $50/person for dinner and $250/person for VIP reception
  • Contact: Matt Clever at 216-621-5418 or mclever@cuyahogacountygop.com
  • Guest Speakers: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel

For other events on the RPCC calendar, please follow this link: http://www.cuyahogacountygop.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=21.

Posted in Announcements, Local Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Americans for Prosperity-Ohio press release: Former state rep Seth Morgan is the new Director of Policy for AFP-Ohio

March 17, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: Perhaps you remember last year’s GOP primary in which Seth Morgan, a CPA, vied for nomination to the office of Ohio Auditor. This press release from Americans for Prosperity-Ohio was issued on 3/17/2011.

FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE SETH MORGAN JOINS AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY OF OHIO AS DIRECTOR OF POLICY

DAYTON – Grassroots free-market group Americans for Prosperity is pleased to welcome aboard former State Representative Seth Morgan as Ohio Director of Policy.

Morgan is recognized as a leader in advocating for free markets, fiscal responsibility in government, and limiting government’s intrusion into Ohioans’ liberties and pocketbooks. He entered politics as a young man, seeking to make a difference for the Community by putting to use his passion for public policy, philosophy of a responsible government, and love for the City of Huber Heights and the surrounding region.

In 2001, Morgan ran and was elected to the position of Huber Heights City Council, representing Ward 3. He won this first race by a mere three votes. He first took office in January 2002 and, at the age of 23, became the youngest Council member ever to represent the citizens of Huber Heights. In 2004 he was selected by his peers to serve as the city’s youngest ever Vice-Mayor. Morgan was reelected in 2005 to the Huber Heights City Council.

Morgan was elected in 2008 to serve as the Ohio State Representative for the 36th District, serving northern and western portions of Montgomery County. With his aggressive but resolute and consistent leadership style, Morgan “hit the ground running” and was most active leading in his role as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education. His effort for Ohio’s children lead him to take Governor Ted Strickland to the Ohio Supreme Court in his effort to force transparency and accountability for some of Ohio’s most important and far-reaching policies.

“The heart of American politics is not about Republican or Democrat or which ‘team’ one belongs to. Rather it is about helping individuals learn to love the liberty they’ve been given and the policies that best preserve that liberty. AFP is playing an important role in that effort in Ohio and for that I’m grateful to be assisting in their efforts,” said Seth Morgan.

Morgan accepts this position alongside his continued commitments as a Certified Public Accountant and President of MLA Management Systems, Inc. Morgan serves small to medium sized organizations with business consulting and part-time CFO services. He is also a Member of Morgan Troutwine & Associates, CPAs, LLC. Morgan and his wife Debra have three children.

Posted in Announcements, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Halfway agreeing with Kucinich on Libya

March 16, 2011 — buckeyerino

The rest of the world is wondering when the United States will officially make up its mind on the appeal put to it to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.  I suppose the rest of the world appeals to the U.S. to perform this task because they know full well that we are capable of this task in a way that no other nation is capable of doing.

The Obama Administration has dithered on the issue as time passes and dissenters get crushed by tanks.  The Obama Administration has said that it will not act unilaterally, so it is sending out feelers to see whether the U.S. has a mandate from the international community to take action on the request for the no-fly zone.  The Obama Administration dithers because the international community is divided on the issue.  For some strange reason, the President can’t decide which nations’ opinions count and which ones don’t.  If one were to base a decision upon what other nations think, one would suppose that the opinions of the Arab League, France, and the U.K.  would be more persuasive than the opinions of Russia and Germany, don’t you think?

Umm . . . I think, in one sense, it is OK for the U.S. to act unilaterally.  We don’t  need to ask the international community what the U.S. ought to do.  We never did need to.  Our nation makes up its own mind and then acts accordingly.  The international community is not the entity that is entitled to mandate what the U.S. does.

In another sense, the President should not act unilaterally.  It is the people of the United States of America who are sovereign.  We are the ones who issue mandates, and in the case of war, we do that through our representatives in Congress.  The U.S. Constitution even says so.

Congress moves as slowly as molasses running uphill in January.  Waiting for an act of Congress would cost precious time.  I’m of the opinion, however, that the President has wasted precious time already consulting the international community when he should have been using that time to appeal directly to Congress to affirm, one way or the other, what action is to be taken.  He might have to take a whip to Congress to swiftly draft a resolution and vote upon it, but Congress, as the representatives of We, the People, are the ones who make the binding decision, not the international community.

Legislatures prescribe what the executive branch is to do.  The executive branch is to carry out the directives of the legislative branch.

Some would argue that it is the prerogative of the President to make an executive decision on the matter in his role as Commander-in-Chief.  He does command the armed forces of the United States, true.  He’s directed some armed forces to assist Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.  Assisting Japan, though, is not an act of war.

The President could reasonably take immediate action against Libya if Libya were engaged in an assault upon the U.S., its citizens, or its diplomatic or military institutions abroad.  Libya is not carrying out an assault against the United States.

Under these circumstances, military intervention against the government of Libya, such as imposing a no-fly zone upon it, would require a Declaration of War from the United States Congress.  Upon that point, I readily agree with Dennis Kucinich, who has posted his position on his website.

My question is:  Where is the resolution at?  What I mean is, where is the bill before Congress that would officially declare war if it won passage?

Senator Kerry and Senator McCain have talked about resolutions to authorize implementation of a no-fly zone, but I agree with Dennis Kucinich that such authorization is insufficient because it is not in keeping with the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has vowed to introduce a resolution that stipulates that the President cannot take part in any action in Libya without first being approved by Congress.  Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, . . . and redundant.  That’s not the resolution that’s needed, since it only repeats the Constitution.  When it comes to foreign policy, when has Ron Paul ever exhibited signs of leadership?  That’s why I can never vote for him in GOP presidential primary elections.  Do you, Ron Paul, want to demonstrate leadership?  Put a war resolution before Congress, even though you’ll obviously vote against it.  Get the matter decided right now and put an end to Obama’s dithering.  Do whatever you want within the rules of Congress to ensure that your side prevails and wins the day, but cease the inaction.

Likewise to Dennis Kucinich.  Urge the Congress to vote on a war resolution, nothing less.  Put the matter to rest once and for all.

Some have said that our Congress should never vote in favor of a declaration of war when it is taking sides in some other nation’s civil war.  They say that a declaration of war should only win passage if the United States is under attack.  I don’t agree with that assessment, and neither does history.  During our Revolutionary War (a civil war within the territory ruled by the British crown) the American army did, in fact, receive valuable assistance from abroad.  Likewise, during our Civil War, some foreign influences aided the North and some foreign influences aided the South.  We did not waive off foreign involvement.  We accepted whatever foreign aid we could lay hold of to support our war efforts.  This precedent was set from the very founding era of our nation, so I reject the notion that we must automatically vote against going to war amidst some other nation’s civil war.  We can consider each proposed war resolution without being bound by such constraints.  I’m not saying we should be hawkish.  I’m not saying we should be dovish, either.  I’m saying we can make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, and whatever decision the Congress makes, yes or no, carries the full weight and force of the Constitution with it.

Having said that, I’d like to review a few specific sentences within Kucinich’s statement.

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya.  It is an act of war that can only be approved by Congressional action, not by any international body.  There is a civil war in Libya, which must be resolved by Libya.”

Instead of underscoring the words “It is an act of war” as Kucinich did on his webpage, I have highlighted those words in italics and bold print, since I think, on my blog page, the contrast with the rest of the text stands out more.  I do need to disclose, though, that Kucinich underscored it.

I agree with the first sentence.  It is an attack on Libya.

I would take the second sentence a bit further:  Not only is it an act of war that can only be approved by Congress, I would add that the approval from Congress (should it decide to do so) must come in the form of a declaration of war.  Authorizing a no-fly zone, I believe, would not pass muster.  The Congress declares war, then the Commander-in-Chief determines how to execute the war, whether to include a no-fly zone as part of the strategy, or not.  The chief purpose of the war would be to vanquish the forces of the government of Libya.  If that is accomplished, then a treaty is drafted, then ratified by the Senate, and the war is concluded.

The third sentence jumps to a conclusion.  That conclusion is that it is a civil war that must be resolved by Libya.  Instead, I wouldn’t speak for the rest of the nations of the world whether they are content to let Libya resolve this on its own or not.  Other nations might decide to involve themselves in the war and shape how it is resolved.  We might disagree with the actions of other nations who choose to involve themselves, but even if we disagree with the interference of any and all nations on the principle that Libya, itself, settle the matter as an internal concern, the word “should” needs to replace the word “must.”  We can have an opinion on what should happen, pertaining to the resolution of the Libyan civil war, but we aren’t able to decree what must happen.  In addition to not speaking for the rest of the nations, I don’t believe that Kucinich can speak for our own nation until the votes are tallied on the war resolution.  The Libyan civil war is not a matter that the U.S. should try to resolve if the Congress says “no” to a war resolution.  However, the U.S. will not leave the matter to be resolved by Libya, alone, if the U.S. Congress declares war on Libya.

Here are two more sentences from Kucinich that I want to examine:

“It is time for the Administration to stop looking for someone else to make the decision.  The U.S. must make a firm declaration that it will not intervene in Libya by means of enforcing a no-fly zone or any other aggressive military means.”

Kucinich hits the nail on the head with that first sentence, as the “someone else” refers to someone beyond Congress, and that especially applies to looking for other nations to make our decision.  Congress makes the decision.  Obama has no authority to look to someone else.

As to the second sentence, I would have to say, “Has the Congressional vote been held and tallied already?”  Only if the Congress has already voted against a declaration of war on Libya can the second sentence be binding upon the United States.  As much as Kucinich would like to dictate how all other members of Congress should vote, he can’t tell them how to vote.  If the other side prevails, then Kucinich ought to acknowledge that the United States really is at war with Libya.  The Constitution does not constrain the Congress from voting one way or the other.  What does the Constitution do?  It requires the United States to act upon the will of Congress, whether the vote is yes or no.  Much as Kucinich doesn’t like it, nothing bars a colleague from voting “yes.”

The bottom line here is that the Congress should render a decision on the matter so that President Obama knows what the mandate is.  Don’t tell him he can’t act without a mandate from Congress and then withhold a Congressional decision on what the mandate is, which is what Ron Paul’s proposed resolution amounts to.  Once Congress acts decisively, then Obama can act decisively.  Got it?  Do it!

Posted in International Politics, National Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Japanese store shelves tell the tale: The time to hoard is long before the calamity strikes

March 15, 2011 — buckeyerino

I’m hopping back up on my soapbox again.  I’ve been blogging about preparing your family for catastrophes since 2008.  I’ve racked my brain to pinpoint of a number of ways in which your family can prepare, and put those thoughts on my blog, too.  I’m blogging again to remind everyone that the time to prepare for catastrophe is sooner rather than later.

AP business writer Yuri Kageyama produced this report about consumers throughout Japan, not just in the earthquake/tsunami ravaged zone of northeast Honshu island, descending on stores to buy up all products with any shelf life that could have some use in an emergency. (Hint: Just click on the above link and read the AP article. You need to take a look at it. Got that?)

The scarcity of these consumer goods throughout Japan is hampering the humanitarian relief efforts.  How do you ship survival goods, such as food, water, blankets, batteries, flashlights, tents, sleeping bags, etc., to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami when the unaffected population throughout the rest of the nation has siphoned away all those supplies?  Government officials are urging the public not to hoard, but the public is panicked.

Don’t feel vulnerable in a crisis.  You should have what you need for an emergency now.  If you don’t have it now, when will you have it?  In your hour of need?  And if a natural disaster, such as a house fire or tornado, wipes out your own emergency supplies, won’t you be grateful to your neighbors if they’ve got emergency supplies on hand that they can share with you?  Wouldn’t you be glad you could help out a neighbor if the roles are reversed?  And then, when widespread disasters wipe out the emergency supplies of everyone in the community, wouldn’t you be thankful that humanitarian relief efforts aren’t starved of resources because the population beyond the disaster zone has no reason to panic, since they’re already prepared?

One more thing to keep in mind:  The world economy is fragile.  This earthquake/tsunami disaster has sent seismic waves rippling out into the rest of the world.  If our nation’s economy collapsed (and there’s so much that’s straining our economy and threatening our currency right now), what you already have on hand might be all that you can obtain . . . until an economic recovery ensues.  How long would it take before you can rely on economic recovery to lift you out of your emergency?  Who knows?

No community is immune from disaster.  Don’t bet that it won’t be your family that is calamity-stricken next.  If you haven’t already, get your family ready for emergencies ASAP.

Posted in International Politics, Local Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Press release: Boose town hall, Saturday 3/12/2011, Norwalk–topic is SB5

March 9, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued on 3/9/2011. Can’t get all the way down to Columbus to make noise about SB5? There’s good news if you live in the 58th Ohio House District. It’s short notice, but State Rep. Terry Boose will be hosting a town hall in Norwalk on Saturday, 3/12/2011.  Please note that only the voters of the 58th district are invited to this town hall.  For those outside the 58th district, feel free to browse this directory to locate contact information for your own state representative.

BOOSE TO CONDUCT TOWN HALL MEETING ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

LOCAL LEGISLATOR REQUESTS FEEDBACK FROM CONSTITUENTS ON SENATE BILL  5

State Representative Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) announced today that he will be holding a special town hall meeting in his district. The purpose of this meeting will be to give a brief overview of Senate Bill 5, which is the Collective Bargaining Reform bill which was recently passed in the Senate. After giving the brief overview of the bill, the representative will open up the floor to allow constituents to make suggestions and voice their concerns.

“The purpose of this meeting is for me to listen,” Rep. Boose said. “Senate Bill 5 is an important piece of legislation that is before us and I would like to take this opportunity to make sure that everyone has the facts about the bill, while giving the people I represent the opportunity to make their voice heard.”

The meeting will take place at the following time and location:

Sat. 3/12/2011 Norwalk 9:00am – 11:00am

Main St. Intermediate School
80 E. Main St. Norwalk, OH 44857

This meeting is open to constituents of the 58th House District only. No signs will be permitted in the building.

For more information, people are encouraged to call the representative’s office at 614-466-9628. The 58th House District includes Huron County, western and southern Lorain County, and eastern Seneca County.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Ballot issues & school board roles: starting points for local control of schools

February 28, 2011 — buckeyerino

It’s been awhile (nearly 2 years) since I’ve composed any wonkish blog pieces on the topic of K-12 education.  I’ve blogged about a school enterprise zone proposal to facilitate opportunities for supplemental learning.  I’ve blogged about my opposition to charter schools.  But there is so much more ground to cover on the topic of education.

The public schools are the public’s schools–the people’s schools.  The people pay taxes for them.  We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people (or, that’s the way it’s supposed to work).  So the people’s schools are the government’s schools, and vice-versa.

If the public schools are broken, it behooves us to fix them.  Us.  As in people.

Why are we letting our government leaders, including President Obama and Governor Kasich, do an end run around getting into the nuts and bolts of fixing inadequate public schools (think charter schools, think vouchers)?

Why are the federal and state governments even involved in mandating what our schools ought and ought not to do?  What do they know about the needs of your specific community and what do they know about the desires you have for your children, the students?  Does one size fit all?  I suppose they try to meddle in school affairs because the media press them to know, during the campaign season, what their education platform consists of.  Then, because they make some promises to the media about what they will do about education, they actually stick their noses into it.  But I don’t necessarily think their noses belong there.

I would like parents and members of the community to make the important decisions about their schools.  We are grown-ups, right?  Why do we need to shirk this civic responsibility?  Why do we either put it on the shoulders of the teachers to bring about positive academic outcomes or on the shoulders of Columbus and Washington DC?  Why are we absolving ourselves of our responsibilities to ensure that our, the people’s, schools achieve the standards that we, the people, set?

Maybe we, the people, have not felt empowered to fix our local schools.  If we go to a school board meeting to voice a concern, it often seems the concern doesn’t get adequately addressed.  Sometimes, even, the superintendent and/or school board members will say that their hands are tied by mandates from Columbus and Washington DC, and that’s why our concerns cannot be addressed.

It takes the wind right out of you to attempt to make a difference and then find out you are powerless to have any input about the school right down the street from your house.  If you feel powerless, then forget about it.  You don’t bother.  Apathy sets in.  The community drops out.  The parents drop out.  And then we wonder why the students drop out.

If we, the people, could feel like we could make a difference in we, the people’s, the public’s, the government’s, schools–wouldn’t it be more likely that our involvement would increase?  If our community invests themselves in education, if parents invest themselves in education, do you think the students would invest themselves in education?  I think so.

Empowerment.  Empowerment is the key.  One size DOES NOT fit all.  The power over the schools needs to be decentralized.  It needs to be wrested away from Washington DC, first, and Columbus, next.

Where do we start?  How about we transform the role of the school board?  As it stands, school administration, led by the superintendent, often sets the agenda for the school board meetings.  The school board then either decides to ratify the agenda items put forward by the superintendent, or not to ratify them.  If the school board is too often dissatisfied with the superintendent’s agenda, withholding ratification seems not to be making much difference.  The recourse, at that point, is for the school board to get a new superintendent.  They either decide not to renew the superintendent’s contract, buy out the superintendent’s contract, or sever the superintendent’s contract (which will likely result in a lawsuit initiated by the dismissed superintendent, which only goes to show that the superintendent was never really an ally to the schools, after all).

At the local level, it should be the school board who sets the agenda, not the superintendent.  At other levels of government, the legislative branch prescribes what is to be done and the executive branch carries it out.  Why should it be any different in a school district?  A role-reversal is needed.  This prescriptive legislative role is the empowering role for the school board.

And what empowering the rest of the members of the community?  How do we bring an end to the powerlessness that they feel?

Voting.  The ballot box.

As it stands, a school board can only put two kinds of issues on the ballot:  bonds and tax levies.  Whoop-de-doo.  We don’t get much say in how the schools are run, but we’re charged with the responsibility to figure out how we’ll pay for them.  That seems kind of unfair, doesn’t it?

We, the people, need to be allowed to vote on issues beyond just bonds and levies.  When a contentious issue arises in the school district and the school board is in a quandary . . . and then when very vocal proponents and very vocal proponents show up at the school board meeting and school board members don’t really know which camp is more representative of the wishes of the community . . . why can’t  either the proponents or opponents file to put the issue before the people?  I don’t think the school board, themselves, ought to have to pony up the money out of the school treasury to put the issue before the voters.  Are the proponents or opponents ready to put their money where there mouth is?  Are they ready to launch an election campaign concerning this issue?  If neither camp is, then the public should live with the school board’s decision, whatever it may be.  The public would have to absolve the school board of blame if its decision didn’t win everyone over.  But if a committee of citizens really truly felt strongly enough about an issue, why should that committee be handcuffed by state law?  Why should the issue be forbidden from appearing on the ballot?

Here’s a real-life example of an issue that citizens might have wanted on the ballot:  Oberlin High School sports teams, for decades, had been known as the Oberlin Indians.  There were two very vocal camps:  Those who had deep affection for the Oberlin Indian legacy (usually long-time residents who were alumni of the high school themselves) and wanted to retain the name; and those (usually those with ties to the college who are transplants in the Oberlin community) who took a stand against the name because of politically incorrect insensitivity toward the various Nations of the Native Americans–descendants of those who lived in the Americas before the arrival of Christopher Columbus.  Both groups were very vocal, and the school board was caught in the middle of this tug of war.  I spoke recently with a former member of the school board, a school board member who said such a vote by the school district’s electorate would have been very helpful in resolving the issue.  The school board voted in favor of the latter group, and the sports teams are now known as the Oberlin Phoenix.

Another example from Oberlin:  A group of parents thought it would be appropriate for the students to begin the day with a recitation of the pledge of allegiance.  Others thought it would be inappropriate to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools.  The school board sided with the latter group.  Would it have been so bad if those in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance had been allowed to collect signatures and to file petitions in order for the issue to appear on the ballot?

Other issues that citizens might want to put on the ballot:

  • Dress code:  The primary purpose of the schools is to educate.  If a student’s attire detracts from the learning that is to take place at school, it’s reasonable that it be addressed in the dress code.  What detracts from the learning environment and what doesn’t?  Well, community standards play a role in what’s acceptable and what’s not.  Some communities would demand more modesty than others.  One size does not fit all.  If the community were to actually vote on a dress code, then a judge wouldn’t have much difficulty in upholding the dress code if a student took the matter to court.
  • Contraceptive distribution:  There are some schools that supplied students with contraceptives with no questions asked.  It has even caught some communities by surprise, as the school administrators had quietly made their own unilateral decision on the matter without the input of the school board, let alone the community.  Would it be so wrong to have this issue on the ballot to see if the community supported the distribution of contraceptives in the school or not?
  • Sexuality:  How early in life should youngsters be introduced to concepts of sexuality by their teachers, such as the differentiation between homosexuality and heterosexuality?  Is education on sexuality even a role that the schools should undertake?  Would it be wrong to allow this issue to appear on the ballot?  Or do we let individual classroom teachers make this decision unilaterally?
  • School closures:  Dropping enrollment (an all-too-frequent phenomenon in Ohio) and saving money are the two primary causes for mothballing a school somewhere in a school district.  It’s just that no one wants the school in their neighborhood be the one that closes.  Instead of appealing a school’s closure to the courts (as sometimes happens), would it be so wrong to appeal to the electorate, instead?
  • Censorship:  When students contribute material that appears in school publications (yearbook, newspaper, etc.), should it be subject to censorship?  It’s kind of like the dress code . . . what standard should be applied?
  • Public access to the classroom:  Is it permissible for a parent or other local citizen to be a silent observer in a classroom while school is in session?
  • Cell phones:  Are students restricted during certain times and in certain places from using their cell phones?  What restrictions should apply?
  • Politicians taking the stage at student assemblies:  Should politicians be featured speakers at school assemblies?  Only if they visit in their official capacity as elected officeholders?  During election season?  Equal time for the political opponent?  Photo ops at the school to appear in the media or in campaign literature?  Or only visiting the school as a private citizen?
  • Raffles and other fundraisers:  Are raffles permitted to be used as a means of fundraising?  Or are raffles off-limits, recognized by the community as a form of gambling?  Who can raise funds on school property?  Any student group?  For any purpose?  By any means?  What about community groups?  Charities?  Political parties and candidates?  Commercial vendors?

The school board can make these decisions, but if the public wants to have a referendum, why not?  It sends a message that you can make a difference.  You can have input.  You are empowered.  You can be involved.  You care.

With the school board directing the superintendent (rather than voting to ratify the superintendents agenda), and with citizens able to put school district issues on the ballot (rather than voting to ratify bonds and levies only) we, the people, can begin to fix our, the people’s, the public’s, schools.

Posted in Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Partial listing of 2011 Lincoln Day Dinners in Ohio counties

February 11, 2011 — buckeyerino

I’ve noticed that recent traffic to my website came as a result of searches for the term “Lincoln Day Dinner.” The problem is that the search yields a list from last year. I consulted the website of the Ohio Republican Party to cull what information I could find about Lincoln Day Dinners being held this year. The ones I found listings for show only dates in February and March, thus, for April and beyond, I guess your best bet is to search this county-by-county directory of Republican Party chairs (sometimes showing links to the county’s GOP website) so that you can contact your county’s party chair directly. Even if your county’s Lincoln Day Dinner appears on the February-March calendar, you should contact county party leaders anyway because dates, places, and times for these events can (and sometimes do) change, even as the listed date fast approaches. In addition, many of the listings have incomplete information, so, by all means, contact the county chair or someone in the county party leadership that will keep you informed about these events.

Holmes County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/14/2011 6 pm
  • Carlisle Village Inn, 4949 Walnut St, Walnut Creek
  • Contact:  Rob Hovis

Knox County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 2/19/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Dan Emmett Conference Center, 160 Howard St, Mt. Vernon
  • Contact:  Chip McConville
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Auditor Dave Yost

Hancock County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/21/2011 5:30 pm
  • Senior Center, 339 E. Melrose Ave, Findlay
  • Contact:  Mark Miller

Hamilton County Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner

  • Wednesday 2/23/2011 5 pm
  • Duke Energy Center, 525 Elm St, Cincinnati
  • Contact:  Maggie Nuellmer
  • Guest Speaker:  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

Clinton County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/28/2011 6:30 pm
  • Expo Center at the Fairgrounds, Wilmington
  • Contact:  Geoff Phillips
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus

Muskingum County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Monday 2/28/2011 6 pm reception and 7 pm dinner
  • Prophets Park Amrou Grotto, 2560 Old River Rd, Zanesville
  • Contact:  Pat Hennessey

Ashtabula County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/5/2011 5 pm reception and 6 pm dinner
  • Dorset Community Center, 2681 State Route 193, Dorset
  • Contact:  Charlie Frye
  • Guest Speaker: State Rep. Casey Kozlowski

Athens County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Thursday 3/10/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • American Legion, 520 W. Union St, Athens
  • Contact:  Pete Couladis
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Auditor Dave Yost

Morrow County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/12/2011 6 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Trinity United Methodist Church, Mt. Gilead
  • Cost:  $15 per person
  • Contact:  Tom Wiston (419) 560-1595
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted

Washington County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Friday 3/18/2011 5:30 pm reception and 6:30 pm dinner
  • Shrine Building, 249 Pennsylvania Ave, Marietta
  • Contact:  Marilyn Ashcraft
  • Guest Speaker:  U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson

Monroe County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/19/2011 6:30 pm
  • Midway Community & Senior Citizens Center, 37358 State Route 800, Sardis
  • Contact:  Roger Claus

Lorain County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Saturday 3/26/2011
  • DeLuca’s Place In the Park, 6075 Middle Ridge Rd, Lorain
  • Contact:  Helen Hurst
  • Guest Speaker:  Ohio House Speaker Bill Batchelder

Scioto County Lincoln Day Dinner

  • Tuesday 3/29/2011 6 pm
  • Friends Center, 1202 18th St, Portsmouth
  • Contact:: Kay Reynolds
Posted in Local Politics, State Politics, Uncategorized. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Phil Van Treuren press release: More election candidates needed

February 8, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: Phil Van Treuren is a current member of Amherst City Council, occupying one of the 3 At-Large seats on that council.  He has filed petitions to run for re-election this year.  Democracy works best when voters have a choice of candidates on the ballot, hence this press release issued 2/4/2011.  For municipalities with partisan election races, the field is already set for the May 3rd primary elections (unless one wants to run as a write-in candidate for party nomination in the primary, in which case the filing deadline is 4pm, February 22nd).  Independent candidates don’t appear on primary ballots, as they aren’t competing for a political party’s nomination, thus they proceed directly to the general election and won’t appear on the ballot until then.  If one wishes to run as an independent candidate in a municipality with partisan elections, the deadline for filing petitions at the county’s Board of Elections office is 4 pm, Monday, May 2nd.  For candidates wishing to run for municipal office in municipalities that hold non-partisan elections, those wishing to run for school boards, and those wishing to run for township offices, the petition filing deadline for the general election is 4 pm on August 10th.  To get more information about running for office, feel free to visit the county Board of Elections office.  One may also wish to consult the webpage for the Ohio Secretary of State.  There’s a page there where you can access the 2011 Election Calendar.  The general election will be held on November 8th.

VAN TREUREN ENCOURAGES INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES TO ENTER AMHERST AT-LARGE COUNCIL RACE

Amherst Councilman Phil Van Treuren is encouraging Independent candidates to enter the 2011 council at-large race and challenge him and two others who have already filed to run.

Van Treuren said that he was “very disappointed” to see that Councilman At-Large Terry Traster, a Democrat, did not file for re-election this year. Both Van Treuren, a Republican, and Frank Janik, a Democrat, have filed to run again for their current council at-large seats. Another Democrat, Steven Mihalcik, has also filed to run for a council at-large seat.

That means that there are only three candidates on the ballot for three council at-large seats, which Van Treuren said isn’t fair to Amherst voters.

“The three of us shouldn’t be able to just waltz right into office without any kind of challenge,” Van Treuren said. “Even if it means that I get voted out, I think the people of Amherst deserve to have more candidates on the ballot in November so they can actually make a choice.”

Van Treuren said that he wants to draw attention to the fact that registered Amherst voters are still allowed to file for office as Independents, as long as they turn their petitions in before the May 3 primary deadline.

“The City of Amherst has plenty of dedicated, involved residents who would make great candidates for elected office,” Van Treuren said. “We should never have a situation where there are only three candidates on the ballot for three at-large seats.”

Van Treuren is encouraging any Amherst registered voter who is interested in filing to run as an Independent for council at-large to contact the Lorain County Board of Elections for information on how to obtain and file petitions.

Posted in Local Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: Nullification, Secession, and the Constitution

January 31, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This is timely, in light of the Vinson judicial decision today.  James Williamson, who is one of my younger brothers, is an Ohio native who currently lives in Nevada. Among his guest blogs that have appeared at Buckeye RINO are 3 others with “imminent rebellion” included in the title (Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government; Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit; & Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter). All of these “imminent rebellion” articles explore the friction between the Federal government and the state governments, a conflict which James believes will quickly escalate.

IMMINENT REBELLION: NULLIFICATION, SECESSION, AND THE CONSTITUTION

Not long ago I noted that discontent was growing among the states toward the federal government.  At first I thought immigration would be the main dividing issue but now I think there is more than one lightning rod issue driving the wedges.  Recently I have been reading in the news that nullification is resurging in response to “Obamacare.”  Apparently this is now being seriously debated in the Idaho legislature with several other states watching closely.  And if you think I’m a little crazy I now have company.  Representative Jim Moran from Virginia is now making the same observation…  (Don’t think because we seemingly share a first name and agree on one point that I’m giving this guy any credibility.  I think he is dead wrong on his race comments.)

Since this seems to be a budding phenomenon in our country, let’s look at the ideas of nullification and secession for a minute.  I could write a book and include a lot of history on this topic, but I don’t think it is necessary.  In fact, I don’t think you need to look any further than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to come to a conclusion.  Consider the following extract from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This sentence (in my mind) clearly precludes nullification (with one exception).  To paraphrase, laws or treaties made under the Authority of the United States supersede anything written in any state constitution or law.  In short, when you join the union you accept the constitution in its totality along with the entities that it creates; executive, legislative, and judicial.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  A state can’t cherry pick the laws they will allow and which ones they won’t in their state.  That would create chaos and render the federal government useless.  The only exception I would make are laws, orders, decisions, etc. that clearly conflict with the constitution itself.  If that is the case then it isn’t really a law; it’s a statutory blunder.  In the case of “Obamacare” the mandatory purchase of health insurance is a prime example.  In such cases, states are perfectly justified in ignoring the provisions of the law that aren’t really law…  At least one federal judge agrees with me on this one (Hudson in Federal District Court in Virginia and now Vinson in Federal District Court in Florida . . . article from New York Times here).

So if nullification isn’t legitimate (excepting cases of unconstitutional legislation) then what about secession?  Is that also forbidden by the constitution?  It is a topic that is not addressed by the nation’s founders in the Constitution itself.  Presumably they didn’t really think any state would want to leave once it entered the union, otherwise they may have addressed it.   Let’s start with Section 3 of Article IV:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Note the difference between territory controlled by states and territory not controlled by states.  Congress has the power to dispose of territory that doesn’t belong to a state on its own but they can’t dispose or alter the jurisdiction of any territory controlled by a state without their consent.  If the federal government is superior to the state governments then why are there restrictions on its power?  Why couldn’t the federal government decide to combine Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire at their own discretion if it is superior to the state governments?  It would be more efficient and reduce operating costs of Congress and of the executive branch.  The new state wouldn’t even be among the top 25 in population or area.

The answer is simply that the Federal government is not superior.  The United States of America is just what its name says it is:  sovereign states that are united and are located in America.  Any state that agrees to join the union needs to play by the same rules as the other states in order to maintain a union but they don’t give up their sovereignty.  Much like a labor union that governs the workplace but not the individuals that belong to it, the United States government governs collective actions like trade and war, but not individual actions of the states.

Many point out that the states created the Federal government and not the other way around.  Not only is this true but the states did not abdicate their sovereignty when they did it.  This is very apparent in the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So you English experts out there, what is the antecedent to delegated?  Who is delegating powers to the United States? Could it be? NO!!!!  It can’t be!!!!! NOT…… THE STATES!!!!!!!!!!!! Say it isn’t so!

Yes it is so.  Do you hear that Senators and Congressmen?  Do you hear that Mr. President?  Your authority is delegated to you by the states!

Taking this one step further, the states are delegated their authority by the people. That is what is unique about our nation and that is what has made it so special.  The people, the general public, everyone that can be called a citizen is a sovereign.  Sovereignty is held by the people not by the government.  All government authority is delegated and derived from the people to the states and from the states to the United States.

So if the states are sovereign can they secede from the union?  Well, if an individual leaves the country and renounces their US citizenship do they not in effect secede as an individual by leaving the jurisdiction of the United States and refusing to be governed by it?  Is it not the same with the states?  States can’t cherry pick the Federal laws, but they can accept or reject the union altogether.  Just as they voluntarily join the union they can also leave.  They cannot be compelled one way or the other.  Consider the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration all believed that there are legitimate reasons for dissolving political bands.  Furthermore they believed that sovereignty (separate and equal station) was given to them by God!  Now that’s radical thought for you.  It must make all the elites in Washington tremble to hear such words.  Perhaps that is why they have never read these documents publicly in congress until this January…

By now anyone who knows anything about history is probably thinking, “OK, smarty pants.  What about the Civil War.  Why did the North prosecute the war and compel the states to return to the union then?”  That is simple.  The United States was attacked, specifically at Fort Sumter.  That was an overt act of war.  President Lincoln and Congress were generous enough to recognize their prior status as states following the war rather than making them start over.  They didn’t have to do that.  Just like we didn’t have to give Germany and Japan their sovereignty following World War II.  We did it because we recognized that people must have liberty to govern themselves if they are to be happy and we are to have lasting peace.

I digress.

In conclusion, since the Federal government derives its authority from the states that actually makes the states (collectively) superior to the Federal government.  Without them there would be no federal government.  But without the Federal government we would still have state governments.  The federal system is dependent on the states, not the other way around.  As such, the states absolutely have the right to secede.

Oh, and Mr. Reid, you tried to remind the Republicans that the constitution was formed out of compromise.  May I point out that Amendment X was a part of the compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, two opposing parties with opposite ideals.  Compromising within your own party and making back door deals with industry is hardly in the same league….

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 7 Comments »

From the desk of Sean Kalin Stipe: Pending Ohio ballot issues

January 29, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  Sean Kalin Stipe is a Lorain resident.  In 2009, Stipe ran for Lorain City Council.  More recently, he’s written a guest blog article about the rise of the Libertarian Party in Lorain County.  He is currently Deputy Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Ohio.  Here, he has summarized the issues that are projected to be on ballots statewide, provided petitions are filed containing the required number of valid signatures.

2011 BALLOT ISSUES

Work has begun on potential ballot issues for the November 2011 election. Ballotpedia.com has identified five proposed measures, one of which is legislatively referred. The issues include judicial reform, gambling, health care, immigration and state sovereignty.

Ohio Judicial Appointment Amendment

The legislatively-referred constitutional amendment “Ohio Judicial Appointment Amendment” would create a bipartisan selection panel that recommends candidates to the governor. Justices would serve 2 years, after which a retention election will be held. During retention elections, justices will not face an opponent. Ohio is one of 21 states that currently elects their justices. In 1987, Ohio voters defeated the “Ohio Abolish Supreme Court Elections,” which proposed abolishing the election of Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges.

Supporters argue that a “merit system” will help reduce the influence of money in judicial election races.

Opponents argue that the amendment would reflect the views of the elite and not of the general public.

In order to place the measure on the ballot, the proposed measure must garner support by 3/5 of lawmakers in the House and the Senate. Should that fail, there is the option of an initiated constitutional amendment. That petition method requires 400,000 valid signatures.

Ohio Slot Machines at Horse Tracks Referendum

The veto referendum “Slots at Horse Tracks” looks to delay implementation of, and possibly repeal, the legislature’s “casino implementation” HB 519. That bill contains implementing provisions for the “Ohio Casino Initiative.” Issue 3 was passed by voters in November 2009 with 52.9% of the vote. It authorizes the building of one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo. Horse track owners object because Issue 3 did not allow slots at horse tracks.

Ohio Health Care Amendment

The “Health Care Amendment” is a citizen initiated constitutional amendment (CICA) which exempts residents of Ohio from national health care mandates; also know as “Obama Care.” The Ohio Liberty Council fell short of the signatures needed to make the 2010 ballot.

The Opposition argues the proposed amendment would block the federal health care reform bill without offering alternative options.

Supporters argue that The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter.

Ohio Immigration Reform Initiative

Another CICA titled “Immigration reform Initiative” would authorize police to question a person’s immigration status if there are any suspicions. The initiative mirrors the immigration bill in Arizona passed in 2010.

Ohio Senator Tim Grendell (R) is supportive of the proposed measure:

“If they are getting services in Ohio they are not legally entitled to and taxpayers are paying for this, we need to stop it.”

Opponents argue that anti-immigration legislation negatively affects local housing markets, lowering the values of other homes in neighborhoods and collecting less property, sales and income tax.

Ohio Sovereignty Amendment

The most significant CICA, “Sovereignty Amendment” deals with the administration of government. Aside from “reining in government,” the measure would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit the recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require that all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated at the district level only.

The issues are very complex and the challenge is to explain all the elements and the complexity of the proposal. Proposed by The People’s Constitution Coalition of Ohio, they state that the . . .

“American people are quickly reaching the limits of their endurance for governmental encroachment upon their rights and liberties. They are seeking an end to the barrage of federal legislation and mandates currently being forced upon them that will effectively place them and their posterity into perpetual financial servitude and surrender the sovereignty of our country to foreign powers.”

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »

Guest blog: State rep Terry Boose on Ohio’s biennial budget

January 28, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: State Representative Terry Boose (R-58) released this editorial to media outlets on 1/27/2011. As a reminder, town hall meetings are scheduled on Monday 1/31/2011 (in Norwalk) and Thursday 2/10/2011 (at Lorain County JVS).

THE OHIO BUDGET FROM A LEGISLATOR’S POINT OF VIEW

Huron, Lorain and Seneca counties have suffered through the current economic crisis and we face a budget that requires spending reductions, but I am ready for the challenge of hard work and creative solutions to help create a balanced budget.

Our state constitution requires a balanced budget, but if we were to continue funding all programs in the next budget at the current level, we would have an $8 billion deficit.  So I must work with other legislators to pass a balanced budget and, at the same time, promote policies that encourage employers to hire as many unemployed Ohioans as possible.

Job losses, declining company sales and a lack in funding will all be issues debated in great detail over the next five months. As your legislator, I will fight for the issues that matter most to the residents of the 58th House District.

Passing a budget is a long process that begins in the governor’s office.  Governor Kasich will present his draft of the budget by March 15 to the Ohio House of Representatives and is subsequently introduced before the House Finance and Appropriations Committee.  The House Finance Committee will hold hearings and listen to agencies, staff, interested parties and the general public about the merits of the governor’s proposed budget. Committee members will then vote on the bill and pass it on to the House floor for a vote by all Representatives.

Once the House passes a budget bill, it moves on to the Senate and undergoes a similar legislative process.  If the House and Senate have different versions of the budget bill, a joint conference committee is created to resolve them.  That committee prepares a report for both chambers’ final approval and, after passage in both chambers, the budget goes back to the Governor’s office for his final signature.

The state’s fiscal year begins July 1 so the budget must be passed by June 30, as required by the Ohio Constitution.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we tackle the issues most important to Ohio.  Our priority this year is to create a climate within Ohio that promotes job growth and business investment while transforming and revitalizing our economy.  I am committed to continuing our efforts on tax reform to make Ohio an even better place to live and raise a family.

If you have any questions regarding this issue or any other policy matter, I can be reached at (614) 466-9628, by email at district58@ohr.state.oh.us or by mail at Representative Terry Boose, 77 S. High St., 12th floor, Columbus, OH  43215.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Preparing for calamities

January 23, 2011 — buckeyerino

Don’t want to feel vulnerable in times of uncertainty?  I don’t blame you.

Whether a catastrophe is man-made, whether it materializes by freak accident, or whether it’s the product of Mother Nature, the last thing you want to do is panic and not be able to think straight.  Keeping a cool head so that you can think quickly and decisively with complete clarity can save life and limb.

You have to prepare.  You have to put things in place and put some work into it in order for things to fall into place and everything work out just fine when disaster strikes.

For instance, you may have a functioning smoke detector in your house.  Has your family actually had fire drills where you evacuate the house and have everyone accounted for?  I don’t think your kids will think it’s weird if you have family fire drills.  After all, they have fire drills at school.  Schools also have tornado drills and lock-down drills.  You might practice those, too.

If a blizzard snowed you in for four or five days, would you have enough food on hand?  How would you keep from freezing if the blizzard also knocked out the power lines?  Don’t think it could happen?  Well, it happened to our family back in January 1978.

What about a flash flood warning and your house lies in the flood plain?  You have precious little time to round up everyone and get the heck out of there so you don’t get swept away and drowned by the swift currents.  Are you able to just grab something that will tide you over for the next 72 hours or so?  Or will you escape with just the shirts on your backs?

Even if you have more time to evacuate, such as an approaching hurricane (if you are living on the Gulf Coast or Atlantic Seaboard), are you all in agreement about what goes with you in the car and what gets left behind?  Or will you be squabbling about it when it’s time to hit the road?  You could practice packing the car with everyone in tow so that you know what will fit and what won’t, plus you’ll know how to fit it all in.

Or, instead of having a plan for any of these scenarios, will you just take your chances and wait for FEMA to save you?

I don’t know about you, but as for me, I’m not waiting on FEMA.  If you followed the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina, you know that depending on government help isn’t your safest bet.

  • Practice, practice, practice.  Have drills until everything happens smoothly, and revisit the practice and drills from time to time. Time yourselves.  If any of you have physical disabilities, you’ll have to train even harder.
  • Have an evacuation plan. Know how you’ll discover if all persons are present and accounted for, especially when every second counts.
  • Have a plan if you’re stranded in your own house.
  • Have a 72-hour emergency kit already prepared in a location already designated so that you can just grab it and get out of there in a matter of seconds.
  • Have alternative energy plans so that you have light and heat in the house when the utilities have been knocked out.
  • Have food and even some huge jugs of water (you know, like the ones they use for the water cooler in your workplace) that can last you for a month, maybe more.  Actually use the stored food so that the oldest stuff doesn’t go bad, and keep replenishing the stockpile with new stuff.  By rotating through the stockpile, you’ll also discover what stuff works and what doesn’t: For example, storing wheat makes no sense if you can’t grind it into flour, and storing flour makes no sense if you don’t know how to prepare food from scratch or follow recipes, and following recipes to make food from scratch makes no sense if you’re family hates the taste of it and refuses to eat it.  You’ll need to know which foods you can prepare without going to the grocery store for missing ingredients.  You’ll need to know which foods can be prepared without running water, natural gas, or electricity.  You’ll want to have some food, perhaps in your 72-hour emergency kit, that you can just eat as is, like beef jerky or trail mix, plus some bottled water.
  • Have your vehicle in good enough condition so that it can be relied upon when it really counts.
  • Go camping.  It’s good practice for “roughing” it.
  • If you have a yard and if zoning ordinances permit it, plant a vegetable garden this spring.  Maybe you’ll even want grape vines or fruit trees on your property.
  • Encourage your neighbors, friends, and relatives to prepare.  If a tornado rips your house to shreds, or a fire burned your house to the ground, or a flood washed your house away, it probably wiped out your food storage, too.  But if your neighbor, friend, or relative also prepared and has stored food, they can share.  In your neck of the woods, the more households that are prepared, the more likely you can all band together and help one another out in times of crisis.

If you are prepared, then you need not fall victim to fear, confusion, indecision, panic, or paralysis.  Just proceed according to plan, and if a monkey wrench is thrown into the mix that screws up the plan, you’ll be able to think on your feet and compensate more quickly with a Plan B than if you were caught totally flatfooted with no plans at all.

Be survivors, not casualties.

Posted in National Politics. 2 Comments »

Should a state be able to declare bankruptcy in Federal court? NO!

January 23, 2011 — buckeyerino

Oh, those rascal politicians on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.  Oh, those rascal politicians in state offices scattered around the country.  What do we do about such rascals that have bloated government spending for decades and decades now?

So many states are facing red ink, and so many of those states won’t solve the problems on their own.  Instead?  Look to the federal government for bailouts of states.

But wait!  The federal government spending even more?  For more bailouts?  How?  How can the federal government keep coming up with more dollars out of thin air?  It’s unfathomable.

So now there are some tongues wagging on Capitol Hill to provide relief to fiscally undisciplined states without committing even more federal dollars to bailouts.  It’s called bankruptcy.  Legislation may soon materialize that would allow states to declare bankruptcy.

If you are one of the lucky Americans that hasn’t been wiped out in this disastrous economy and it just so happens that you’ve invested in municipal and state government bonds thinking that they were safe bets, well, all that could change.

If it changed, then where would you invest your money that would allow it to hold its value?  Every investment that’s only on paper or that’s only a few bytes on a computer chip has its risks, and the risks are getting bigger by the day.

Workers are already being punished by this economy by losing jobs and not finding new jobs.  Perhaps it’s time to punish the investors, too.  Well, at least punish the investors who don’t own stock in financial corporations that are “too big to fail.”

If a state were to declare bankruptcy under the proposal that’s wagging tongues on Capitol Hill, bondholders would be unsecured creditors.  So, how do you get your money from cashing in bonds from a bankrupt state?  I don’t know.  With no collateral, there’s nothing a bondholder could repossess that would coax the state to pay up.  Perhaps you could take the matter to court and seek a judgment against the state, but what good would that do?  There’s no mechanism at your disposal that would allow you to collect the money the state owes you.  Futility.  Utter futility.

Oh, and state pension funds?  Gone.  Sorry about your retirement.

What if bankruptcies spread through the states like wildfire?  Is it conceivable that the federal government might do likewise?  And then what?

I think this bankruptcy idea is dead in the water, as I don’t see how it could gain any traction with voters.

Sorry, all you political rascals.  You’ll just have to learn fiscal discipline.  Unless, of course, your objective is to cause the collapse of America as we know it.

Posted in National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Ohio House Republican press release: Proposal to restructure public mental health

January 22, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This appears to be just a proposal, at present, as I do not yet see a bill listed on the General Assembly website. State rep David Burke represents the 83rd Ohio House district, which includes Logan County, Union County, and most of Marion County.  This press release was issued 1/21/2011. After reading through the press release, you are welcome to read my further editorial comments (below the fold).

REP. BURKE: OHIO’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM FACES A CRISIS

Will introduce bill to identify cost-savings, structural improvements

COLUMBUS—In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Ohio’s mental health services, State Representative Dave Burke (R-Marysville) intends to propose legislation that calls for a review of Ohio’s behavioral health system. The goal of this legislation will be to identify potential reforms and cost-containment opportunities within the system, which will not only improve state health services but also rein in costs.

“The current system is crumbling and fragmented,” said Burke, who serves as chairman of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee of the Finance and Appropriations Committee. “There is no transparency with regard to costs, and oftentimes there is no coordination of services. With numerous tragic events that have happened over the last few years that have involved behavioral health system issues, it is important that Ohio make a comprehensive review of the system.”

More than 340,000 Ohioans received community mental health treatment during fiscal year 2009. Starting in 2014, the Ohio Medicaid program expects that more than 550,000 new enrollees will be added to the system, about one-third of whom will require mental health treatment. However, the current system leaves significant gaps in coverage for individuals who need behavioral services, which in fiscal year 2009 left more than 22,000 mental health patients without Medicaid coverage.

According to Burke, a lack of coordination between departments often leads to inflated costs or flawed patient care, which not only strains the state budget but also puts vulnerable Ohioans at risk. Many mentally ill Ohioans end up institutionalized in prisons and nursing homes, when in reality, a number of these individuals require more intensive behavioral treatment.

“It is extremely important that we don’t let Ohioans who depend on state services fall through the cracks or be subjected to inadequate treatment,” said Burke. “We will soon have an opportunity to improve Ohio’s mental health system while at the same time reduce inefficiency. This is a standard of excellence that we owe to those who elected us to lead this state.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Health Care, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »