Bio not provided
@AlanX @Xtut Which proves Xtut's case. Voters and politicians are economically clueless. This action will have several results. First, currently marginal workers will be completely locked out of the labor market. Next, job growth will take a serious hit as personnel costs are the biggest expense for most businesses. Further, companies thinking of entering Illinois will take a second look for that reason. Next, many workers that get kept on at the higher wage will see net income drop as aid payments are reduced more than the increase in salary. Finally, some marginal businesses may just close up.
If you could actually just mandate a wage, why not make it $50/hr? If the value of labor is decided by committee, make it anything you like! The answer is that even the economically illiterate know that the idea just makes no sense if you think about it. The trick for politicians is, how far can you distort the labor market before it snaps back and hits you in the face.
3 days, 17 hours ago on Senate panel advances plan for $11 minimum wage
The GOP, as far as I know, has never favored a minimum wage and for good reason. There are only three possible results: increased unemployment, higher prices or a crippled business. OK, there is a fourth, all of the above.
I know of no Republican that is against birth control. There may be a few somewhere but I've not met them.
You are almost correct about reproductive rights. Evangelical Christian politicians do oppose it but that cuts through both parties.
Social Security is a financial disaster. It is the formal definition of a Ponzi scheme. It has blown through all of its income and is now eating into the imaginary "Lockbox". That is the name given to all the loans it made to Congress to offset the budget deficit. Now that the money is needed either taxes have to go up, the deficit has to expand or both.
Medicare is in even worse shape. Spending there is so far over income that it is not likely that there is any fix and no one will talk about it. Both programs need to be seriously overhauled and then wound down..
I don't know of any Republicans against labor laws, per se. I do hear them hollering about those laws that one-sidely cripple businesses and reduce job opportunities as well they should. Democrats too, if they care about jobs.
Your last comment is disgusting, racist and beneath contempt.
By the way, I am NOT a Republican and don't support them. I just can't deal with willful ignorance and deceit.
1 month, 1 week ago on Reick an extremist
@COT @feeedbak1 As in "Never vote your conscience if your candidate can't win. Just vote for the candidate, no matter how objectionable, that can win." Winning trumps platform.
2 months ago on Libertarian could help tip Illinois governor race
@MiniBus Here is another version. The Japanese, up to the 1920s were a British ally with the British guaranteeing Japan's security. It was at US behest that Britain broke off the alliance and left Japan alone in the world. That led to the rise of the Japanese military machine, something not needed prior. Had the US not fancied itself a world player after WWI that most likely would not have happened and the Pacific war would have been avoided.
Germany had fought to a stalemate on both fronts in WWI. That is just a fact. She did get her eastern peace in March of 1918 but it was too late. Even though the eastern fighting had stopped in late 1917, the German western offensive never came close to achieving any of its goals. The defeat of France and England absent US intervention was a pipe dream. As for Central and Eastern Europe, how is a vicious anti-semitic communist dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons any better than the Kaiser and his cohorts?
The subject is very complex with lots of twists and turns.
4 months, 1 week ago on If Only The U.S. Had Stayed Out Of WWI
@AlanX It's the patriots that are complaining. You might have noticed that in Kevin's comments.
4 months, 1 week ago on Craver: Tanks, but no tanks, on police militarization
I agree with all points, for the most part, but don't understand why you think that the Leninist rising in Petrograd in November 1917 would have been avoided. The Czar fell in March of 1917 and the U.S. didn't even declare war until April. Lenin had been in Russia since April, 1917, long before US troops started arriving in France. By the time US troops arrived in numbers the revolution was in full swing. Our actions seem to not have been any factor in the revolution or its outcome.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on If Only The U.S. Had Stayed Out Of WWI
@mjackiw So if the SCOTUS follows the historical letter of the Constitution (please see the opinion and all quoted historical documents) they are a bought and paid for subsidiary of Koch Industries. And they say conservatives are conspiracy minded!
4 months, 3 weeks ago on McHenry Co. gun-rights advocate answers Target CEO’s request
@mjackiw That minority decision was also held to be historically wrong, contra to precedent, and didn't even make sense when looking at the English language as it was used during the time the Articles were drafted. Please note that a very large amount of space was used to demolish the arguments by quoting both prior court decisions and historical documents. I urge everyone to read the original.
@mjackiw The article I quoted was published by North Dakota State University at http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html. It is not a pro-gun piece, quite the contrary, it shows how civic leaders were advocating for more control. It also plainly shows that such controls had not been enacted as of the mid-1880s. The “Wild West” was a period from approximately 1865 to 1890. When gun controls were enacted, it was already dead and gone.
Your second quote is just silly. How can a majority decision by the SCOTUS go against SCOTUS? That is nonsensical in the normal definition of the term. How, also, can a decision in favor of fewer restrictions by government of an enumerated right be unconstitutional? I also need to ask if you ever READ the majority decision. It doesn’t appear you have.
@mjackiw @Liberty1 Again, you are only reading the parts you like. That's why I posted the link to the entire decision. I have also read widely on the subject and others on this thread can do the same. I am not relying on rhetoric but actual published reports, as I quoted. Had you read the article I quoted, available on the Internet, you would have noticed that the "attire" was being worn in town. If TR was misquoted, please provide the accurate quote. I am quoting from an article by Dr. Ross Collins of North Dakota State University.
@mjackiw First, you have totally neglected the arguments that were used by the majority to refute each and every one of the dissenter's opinions. You also neglect the arguments used by the majority in the final opinion. Nowhere is it "unconstitutional". I would refer everyone to the case itself which can be found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
You also state supposed historical facts without references. Even now almost no one, except police, walk around with guns. In which cities and during what years was possessing a gun in public a crime?
As for your version of the wild west, I think you have been watching too much TV. As late as 1884 the Laramie Northwest Stock Journal reported (negatively) that all the cowboys thought that a sidearm was a necessary part of their attire. President Teddy Roosevelt remembered that during his days in the west that the laws at least prohibited "shooting in the streets". A far cry from the banning of all public carry.
@Habawhat What? No one ever claimed that Target didn't have an absolute right to ban weapons of any type from its stores. No one claimed that the 2nd Amendment trumped everything else in the Constitution. None of the first ten amendments trumps anything except the government's power to abridge those rights. What alternate reality do you live in? Your second statement is just silly, so no comment. As for the rest of your statement, please read the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that reinforced the 2nd Amendment. It goes into great detail about the "1st part of the amendment". No one has ever overlooked that.
Contrary to the popular press reports, the employment numbers were awful. Since the previous report 523,000 full time jobs were lost. All the gains came from an increase in part-time employment. Never, in the history of the records, has it taken so long for full-time employment to exceed the previous post recession peak. We are still not there. If anyone thinks that having over a half a million people lose a full time job for either a part-time job or unemployment is anything to crow about, they either work for the government or would be welcome to a job there with open arms.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Dow tops 17,000 after strong jobs report
@AlanX I hate to break your heart but Barnhill took the anti-socialist side in those debates against the socialist Henry Tichenor. His quote was in strong refutation of the socialist ideal of "..a state regulated organization of national labor into a social labor system, equipped out of collective capital; the state would collect, warehouse and transport all products, and would finally distribute them to individuals in proportion to their registered amount of social labor and according to a valuation of commodities exactly corresponding to their average cost of production." (Quote taken directly from the original). V did indeed paraphrase the idea in direct opposition to British national socialism.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Concealed carry driving handgun sales in McHenry County
The quote most likely was made by John Basil Barnhill in a series of debates in 1914. Jefferson had a great deal to say on the subject of Liberty but he did not say that. Regardless, the point is rather well made.
Unlike those of us who were on the streets in 1968, Washington seemed to be shocked by the 1979 border war between China and Vietnam. Over 50,000 dead Americans and nearly 1 million dead Vietnamese to prevent these two from running into each other's open arms? Seriously? Now we are counting the dead in Iraq (another stunning success) and Afghanistan (about to join the long list of failed policy blunders). In what alternate universe does Washington exist?
6 months, 1 week ago on The Chicoms Are Coming! Reflections On The Folly Of The War On Vietnam And Its Progeny
We definitely had it sticking to cars and lawns in the central part of the county. Enough already!
6 months, 1 week ago on Snowfall hits McHenry County in May
I see the commentators on the left have once again resorted to character assassination rather than refute the stated premise. Fairly typical, unfortunately.
6 months, 2 weeks ago on Geithner’s memoir blasts Mark Kirk’s comments in China
@famamedia1 You may misunderstand. The majority of users in the cities that are part of the aggregation program get their supply from Direct. With the new contract coming up, those users may now "opt out" and go back to ComEd, otherwise they will continue to get their energy from Direct at the higher rates. It isn't a scare tactic. As you point out, ComEd needs explicit permission to change you back to their service.
6 months, 2 weeks ago on Algonquin, Woodstock, Huntley, Ringwood, Lakewood set new electricity rates
Between 1979 and 1997 there was no significant global temperature change.Between 1998 and the present day there has been no significant temperature change.In 1998 there was a major El Nino event that caused global temps to spike to a level not seen since.Temps didn’t retreat to their old level but remained slightly elevated.There has been no change since that event 16 years ago.The net change since 1979 is under 0.5 degrees.That isn’t opinion, that is what the actual measurements of lower atmospheric temps by NASA satellites show.That data is what caused the near scandal at the Hadley Centre as their scientist tried to explain away the fact that there was no warming over the previous decade and a half.There was also the embarrassment caused by the fact that not one of the over ninety climate models came close to predicting actual temps going forward.Not one.They even failed to accurately show what temps in the past actually were!
The fact is that we don’t understand the feedback systems. The smallest change in assumptions can cause models to forecast anything from an ice age to a Venusian meltdown. We don’t even understand how cloud cover affects temps over time yet the government can post dire warnings of impending doom with impunity claiming it is “Settled Science”. It isn’t.
Since Al Gore made the subject popular with his now thoroughly discredited “hockey stick”, hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been published by distinguished climatologists and others refuting the IPCC report. They are not “Climate Deniers” (probably the stupidest term ever used) but they are extremely skeptical of the methodologies and conclusions drawn by the political team that makes up the IPCC. For their efforts of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes they are subject to monstrous ridicule including comparisons to those who propagated the Holocaust. So much for science and the search for truth.
No weather anomalies that we have experienced globally are even close to being outside the long-term norm. Does CO2 affect temps, certainly. Does 4 parts per 100,000 cause fire, floods, draughts etc.? Almost certainly not. A very large part of that is natural. How much? No one, and certainly not the IPCC knows. We need to find out before we start destroying the global economy fighting a problem that may not exist and we don’t understand. It is time to stop the name calling and have a rational discussion about what we know and what some just assume. Then maybe we can make some progress. Predicting Armageddon and stifling dissent will ruin us.
6 months, 2 weeks ago on Climate change to make Great Plains hotter, drier
An incredibly idiotic law. Props to Oberweis for trying to get it repealed. There is nothing preventing a dealer from closing on Sundays if they want. If they lose sales to those that stay open it puts lie to their statement that no meaningful sales happen on that day. What you basically have is a few large businesses saying "We want to take a day off but don't want anyone else to take any of that lost business so we want everyone banned from sales on that day." Another example of business borrowing government guns to gain an advantage. Why does Illinois think it is the propewr function of government to regulate what days businesses can be open?
7 months, 1 week ago on Area dealers support car sales ban on Sundays; report says it should go
@the nob @tutty_ I also agree. I truly mourn the loss of one of America's great troubadours but not the loss of another communist (small c) and his freedom destroying collectivist claptrap.
9 months, 4 weeks ago on Folk singer, activist Pete Seeger dies in NY
@tbliss They corrected my error but not GinnyWs.
10 months, 2 weeks ago on NOAA: McHenry set record for coldest temp
Article has been corrected and thanks!
The article states, "The air temperature was observed at -20 degrees on the morning of Jan. 6. That does factor in the wind chill.". I don't think that's right. Rockford reported -18F and O'Hare reported -16F. The wind was averaging 15mph all day with gusts to 26mph. That would put wind chill down below -40F. I think the text should read "That does not factor in the wind chill".
I see both good and bad here. The good is that prohibition has ended along with the laws that jailed people for possessing marijuana. I also note that the Feds have backed down from their threatened enforcement. That is a very positive sign and a lesson for the states that they *can* override unconstitutional laws. The bad is that I don't see anything to deal with the supply issue. If limited supply and high taxes push the price above the black market price the entire experiment will collapse as street dealers make a killing. This may not have been well thought out. We'll see.
10 months, 3 weeks ago on Legal recreational pot industry opens in Colorado
Are you suggesting that the Marengo Police pulled people off of an active heroin investigation to do this investigation? Or that they turned down a chance to do a heroin bust? Just curious why you think the MPD has their priorities all messed up.
11 months, 3 weeks ago on Two Marengo businesses sold tobacco to minors
@GinnyW @bishopgardner I have to agree with the opinion offered by booksum. I am very happy with this law. It has been too long in coming. To categorize everyone opposed as "old angry bigots", however, displays a remarkable ignorance of the opposition. I know several people who opposed this law, strongly. They are young, well educated, articulate professionals, the kind of folks you love having to dinner (and I do.) We disagree on this issue and few others but for them it is a sad day. I don't spend my time name calling but trying to find some common ground to let them see the good. You might try that.
1 year ago on Quinn signs same-sex marriage into law
Alan Greenspan once said that the problem with bubbles was that you couldn't see them coming. As many analysts proved, that isn't true. Those same analysts are currently being derided again, as before, for being Cassandras. The current theory is that as long as earnings are rocketing higher, stocks can too. One problem with that theory is that stocks are climbing far in excess of earnings and almost all the gains this year have come from P/E expansion, not earnings growth. The other is the refusal to recognize that earnings growth, like everything else, doesn't grow to the sky and is mean reverting. The bubble will make itself widely known in retrospect. Until then, as Charlie Prince of Citibank said just before the bottom fell out in 2007, "we're still dancing".
1 year ago on Despite surge, many don’t see a stock bubble
@COT And you prove my point. You are so used to just lumping all conservatives together as Religious Right Republicans that you have missed a huge chunk of them. Your characterization is totally wrong. The spectrum runs from evangelist to atheist and from war mongering fascist to those wholly dedicated to civil rights. You have thrown so many people into your pot you have no idea what they are. Most of the conservatives I deal with are pro-choice (in at least some form), pro LGBT rights, and pro drug legalization (again, at least in some form). They are all against the current military adventurism around the world and are soundly critical of the NSA. Do you have room for them in your stew pot?
1 year ago on Lyons: Wait, so this is where we do need government?
@AlanP So we lump them all together, from fundamentalist to atheist, as conservatives and condemn them as a group. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with classified that way. I'm not a Republican (big R) and vote my conscience. I am very easily classified politically as a conservative but morally as a liberal. Politically, under your theory, I am a religious moralist due to my political leanings. I'm not thrilled knowing my actual beliefs (and by extension, those of all others) don't matter as long as we can find a convenient box to put them in.
@AlanP Thank you for setting up yet another category we can lump folks into. What are the criteria so that I can know how to judge these people's opinions by just knowing their taxonomy.
There is a problem of definition here. The assumption is that the term "Conservative" applies only to the religious right. That is incorrect. There are many conservatives who define the term the way Mr. Lyons would and defend the position that the government has no business being involved in the marriage relationship and, as Alan P would agree, that a woman's rights include reproductive rights. We have to watch the way we use language. Lumping people into pre-defined groups inevitably leads to misunderstanding and destructive conflict.
The term "New World Order" certainly didn't originate with conspiracy theorists or the insane such as Mr. Ciancia. The term was used quite deliberately by Woodrow Wilson to describe his ideal world where a global government insured peace through the League of Nations. H.G. Wells echoed that sentiment in his book "New World Order". In more recent times both Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush used the term to describe a coming together of the super powers to enforce global peace through the auspices of the U.N. Closer to home the U.S. Government and the courts, in an unbelievably bad reading of the 2nd clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, have held that U.N. Treaties (or any treaties) trump U.S. law and the Constitution. These are not conspiracy theories, they are facts and bother a large percentage of the population. That a certifiable nut latched on to them to excuse a murderous rage in no way reflects on the truth of the historic drive for a "New World Order" that is supranational in structure. Unfortunately the press and uncounted Internet trolls will latch on to it to demonize anyone that still supports the U.S. as a nation and the Constitution as the rule of law.
1 year ago on Authorities look at LAX shooter's government view
@mythbustingprogressive Please name the source.
1 year ago on Gunman with evident hate for TSA opens fire at LAX
A truly inspiring story. I wish her every success.
1 year ago on Woodstock mom starts her own business
@steve cos Please note I included many conservatives in my earlier rant. I'm glad you note that progressives are not "only" about government control. They just haven't found any other way to impose their will.
I'm a little confused that you don't seem to equate the tyranny of the king and big government. They are synonymous. Big government always becomes tyrannical. We are drifting that way now.
It is not "my opinion" that the Founders feared strong central government. The Articles of Confederation resulted in almost no central government at all. The Constitution was written just to ensure the central government retained such powers as it needed (and no more) to effectively execute the enumerated responsibilities granted. All others powers were given the states and their citizens. In case there was any question, the tenth amendment was added at the insistence of the states.
I am going to suggest that you review the notes of the ratifying committees as to what they intended the new government to look like and also the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself. it is a far cry from what you imagine.
1 year, 1 month ago on Constitution Study Group to meet Wednesday
@steve cos Let me start by saying I never questioned your honesty and why you even bring that up is beyond me.It seems you have tried to set up a straw man that you can tear down to bolster your argument. I won''t respond to the charge again accept to say that trying to play the victim is a poor method of arguing a point.
As for progressives, you mention repeatedly only two issues, same sex marriage and reproductive rights, both issues that I am in total agreement with. So are all most all those who profess a love of liberty. You fail to address the dark side. The constantly tightening grip of the hand of Washington over all aspects of personal and economic life. In my previous response I listed only a few issues. I could make an entire page where local government has been subverted by your "Hamiltonian Ideal".
I will also add another example of what happens at the hands of progressives to those who actively espouse constitutional government and fiscal sanity. Today it was noted that "Progressive Hero" Alan Grayson sent out a fund raising email using a burning cross to spell out Tea Party and compared them to the KKK. He has also repeatedly referred to opponents as supporters of the Taliban. He is not the only one. I just happened to find this latest bit of vicious falsification today.
As to the Constitution, you make my argument for me. Representative government was fully in place in the colonies with the exception of taxation issues that were left to Parliament. Each point you make was not for the establishment of such representative government but against the attempts to interfere with it. The founders wanted the colonies broken up into independent countries that would be able to continue their in-place governments without the heavy hand of the King attempting to overrule them.
The last statement you make is the key. All the powers listed are those of an independent country. We got it and put in place a severely restricted central government with only certain enumerated powers, all others to belong to the independent states or their citizens. We have drifted a long way from that ideal. That can only be laid at the feet of the progressives.
@steve cos I am going to disassemble your argument one point at a time. Let's start with the first paragraph. If you don't know any progressives that think only sovereign government can properly manage society and the individual must be subordinated to the will of the collective then you don't know any progressives. The progressive moment has always championed big government from Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to Barrack Obama. They believe that only a strong federal government can properly manage trade, manufacturing, services, banking, healthcare, agriculture (right down to how much wheat a farmer may grow for his family), energy production and consumption, transportation, money supply, interest rates and I could go on and on. This would have been considered impossible before the beginning of the 20th century. Those who oppose these trends are called every name in the book. Just read these commentaries. You either go along or you are an "enemy of the people", a "neo-confederate" or worse. Actively work within your state legislature and you are a "nullifier" and a supporter of John C. Calhoun.
Your statement about the basis for the revolution flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately? Start with paragraph two, clauses one through three. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. When it begins to stifle those rights, the people have the right to abolish it. That was the argument against Britain. 99% of all laws were passed by Colonial assemblies at the time. The only argument about representation was over taxes, which were imposed by Parliament. The entire list of complaints, other than that, were for abuses against the people, not the lack of representation.
No one thinks the Founders were of one mind, they weren't. The debate was loud and long. Hamilton was a conservative who wanted to mimic the strong central government of England here. He was opposed by James Madison, who carried the day against Hamilton. John Adams was the man in the middle and, when President, was attacked by both sides even the Federalists of whom he was nominally a representative. He also signed some of the most onerous acts in American history, the Alien and Sedition Acts. He had been a long-time friend of the notoriously liberal Thomas Jefferson and after the dust settled from his Presidency, became one again.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Massachusetts Constitution was the basis for the U.S. Constitution. Adams' "Thoughts on Government" was certainly influential but there was a large input from all sides, especially from Virginia. The Virginian, James Madison, is credited as being the driving force behind the Constitution and the later Bill of Rights and is known as the father of both. Both Madison and Jefferson opposed the Hamiltonian move towards stronger central government. They and their fellow Virginians such as Patrick Henry qualify for the term progressive. It was they that were the most radical in their move away from the old English forms.
The term Founders vs Progressives stems from the dichotomy between the progressives of the 18th Century which were so supportive of limited government and strong individual rights and responsibilities and today's progressives that are moving so rapidly in the opposite direction. I include a large number of Republicans in that group as well.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.
@COT Name one similarity between the Tories and the modern Tea Party (and I don't mean the neo-cons pretending to be Tea Party to get votes).
@COT I think you need to reread your history. :-)
@AlanR You don't seem to understand the difference between Tory and Conservative. The Conservative,/Liberal dichotomy didn't exist back then in the form we have today. If you want to use the term conservative you would be more accurate to apply it the Hamiltonian faction of the debates. Today the terms refer to those who believe in the value and sovereignty of the individual vs those who believe in the power of the state. Conservatives believe in the same things your so called "progressives" believed in during the mid 18th century. Progressives today believe that only sovereign government can properly manage society and the individual must be subordinated to the will of the collective. That is the antithesis of what the founders fought for.
In other words, you have nothing but rumors and guesses. Fair enough.
1 year, 1 month ago on Centegra delays start on Huntley hospital
So what are the numbers and what is your source? You seem to have very specific knowledge. Your position seems to be that the numbers are so low that there is no justification for the new hospital. I'd love to know where I can find those stats.
Do you have some source to back up your contention? I can't vouch for McHenry but I was recently in the Woodstock ER and had to wait in overflow until the next day before a bed upstairs opened up. Doesn't sound like half full to me. Last summer I was at McHenry and the floor was full. Things must have changed radically in the last year.
@LloydStoner To your first statement, they are home. They are a McHenry County company and also the largest employer here. As to your second statement, of course they are, by providing excellent health care. The extent to which they profit is the extent to which they grow and can improve service. Losses mean eventual shutdown and no service.
@AlanR Note "Congress", that is both parties. Further, there is an offer on the table to pass everything but Obamacare and discuss that at a later date. That has been refused. Both sides are blocking this. If the Dems were willing to separate Obamacare, the resolution would pass. If the Republicans were willing to fund it, the resolution would pass. As long as the Republicans refuse to fund and the Democrats refuse to separate the issues, we are at deadlock. I also don't agree that this is anyway to get a bill passed but that is the way this works, these days. How you can find anything honorable in either position is beyond me.
1 year, 1 month ago on Budget fight a perfect storm of issues roiling U.S.
@AlanR The vast majority don't approve of either parties action and you feel that is a victory for Democrats? And only a minority of folks think Obama is handling things correctly and that's your idea of approval? Are you serious? People are fed up with both sides. Only someone incredibly biased could confuse 34% with a stamp of approval. Republicans won't pass anything with PPACA intact and Democrats won't pass anything without it. Neither side will negotiate (although the Republicans did ask for a conference, an offer that was refused). If you think either side is blameless, you need to look up the definition of blameless or look again at each side's positions.
@AlanR Let's clarify those poll results, shall we? While only 1 in 4 approve of the Republicans, only 1 in 3 approves of the Democrat's way of doing things. The bottom line is that the people are waking up to the fact that the problem isn't party based, it is systemic. Anyone who thinks that "their side" is good is living in a dream from which the people may soon wake them up.