Bio not provided
@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.
1 month, 1 week ago on Folk singer, activist Pete Seeger dies in NY
@tbliss They corrected my error but not GinnyWs.
2 months 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.
2 months 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.
3 months, 1 week 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.
3 months, 2 weeks 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".
3 months, 2 weeks 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?
4 months 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.
4 months ago on Authorities look at LAX shooter's government view
@mythbustingprogressive Please name the source.
4 months, 1 week ago on Gunman with evident hate for TSA opens fire at LAX
A truly inspiring story. I wish her every success.
4 months, 1 week 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.
4 months, 2 weeks 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. :-)