Much has been said about the recently exposed slide presentation - perhaps the best piece of "blog journalism" I've seen this year (and worthy of an OutsideLansing.com award if submitted to us later in the year and if it wasn't already part of a paid project), reposted here at Mackinac Center, with analysis by Paul Kersey. The discovery by Jim Vote is astonishing because the main, quick read on the slide show is the arrogance and dirtyness of the Michigan Democrat Party (MDP) and Mark Brewer, in crassly trying to rewrite the rules in their favor.
But the quick read should be followed with a read of the polling done by Democratic polling firms. Yes, it proves the Democrats are engaged in a crass, power-play to mess with a fundamental cherished document - and to destroy checks and balances. But let's look at some other points.
Slide 14 - 66% Opposed Recent Tax Increases.
Drolet wasn't wrong, his arrows just fell short of the target. Republicans should remember this every second in the general election contest. 9 focus groups and two polls by a DEMOCRATIC-HIRED national polling firm verify the obvious - what we should already know.
66% opposed tax increases. The Governor's approval ratings are near or below the President's (legislature's approval is 12%, or half the Governor's). Slide 8 admits that the fallout of the Democratic Governor's 2007 tax increase could likely affect the 2010 election, despite the huge advantages Democrats have in 2008 (at the national level and the fact that twice as many Republicans are term-limited at the state level - but all of that math reverses in 2010).
Folks - 66% is essentially everyone except the true kool-aid drinkers. If 30-35% of the population is hard-core Dem, and 30% hard-core Republican, the math of those left over means that JUST ABOUT EVERY INDEPENDENT (still residing) in the state disagreed with the tax cuts.
Term Limits - Don't touch them.
There is no popular desire to lengthen term-limits, so much so that the Democrats kept the proposal, which has "bi-partisan ELITE support". Quinlan Greenberg says that a term-limit lengthen - even the modest proposal of going to 12 years instead of the current six, would be a poison pill since 60% opposed the idea. So the Democrats kept that out of their 12 page reform.
I say this to even my Republican friends who think expanding term limits is a good idea. DON'T TRY. I knew this before I saw the Dem data though, but its nice verification.
(Slide 27 - "Term Limits Taint entire proposal")
Voter Reservations about Part-time Legislature and Unicameral idea, but are warmer to reducing the size of the legislature (and other branches).
Interestingly, the Quinlan data asserts (without percentages or much analyis) that voters have reservations about both ideas, and that a raw reduction in both houses beats.
The upshot here is that the Democrats have essentially tried to steal an entire theme of Republican government - reduce governmental size - to put sugar in the water so that they can pass their poison through. It proves that the conservative principle of less government - a bedrock Reagan value - is alive an well.
It proves that if Republicans return to their "brand" they will win, even in this allegedly anti-Republican environment. I love the Quinlan statement, "Voters feel that they've suffered during this recession, and that the government should share their burden." Still, government has grown despite the recession, governmental salaries continue to rise, and the pain is paid by the taxpayer - which only acts like quicksand to draw us deeper into recession. (Slide 24)
Indeed, if the proposal didn't "log-roll" the reductions in such a way as to be blatantly a power play intended to restructure the game and remove checks and balances against Democrats, I would favor a reduced legislature (definitely no change in the Supreme Court size, and probably not in the Court of Appeals but I'd have to look at that more carefully), and certainly reduced executive (which, in this proposal, is the lightest of the changes proposed, ironically, and a token so it didn't appear it wasn't being touched).
Election Reforms - Feel good ban on illegal immigrant voting.
Allegedly some 2005 poll suggests that they are popular, but Quinlan data says that the only way to make the popular is to adopt the Republican-conservative platform wholesale. That is - ban illegal immigrants from voting (sort of already the law, but not effectively enforced given the way voter registration is done) and to NOT INCLUDE voter registration at less than 30 days before an election. Throwing that into the Constitution though is a "feel good" statement since it doesn't change the status quo. The only thing the Democrats "get" in their proposal here is "No Reason Absentee Voting," something many Republicans (including myself) support and not entirely a partisan issue, although the Democrats have sort of adopted the issue recently. But the data prove that the traditional Dem stance on immigration is not popular - so the RMGN proposal simply moves to the right and adopts a conservative position to buy votes and further conceal its true purpose.
The Reform Michigan Government Now folks, who want to logroll your Constitution with 30 plus some changes, submitted less than 490,000 signatures yesterday. That's not bad - they needed 380,000 roughly. But in historical context, it is "tight". Previously, due to lower voter turnouts relative to the large number in 2006,the signature mark was usually around 320,000. In 2006, MCRI turned in the then record 508,282 signatures, a cushion of 190,000 over the 317,000 needed based on the 2002 vote. Nearly a 160% over the mark. Typically, a 20% cushion is considered safe with a well run petition (MCRI also was "tight" in its small 10% invalidity rate, qualifying more than 455,000 signatures), although a group in 2006 submitted nearly 500,000 signatures and got kicked because it had nearly a 50% invalidity rate (Stop OverSpending or SOS). The difference between well-run and poorly run can be seen in that comparison.
But this year, the log-rollers needed 380,000 signatures, almost 20% more than in 2006, because of 2006 turnout. That'z a 129% margin. The Stem Cell Research folks turned in 570,000 signatures at the same time, exactly a 150% margin (MCRI still holds the record, at 160.2%, in my opinion, but note my bias here as an executive officer of MCRI during the signature collection effort). More importantly though, at 29%, the logrollers are susceptiple to a technical challenge, in addition to the legal writing challenges that will surely be raised. If they were well run, they'll have the number. If not, or even run according to historical standard averages, it will be close or they will get knocked off of their own accord.
While signature gathering is difficult and temporary failures in Oklahoma and Missouri this year prove that, it appears that Ward Connerly's efforts have turned up some fruit in Arizona and Nebraska, which just filed their signatures with reasonable cushions, according to this Fox report.
They join Colorado, if they can defend the signatures, in being among three states that will consider the same issue Michigan voters approved 58%-42% in 2006.
Candidates at the forum were Mark Ouimet, R-District 1; Frank Parkinson, D-District 3; Tom Partridge, D-District 3; Jessica Ping, R-District 3; Owen Diaz, R-District 4; Larry Cox, D-District 7; Sean Gray, R-District 7; Kristin Judge, D-District 7; Barbara Bergman, D-District 8; Leah Gunn, D-District 9; and David Kanaan, D-District 9.
Bergman, describing herself as the "original tax-and-spend Democrat,'' said she thought a senior millage may have been viable in the county before the economy went bad.
"If our economy improves, I'd like to see a senior millage,'' said Bergman, who added that she wouldn't want any of the millage money spent on buildings.
Only in that town's twisted political structure will find Democrats who, during the worst recessions, actually brag about being the "original tax-and-spend Democrat," but even the "original" recognizes that taxes ARE NOT VIABLE IN THIS ECONOMY.
RightMichigan.com has done alot of work attempting to get to the source of whether a new monstrosity to attack the Constitution is a "real" effort. The signs are mixed, but the petition itself sure is dangerous. It changes dozens of sections of the Constitution, in a process called "log-rolling". It takes 12 pages of fine print to finish its brutal gutting of our current Constitutional protections. I counted at least 19 changes, but only quickly by looking at the number of sections changed and without a fine tooth comb. But the sponsors aren't talking, and if real are trying to slip one in past the goalie, so to speak.
Here's yet another sign of who's sponsoring it. It adds a clause to include "enactment of laws for the prevention and punishment of election and petition fraud," to Article II, Section 4. Sound like someone against MCRI might have written that? The problem here is not in the words - its how and who later gets to define those words. "Preventing and punishing" ... "fraud" certainly seems like a nice thing - and would be if the words are given plain meaning - but when "fraud" means anything you disagree with it becomes a dangerous tool in the hands of an overzealous govenrment. And I doubt Democrats or the sponsors of this bill plan on prosecuting election fraud in, say, the City of Detroit. They mean something else.
The rest of petition seeks to "stack" both the Senate and most sinisterly Michigan Supreme Court, selectively reducing each body's size in a way that would clearly benefit the Democrat Regime of Mark Brewer.
While I respect Leon's effort and understand how vicious the opposition was, this suggests a fundamental error in planning, which is surprising coming from someone who's been in battle with BAMN and even Brewer himself. Leon rightly accepts all the blame for the failure, but the lesson should be clear. Don't go into gunfights with knives, or at least have a couple bulletproof vests.
Despite predictions of his demise, hopefully Brewer & co. will underestimate Leon the next time around.
Zarko Research was at the ballgame Saturday, and we took a few shots (at right). If the throw had been a bit lower . . .
(Just noticed this. Please drop me a message if you want a Diary promoted to the front page. Thanks. - promoted by chetly)
Date: June 25, 2008
Time: 7:30 PM
Location: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum
Cost: FREE!
GVSU's Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum are proud to host Michael Scheuer, a New York Times and Washington Post bestselling author, is the former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. Mr. Scheuer retired from the CIA in 2004 after two decade's experience as an analyst. He focused on U.S. national security and covert operations in Afghanistan, South Asia, and the Middle East, and has since written three books about Osama bin Laden and the War on Terror -- Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America (2002), Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism (2004), and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq.
Marching Toward Hell, according to the New York Times, "is filled with arguments sure to enrage just about everyone, including Republicans and Democrats, neo-conservatives and liberals, oil companies and international humanitarian organizations."
Mr. Scheuer is an adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, and a major presence in the media. Besides being a consultant for CBS, he has appeared on Meet the Press, Nightline, 60 Minutes, the O'Reilly Factor, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Real Time with Bill Maher.
For more information visit: www.allpresidents.org or call (616)331-2770.
30 signatures were rejected because the "signature comparison challenges bear no resemblance to the signature on file for the individual."
That's a 00.19% (far less than 1%) rate of signatures that don't match the signature. Hardly massive fraud.
Of the other 7,000 rejected signatures, 6,300 were related to non-registered or non-resident voters signing (and signers often unknowingly sign thinking they are in district or were registered when they were not). 2/3rds of them were at the signer stage (which is beyond the control of circulators, although petition managers can weed some of them out), and 1/3rd based on improperly registered or non-resident circulators (which means the signer was registered and if a Constitutional challenge succeeded Leon would succeed. since more than the requisite number of voters in the district signed).
Drolet desevers blame for a massive technical failure in verifying circulators, but the fraud rate is tiny if even truly "fraud". 30 signatures could merely be signers signing fictitious names -a routine occurrence in petition-gathering - but its hardly a pattern and hardly something you'd think of as a conspiracy involving Drolet or petition managers.
Editorial Note: The following is a piece submitted by a reader, Scott Downing, and OutsideLansing.com takes no position accuracy of the content, although we can verify that the analysis of the two Open Meetings Act lawsuits is fairly close to their meaning, in our non-legal opinion. We accept such submissions on a review basis, and this is squarely within our mission as a story on local politics and in particular on local educational politics and FOIA. At the least, the story provides insight into the machinations of local boards and superintendents.
Let the Sun Shine in Northern Michigan
It was a cloudy day on Monday March 17, the second day of Sunshine Week 2008. The Marion School Board of Education, without discussion, voted 4-1 to enact cuts recommended by Superintendent Charles Chase. The cuts included the entire high school business program, three high school English classes, the entire junior high computer program, the junior high core extension and the junior high reading program. In one misguided moment, 20% of the high school teaching staff was eliminated. Chase convinced the board that the cuts were necessary because of a dwindling student population (an amazing loss of 250 students out of 853 since 2001); a sad, but growing trend in rural northern Michigan schools.
Well… not exactly.
It is true that student populations are decreasing in Michigan. However the Marion District's 29% drop in students since 2001 is stunningly above the state average.
Marion Public Schools, as of the 06-07 audit, had a 28% fund balance (or rainy day fund). The Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) recommends a balance between 12-15%. While Marion is cutting teachers, the Marion Board, upon Superintendent Chase's recommendation, voted to add an assistant principal at the high school, (a position slated to be filled by board member Christie Prielipp’s relative). This too is an ever growing trend in public education: increasing administrative costs and hiring family members. (Twenty years ago the Marion District had nearly twice as many students but yet half as many office personnel.)
The plot thickens, the lone no vote was cast by Alicia Michell. Alicia had questioned the legality of board meetings being held in a series of closed meetings to discuss budget cuts. Avoiding the Open Meetings Act, Superintendent Chase had scheduled meetings to discuss his recommendations prior to the board vote. These meetings were closed to the public. Both board president Ken Bollman and Superintendent Charles Chase assured Alicia Michell that it was legal to meet in this way. Not so. In both Booth vs. Wyoming and Booth vs. Univ. of Mich. Bd of Regents, the courts ruled that a series of meetings totaling a quorum when deliberation of policy occurs is a violation of the Sunshine Law. Open Meetings Act of 1976) Consequently, Michell refused to participate in serial meetings.
Ironically, Alicia Michell, the only MASB certified board member of the district, has been disallowed by principal Larry Johnson to visit her husband's classroom during the school day. This bizarre action by Johnson followed superintendent Charles Chase’s false banning of Scott Downing (that‘s me), after I had submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the district. The ban continued even after I became a member of the school board. The district had withheld applications from me to run for school board, and then used the school liaison officer to keep me from being sworn in after I won a seat on the board as a write-in candidate.
To observe these follies and decline of the Marion Public School district, please visit www.highlandwire.org. I have created this website (both as a former teacher and board member of Marion Public Schools) in an effort to expose the collapse of education in the district.
What happens when a tiny community might receive an extra half-million, and $11 million in investment and a few jobs?
Athens Township Treasurer Michael Irons estimates the 15,000-horsepower natural gas pipeline compressor station Vector Pipeline wants to build would be assessed at $11.2 million, which would generate $516,487 in annual tax revenue. Vector spokesman Bill Stephens called that a safe estimate.
It would take 91 Deb's One Stop gasoline stations to equal the value of one compressor station, Irons said, but the new revenue won't be a half-million dollars for the township to fix roads.
Why is that?
Most of the money would go to public education, Calhoun Intermediate School District and Calhoun County. Some of it would be absorbed into the township's fire, library and school debts. State-mandated revenue limitations would force millage rates to be lowered, but only minimally, Irons said.
Township millage rates would likely drop 0.75-mills, he said. On a $100,000 house, that's roughly $40 in annual savings he said.
"Anyone who thinks this is going to be some huge tax decrease is going to be disappointed," Irons said.
Oh, so you either don't get roads repaired or tax reductions because the schools and library have "debts". While I understand that there are capital improvement loans, these entities typically aren't allowed to run real debts. So what's up? And regardless, what's WRONG WITH REDUCING DEBT. Sounds like a "good thing" to me. And more money to public education? I thought that was good too, at least theoretically.
Oh, here's why its bad. The "state" will have to pay less to "even out" those debts. Well, the state paying less is a mighty good thing too, but, alas, even I would be upset if there is a state law or rule that makes the relationship a one to one relationship. Change the law though, don't stop economic growth because the state law reduces your tax benefit from the growth.
The $47,537 per year the station would yield to Athens Area Schools' bond debt "would essentially be a wash," said Superintendent Randall Davis. It would not affect the school millage; the district would get less money from the state to even out balances, Davis said.
What malarkey. Superintendent Davis is acting like a welfare recipient. As if the State's bail-out of his debt payments is "better money" than private money generated from local economic growth.
Here's the rub though. NIMBY is taking hold. That's "not in my backyard", and its why our gas (driving) prices are so high. Sure, natural gas doesn't go into our car tanks, but energy is "fungible". Produce more electricity from North American sources and you need less oil from the Mid-East. Reduce even at the "margin" demand for some oil, and you decrease prices for everyone through the laws of supply and demand. But years of all kinds of policies that restrict exploration, growth, etc. have kept supply constant while demand and therefore prices increase. Here, Athens residents are worried about a little "noise".
Township residents have been largely opposed to the station since it was first proposed in November, worried about noise it would generate. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which holds final approval on the station, has said the noise impact would be minimal, if at all noticeable.
Fear mongering by someone? Folks, this is a national security issue. Natural gas is relatively clean compared to oil, so its a global warming issue. It's a gas price issue. It's all rolled into one. And we wonder why America is faltering and has a fuel shortage. We paralyze ourselves with regulations, pander to every objection, and stop our own energy production.
This is not to say we shouldn't have some regulation of noise - but if the station complies with the law, including noise law, it should be built. It will help us all - not just Athens Twp - as this point makes.
"I understand folks in Athens Township are not familiar with gas compression facilities and they're asking a lot of questions," Stephens said. "I still contend ... our system is going to blend into the background in very short order after it's up and running and continue to bring much-needed and well-utlized tax revenue to the township, the county and the state."
The compressor station would increase flow on Vector's 348-mile pipeline that runs between the Chicago area and Ontario, Canada. Stephens said this would help keep natural gas competitive.
He's now under 8,000, at 7,948, which is 776 signatures short. His defense at this point now relies on a Constitutional challenge to slightly more 2,000 signatures on the basis that the residency requirement is unconstitutional. While the residency requirement likely is - or certainly should be - unconstitutional, Leon's hanging his hat SOLELY on an issue that can't conceivably be litigated in time to change this outcome. It's a federal issue, and he's not going to get review quickly enough.
It's also a complicated federal issue - and very important to develop a factual case that is ideal. As such, I must oppose any legal challenge (unless Leon can convince a Michigan court to recognize the federal issue, which might happen in a timely way, or a Michigan court to make the same ruling on the similar provisions of the Michigan Constitution) that attempts to go to federal court on this. It'd be throwing good money after bad, and its not wise in the long-run. Sometimes you just have to take your lumps.
Leon - if you're listening or reading, drop the constitutional challenge. It's bad strategy for the whole national pro-signature collecting rights movement because even if you were lucky enough to get this up to the US Supreme Court (not likely, but necessary since there is a conflict among different Circuit benches on this issue), this case would be presenting a poor set of facts and unified set of enemies upon which to base a challenge to the residency requirements. And the stakes for that go long beyond anything in Redford Twp.
Susan Demas is a former editor of the Battle Creek Enquirer, and has always seemingly had something deeply personal against Leon Drolet in her columns. Here, in the new "Dome Magazine", she savages him for what appears (the challenges are not yet final, but the news does not appear to be good) to be his latest failure to recall Andy Dillon. The problem here is that she's partially right, though way off in tone.
The left in general is "gloating" at Leon's loss - and to an extent, if the news remains as it is, they have a right to. Even Nick Deleeuw over at RightMichigan.com has decided to "throw under the bus" the petitioning firm (Nick blames the petitioning firm and says Leon was "ripped off", which I believe is an unfair attribution of blame to the petitioners and even the management firm, which though it deserves some credit for success or blame for failure, it was brought in late in the process - - if anything, Leon deserves the blame & Leon would have (or might still if very lucky) gotten the credit), even before the challenge process winds its way to a final result.
The problem. Drolet and company collected 14,000 signatures, needed roughly 8,900, and according to the Secretary of State Bureau of Elections staff (which is honest), had only roughly 8,100 verifyable valid signatures. That leaves them 800 short, and some signatures may be "recoverable" if Drolet can prove them to be valid, but that's a big hill to climb. Drolet also alleges that rougly a 1000 signatures were rejected because improper challenges to circulators (there were 2000 circulator level challenges, so this implies that there is some nuance to the argument and the issue is more than just whether non-residents can be Constitutionally barred from collecting). The left has been quick to create a narrative that Drolet's signature collection quality was horrible and that this is an "unwinnable" battle to recover signatures - and the right has seemingly capitulated to accepting that storyline almost immediately (I suspect because many on the right simply don't like the idea of recalls or Drolet).
The problem for Drolet is that he has staked a large chunk of his reputation on this recall. He has put too many eggs in this basket. OutsideLansing.com and OaklandPolitics.com reported in the video embedded at left in October 2007, quoting Leon that "at least one head must roll" for his work to succeed. He was right. And if a head doesn't roll, it must ultimately reflect on Leon.
I like Leon. But I also understand that he pushes the boundaries - even farther than I do. Leon has served a function by making his point - but it's been an expensive point as he has also used up resources (imagine a $100,000 headstart on a Right to Work drive) and credibility (Leon's mostly, but there is some rub off to other efforts he's been associated with, and even Republicans generally, although that's hardly his concern nor should it be) in the effort.
So when you read all the forthcoming post-mortems on Leon try to sort through it with a fair mind and some balance. Premature calls of Leon's death (he'll be back as the Terminator might say) or even the loss of the signature review before the full due process has been exhausted, are inappropriate. But some of the criticisms are certainly right - and both Leon and his movement absolutely must learn from this experience.
The policy does include some allowances for candidacy.
It does not apply to employees who are candidates for unpaid or temporary offices, such as service on a municipal charter revision commission, delegate to a constitutional convention, or service on a city or county b oard where the service is unpaid. The policy also does not apply to employees who are candidates for part-time local offices, whether paid or unpaid, that do not require service during the employee's normal working hours.
The policy is still in draft stages, according to Smith.
"We are still waiting on input from the on-campus community," Smith said.
The policy also states that all employees who are members of "a collective bargaining unit" like the faculty union are subject to this policy as well.
Some of the other details suggest that the policy may be more well-thought out than my previous post suggests - the exceptions above for "part-time local offices" not requiring service during normal work hours seem rational. On the other hand, addressing the Peters' debacle with a policy at all seems rather unnecessary - it was a failure of common-sense, and direct favoritism for a Democrat and candidate by the hiring party (the PoliSci department chair, as our FOIA exclusive demonstrated last October), that caused this problem -- not the general actions of other faculty. Common-sense in the SECRETIVE selection process (or say a selection process that was fully public once the final candidates were involved), would have precluded this controversy. And if there is to be a policy response at all, perhaps something in the hiring process -- not a policy that seeks to (properly, if you believe in such policies) carve out a myriad of exceptions to when other faculty not responsible for the Peters debacle can run.
This is why I mildly disagree with Lennox's declaration of victory. As conservatives advocating for streamlined (not eliminated) and efficient government, its hardly consistent to cheer and declare victory when the public body we're pressuring for reform implements or even proposes yet another policy in response to a situation where common-sense would have dictated a wiser set of actions from the beginning (or where the principle of openness and transparency would have inspired more common-sense from the beginning, without the need for ever yet more winding policies and exceptions and nuances).
"I think it's a great proposal that should have been implemented months ago," said former Student's Against Gary Peters spokesman Dennis Lennox. "This is a victory for students and tax payers who wanted to hold Gary Peter's accountable."
The Topinabee junior explained 4 p.m. Tuesday was the deadline to file to run for a Congressional position, and those who filed have until 4 p.m. May 16 to withdraw their name.
"It's a huge vindication," Lennox said.
While I think it is certainly the case that Lennox is somewhat "vindicated" in the sense that what he latched onto were important enough issues to justify a thoughtful university response and change, and he had a huge amount to do with the outcome, knowing the long-term operations of universities and how this fits into the larger picture, leads me to believe that behind the declaration of victory the administrative beast at CMU chugs on.
Knowing that short-term battles are different from the long-view, and knowing that even in apparent "defeat" at the hands of a flyspeck the university can use the opportunity to sieze more control over its faculty, unions (not to defend them in all or even most cases, but university administrativia has been just as brutal in a corporate sense to staff and graduate "teaching assistants" at times as any liberals' criticism of regular companies), and administrative staff. Public universities after all are legally corporations too - certainly the most perverse type as they combine elements of government and corporation (National Socialism was just such a mix), and they don't make a "profit" (technically 501c3 status, but their "profits" are all hidden in the exorbitant administrative salaries, deals made with other industry partnerships, and an array of lobbying structures and slush money liberally greased around to keep the system rolling and expanding). This is not to say there isn't some product or intellectual output - but it is only the sliver of the iceberg appearing at above a murky water that few would want to delve deeply into.
It's all about the elite ruling structure of universities - and control over who runs and doesn't run can be a double-edged sword easily used selectively (against only Republicans, or only Democrats, or only unfavored individuals of either party outside the "mainstream" or outside the lobbying-cash stream).
We need universities that honor, respect, cherish, and cultivate the individual mind & that value truth (Veritas is one of the three words on the U-Michigan seal & motto) and place it out in the open where it most effectively & quickly outshines falseness and (even honest) error. These things don't require "policies" - they require a sea change in attitude, they require common-sense, and they require a renewal of respect and teaching of Constitutional principles.
Whether its good or bad news is not certain, but Gary Peters has, according to sources, been "forced" out of his job at CMU.
OutsideLansing.com has heard that not only is Peters out - which gives him more time to run against Congressman Joe Knollenberg here in the congressional 9th district, but that CMU has implemented a blanket policy against employees running for office. It is OL's opinion that such a policy - if not focused on the individualized circumstances (we should prohibit use of public resources or time for campaigns - but its likely a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit all employees from running) like hiring of Peters' in this case before hand and with knowledge he'd use the position as somewhat of a platform (our own FOIA exclusive exposes the faulty CMU thought process, notably Political Science department chair's admissions that Peters was hired because he was a Democrat (an "affirmative action" hire to "balance" a previous Republican) and others admitting that his race might result in favors for CMU later on.
Additionally, Dennis Lennox has notably declared it (see below for his press release) as a "victory" for students - while we agree that holding Peters accountable is a victory, holding other innocent professors accountable for Peters' conduct would not be. Since we do not have the policy change in front of us, we can't be sure about its nature, and will with-hold further criticism until then. We must approach the issue both with consistency, balance, and due process.
Here's a challenging website to get your mind around. Every now and then you run across something shocking when you're digging around the net.
Steve Harry. A Democrat running against incumbent Joan Bauer of the 68th District (most of Lansing itself, including highly unionized populaces in south Lansing).
But this is no usual Democratic race - Harry is anti-union. Very anti-union. More anti-union than I've ever been accused of being (and I have considerable respect for what unions did and sometimes continue to do - having grown up in a union household).
It's as if Harry has a death wish (sorry about the movie pun). In an interesting liberal context, here's what Harry writes:
First, I want to thank the nearly dozen folks who responded to my ads here, on RightMichigan.com, and on Facebook to go to Missouri to help out the petition drive. Of that group a handful took a week or two out of their schedules and traveled to Missouri.
Unfortunately, according to the Kansas City Star, the blockers from ACORN, unions, and even another paid petitioning firm, precluded the Ward Connerly inspired drive from achieving a comfortable enough margin to submit signatures. And without ridiculous margins - the powers that be will simply kick you off the ballot - so I presume a strategic decision was made not to try to push a close call in Missouri and spend money chasing it.
What it proves is how difficult petitioning has become - and it will require serious thought by our forces on how to regroup - but we can look to Michigan's own experience with optimism - we qualified for the November 2006 ballot only after being delayed by stalling legal actions in 2004. While I personally have not been formally employed in these efforts since early 2006, there are a number of Michiganders involved in the national movement who deserve our support. There are still active efforts in Nebraska and Arizona to get on the ballot - and Colorado has already qualified its initiative for the ballot.
I'm going to jump out on a bit of a limb here and critique corporate welfare in Holland. Why a limb? While I generally support Chambers of Commerce, they do occasionally hold their hand out for government goodies. In Holland, they're doing so, according to WOOD-TV here:
"Times are too tough in this area to ask for higher taxes right now," said Al Friend of Holland Area Taxpayers. "We disagree on how it should be funded. There are other airports in the state and the region and the nation that do not use local millages and grow."
Friend questions the necessity of the millage: the airport operational and making money. Millage supporters argue federal aviation money is at stake.
"For every two-and-a-half cents that you spend you can be eligible for 97-and-a-half cents in federal and state grants. But you have to raise the two-and-a-half cents," said Jim Storey of Jobs & Economy Team.
That's $384,000 annually for land acquisition, U.S. customs, and upgrading Tulip City Airport's 15-year old instrument landing system.
Storey said, "$1,975,000 of it would be paid for by the feds, and for $25,000 you get a state-of-the-art instrument landing system."
The airport is currently funded by fees and state and federal dollars - corporate users footing the bill for major improvements like extending the runway.
In a paid advertisement, supporters like Holland's Chamber of Commerce, Lakeshore Advantage and business leaders claim an up-to-date airport will maintain and attract new business and grow jobs in an increasingly competitive world economy.
You wonder why the Chamber is paying for an advertisement and campaign, rather than just raising the money. Why can't the local businesses and commercial and amateur aircraft owners and users pay for it? Why not raise some cash through good old-fashioned fundraising. I mean, if the benefit is really that great - if the leveraging of investment 25 to 1 - the Chamber should pony up and donate and encourage its members to donate. Then, if that's not enough - raise user fees enough to pay for the improvement - but not the general taxpayer.
Let's look at a different model occasionally for funding improvements. While an extra $10 a year for a homeowner might seem trivial - such taxes themselves have their own marginal economic and job effects.
Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick - facing felony perjury charges - now faces an active petition to recall him, according to the Detroit News.
The Wayne County Election Commission -- county Clerk Cathy Garrett, Chief Probate Judge Milton Mack and county Treasurer Raymond Wojtowicz -- voted unanimously that Brown's language was clear enough to proceed.
The commission had rejected another petition from Brown this month.
The approved petition reads: "Kwame Kilpatrick is too preoccupied to be effective as mayor of Detroit with felony perjury charges."
The contrast betweent his and the petition against Andy Dillon is interesting, and it will be interesting to see whether any Democrats get behind doing the right thing in Detroit - something that should be bi-partisan and a consensus builder - but I suspect its going nowhere. Certainly, without money it won't succeed.
Kevin Elsenheimer is back in the 105th state house race, running now for his final term, after backing out of his bid for Michigan Court of Appeals. That effectively quashes the multi-person primary of interesting personalities - including Dennis Lennox of Central Michigan University videotaping fame, and John Ramsey, of national fame for being the father of murdered child Jon Benet Ramsey.
"Monkey". In reference to a human it is clearly a derogatory term subtending the thought inferior intelligence.
If a white person calls a black the term, it will create an explosion of charges of racism - and rightfully so. In historical context the term has been used to equate blacks with monkeys.
"MichiganLiberal" dot com [ed: we do not link to ML because they refuse to reciprocate even when referring to OutsideLansing work or its author in newsworthy situations] has not only repetitively used the term "monkeys" in referring to Drolet's team of individuals (which includes black circulators, although we're sure ML's owner, Eric Baerren, will claim ignorance of that and assert he thought he was only referring to white people), but it combined the phrase with a criticism of Drolet hiring "crackheads from Detroit". That latter phrase alone would have its own racial connotation (how do we know people "from Detroit" happen to be "crackheads", and the term itself is disrespectful to persons of lower economic status who happen to be addicted to crack), but combine it with "monkeys" and I have no problem calling out Mr. Baerren for repetitively using racist language and racial codewords.
Mr. Baerren has repetitively refused to allow us to comment on his website, exercising his private property (so-not-liberal as well, but we agree with him that he has that right) rights to restrict access. So I comment here. Mr. Baerren - are you courageous enough to admit your language is inappropriate and to amend your tone to a more civil discourse? Whether "monkey" is racist or not - its not civil discourse. And whether "crackheads" are addicts, bad people, or some combination thereof - the term shows no "liberal compassion".
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question.
