A Look at Two Levies:

Hey all, on Tuesday the 5th we will be having our spring elections. There are no important ballot or political races in the area, so I don't need to touch those. With that in mind, I am going to go ahead and explain why we need to vote and pass two of the levies. Click 'read more' if you want to know more.



School Levies
In Ohio, our schools are failing our students. Kids can not learn, many are crammed into tiny classrooms, and some are even taught in trailers. Gym roofs leak, there are no AP classes offered, and some school don't even have sports teams. This is sad, and this is also a giant scar on the face of our state. We need to help these schools out, so that they can help kids out.

Students are the future of our country. Unless we foster these people and help them grow, they will not get anywhere. We need to protect our future and ensure that it is a good future. Thus, we should help to fund these schools in any way possible.
Vote YES on all school levies


See these kids? If you don't vote for these levies you will be condemning them to jail and a lifetime of misery. You don't want that, now do you?



Metro Park Levy
In this day and age, our land is being revenged by several forces. We have expanding housing, which is taking out fields for crops. The farms, being forced to move, are then taking over new land in forests and the like. We also have oil drillers, lumber people, and all of them, all raping the land. Sure, we need these things, but we do not need to act like we do now. These companies are destroying America's beautiful landscape, and we need to protect it.

As our country keeps expanding, we will only keep infringing on our precious natural resources. While we need to do this, we also need to do it in moderation and HOPE that we can preserve the pristine natural environment for all future generations. The Metro Parks ensure that we have these tracts of land for eternity. We need to do this for ourselves, our kids, and our great-great-great-grandkids.
Vote YES on the Metro Park Levy


see this deer? If you don't vote for this levy, then you want it dead. If you already want it dead, I won't give you the antlers...
Read more ...

Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 2

So just like my post from Wednesday, this one comes from the same post over on Mr. Keelers Report... Well, Ben discusses that the city of Washington D.C. Is probably going to get some representation in the House on Congressional Hill. He points out the issues with this in the Constitution, and I am simply going to further his arguments. Enjoy...



Let me start off by saying the CITY of Washington D.C., again, CITY is probably getting a vote. CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY
Keep that term in mind for the rest of this post...

Anyways, for the last few years various entities that are not states have been gaining rights in the House of Representatives. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somalia have all had delegates in Congress on their behalf. While these people were never allowed to make a deciding vote, they were allowed in committees and to cast figurehead votes. This, to me, is absurd.

The Constitution is clear that only States are to have any form of voting in Congress... Hey look, here is a quote for you:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
see, notice the bolded section? See, there should be no voting, even if it doesn't matter, by any member that is not from a state. Additionally, they should have no position on any, and I mean any, committee. To have the American territories in congress, except as watchers or speaker, is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

What else would you expect from these politicians?

Now, what is to stop the government from giving them votes in the Senate, or in the presidential elections? It is bad enough that they can vote in primaries (that is the right of the party to decide), but having any say anywhere else is wrong... Our government should not be working violate the Constitution, it should be trying to tape it back up after Bush violated it...

As an Ohio resident, I am concerned about the implications this has for my state. Instead of a proper say, we would have less of one then we should. I think that our state should have not voted on this bill as they did, and I am ashamed of Voiny and Brown for voting for it. Those two should be ashamed of themselves, they only harmed their state. Ohio deserves 18/435 reps, not 18/440 or so that they would plan on. Ohio is being screwed over by this, and we need to fix that

Anyways... By allowing this to happen, Congress is violating the rights of every citizen of the actual America. I truly believe that it infringes my 14th Amendment right to due process if they let this happen. I believe that all Americans should be pissed off by this sort of thing, as it violates our individual rights and will violate our most precious document.

Part of me thinks that if this passes, I might challenge the law, or maybe call up the ACLU to get them to help me take it to court

What do you guys think?
Read more ...

Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 1

Hello all, and welcome to the first real post on this site in the last week or so. Sure, Barga posts fun little stories and history, but they are all shit. RMB.reviews posts reviews, who the hell wants to read those? I know you are all here for me, so let's get started.

Oh, and Barga wanted me to let you all know, there is a poll on the side of the blog, respond to it...



This post is a direct post to one from Ben over at his political report. On THIS POST, Ben mentions, slightly, the fact that Minnesota still does not have a senator, well, a second one. I want to address this fact (go comment on his site, it is cute when he thinks that people care)
--On a side note, have your blog posts in their own pages, that way I can link directly to your post, not to the comments part... jackass--

Currently, Minn. Has 1/99 votes in the senate, instead of the 1/50 that they should constitutionally have. This, to me, is a travesty and something that we should address ASAP. The population of MINN is currently being deprived of due process (via the 14th) and thus are being harmed with such bullshit as the stimulus bill and other things that the left-wing congress is doing. Minn should attempt to filibuster all votes until they have the constitutional amount of say, or demand that congress doesn't convene until they get a new senator. After all, congress only needs to convene once a year

So, what should a citizen in Minn do? Well, logically they should start to protest this sort of system. They should sue congress to get them to stop meeting until they get a representative, or something along those lines. They should also sue the state government for allowing this sort of bullshit to happen and thus costing them their rights. Somehow, they need to get this solved, and get it done soon.

FYI, I might hate liberal commies, but I still want Franken to win... I mean, why not have a real clown in congress, instead of those only pretending to be



Now, as this blog likes to focus on Ohio, only because the glorious Barga seems to want some sort of following, I need to talk about how this is important to the state. So, how the hell does this effect Ohio? On the surface, it looks like it helps Ohio out. We get 2/99 votes, instead of 2/100, see how much better we are? We should work on some system to take out the senators (so the SS out there, I am joking about this part) so that Ohio gets all of the votes...

So how the Hell does it harm Ohio?

Well, it harms Ohio simply because of the precedent that it sets. If we allow Congress to meet without an attempt to ensure equal enfranchisement to all that deserve it, and are granted it via the constitution, then we have a problem. We should not let states not have their rights, and we need to do something about this. What if we had a problem getting Brown or Voiny to the Senate? Well, according to this reasoning, we should just forgo the vote. At this point, all states should be attempting to give Minn's one senator two votes, to keep this from happening...

Part 2 will be here on Friday, see you then Suckas
Read more ...

Blu-ray Review: Election (1999)

What do you get when you cross a high school presidential election with an overachieving teenager and an interfering teacher? Well, besides a guaranteed lawsuit, you get one funny and great movie. Toss in a few superstars and you have a blockbuster, or what should be one, for the teen demographic. Election fits this bill perfectly, and, it has the hilarity that you expect from this sort of set up. Starring Reese Witherspoon as the overachieving, pompous, and arrogant candidate Tracy Flick, Election is a great teen-comedy that takes the genre to new heights. Chris Klein plays her competition, Paul Metzler, who is an all-American quarterback from a rich family but with a heart of gold. The cast is rounded out by Matthew Broderick, who plays Jim McAllister, a beloved teacher who just gets in a little over his head.



Election tells the story of a typical high school presidential election, just with a slight twist. You have the usual prissy girl, running simply for the esteem. Then you have the typical popular dude, who is running simply because everybody likes him. Lastly, you have the stereotypical outcast, who is running just to mess with the system. Election takes these three main characters and simply plays with them, pitting them against each other in odder and odder situation. Using these amusing moments to advance the story line, Election rarely seems to lag or fall behind.

Election also tells the story of Jim McAllister, a teacher who just was not thinking well. From scamming an election to cheating on his wife, Jim simply is not ready for his role in life. The movie follows his digression a from loved and honest teacher, you know, the type that are way too dedicated, to his fall and divorce. Along the way he steals an election, sets up a Manchurian candidate, and has an affair with his best friends ex-wife. Oh, he also wants to have sex with one of his students and loses a fight with a wasp.

While Broderick did a great job of playing McAllister, the star of the movie has to be Witherspoon. Playing the preppy candidate who will do anything (literally) to achieve victory, Witherspoon actually draws us into her character and plays Tracy convincingly. With girl-next-door looks, and a brain to envy, this girl can capture you and then spit you out half the man that you were. Witherspoon plays such a convincing character that you actually are surprised when she starts to cuss (granted, it is in a fantasy), even though you have seen it before. This immersion into a character, and the investment it draws from the audience, is evidence of a great acting job.

While Election is not one of the great movies of all time, it is a great movie on its own. The pacing is good and the script is to die for. There is very little that detracts from the actual movie, and I believe that it will actually make you laugh out loud. I highly recommend renting or buying this movie simply to watch it.

Moving on to the technical aspects, Election is presented in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio which makes it a decent wide screen. The film is decently clear, and the transitions are quick and accurate, but there are a few remaining ghosts from the previous versions of the film that hinders its HD quality. Watching it on my TV, I was able to see some of the problems that were inherent in film at that time. The transfer from SD to HD, in this case, was not done as well as it could have been.

With that in mind, however, the film was of good quality. The colors were vibrant and looked especially good on all of the posters that covered the school during the campaign. All of these signs seemed to jump out at you, they were that bright. The black levels were decent throughout most of the film, but near the end, for some reason, they seemed to become sub-par and not really what I have come to expect from HD. While this transfer was nowhere near as good as I have seen before, it wasn't as bad as it could be. It seemed to be an average transfer, and shouldn't be noticeable to anybody using 720P or less.

As with most bluray movies, sound is presented in Dolby TrueHD. Unlike most blurays, however, the sound is available only in 5.0, not the normal 5.1. While this was abnormal, it was not that noticeable as my PS3 decided that it was going to output in 5.1 anyway. The overall sound quality was average, though the mixing was decent. You rarely lost any dialog or important sounds, which is pretty good. Additionally, you couldb hear background noises from classrooms during the movie (these were actual classes with real teachers and students), which added to the realism. While the sound was slightly front heavy, and seemed as though it would be better in 2.0, it was of decent quality.

While the overall quality of Election is good and the movie is great, it is missing one highly important feature: extras. Election comes with only one extra, and that is a director's commentary. I have always hated these commentaries and believe that they should be removed from all movies in the future. With the exception of the sing-along commentary from Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog, none of them have ever been worth my time. Extras are highly important on DVDs and BDs these days, and lacking them greatly harmed the value of this movie.

Overall, I believe that Election is a good movie to add to your collection if you like teen comedies. The movie is funny and the script is perfect. I truly believe that most teenagers will like this movie and it would be a perfect gift for them. It also is a great gift for college kids, as most of my friends loved it as well. Save for the fact that it is lacking in extras, the bluray is a good buy for its price.

Movie: 4/5 - I enjoyed the movie immensely and think that the script is amazing
Film Quality: 3/5 - Ghosting effects and sub-par black levels harmed this score
Sound Quality: 3.5/5 - Decent mixing and good quality
Extras: 1/5 - It has commentary (whoop-di-doo) and nothing else
Final: 3.5/5 - A good movie for any teen or college student

Election is rated R for strong sexuality, sex-related dialog and language, and a scene of drug abuse.

Read more ...

Will there be change, Part 2

Stephen D. Krasner - the political scientist, the Stanford Professor, the former Director of Policy Planning at US DoS – is apparently the only polysci author who actually has a strong sense of humor. While writing “Are Bureaucracies Important?”, which was a direct response to Graham T. Allison's “Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, Krasner decided to add a nifty little subtitle. “Allison Wonderland” is a clever little play on words that goes to show that at least one polysci writer has a sense of humor.

Anyways, moving onto the real topic for today...

In this essay, Krasner asks a very interesting question, one that I will attempt to answer in a very basic and non-complex manner:
“What sense to vote a man out of office when his successor, regardless of his values, will be trapped in the same web of only incrementally mutable standard operating procedures?”



Personally, I find very little stock in this actual idea. We can already see the vast policy differences between Obama and Bush, and they have only switched office for a day or so. We can see that Obama is actively attempting to remove the 'harmful' foreign policy decisions that Bush instated, and we can see that there is already a fight brewing over this. There is a clear and obvious change with every president, not just in staff, but in attitude. Looking at various ones, we can argue that it is more there attitude then position that causes the changes.

But is the Obama/Bush switch really a good candidate to analyze this?
As with all data, there will be outliers. From Lincoln to FDR to Obama, there have been only a few presidents that drastically changed the status quo. I believe that this is not what Krasner was looking at; it seems as though he was actually looking at most of our leaders, the ones who do not attack the standard. With that in mind, we can toss out the above mentioned changes...

So, instead we must focus on the small changes, but mainly on those that switched parties, as that is the best way to analyze what Krasner contended.

Was there a drastic change between Bush and Clinton? No, as Bush himself changed the Reagan policies to be more liberal. The dramatic change did not happen, it was slow and in the middle of one admin.. Yet, somehow we vote Bush out based solely on the idea that Clinton would change things up.

What about between Clinton and Bush take two? Not really, it wasn't until a drastic act changed the world that the real change became clear. As far as I know (based on Wag the Dog) Clinton would have acted roughly the same as Bush. Yet, somehow, we considered the election of Bush to be a mandate and bringer of change. The change that Bush brought to the equation came quite slowly, as it didn't foment until late 2002-early 2003.

As one of the Gaia regulars, PockyBot, would say, the NWO/the Elite actually control the politicians already (see my disclaimer at the bottom of the 9/11 post). As much as I disagree with this statement, I think that it has some bearings of truth. The elite do, in a way, control our leaders as they are the main path to the ears. They are the top brass, they are the top diplomats, they are the top thinkers. They are not in some large conspiracy, nor doing this out of their own interests, but they are controlling it simply to keep the status quo.

The status quo needs to be preserved. It keeps the country running smoothly and makes sure that everything is tested long before it is implemented. This sort of system keeps us alive, and it keeps our country alive. That said, however, how can there be change if the elite, AND THE COUNTRY, want to keep the status quo?

The answer, quite frankly, is that they can't

But what if they have a different philosophy?
This is actually the most important challenge to this position. Philosophies matter, a ton, but are they actually important? We elect based simply on the philosophy part, because we have already seen that the change doesn't happen. Sure, Obama is going in all ready to change how everything is done. So did Congress in 2006, and guess what, nothing changed. The philosophical differences are important, but they do not seem to change how the overall system works.


So, I have to agree with Krasner, it seems as though the overall policy of each politician will in the end be no different then that of the previous one. Too many outside factors impact each and every leader. Sure, Obama is going in with high hopes and plans on changing the World. The question is, will the World let him change it?




What do you guys all think? Read more ...

Senator Roland Burris is in Fact, a Senator

On Friday, CNN reported that the senate leadership has decided to not accept Roland Burris, the junior Senator from Illinois, to be admitted into their caucus, their body, or even on the floor of the Senate. This move, which has only been done by the House, is a rare move that it usually used only for the purposes of removing a person who will not remove themselves. It has never been used on a new comer, and it is Constitutionally dubious.

Nobody is questioning the fact that Burris is clearly a well qualified man for the job. He is the eldest black statesman from Illinois, served as the first black elected to two high-power positions, and basically laid the groundwork for Obama. He also has a granite carving of his qualifications, and it is quite impressive. Also, nobody is arguing that Blagojevich has the power to appoint Obama’s replacement. Really, the Senate is arguing that they have the right to make a power play over the states, and this is essentially a bad move.

While currently there is a state-wide court battle to confirm Burris as appointed (the SoS is refusing to do it, but the office will probably be ordered to by a court), the bigger battle is with the Senate. The Senate is arguing that they have the power to decide who is admissible into their membership. By using Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution the Senate is arguing:

“judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members”.

Basically, the Senate is saying that they have the right to decide who becomes a member of the Senate, and who does not.

The Senate, as has been their fashion lately, is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Constitution then spells out what the qualifications are in Section 3 of Article 1:

“No person shall be senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States.”

Basically, the Senate can enforce these conditions, but if the person meets them, and they were put in legally, as Burris was, then they must be allowed to be in the Senate.

The Senate, of course, disagrees with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, who, on the other hand like the Constitution, has held that the qualifications are not up to the Senate to decide. In ruling against the House the court said that:

“The House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership”

Basically, if they meet the requirements (age, residency, etc.) then they have the right and power to be seated in the House. This ruling should also apply to the Senate.

Basically, the Senate is ignoring the Constitution and precedent simply to make a political point.

Now, let’s take this a step further, let’s talk about the fact that this is an attack on state’s rights. While I support state’s rights somewhat, depending on the situation, I see this as a major attack on the power of each state in picking their own leaders. Sure, this is a very iffy nomination, and arguably, it shouldn’t be happening, but that is irrelevant. The Senate is blocking a legally selected appointee from their position! This should be freaking people out, I mean, the Senate could, in the future, BLOCK AND ELECTED PERSON, simply because they disagree with who the person is. No citizen of the US should support this move, as it greatly harms the states.

Lets take this even further, what if the Senate decided that it wanted to punish Ohio? Well, they could remove Voinovich and Brown, or just not let them talk. What if Brown proposed a measure that they didn’t like, but that would help Ohio out, well, they could fire him. Think about it, the body that was created to represent the states will be able to override them, simply because they disagree.

Basically, I think that the Senate should seat Burris as he is the legal appointee to the seat left vacant by Obama. Plus, if they do not at least let him vote (via phone) as the Junior Senator from Illinois, then I think the state should sue.

As a side not, I think that Blago himself should show up to the Senate. Forum rules provide him the right to walk around and address (not formally) the body. Seriously, this would be hilarious and kickass.

Read more ...

11/4 Map Update

Post 70

This map is updated as of 6PM 11/3. The final image will be my prediction map, let it be as it is.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 338 to 200

Virginia - This swing state is still in the Obama camp, with a 4.3 point lead
Florida - Some recent strong polling showed Obama up by 1.6
Ohio - In the buckeye state, Obama is up 2.3 points
Nevada - The sin state has Obama in the lead by 6.2 points
Colorado - The state that housed the Democrat Convention has given Obama a 5.5 point lead


North Carolina - McCain has regained this southern state and is now leading by .6 points
Montana - McCain is keeping his lead here with 3.8 points
Arizona - While I do not think Obama can win this state, McCain has only a 3.5 point lead
Indiana - The state that always vote Republican is back in their camp, 1.4 points
Georgia - While Barr is hurting McCain here, McCain still has 4 points
Missouri - A .5 point lead is all that McCain has here

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.3 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 7.8 points.

Whalertly's Predictions:

This is what Whalertly thinks will happen... Please feel free to make alternate maps on this site and there are poll data on This one . Please explain your reasoning, and I hope that the best map wins...

I believe that Ohio, Virginia, and Florida will all switch due to hidden racism in the polls and the fact that they are not all that accurate.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: For The President of the United States of America

Post 69

There will of course be another map update tomorrow, the last of the polls before election day actually finishes. Furthermore, my entry on Wednesday will be bragging about how I was right 100% of the time (or, if my Oscar picks show anything, none of the time).

To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national.

President of the United States of America

Please feel free to respond to this, challenge this, etc.

Taxes

As shown before in this entry Obama is better for most Americans than McCain if you are looking only at taxes. It is all good and dandy to keep taxes low (McCain's pledge) but at some point people have enough money to live on. Who needs to make more than 250,000$ a year? Frankly, I agree with the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith when he says that at some point people should start paying more taxes. That said, the spread the wealth theory of Obama has some work to be done on it. I think that we should tax the wealthier more, but that money should first be used to pay for Iraq, Education, Infrastructure, getting out of debt, etc. before we move onto cutting taxes for the lower classes.

Iraq

I believe that we need to remain in Iraq until the job is done. I hold this belief even though I was opposed to the invasion when we went in, and still contend that there was no logical reason to ever go in. My theory is quite simple, why should we cry over split milk when we should just be cleaning it up? I believe that McCain has a much better plan than Obama in this regard. Our troops deserve our full support, and the generals should be listened too. That said, Obama has pledged to listen to his generals, but McCain, having a fair bit of experience (both in the field and in the Senate) definitely wins this category.

Education

I think that education is one of the most important things that our country needs to deal with. The school systems are harming our children, and college tuition is sky-rocketing. We as Americans need to come together to create a plan to rectify this. This issue is not only a personal issue, it is a danger for our next generation of leaders and, frankly, a national security issue due to the US being surpassed by China and India in sciences. Both Obama and McCain have good plans for the reform of our educational system but only one would work in my mind. McCain wants us to keep looking at achievement rates (based upon testing) for moneys and improvements. I think that this is an absurd manner as it is punishing the schools for the students. Their should be (as Obama suggests) peer reviewed teaching which makes sure that good teachers are rewarded and that bad teachers are kicked. We also need to spend far more on education (something that both agree on).

Gay Rights

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Abortion

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Internet

A fair number of people feel that Internet censorship (it isn't, but ignore that for now) should be a hot topic this election. They feel that so called 'net neutrality' is something that the president should come out strongly in favor of and believe that the free world is at stake. I am strongly against this idea, and think that private companies should be able to do with their property as they see fit (see a future entry), provided it violates nobody else's rights. That said, The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.

Foreign Relations

There is no way to argue that Obama will win this category. Years in the Senate, on various committees and otherwise, have given McCain a strong lead in this category. Obama is quite well liked by other countries, which is a great plus in a US president, but McCain's strong standing here helps him out greatly.

The Economy

Cutting taxes is not the answer, period. Our economy is struggling because of outsourcing, and a loss of jobs. We need to create deals that help companies stay, and help keep Americans out of debt. McCain's idea of cutting taxes will only lead our country into a larger debt, and I can not stand for that. After all, it is my generation that will be paying the interest on that.

Experience

I do not really see how this should be a major issue. Not one presidential candidate has any executive experience, and one veep has 2.5 years. This is a non-issue, and really quite absurd.

Bipartisanship

This should be the number one issue in any persons mind this election, but, alas, it sadly is not. All Americans should care about working with all other Americans, because, after all, that is the only way that we are able to get anything done. McCain has a strong background of supporting both parties, and working through and against his own party. Obama, on the other hand, has little bipartisanship background. That said, McCain's own argument against Obama based on time in office helps Obama in this regard; Obama has pledged to work with both parties (and I believe him when he says that) and can explain his lack simply as not having the time yet. See here Mr. McCain, every dagger has two sides.

Global Warming

All candidates and their veeps believe that this is real and somewhat man made. They differ on how to fix it, but as long as they talk to their advisors it is a-okay.

Energy

Both candidates think that we should get off of our foreign oil addiction, and I agree. We need to work on alternate energies and fuel sources to ease our economy, to create more American jobs, and to make sure that Global Warming can be addressed. However, I do not think that this is within the Presidents area so I do not think that they should touch it (though I am all okay with them going around the country lecturing on it).

Health Care

Now, I do not think that we should start health care for all right away, but, in about 2 years time it should be a good idea. In about 2 years Massachusetts will have had state-wide health care for some time, and we will be able to see how this system works in America. Obama has a great plan with health care, one that makes sure that all Americans have it, and that all Americans can be treated as normal persons. McCain's, on the other hand, is good in that it ensures health care, but it guarantees nothing and actually still allows where we are now.

So, with pros and cons to both candidates, who should Whalertly endorse? McCain has strong standings in Iraq and foreign relations, while he falters on education and the economy. Obama, on the other hand, is loved around the world and has a good plan to keep jobs in America, however, his lack of experience in international politics and his plan to increase spending by trillions of dollars show that he is not an ideal candidate. However, there are several things that gave me a clear choice onto whom I would pick. Obama, with his strong stances on education, improving the economy, and his health care to all plans shows the leadership needed to be the next President of the United States of America.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: Issuef 5 and Issue 6

Post 68

If you would like to see the full Secretary of State reports on the issues please follow THIS LINK.

Issue 5

Referendum on legislation making changes to check cashing lending, sometimes known as “payday lending,” fees, interest rates and practices.

“If a majority of Ohio voters approve Section 3 of H.B. 545, all short term lenders, including check cashing lenders, would be subject to the following limitations:

The maximum loan amount would be $500;

Borrowers would have at least 30 days to repay the loan; and

The maximum interest rate would be 28% annual percentage rate (APR) on all loans.”

The maximum should be slightly higher (say about 1000) so that it could cover a months car and rent payments. This, however, is of little importance. I feel that the 30 days minimum is a good idea for a payback method. These are supposed to be short term loan agencies, and 30 days is a perfect amount to make sure they can afford it. This also means that there can be less obscene overage charges as the borrower has more time to get the money gathered to repay the loan. As for the interest rate, 28% APR is high, but still well within a payable amount (for the borrower) and a profitable amount (for the loan company).

From the against 5 committee - “By voting NO on Issue 5, you will preserve the jobs of thousand of employees within the financial services sector. In Ohio’s difficult economy, further job losses should be avoided, particularly good jobs - with competitive salaries and benefits”

This is one of those fear arguments. Seeing as most of the companies have already started to file under this system, and seeing that most will still make a fair amount of money, there is little chance that most of the loaners will shut down. I feel that while jobs are important, they are not worth a sacrifice of the loss of homes and bankruptcy of other Ohioans. Furthermore, as has been shown, there is no real loss of jobs at all.

Issue 5 is a good proposal as it makes sure that all Ohioans have a chance to still get loans for those days that they are short on cash. Furthermore, it makes sure that all who use said loans then are not in danger of loosing their homes and financial freedoms due to these loans. In the end, by helping keep Ohioans financially free, and helping to preserve jobs, Whalertly endorses Issue 5.

Issue 6

to amend the constitution by initiative petition for a casino near Wilmington in southwest Ohio and distribute to all Ohio counties a tax on the casino.

“Authorize one privately owned casino with a required minimum initial investment of $600 million dollars on a 94-acre site located near the northwest corner of State Route 73 and Interstate 71 in southwest Ohio in Chester Township near Wilmington, Clinton County, Ohio.”

Blah Blah Blah, this is merely what it does, no actual discussion needed...

“Require the casino to pay a tax of up to 30% on its gross receipts for gaming less payouts. The taxes are to be used first to pay expenses of regulating and collecting taxes from the casino, then for funding of gambling prevention and treatment programs, and the remainder to be distributed in the amount of 10% to Clinton County and 90% to the remaining counties based on population and to be used at each county’s discretion.”

The tax is not enough in my opinion. While there is a large tax base created by this casino, I feel that we should tax it far more. I propose we amend this to 50% tax. This keeps our economy running and would help even more to keep those who become addicted having treatment. That said, I like the distribution plan otherwise.

“Reduce the tax paid by the casino authorized by this amendment to the lesser of the rate taxed on another casino or 25%, in the event another casino is permitted in Ohio in the future.”

This is my biggest issue with this proposal, and this is the loophole mentioned in the commercials. While 25% is not that big of a deal compared to the 30%, we are talking about MILLIONS of dollars not going to the state. Plus, it is then only half of what I want it to be. As for the loophole, assuming we charged another casino no tax (for say, 5 years like we do with Car plants) then this casino would owe nothing. This to me is outrageous, and we should not allow a changeable tax rate put in. We should have one that is set.

“Require that the casino be subject to all other applicable types of taxes that are currently in effect in Ohio.”

I assumed they would be paying golf, show, food, and liquor taxes. Don't see why this is even in here.

“Authorize the casino to conduct any game permitted in the State of Nevada, or any state adjacent to Ohio, including any type of card or table games, slot machines, and electronic gaming devices, except bets on races or sporting events. Only persons age 21 and over would be permitted to place bets. Amounts of bets would not be subject to any limits now or in the future. Days and hours of operation would not be subject to limits. “

Okay, so I have two issues with this: What if Nevada comes up with some sweet-ass gambling situation similar to the Gladiatorial Arena in Rome? Well, then this casino can do it too. I know this is a far stretch, but something like that could happen. The other part is the age. I think that if you are over 18 (our legal age, plus you can do the lotto then) you should be allowed to gamble. Days, hours, and size of bets should be governable by our state. Furthermore, if we amend the state Constitution later, this part doesn't matter.

“Set aside the application to the casino of all local and state laws and any constitutional provisions that would prohibit the operation of this privately owned casino, including any local zoning law that would prohibit or place restrictions on a casino from operating on the property in question.”

This is absolutely a horrible idea. The locale should be allowed to govern certain rules that deal with the casino and its property in general. Furthermore, as pointed out above, this regulation means nothing if we later change the state Constitution.

A proposal for a casino in this state has been turned down time and time again. The people of this state do not want a casino, and they don't for very good reasons. This casino makes no guarantee about the amount that it will put into the economy, it harms the citizens, and it does have some loopholes. Furthermore, it opens the door for Indian casinos to come into this state. Due to the dangers presented to the citizens of Ohio by having a casino, and due to the fact that there is little oversight of it, Whalertly says NO to Issue 6.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: Issues 3 and 4

Post 68

If you would like to see the full Secretary of State reports on the issues please follow THIS LINK.

Issue 3
To amend the constitution to protect private property rights in Groundwater, Lakes, and other watercourses.

“Make explicit that a private property owner has a right to make reasonable use of the ground water that lies beneath the owner’s land, although this right is subordinate to the public welfare.”
I have some doubts here, but still think this is a good idea. I think that if it is an aquifer then the owner has no reasonable expectation of ownership of it. However, if it is merely an underground stream or causeway, then the owner should have the same rights as the next underlines section. Provided the government does watch out for the public, this is a good proposal.

“Make explicit that a private property owner who owns land on the border
of a lake or other watercourse has a right to make reasonable use of the water in such lake or watercourse located on or flowing through the owner’s land, although this right is subordinate to the public welfare.”
This is a good proposal on this fact alone, though it also includes some iffy wording. The owner of a piece of property has the right to believe that water flowing through or under it can be used by him at his pleasure. Of course, there are limits to this as there should be. My only issue is that fact that the limits are not explained well within this proposal. If I own part of the Olentangy, it makes sense that I can not string a fence along it. But, if I own a small part of the river (say juts out 5 feet from the bank) should I be allowed to govern that area? Basically, I agree with this contention, just disagree with the lucidity of the wording.

“Not affect the public’s use of Lake Erie and other navigable waters of the state.”
Okay, so we can own and use the water as we wish, but not if it is a major river or lake… Hmmm, this seems to be an issue to me as most large houses are built on lakes. I agree that these should be free to the public (hence the welfare clause above) but think that these waters (Erie is an exception) should be covered the same as the above clauses. Lake Erie should be considered different due to the fact that several states, and one other country, have competing interests in it.

“Prevent the rights confirmed under this proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution from being impaired or limited by the operation of other sections of the Ohio Constitution”
Basically, you can not take these rights away by limiting it more within the Constitution (and, of course, by laws). Hmm, seems like a good idea.

Overall, I feel that Issue 3 has some work to be done on it. They need to better define public welfare and define how far down your property rights lie. That said, as long as the state does keep the public welfare in mind, Whalertly endorses Issue 3.




Issue 4
Initiated legislation that required paid sick leave for employees in Ohio.

This issue was dropped by the proposing committee at the request of several of our elected leaders. Had it gone through, I would have been opposed to this measure. I was opposed to minimum wage increase and will be opposed to laws like this regarding businesses. I feel that the free market will take care of this sort of situation, and that laws like these actually drive businesses out of the market. Due to the effect on small businesses, Whalertly WOULD HAVE opposed Issue 4. Read more ...

10/28 Map Update

Post 67

There will be another map update on Tuesday at midnight, before any elections start. This current update is accurate up to 1:30 Monday Afternoon.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 375 to 163

Florida - Obama is still hanging on to a lead in the peninsula state with a 1.9 point margin

Indiana - Surprising me, Indiana has moved into the Obama category. Granted, this is by .3 points

North Carolina - Like last week, Obama is holding this state with a slim 1.5 point lead

Nevada - Obama is keeping his lead in the sin state with a 3.5 point margin

Ohio - With, in my mind, the last entry considering Ohio a SS, Obama has a 6 point le

ad

New Hampshire - Like Ohio, with its last entry as a swing state, Obama has a 5.6 point lead

Missouri - While McCain is making more ground here, Obama has +1.0

Montana - Now considered a swing state, McCain is still leading here by 4.5 points

Georgia -McCain is still holding on to his lead in this state with a 5.6 point margin

Arizona - Holy shit, a runners state is in play, McCain still is winning by 6 points

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.4 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 9.3 points.

Map

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements: Issues 1 and 2

Post 66

If you would like to see the full Secretary of State reports on the issues please follow THIS LINK.

Issue 1

“Require that a citizen-initiated statewide ballot issue be considered at the next general election if petitions are filed 125 days before the election.”

I feel that any day amount is acceptable in my mind. We should have more time to review and think about any issues on the ballot, not have only a month. By having 125 days (I would prefer if they had the term 4 months, but this works too) you have roughly 1/3 of a year to review a document. Furthermore, due to this deadline, I am willing to bet that we would have better and more applicable initiatives in this state. The main downside to this is the fact that if a bill is passed 100 days from the election, you can not create a petition or referendum about it til over 1 year later. I would prefer if we allowed petitions and referendums during our spring elections as well.

“Establish deadlines for boards of elections to determine the validity of citizen-initiated petitions.”

I feel that this is a good thing to have written into our system in Ohio. With a requirement for the issues to be finalized as okay at 105 days (20 days minimum for checking), I feel that the citizens will be able to properly analyze all of the issues. Furthermore, with this deadline, there is no wasted spending on issues that, ultimately, will not have enough signatures. Again, like the previous one, I would rather there be a month count (in this case 3 months).

“Standardize the process for legal challenges to citizen-initiated petitions by giving the Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction to consider these cases and establishing expedited deadlines for the Court to make decisions.”

This part is both the best and worst part of the proposal in my mind. While it is nice that the court has the ability to review and decide on issues (95 days til election, with 85 as a deadline for decision). This is nice because it give SCoO the original jurisdiction of these decisions and allows for all changes/adaptations needed. A downside to this is the fact that the court only has 10 days to make a decision. Based on outside factors, this might be a bad move for the court.

In the end, I feel that Issue 1 has many, many good things going for it with very few bad things. Due to the streamlining and time saved for the voters, Whalertly endorses Issue 1.

Issue 2

“Authorize the state to issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds for conservation and preservation of natural areas, open spaces and farmlands and other lands devoted to agriculture, including by acquiring land or interests in land; provision of state and local park and recreation facilities, and other actions that permit and enhance the availability, public use and enjoyment of natural areas in the state; and land, forest, water and other natural resource management projects.“

This is a great idea. As timber is wroth more and more, oil becomes more in demand, and the ever-expanding cities try to take over, our state will be making sure that we, and our decedents, will have great areas to enjoy. I feel that preservation, both of open areas and parks, and of historical locations and buildings, is good both for our tourism, our youngsters, and good for us as a society. We need to enjoy these locations, keep them clean, and make sure that they are there forever. That said, I want to make sure that the preservation of farmland is for the betterment of our society (more food, cheaper food, historic farmland for education, etc.) and not on the behest of lobbying mega-farmers.

“Authorize the state to issue bonds up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) for environmental revitalization and re-development of publicly and privately owned lands, including environmental remediation, assessment or clean up of contamination or pollution.”

I will not address this part as it ties roughly into what I do.

“Limit the amount that could be borrowed in any one fiscal year for either 3. conservation or revitalization purposes to no more than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) plus the principal amount of those obligations that in any prior fiscal year could have been but were not issued. “

Now, this part of the issue is something I am not too happy with. We are setting aside up to 200,000,000$ for usage of preservation yet we can only spend 50,000,000$ a year. While this makes some sense if we are going for small projects, what if we want to buy a large chunk of waterfront land for some park and it would cost over 50,000,000$? How do we handle that sort of issue?

In the end, even though there is a limit on this which I absolutely hate, for the betterment of our state and our decedents, Whalertly endorses Issue 2.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements on State Positions and US House

Post 65

CORRECTION
On my second review I mentioned Paula Brooks and a waste of 2 million dollars on the ball park. I made a mistake there; it is two hundred-thousand dollars. I apologize for that.



US Representative: District 15
Don Elijah Eckhart (I) v. Mark Noble (L) v. Steve Stivers (R) v. Mary Jo Kilroy (D)
As a side note, I support Stivers and his service to this country; we need to honor all of those who risk their lives for our freedoms.
Eckhart is out right away with his statements about being exceptionally anti-abortion. Noble has some good arguments, and is young (something I, as a fledgling politico like the idea). However, his statements on what a Constitutional Government are, um, slightly out of line.
So, it comes down to Stivers and Kilroy. Kilroy screwed up on the ballpark, Stivers voted to keep payday lending. Strivers wants to increase drilling while Kilroy wants to work on health care and its costs. In the end, the fact that Stivers has no real bipartisan actions and Kilroy has worked greatly with all parties, thus giving Kilroy the win.

AG
I am not touching this issue at all…

State Representative: District 21
Jeremiah Arn (L) v. Kevin Bacon (R) v. Jay Perez (D)
See my previous statement about Noble when looking at Arn. As for Bacon and Perez, it seems pretty clear cut. Bacon has worked with all parties, has a strong interest in health care and mentally disabilities care, and he also is working well in the school systems. Bacon is a clear winner.

State Board of Education: District 6
Kristen McKinley (NP) v. James Moyer (NP) v. Larry Wolpert (NP)
I have to be slightly careful on this one, as I know several people who will kill me if I pick the wrong person (worse off, they are rooting for different people); this is what I get for hanging out with political people.
Anyways, when it comes to education, two things come to my mind: School Funding and the science curriculum (Evolution by itself, all abiogenesis not allowed). I could find no actual information on Wolpert for the most part (I found some of his legislature record though). Lacking a website, or any real review (what he did for the LWV had little on it) I had to base it on his voting record. I am not really pleased with him.
When it comes down to McKinley and Moyer, you are stuck with a person who has been endorsed by pretty much everything that matters and a person who is fresh out of school himself. The issue here is that one website (Moyer) is put together by an acid-tripping eccentric person (seriously, look at its layout) and the other (McKinley) has absolutely nothing on it. Both McKinley and Moyer want better funding for our schools and want to work within the Supreme Courts decision.
However, Moyer argues that we should address only Evolution in the classroom (strongly, might I add) and McKinley (according to the Dispatch) says we must stay clear a debate on it. To me this is unacceptable as we need to take a firm stand on evolution in our schools and teach it with force. Science is science, regardless of what any book says. We should, however, teach the ID/Creationism/(insert your form of Abiogenisis here) in the social studies class as part of an ongoing issues series. Due to his strong position in favor of Evolution in the classroom, Moyer gets the endorsement.
That said, he should make sure that the “Paid for by Hermit crabs, hamsters and other classroom animals for Moyer” properly fill out their tax forms and that he is not committing fraud by listing them… Also, clean up your website a bit.

*EDIT*
After writing this endorsement I revieved the following quote from one of my sources on McKinly:
"I am aware of the time spent by the current Board debating curriculum issues such as creationism versus evolution. Because the current state of the law is a separation between church and state, debating this subject is whittling away public funds over an issue that has no current place in public schools. I believe that there are far more pressing issues that this Board must address. "
Now, I want to point out that while this says she supports only evolution in classes, she says that she does because of the law, not because it is right. That is a bigger issue to me. She does not address the fact that only science should be in the science class, but the law. Moyer still wins do to this addressing. Read more ...

Whalertly Endorses.... Local and Franklin County

Post 64


County Coroner
Jan Gorniak (D) vs Elaine Lewis (R)
While Lewis has a point that her husband has run the office well while maintaining a private job as well, I think that we need a fulltime (or, at least, no potential conflict) person in the office. Both have experience, both have worked at the office before. Gorniak, due to her desire to do only this work, is the winner in my book.

County Treasurer
Edward Leonard (D) vs Stephanie McCloud (R)
Both candidates have worked strongly in the government and have plans to save tax payers some money; frankly, there is very little difference in the two. Leonard, however, is endorsed by Cordroy, which makes me want him

Clerk of Courts
Clarence Mingo (R) vs Maryellen O’Shaughnessy (D)
Again, you have two people here who have similar goals and credentials. Both would make good contributions to this position, but O’Shaughnessy has a strong record of public-first as an attitude, which puts her ahead.

County Prosecutor
Tomi Dorris (D) vs Ron O’Brien (R)
Here it is a pretty simple case as Dorris withdrew from the ballot. O’Brien wins by default.

County Sherriff
James Karnes (D) wins by default. Wait, we seriously have a sheriff? I know what my ambitions now are.

County Commissioner (starting 1/2/09)
Paula Brooks (D) vs Angel Rhodes (R)
Rhodes has a point when she says that Brooks et al. bungled the ball park. While I agree that we should pick the cheapest group, usually, I agree that we should also pick ones whom agree with certain standards. While I do not think that a union contractor is worth an extra 2$million, I think that experience puts Brooks in the spot (I mean, Rhodes has nothing).

County Commissioner (starting 1/3/09)
Jeffery Miller (R) vs John O’Grady (D)
Frankly, this is the easiest decision for me (even easier than some of the ones where they are on their own, I always want to write myself in on those). I liked what O’Grady did as Clerk of Courts and so I have to Keep on supporting O’Grady.

County Engineer
Dean Ringle (R) wins by default.

County Recorder
Robert Montgomery (R) wins by default. I wonder what this job entails…

Read more ...

Map update for the week of 10/19-10/25

State-by-State (swing states)
Overall, Obama is winning 364-174

Nevada, and its 5 EC votes has moved into the Obama column with a +4.2 average
Colorado is staying in the Obama camp with a +6
Pennsylvania is now solidly Obama (I am no longer considering it a swing) with +13
Ohio is staying in the Obama category with a +3.3; however, two recent polls show McCain winning
Missouri, with its 11 EC votes, has moved into Obama. However, it is far too close to call... +3
Virginia, like Penn., has now moved out of the SS column by showing a strong +9 for Obama
North Carolina is now a +1.3 for Obama, still easily in the margin
Florida is +3.2 for Obama
New Mexico is no longer a swing state as well, with a +8.3 for Obama
New Hampshire has moved out of the swing state grouping, +8.3 for Obama

West Virginia is staying strong for McCain, with a +2.4 average
North Dakota is still with McCain, +4


National

Nationally speaking, the overall polls are roughly the same as they were last week: Obama is leading with a 5.3 point average.
When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead RAISES to 9.3 points



Map



Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements on the Judiciary

Post 63

As you may have noticed, there has been a slight layout change on my site. I have removed the tags link (don’t worry, it might be back after the election) and have added several text spots on the right. In the following days, I will be endorsing or expressing support for certain candidates and/or issues. These, along with a link to my reasoning (my entries), will be presented in that section. Please consider my arguments if you are undecided. Also, feel free to ask questions, give me some info (I am swayable), or generally argue with me if you wish.

Map updates will take place on Tuesdays from now on and will have no other text (or post number) with them.

Thanks
-Whalertly



-----------------------------------------------------------



Today I will be presenting my endorsements for the various judicial positions around the state. This will include names, parties, and positions. I will be listing my reasoning(s) along side of each judge that I endorse. Furthermore, this will include the judges who are running against thin air.

For State Supreme Court (starting 1/1/09)
Maureen O’Conner (R) vs Joseph Russo (D)
My first take on this case is that O’Conner needs to work on her website; a bright green is not pleasing to the eyes. Having attempted to enact tougher gang-laws and rape penalties, O’Conner has been a strong fighter for victims rights throughout her career on the bench. She has also gone after (strongly) repeat offenders, drunken-drivers (perhaps a little to hard here), and politicians with slight ethics problems. Overall, O’Conner is a better fit for the State Supreme Court

For State Supreme Court (starting 1/2/09)
Peter Sikora (D) vs Evelyn Stratton (R)
Judge Sikora has a strong record of impartiality when on the bench; he is known for looking at both sides of the issue fully. Having worked for years on holding parents accountable, working on ensuring family unity and community support, and being endorsed by the Ohio Bar Association, Sikora has what it needs to be on our supreme court.

Court of Appeals 10th District (starting 2/9/09)
John Connor (D) vs David Goodman (R)
Here I am judging mostly on experience. Connor has served as a judge and as a lawyer for years whereas Goodman has been a Senator and Legislature that whole time. I want somebody who has been on the bench for a while in this spot. Connor and his 15 years of sitting on the bench is a good fit for this spot.

Court of Appeals 10th District (starting 7/1/09)
Richard Brown (D) vs Lisa Sadler (R)
Here I would almost seem contradictory if I pick an unvetted person (Brown has never run for anything) over a person who has been on the bench for 5 years; however, the positions that Sadler has taken, which I see as slightly out of her bounds (or, frankly, wrong) make it hard for me to want her. By default, it seems as though Brown is a better candidate.

Court of Common Pleas (starting 1/1/09)
Daniel Hogan (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas (starting 2/9/09)
David Fais (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas (7/1/09)
Shawn Dingus (D) vs Richard Sheward (R)
Frankly, I kinda wished that Dingus had run for a different opening. I really like both candidates here; with them both being for judicial restraint and original intent (strongly), they both seem like good judges. I really want to keep Sheward in office, but Dingus gains an upper hand with his support of “settlement week”.

Court of Common Pleas (7/2/09)
Timothy Horton (D) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas – Domestic Relations
Dana Preisse (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas – Probate Division
Lawrence Belskis (R) vs Eric Brown (D)
Belskis has served the state well in his 18 years on the bench. While I have not always agreed with his decisions, he has an overall judicial restraint arc. Brown, on the other hand, handled the lethal injection case of the fat man very well. In this case, Belskis experience gives him the win. Read more ...

Taxes Part 2

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.

I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.

This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...