Blade bias #12 - waits until last paragraph to identify indicted commissioner as a Democrat

I started reading the story and, since I didn't know the indicted commissioner, I wondered if he was a Republican or Democrat. However, as I kept reading and the reporter didn't give a party affiliation, even after mentioning the man was on the ballot and how old he was, I knew he had to be a Democrat.

And sure enough, in the last paragraph, there it was. He's a Democrat.

Was there no place in the preceding 20 paragraphs to give us this detail?!?

You see, this is common practice for The Blade - if the individual in trouble is a Democrat, they bury the party affiliation. But if it's a Republican, the party affiliation is in the first several paragraphs or even the headline - so you can be sure not to miss the 'bad' association with Republicans.

It's certainly not a subtle bias - it is their modus operandi. It's also probably one of the reasons they, and other papers like them, have such declining readership.

It's bad enough if a reporter makes such a stupid error - it's worse when the editors allow it to go through.

Here are screen shots of the rest of the article just to prove the party affiliation wasn't earlier in the story.

I certainly don't expect The Blade to end this horrible practice in their supposedly objective news, especially when pointed out by #justablogger. But I do hope continually pointing out their bias (so often evident that I resorted to numbering my posts on it) will rightly educate any still-remaining subscribers and advertisers about what they may read.

Husted fires Montgomery County Board of Elections Democrats

Secretary of State Jon Husted started dismissal proceedings against the Democrats on the Montgomery County Board of Elections because they refused to adopt the uniform hours Husted set for early voting times in the state.

Following a hearing and a recommendation from the hearing officer, today he fired them.

They had maintained that the directive from Husted was 'ambiguous' and did not prevent them from adding more voting hours on weekends. The hearing officer disagreed, saying it was plain, in both the background section of the directive and the follow-up letter sent to the board, that the purpose was to have the same hours of voting in every county in the state.

Here is the letter Husted sent (addresses redacted):

August 28, 2012


Thomas J. Ritchie, Sr.

Dennis A. Lieberman

Gentlemen:

After reviewing the report of the hearing officer following the August 20, 2012 hearing, can draw no other conclusion: You knowingly and willfully violated Ohio election law by not following Directive 2012-35, which Ohio law(R.C. 3501.11) requires you to follow. Thus, you are immediately dismissed from the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

The hearing officer report states:

"I conclude that no reasonable person after considering (a) the words of the directive ("Background" and "Instructions" read together in context) and (b) the plain words of Mr. Damschroder's letter could conclude that Directive 2012-35 is ambiguous and permits weekend hours for in person absentee voting. Therefore, conclude that Mr. Lieberman in making his motion, voting for it and later refusing to rescind it did so in contravention of Directive 2012-35 and in violation of R.C. 3501.11. Mr. Ritchie, who seconded the motion and voted for it, also did so in contravention of R.C. 3501.11.

The hearing officer concludes:

"I conclude that consistent with the Ohio Revised Code and relevant ease law the Secretary has the authority to remove Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Ritchie. Furthermore, believe that the facts warrant removal and recommend that the Secretary take such action."

Board members are free to express their discontent with any Directive or Advisory issued, but they cannot disobey them. Your dismissal is not about differing views; it is about you violating the law by not following Directive (R.C. 3501.11). You were given subsequent chances to comply and refused to take corrective action.

I find no pleasure in taking this action and thank you for your service.

Liberal hypocrisy and early voting: one-size-fits-all...except when it doesn't

For years we've heard from Democrats, liberals and progressives that the federal government is the solution.

Regardless of the need or issue, they've supported a one-size-fits-all approach to everything from Obamacare to seat belts to gun laws, convinced that their perceived 'disparity' in local rules was unequal and a problem that only a large bureaucracy in Washington could properly address.

'Experts' in the federal government (and non-experts in the White House) think everyone should cut down on their salt intake. But what if you have a salt deficiency?

The federal food pyramid says everyone should have six or more servings of carbohydrates every day. If I ate that many, I'd be a blimp!

New ADA pool mandates say that all public pools must have two handicap accesses, including an electronic lift that a handicapped person can use without having to ask for help. This applies even to hospital pools used for therapy - where people are incapable of entering a pool without help - and campgrounds, even when their pools and facilities don't have access to electricity.

And then there's education - which is so much a one-size-fits-all that I don't know where to begin.

In all these examples, and others too numerous to list, liberals insist the federal government has to step in to make things even for all, disregarding that the actual results are usually very uneven and certainly less than 'equal.'

In the ongoing dispute over early voting hours in Ohio, Democrats complained that having different hours in different counties would disenfranchise some voters - specifically those they consider their own: minority, low income, urban.

They were angry that some of the county Boards of Elections (all comprised of two Republicans and two Democrats) voted to have different hours than others - and they argued that the Republican-leaning counties were the ones with longer times than the Democrat-leaning ones.

Clearly, despite the equal and bi-partisan nature of the BOEs, this was a GOP effort to suppress the Democrat vote.

Secretary of State Jon Husted warned the BOEs ahead of time that if they ended up with a tie vote on hours of operation for the early voting centers, he would break the tie in favor of regular BOE office hours, saying that he was not going to be responsible for mandating the costs of additional hours and overtime upon counties, especially on those without the fiscal flexibility to pay for it.

Whether coincidence or intention, certain urban areas ended up with tie votes and Husted kept his word.

But Democrats were right about unequal access and Kasich agreed: local control meant voting hours were not uniform across the state.

So Kasich, after consulting with the Ohio Attorney General to ensure he had the authority, issued a directive setting standard early voting hours for all of Ohio.

In Montgomery County, the two Democrat BOE members refused to vote for the mandated hours, arguing that since the directive was silent about any additional hours, they could follow the times set out and add others to it. Consistent with action taken by Democrat Jennifer Brunner when she was Secretary of State, Husted began the process to remove them for failing to follow his directive.

As Husted said, "While they are free to disagree with my decision, they are not free to disobey the law."

You'd think the Dems would be happy that their demands for uniformity were met. However, it wasn't their uniformity, so they continued to complain.

Yes, after demanding uniformity, they're now claiming uniformity is wrong.

Despite a history and record of supporting one-size-fits-all approaches, they're actually staying that setting standard hours for all of Ohio is going to create disparities.

Huh?

During a Wednesday press conference, House Minority Leader Armond Budish said each county has its own specific needs and voter demographics, so uniform hours are unworkable and could lead to delays. Talking of Husted's directive he said:

"He said he's leveling the playing field for voters by requiring all county boards to have the same early vote hours. Sadly, that is just not true. Setting uniform hours treats all county boards the same, but it treats voters unequally and unfairly. Secretary Husted's edicts will result in disparities, bringing back long lines in large urban counties."

Budish said having the same early vote hours for Cuyahoga County with 1.2 million residents and Morgan County with only 15,000 residents didn't make sense.

He may be right, but he and his fellow Dems certainly didn't consider that point when making their earlier demands for uniformity.

Budish said:

"Yet those same two counties each have one polling place open for early in-person voting. Treating election boards equally treats voters unequally and unfairly. And who suffers? It's minorities. It's the working poor. They'll face much longer lines. All voters will face longer lines, especially in those large urban counties. It's those folks whose votes are being suppressed."

I've previously questioned why Democrats think so little of their own supporters (they don't know how to get an ID, they can't feed their children or find housing or jobs without the government, they can't manage to vote either absentee or in-person with over 230 hours to do so and they don't have time to get to the polls on election day despite having 13 hours in which to do so)...I guess Budish shares the same perspective of his fellow Democrats who serve on the BOEs.

First, there is nothing in the directive to say that counties can have only one early voting center, so Budish makes a fallacious argument and starts with an incorrect premise which gives him an incorrect conclusion.

But, for the sake of his argument, even if they have only one early vote location, they would, by necessity, need more voting machines in Cuyahoga than in Morgan. Unless Budish doesn't trust his Democrat BOE members to properly plan the right amount of machines for the voters they expect, there shouldn't be any long lines.

In a statement, ColorOfChange Executive Director Rashad Robinson said of Husted that "he has rolled back access for Ohio voters, specifically in racially diverse urban areas like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton."

But in Lucas, Summit, Cuyahog and Franklin counties, the BOEs had tie votes on the voting hours and when Husted broke the ties, he did so in favor of regular office hours. So the directive actually increases early voting hours Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus and Akron.

How can Robinson make such a claim - and how was he not challenged on the fact by the regular media?

So after getting their way on uniform hours, they're now saying that treating everyone equally is unequal.

Sadly, the hypocrisy is lost on them.

This must be why Democrats want to raise our taxes via a recreation levy

This is why Democrats on Toledo City Council want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class - so all Toledo taxpayers can continue to pay for things like this:

City of Toledo hosts annual Kids Fishing Rodeo at Sleepy Hollow Park

The City of Toledo Division of Parks, Forestry and Recreation will host the 2012 Kids Fishing Rodeo from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 2012. The event is held each year at Sleepy Hollow Park near the corner of Dorr Street and Richards Road.

Registration will begin at 8 a.m. and all participants must register prior to fishing. Fishing begins at 9 a.m. for all age groups. Prizes will be awarded to the boy and girl within each age bracket who catch the biggest fish.

Rules:

* Kids must provide proof of age if they appear older than 15 years.
* Kids can fish with rods & reels, poles & lines, or throw lines of their choosing.
* Bobbers may be used.
* Sinkers of any kind, weight and size are allowed.
* Kids can use only one line, with just one hook of any size and shape.
* Kids must furnish their own fishing equipment, bait, and stringer or bucket.
* Kids will begin fishing at the sound of the starting horn and may continue to fish until the horn signals the end of the session.

The 2012 Fishing Rodeo is presented by the City of Toledo, Department of Public Service, The Toledo City Parks Commission, Seven-Up Bottling Toledo, McDonalds, Roof Top Brands and Grace Community Church.

For more information, contact the Division of Parks, Recreation and Forestry at 419-245-3388.

###

Toledo Democrats want more taxes from poor, middle class

Yes, despite the rhetoric and class warfare coming from the left these days, Toledo Democrats have proven, one again, that they want more taxes from the poor and middle class.

Tuesday, in a strictly party-line vote, the Democrats on Toledo City Council, led by Lindsay Webb, District 2, and Steve Steel, At-Large, voted to put a 1 mill recreation levy on the ballot in November. At-Large Councilmen Rob Ludeman and George Sarantou, along with District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, all Republicans, voted no.

Note - the Democrats voted to tax the poor and middle class while the 'evil' Republicans, who are only supposed to care about the 'rich,' voted not to.

Now, they'll claim they're only giving citizens the ability to vote on the measure. But they're going to raise money to promote the levy and encourage you to say yes to raising taxes on the poor and middle class.

Toledo's median income is only $32,325. As $103,000 is considered to be 'rich' (top 10% of wage earners) and there are only 7,981 households in Toledo that make $100,000 or more, this means that Toledo Democrats want to tax the remaining 119,016 middle and low income households in order to get more money for parks.

Now, these are 2009 figures, so I'm guessing that there are probably a few more households in the below $100,000 range than there used to be as a result of the economy and job losses in the area.

So at least 94% of the households in Toledo are middle or low income and Toledo City Council just voted to increase their taxes - not to pay for essential city services like roads or infrastructure or even police and fire protection.

No - this is for parks and recreation and to 'enhance the quality of life' of Toledoans. And let's not forget - it's 'for the children.'

Apparently, they've either forgotten or already spent the money from the additional red light cameras that was supposed to go toward funding these exact programs.

We're taxed enough already and this is just one of seven levy requests that we'll vote on in November.

And in case you were wondering, yes, this does qualify as 'stuck-on-stupid.'

As I've said in the past, my quality of life would be MORE enhanced if all the 'I-know-what's-best-for-you' politicians would quit raising my taxes.

I hope you agree.

SCOTUS ruling on Affordable Care Act: a tax or unconstitutional - you can't have it both ways

Since Thursday, I've read a ton of reviews, various commentaries and an analysis from just about everyone regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

An interesting point I noticed was that people who were loathe to refer to it as Obamacare when it was just the majority of the nation that hated it are now talking about "Obamacare" as if now it's okay to own it.

But the term "Obamacare" appears to make people instantly think of partisanship and while there are clearly partisan issues, my approach in this post is about the facts and the details, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't or for whatever reason.

I'm going to assume you know enough about the decision and how the justices aligned that I don't have to repeat that.

After a weekend of reading and thinking and ranting and raving, I think the whole thing boils down to one key point: the law is a tax and supporters of the law now find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

One piece (which I cannot now seem to find online) described the 5-4 ruling as really a 4-1-4 vote. I think this is the most accurate description as Justice John Roberts' opinion did sort-of split the baby.

He upheld the claims of the plaintiffs that the law was unconstitutional from the Commerce Clause perspective and from the Necessary and Proper Clause. This is a huge win for the opponents of the law.

However, he did rule that the individual mandate is a tax. This is a huge loss for the President and the Democrats as they specifically and repeatedly claimed 'it's not a tax.'

So now Pres. Obama, members of Congress who voted for it, the Democratic Party and all supporters of the law are in a lose-lose situation.

If the law is a tax, it's constitutional because Congress has the legal authority to tax. Whether they should or not is political matter, not a constitutional one for the court. But, as a result of the decision, we now have an individual mandate that is a half trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class.

If the law is NOT a tax, then it's unconstitutional because they have no other authority on which to enact it.

Going forward, if anyone wants to claim it's not a tax, as many Democrats will do in this election year and are already doing, then they are admitting the unconstitutionality of the law.

It's either a tax or it's unconstitutional - they cannot have it both ways. And we cannot let them get away with pretending anything else.


***I have a lot of other thoughts about the good, the bad and the ugly in this ruling, but I'm still reeling from the implications to individual liberty and our so-called limited government structure, so those comments will have to wait.

Dem Ohio Senators call for fair pay while ignoring unfair pay in their own party

You can file this under "hypocrisy in governemt" ...

Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) and Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) on Monday called on the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that seeks to equalize pay between men and women.

These state senators want the Paycheck Fairness Act, otherwise known as the No Privacy in my Paycheck Act, to be passed. It's primary impact would be to make it easier for women to sue their employers for wage disparity, even though the causes of such alleged wage disparity have little to do with discrimination.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, says the statistics on pay equity are politicized and do not consider all factors.

“An analysis of more than 50 peer-reviewed papers, commissioned by the Labor Department, found that the so-called wage gap is mostly, and perhaps entirely, an artifact of the different choices men and women make -- different fields of study, different professions, different balances between home and work,” Sommers wrote.

“A core provision would encourage class-action lawsuits and force defendants to settle under threat of uncapped punitive damages,” said Sommers. “Employers would be liable not only for intentional discrimination (banned long ago) but for the ‘lingering effects of past discrimination.’ What does that mean? Employers have no idea.”

But that's not the worst of it.

Senate Democrats who are pushing this bill actually pay their female staffers less than they pay their male staffers.

I guess it's true that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

No - I'm not making this up. The Washington Free Beacon has the details:

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

You really need to read the entire article to see just how bad some of the discrepancies are, and then you'll realize the extreme hypocrisy that is being shown by the Democrats. How much do you want to bet that their proposed bill won't apply to Congress?

And they have the unmitigated gall to talk about a so-called Republican 'war on women.'

But back to Ohio and Senators Tavares and Turner.

"I applaud President Obama for standing up for equal pay for equal work. In 2012, it is unconscionable that a pay gap between women and men persists." ~ Sen. Turner

"We have pay discrimination against women which impacts their quality of life and that of their families. This in turn negatively impacts our economy." ~ Sen. Tavares

Really? So you think your fellow Democrats in the Senate are unconscionable and hurting the economy? I'm certain others will agree with that, but it's not what they mean, though it is the only logical conclusion.

Tavares, Turner and the rest of the Democrats should fix their own pay discrimination first and forget about aiding the trial lawyers lobby for an election-year stunt.

Anything less is "unconscionable."

Political Quote of the Year

This is from Guy Benson, Political Editor at Townhall.com, on Treasury Secretay Timothy Geithner's comments to Congress regarding President Barack Obama's FY2013 budget proposal:

In Congressional testimony yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner served up what might just be the political sound-byte of the year. His comment rises to that level because it perfectly encapsulates the Democrat Party's approach to confronting fiscal reality and the real threat of insolvency.
...

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."