Reminder: filling in on WSPD

I'll be filling in for Brian Wilson on Wednesday from 3-6 p.m. on the Talk of Toledo, 1370 WSPD. Hope you'll join me!

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan

Today would have been President Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. In honor of this great man, here are some quotes of the day, though I fear they remind us just how far we've gone away from the principles that made our nation great:

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ...

We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inauguration Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer." ~ First Inaugural Address, 1981

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.

And these excerpts, which are even more relevant today - from his speech "A Time for Choosing," in support of nominating Barry Goldwater for President at the 1964 Republican Convention:

"No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. ...


We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. ...


This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. ...


Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. ...


Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. ...

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater.
...


Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. ...


No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine....


Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. ...


Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." ...

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

The slippery slope - subsidies to buy fruits, veggies

It should come as no surprise that subsidies are 'naturally' going to follow the new dietary guidelines from the government. What could be more 'natural' than government subsidies?!?

You see, the federal government has again revised the listing of what is good for us and what isn't (per order from Congress) and because we're so stupid as to not obey them (because we're busy making our own choices and living with the consequences), they're going to try to bribe us into doing what they want.

From CNSNews:

"At an event on Monday to unveil the federal government’s new dietary guidelines for Americans, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that subsidies may be used to encourage people on government assistance to eat more fruits and vegetables.

CNSNews.com asked the secretaries to explain what was meant by Vilsack’s remarks about incentives to encourage the consumption of more fruits and vegetables.

Vilsack said that a pilot program is in place in Massachusetts to allow participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – or SNAP – to get a discount for buying fruits and vegetables.

“The grocer basically gets paid full value for the fruit or vegetable that’s being purchased but it’s only credited say 70 or 80 percent on the card,” Vilsack said at the event, held at George Washington University."

Oh - so only if you're already getting handouts do you get even more. The rest of us, who are paying taxes so you can eat for free - we get nothing, except a higher bill.

The guidelines, which are required by Congress and are updated, as needed, every five years, also set a 300 milligram limit of cholesterol and encourage people to eat more chicken and fish and to avoid beef, which is defined as a “solid fat.”

Wonder what the beef industry will say to that? I also wonder if beef farmers are getting subsidies - or if they'll need them now that people are going to be reducing the amount of beef they eat?

What a tangled web of rules, regulations and government intrusion!

Here's the problem with subsidizing fruits and vegetables under the SNAP program: it's the equivalent of just giving them more money. There are guidelines and formulas in place for people on food stamps that bases the amount of assistance on earnings, number of people in the family, etc. By making them 'pay' less (because *they* don't really pay), you're giving them more money to spend. Where is the additional money coming from when it's clear our government is already broke? Nothing is really 'free' - we all know this fact. So who is paying for this 'subsidy'?

And then there is the sheer unfairness of it all. Liberals are so focused on fairness, though today it takes the form of the term 'justice.' They are constantly trying to attain equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. So in looking at this latest plan, why should dependents of the government get a product for less than what the rest of us have to pay? Why should they, alone, be subsidized simply because they've either fallen on hard times or are part of the growing class of people who are generationally dependent upon the government for sustenance?

If it's good for them, isn't it good for all of us? Or perhaps that's the plan - for the government to take over the purchasing and distribution of things that are 'good for us' so we no longer have to worry about making such decisions, especially because we don't do what the politicians and bureaucrats want us to do in the first place.

Then there is the condescending nature of the whole idea - that people who are on food stamps don't make good decisions and they only way to 'force' them to make good decisions is to pay them to do so.

Two thoughts come to mind. One is that fresh fruit and veggies are cheaper than junk food, so they shouldn't need to be subsidized; and the other is that I would be *offended* if the government tried to bribe me into making food selections that they have approved.

Why don't people on food stamps have these same thoughts? Maybe some do, but if you've got people who, for generations, have used food stamps for their groceries, they've been conditioned to not be as accountable as others because they're using *other people's money.* They don't make good decisions because the government always bails them out and fails to allow them to suffer the consequences - instead rewarding them with more money or help or assistance. So of course they don't make good decisions - they've never learned how.

Despite that being the case, you'd think they'd have a bit of independence and reject the bribery designed to force them to change their habits. But then again, perhaps not. As I said earlier - maybe they'll just use the money they save for buying more junk food.

The losers in all of this are you and me. We'll pay full price while also paying for SNAP recipients to not have to. And the politicians will use all of it as a reason we should keep electing them.

Sarantou statement on dropping election case

Press Release:

Sarantou Issues Statement on Decision to Stop Contest-of-Election

(Toledo, OH) --- George Sarantou, longtime Toledo City Councilman and candidate for Lucas County Commissioner in 2010, issued the following statement today after dismissing his Contest-of-Election challenge in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.

"Today I made the difficult but correct decision to stop my challenge to the Lucas County Commissioner election. I did so because I believe it is the right thing to do for the community and myself.

On election night, the Board of Elections announced that I led by 1376 votes. Three weeks later, after counting the provisional ballots from the election, the Board reversed those results and announced that Carol Contrada won the election by the thin margin of 193 votes.

Since that time, I have wanted to understand what happened, because the candidates, and more importantly the voters and the entire community, have the right to know how elections are handled and to be certain that the results are accurate and reliable. I asked the Board of Elections then to permit my representatives to review the provisional-ballot envelopes but was told they would not be made available. I tried other methods to find out what happened and to ensure that the provisional ballots were handled correctly, but the Board of Elections was steadfast in refusing my requests. After waiting to the last possible day, in the hope that the Board would change its mind, I filed my election contest. I said at the time, and it remains true, that I did so only because I wanted a fair and impartial review of the election, which the entire community deserves.

Even then, I had to fight the Board to gain access to the envelopes. Eventually, Judge Stacy Cook ruled that my team could see them, and we spent hundreds of hours reviewing them. We finished that work early this morning.

I have accomplished what I set out to from the beginning. I have been permitted to review the ballots. They show what I suspected --- The Board counted many ballots that should not have been counted and, in addition, there are hundreds of envelopes that did not comply with the law. We have reviewed all of the provisional envelopes, it is apparent that the system needs to be improved to ensure that provisional balloting does not undermine the integrity and reliability of our elections.

I believe in my heart that I won this election. But given the law on the subject, the only way I could show that in court would be to call individual voters to ask them how they voted, and I respect the rights of voters to vote privately, which is a hallmark of our democracy.

If I didn't choose that path, all I would accomplish by going forward would be to have the election vacated. In that event, Ms. Contrada would have been appointed County Commissioner by the Lucas County Democratic Party, because the law does not permit the Judge to order a new election.

While I think the public is entitled to know about its elections, I do not want to drag the community through a trial and contribute to the cynicism of the public about the political process, only to have that hollow result.

As I weighed my options, I concluded that the best thing for the community and me was to stop the contest.

I wish Carol Contrada the best in her role as County Commissioner, and I thank all of those who have supported me through this important process."


###

Quote of the Day - it's all up to us

"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." ~ James Madison, Federalist No. 44

All hail government dietary guidelines!

What Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in this CNSNews article is so alarming on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.

Let's start with the premise: I wouldn't be healthy if it weren't for the government telling me what to do.

As if no one in the world would be healthy or know how to eat in a manner that contributes, rather than detracts, from health if there weren't dietary guidelines coming from an all-knowing, all-power nanny state!

On Monday, he and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius 'unveiled' new dietary guidelines. Here's what he had to say at George Washington University:

“I must admit personally, I had never read the dietary guidelines until I got this job. But I read them in detail. I read all of them and I realized how significantly different my eating habits were from what constituted a healthy pattern. So personally, my life has changed by virtue of these dietary guidelines.”

He could have just as easily - and more honestly - said: "I never read them because they had absolutely no bearing on my life until I got hired to promote them."

These guidelines have been published since 1980.

Oh my! Whatever did we do prior to then???

I was 16 in 1980 and I knew, even then, what constituted healthy eating and what I should and should not put into my mouth. And prior to 1980, we certainly had a vast majority of Americans who knew the same thing. In fact, I'd wager that today most people know what is good for them and what isn't in terms of sustenance. And I'd further wager that nearly all of them don't even know that the government tells us what we *should* eat.

Just recently, I decided to do what Vilsack and his wife are doing - keep track of what I eat. I didn't need a government to help me find out how many calories are in the food I chosen - I just did a simple Google search, found several websites that contain searchable lists and then I bookmarked the one I liked. Every now and then, there's an item they don't list, so I just Google that item and I can usually find multiple sources of the calories in less than two seconds.

And how might people who don't have computers in their homes do the same thing? Well, they can go down to their local tax-payer funded library and either use the free computer there or get a free card and check out a book (for free) that will tell them the same thing.

The government's *guidelines* are a duplication of what already exists and the only reason to follow their instructions rather than any others is because, obviously, the bureaucrats who suck up our tax dollars to tell us these things know so much more than doctors and dietitians and nutritionists. After all - if you can't trust your government, who can you trust?

But the story gets even scarier. Read this portion of the article and pay attention to the mindset:

HHS Secretary Sebelius said if Americans make unhealthy choices, it hurts the country’s prosperity.

“You can’t be educated if you’re sick each and every day; you’re not a good student,” she said.

“You won’t be as productive or as innovative as a working member of this society if your health condition is debilitating so this has a tremendous cost overall on America’s prosperity.”

She later added that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is helping design safer neighborhoods to increase access to healthier foods.

“When you have to walk two miles in some neighborhoods to get fresh produce at the near super market but only a block away it’s easy to get chips or other kinds of high calorie foods, that makes it very difficult to eat nutritious meals,” she said.

“When it’s not safe to play outside or send your children outside, it’s very tough for kids to get the exercise they need so again the Recovery Act is helping neighborhoods and cities invest in ways to make it easier for people to make healthier choices from serving healthier school lunches to designing more walkable neighborhoods."

See? If you don't do as the government orders, the 'nation' is at risk.

Really? If I don't do what I need to do to keep myself healthy, that has no impact on anyone other than myself and, maybe my family if they rely upon my health for their own. The only way my individual health impacts the nation is if someone else has to care for me, either by providing me a house and food if I cannot, or by providing any medical treatment that may be necessary as a result of my choices. The solution to this dilemma of others paying for my bad choices is NOT to begin to control those choices for me, but to eliminate the obligation for others to pay. Simple - but that certainly does not take us down the path of bigger, more powerful government that knows best and wants to control my life.

But look at the logic: you can't be a good student and get an education if you're sick. That's such a crock of lies I don't know where to begin as most children these days aren't getting a good education regardless. Just take a look at any of the indicators and you'll see a majority of students (in urban public schools, at least) are in schools that are failing them - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'sick' child. Besides, the same government using this lie spends billions every year to feed kids in schools - assuming a parental responsibility that engenders a mentality of slavery, with children growing up dependent upon the government for their needs.

Then there is the communistic-like reference to not being a good 'working member of society' if you aren't healthy - as if your only purpose in being is the betterment of society and not your own personal goals or freedom.

I'm reminded so strongly of the communist propaganda:

Young builders of Communism, go forth toward the new heights (achievements) in education and labour.

Value the Bread!

Alcohol - the enemy of the production!

"Cultivate vegetables!"

"Come comrade, join us in the collective farm!"

Civilized life - productive work

What's next? A Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty) to properly dispense what we should be eating?

But that's not all - government's failed stimulus, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is our saving grace. Why, if it weren't for ARRA and the benevolent government politicians you might have to walk two miles to a grocery store! Never mind the fact that walking two miles is good for you and is something you should do on regular basis anyway, especially if a more healthier you is a goal.

No, according to Sec. Sebelius, you're just too darn stupid and lazy and would rather buy junk food at the local carryout.

So that's why these new guidelines are so important. Now that they've been issued all these stupid, lazy people she's referring to will actually eat better! Besides, with all that ARRA stimulus money, you stupid, lazy, unhealthy people will now have walkable neighborhoods and healthy food choices on every corner!

Yeah, right!

Do you think she's ever paid attention to all the anecdotal (and documented) stories of people on food stamps - sorry, it's called SNAP now because that's less stigmatizing - who buy chips and pop and ice cream and ignore fruits and vegetables? If she were to actually gather the information about what people were buying with 'other people's money' would she realize that she's fighting a losing battle and the only way to actually accomplish the goal would be to completely take over and just provide the meals she approves of to everyone in the country?

Perhaps that's the next step, especially with Obamacare leading to the anti-logic that now that the government is paying for your medical treatment it can dictate your behavior to ensure health.

We're already on the slippery slope, as I've previously written:

These people who seek to control us know that they really can't control our eating or our choices. So, in the plan detailed in the article, they're going to control the products we purchase by regulating what food manufacturers can and cannot do within the free market.

I know how I'll respond: I won't purchase those products. And if all product choices have new regulations that cut out something I like, I'll just add it after the fact.

I am not a child whose eating habits need to be regulated by people who think they know better than me. I have a doctor whose opinion I trust infinitely more than some bureaucrat in Washington - or some epidemiologist who gets appointed to serve on some panel.

I am a free individual - or so I thought - who is responsible for myself and willing to abide by the consequences if I choose to eat salt - or any other product some do-gooders think I should avoid.

And this sentiment of freedom - liberty to live a life of one's own choosing - is what led our founders to establish this great nation. I cannot help but believe they would be appalled at what we have become.

Can you imagine how much it cost to do these stupid, one-size-fits all-ignore-the-individual-health-conditions-of-a-person guidelines? How many millions are spent for the government to duplicate what is already available for free simply by looking? And what were our representatives in Congress thinking when they passed the law that requires these to be done???

And the absolutely worst part of the whole thing is that the *guidelines* are wrong! Or rather - they've changed so dramatically over time that following them could be worse than not. According to this history of the food pyramid, the first USDA guide, issued in 1917, emphasized five groups:

1.milk and meat
2.cereals
3.vegetables and fruit
4.fats and fatty foods
5.sugars and sugary foods.

In 1946, it was seven groups:

1.Milk and milk products
2.Meat, poultry, fish, eggs, beans, peas and nuts
3.Bread, flour and cereals
4.Leafy green and yellow vegetables
5.Potatoes and sweet potatoes
6.Citrus, tomato, cabbage, salad greens
7.Butter, fortified margarine

By 1956, it down to four basic groups:

1.Milk
2.Meat
3.Fruits and vegetables
4.Grain products

In 1977, it was recommended "that all Americans reduce their fat, saturated fat and cholesterol consumption, and increase their carbohydrate consumption to 55-60% of daily calories." By the 1990s, carbs were out and, today, more fish and fruit are the focus.

Granted, all this is based upon new knowledge and science, but since when has the government ever been able to keep up with what's going on in the free market or been on the cutting edge? As I wrote earlier, the more accurate and timely information is readily available and it doesn't require a bureaucrat to dispense.

What a utter waste - at a time when the nation is broke. And what a complete disregard for the limited powers our Constitution dictates for the federal government.

Quote of the Day

Punxsatawney Phil did NOT see his shadow, indicating an early spring - which doesn't bring much comfort as the snow continues to fall and I have a 5 foot-snow drift across half of my pool and behind the truck.

So here's a quote of the day I found while looking for ways to avoid the shovel:

"There is no such thing as 'the public interest' except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men—all rational men—is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of 'the public interest'—not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation." ~ “The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 111.

Toledo institutes parking ban, garbage pickup on schedule

Press release from the City of Toledo:

CITY OF TOLEDO INSTITUTES PARKING BAN, REFUSE COLLECTION CONTINUES AS SCHEDULED

The City of Toledo is declaring a Snow Parking Emergency beginning at 7 a.m. and lasting until 7 p.m. on Wednesday, February 2. It is unlawful to park on any posted TARTA routes. Parking is also restricted to the even side of the street on non-posted TARTA routes during this time.

The city will maintain refuse collection as scheduled for those residents with Wednesday pick up.

For more information on the parking ban, call 419.936.2523.

Upcoming

Two things:

1) I'm working on a blog post reviewing the movie "The Cartel" which I saw in San Diego at Americans for Prosperity's RightOnLine. I hope to have it up soon.

2) Save the Date: I'll be filling in for Brian Wilson on Wednesday, February 9th, from 3-6 p.m. on 1370 WSPD. Hope you'll join me!

Quote of the Day

"If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." ~ James Madison

Another voice against the unnecessary costs of high-speed rail

Last week I wrote a post wondering why some politicians, like our President, have an obsession with high-speed rail.

As my blog feeds to my Facebook page, we had a good discussion there about the concept, the funding and the alternatives.

Today, I came across Wendell Cox, writing in National Review, agreeing with me that high-speed rail is a budget-buster. He writes:

If the nation is going to reduce its out-of-control spending, the first step is to stop spending money on things we do not need. Despite President Obama’s call in his State of the Union speech for linking 80 percent of the nation by high-speed rail, it is hard to imagine a more unnecessary program.

For example, people who travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco — along the route planned for one of the nation’s first high-speed-rail projects — already have choices. They can fly, drive, take the bus, or travel by train. True, some would prefer to tax their fellow citizens so that they can have another choice, high-speed rail. But indulging this desire would be as legitimate as funding government grocery stores for people who prefer not to shop at their local grocery chains.

Cox provides details on cost overruns (as common as 80% and, in some countries, more than 200%), and environmental claims. I hope you'll take the time to read the entire article.

Pigford fraud and the growing scandal

One of the speakers at Americans for Prosperity's RightOnLine conference in San Diego this weekend was Andrew Breitbart, who gave us an update on the Pigford lawsuit/settlement scandal during lunch.

I took a ton of notes, but knew my friend Ed Morrissey, from HotAir.com was going to do a taped interview with Breitbart and thought you'd be better off hearing the story from Breitbart himself.

In case you've never heard of Pigford, it was a class-action lawsuit filed by black farmers who were discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As Breitbart explained, "Roughly 157 farmers got screwed by the USDA. They were all black. The real tragedy is the USDA's effort to get farmers into financial distress so that they lose their land and large farm conglomerates can buy them up."

The case is Pigford vs. Vilsack (Vilsack is the Secretary of the department, though it was originally Pigford vs. Glickman, then the Secretary), and Pigford I, as it's now called, was a settlement on April 14, 1999, for that case for discriminatory actions by the USDA from 1981-85. Pigford II was an extension of the time frame for the lawsuit and was signed by President Barack Obama (without fanfare and media attention as Breitbart points out) on Dec. 8, 2010.

There were about 18,000 black farmers originally impacted by the discrimination, but at the time of settlement, the government estimated the number of black farmers eligible for the $50,000 payout at 22,000.

Breitbart claims there is about 95% fraud in the settlement because, according to what Congress has passed, you didn't have to actually be a farmer and lose your land, you just had to say you 'attempted to farm' during the authorized time frame.

How did all this come to Breitbart's attention and why has he focused the last seven months on investigating it? Shirley Sherrod is to blame for that.

You may remember the big to-do when Breitbart posted a video of Sherrod telling about her own racism against white farmers. She was fired (though they called it a resignation) from her job as Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA (without benefit of due process Breitbart explained) and vilified for her remarks. Later, Breitbart was vilified for not putting Sherrod's entire speech on his website and there was an overwhelming demand for her to be reinstated. President Obama ended up apologizing to her and offered her an internal position within the USDA, which she declined to accept.

As part of the news coverage of the incident, many news stations and people on the left side of the political spectrum started linking this incident to the Pigford settlement that was under Congressional consideration. As Breitbart explained, he started getting emails telling him this was all about Pigford and people were saying that the White House was fearful that it might result in the Pigford settlement funding being pulled from the congressional bill. "I was then blamed for the loss of the funding for a lawsuit I didn't even know existed," he said. "They thought I was setting a trap for everyone because Sherrod and her husband and their communal farm were scheduled to get millions in the settlement."

But it made him curious as to why Sherrod needed to go so quickly, so he started looking into the matter, talking with the original parties to the suit and discovered a massive fraud that, he said, "makes Watergate look tame." And it goes all the way up to the White House as, Breitbart pointed out, President Obama was the sole sponsor of the settlement when he was in Congress.

Now, Breitbart has hired a filmmaker to do a documentary tracking down truth. "I told him, 'please take your documentary cameras and go prove we wrong.'" Breitbart said he wants to know why an effort to sign up people who claim they 'attempted' to farm is still going on today and is, as he believes, this really just "reparations gone pro." In talking about the original claimants, he said:

"The government systematically tried to get them off their land and it's a tragedy of epic proportions. They've gone, in large numbers, to tell anyone who will listen that Pickford screwed them over. Neighbors are getting rich and these farmers still don't have their land back.
...

I told those black farmers that I'm not going to stop until they receive their justice. They're still waiting for their justice."

TheWashington Examiner adds more details - and questions - to the issue:

The Pigford matter goes back a long way, and to say the least has a checkered history, as this May 27, 2010 item at Agri-Pulse demonstrates (bolds are mine):

As part of a April 14, 1999 class action case settlement, commonly known as the Pigford case, U.S. taxpayers have already provided over $1 billion in cash, non-credit awards and debt relief to almost 16,000 black farmers who claimed that they were discriminated against by USDA officials as they “farmed or attempted to farm.” In addition, USDA’s Farm Service Agency spent over $166 million on salaries and expenses on this case from 1999-2009, according to agency records.

Members of Congress may approve another $1.15 billion this week to settle cases from what some estimate may be an additional 80,000 African-Americans who have also claimed to have been discriminated against by USDA staff.

... Settling this case is clearly a priority for the White House and USDA. Secretary Vilsack described the funding agreement reached between the Administration and advocates for black farmers early this year as “an important milestone in putting these discriminatory claims behind us for good and in achieving finality for this group of farmers with longstanding grievances."

However, confronted with the skyrocketing federal deficit, more officials are taking a critical look at the billion dollars spent thus far and wondering when these discrimination cases will ever end. Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. That’s the year the case initially began as Pigford v. (then Agriculture Secretary) Glickman and sources predicted that, at most, 3,000 might qualify.

At least one source who is extremely familiar with the issue and who asked to remain anonymous because of potential retribution, says there are a number of legitimate cases who have long been denied their payments and will benefit from the additional funding. But many more appear to have been solicited in an attempt to “game” the Pigford system.

Here are just a few questions about Ms. Sherrod that deserve answers:

•Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?
•How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?
•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are a few bigger-picture questions:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?
•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?
•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

This is a story that is just in the beginning stages of being told.

Go here for the taped interview and be sure you watch all the way through to the end.

Blade's state deficit figures don't add up

This is a screen shot of the front page of today's Toledo Blade.

You'll note that in the lead story, "States face deficits as stimulus dries up," they have a graphic of the budgets of Midwest states.

According to the credit on the graphic, the data is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which the paper describes as "a Washington think tank."

They're really a liberal group that pushes for more federal spending for social programs, as their website explains.

Interestingly, the description of the Tax Foundation, which is also quoted in the story is: "The conservative Tax Foundation,..." However, their web page actually gives instructions for how journalists should refer to them:

How Should Journalists Describe Us?
The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.

The bias of The Blade in failing to describe a liberal think tank as 'liberal' is not a surprise to regular readers. But calling another group 'conservative' in spite of their instructions on how to be described is an error the reporter should not make and the editors should not allow.

But I digress.

The real issue in this post is an even more blatant error in the above graphic - figures that don't add up.

You'll note that the chart shows, for various states, the 2011 budget, the projected 2012 shortfall/deficit and the percentage of the budget that deficit represents.

But it incorrectly calculates the Michigan percentage. A $1.8 billion deficit is 21.7% of an $8.3 billion budget.

The article also states:

"Michigan's new governor, Rick Snyder, announced in his state of the state speech on Jan. 19 that he would seek to eliminate the "job-killing" Michigan Business Tax that generates a hefty $2.2 billion a year for Michigan's tax coffers and replace it with a 6 percent corporate income tax.

What that means for the state's $1.8 billion shortfall is not yet known. On paper, at least, Michigan's budget is in better shape than Ohio's because it has a deficit of 8.6 percent of its 2011 budget."

(Note, again, the clear bias by putting 'job-killing' in quotes and referring to the tax revenue as 'hefty'...)

But the story and the graphic cannot both be correct.

If the $1.8 billion deficit is 8.6% of their 2011 budget, the 2011 budget would have to be $20.9 billion - not the $8.3 billion listed on the graphic.

If the $8.3 billion budget number is correct, then the deficit is actually 21.7%, much worse than Ohio's 14%.

Over the weekend, I attended the Western Regional RightOnLine conference - an Americans for Prosperity training session for on-line activists. Throughout the sessions, the speakers emphasized the value of citizen journalists - individuals who serve as a check and balance on the increasingly unreliable and biased main stream media.

Thank you, Toledo Blade, for so quickly providing me with a perfect example to share with my fellow bloggers.

RightOnLine #1 - New Media and the Free Market Movement

Notes from RightOnLine:

* new media drives MSM coverage, influences the public policy agenda, increases and enhances activism and spreads messages to a broader audience.
* policymakers pay attention to new media, especially when they're the ones being talked about.

A tale of two states: Texas and Georgia

* both are strong conservative states, but Texas's left-wing blog began to dominate the state legislature. The blogger's posts were read by legislators during their sessions and the elected officials started to debate the posts on the floor, rather than the merits of the issue...

* Georgia's on-line discussion revolved around a conservative blogger who is now in charge of RedState.com. He's not only influenced state politics, but now is a national commentator.

This is an example of how social media can be a powerful tool, but it requires the 'right' to be networked better.

The area where bloggers can make the most difference is at the local level - the government that is closest to you, whether it's township trustees, city councils or state houses.

So the question is: what are you doing to be involved?

Live Blogging from San Diego

I'm in San Diego today for Americans For Prosperity's Western Regional RightOnLine conference and I'll be live blogging the sessions.

Today's agenda includes a presentation on "New Media and the Free Market Movement;" training sessions on blogging, social media, twitter, using humor and on-lin video, radio and podcasting; Andrew Breitbart as the lunch speaker; policy panels on States in Budget Crisis, the importance of state and local citizen journalism, investigative reporting skills and a showing of the movie The Cartel.

American Egyptians in Toledo plan show of support

I wanted to share with you this press release from a group called American Egyptians in Toledo:

Stand in solidarity with the demonstrators, stand for a democratic possibility in Egypt and the Middle East!

Today, Saturday, the 29th of January, American Egyptians and concerned citizens who support human rights will be gathering at the intersection/corner of Sylvania Ave and Talmadge Rd. in Toledo at 3:30pm to stand in peaceful solidarity with the demonstrators in Egypt and throughout the Middle East.

In the last weeks we have been witnesses to spontaneous uprisings across the Middle East, signifying the beginning of an end to decades of political and social repression. It began with Tunisia, the ousting of Ben Ali, and has now spread to Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya and Jordan. Since January 25th was declared a ‘day of revolt’ against torture, poverty, and government corruption in Egypt, demonstrations have continued all over the country. Rumors disseminated prior to the 25th provided information about what was seemingly going to be an average demonstration – meaning, several hundred demonstrators and several thousand police officers surrounding them – yet what has happened is quite remarkable.

Demonstrators have outnumbered police... and demonstrations were not confined to their usual quarters. The first day, marked by tens of thousands of demonstrators, Journalists arrested, blogs shut down, newspapers closed, has increased consistently throughout the country and what started as a small movement has been joined by masses from all social classes, religious affiliations, and political persuasions calling for an end to tyranny and true democratic possibility. Government crackdown has characterized the last 48 hours and continues. As of late Thursday evening (in the US), Internet and SMS(text) services are blocked and phone usage (both cell and landline) is cut in advance of a scheduled day of mass, organized, peaceful demonstrations. In some cities, including Suez, electricity and water are cut off. All of this in a country that is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid. Egypt receives $1.7 billion military aid annually aid feeds ‘National Security’ and the weaponry being used to repress these demonstrations.

We are asking for the US to respond to these democratic movements and for a firm stance to be taken against repressive, violent regimes. This is a moment of far- reaching democratic possibility and must be supported!

TIYC Winterfest and Iceboat Regatta

Have you ever been on an iceboat? Have you even seen one? They are amazing vehicles and lots of fun - and this weekend is your opportunity to learn all about them.

The Toledo Ice Yacht Club is hosting their annual Winterfest and Iceboat Regatta at Ottawa River Yacht Club and the event is open to the public.

Saturday, there will be iceboats set up for viewing, so you'll be able to see the various kinds and learn about how they're made - and almost all of them are hand-made. There will also be some sailors who can take participants for a ride - if there's enough wind.

Ottawa River Yacht Club is in Point Place at the corner of Edgewater and 140th Street.

Wind and other conditions permitting, you can view the other boats sailing and racing on Maumee Bay. The best location for viewing and safe access to the ice is at the end of 125th Street.

So bundle up, bring the kids and enjoy some winter sports here in Point Place!

Jail time for Ohio mom is prime reason we need school choice

Kelley Williams-Bolar is going to spend 10 days in jail and three years on probation because she wanted a better education for her children.

Outrageous, it seems, but it's true - and it's a prime example of what is so very wrong with our educational system today.

Williams-Bolar wanted her kids to have a good education so she sent them to a school in the Copley-Fairlawn School District. The problem is that Copley-Fairlawn is not her home district, though it is the district where her father lives and where she lives part-time. She put her father's address on the enrollment papers and had him confirm the living arrangements, landing her in trouble for lying about her address and falsifying records.

School officials claimed she was cheating the system because her kids were getting an education they didn't pay for. In Ohio, you can attend out-of-district schools but tuition is often charged. When Williams-Bolar refused to pay the $30,000 in back tuition, she was charged with the crimes.

According to this news report, "Those dollars need to stay home with our students," school district officials said.

I'm certainly not in favor of lying nor of skirting the rules and laws and I don't condone what Williams-Bolar did, but I understand her situation and believe it should make everyone stop and think about how our school system is structured, especially during National School Choice Week.

Why shouldn't a parent have a choice as to which school their child attends? Why should a parent who pays taxes for an education have to pay even more because of an arbitrary geographical line? Why can't the taxes she pays go with the child rather than stay under the control of politicians? Why should any child be restricted in their ability to learn just so a political subdivision can have control?

The only reason to maintain the existing system is to maintain The Cartel that runs that system. The focus of our schools is no longer on what is best for the child - it's on what is best for the teachers or the administrators or the politicians or the power structure or the political party - everything but the child. We lock children into failing schools simply because of where their parents live and then we are shocked when we find out they can't get a job or that our nation is falling behind others in the world.

In Toledo, we have Pickett Elementary School that has been in academic emergency for over 10 years! Think about that and what a disservice we've done to those children.

The message of School Choice Week is this:

"...we need a K-12 education system that provides a wide array of options. We need an effective education system that has the flexibility to personalize and motivate students and allow parents to choose the school that is best for their child."

If Williams-Bolar had had such an option, she wouldn't be going to jail for the sake of her children. No parent should face that choice.

Quote of the Day

From a recent Walter E. Williams column:

"Everyone who receives government largesse and special favors deems his needs as vital, deserving, proper and in the national interest. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a politician to honor and obey our Constitution and in the process commit political suicide. What's even worse for our nation is that voters ousting a politician who'd refuse to bring, say, aid to higher education back to his constituents is perfectly rational. If, for example, he's a Virginia politician and doesn't bring higher education grants back to his constituents, it doesn't mean Virginian taxpayers will pay a lower income tax. All that it means is that Marylanders will get the money instead. Once legalized theft begins, it pays for everyone to participate. Those who don't will be losers.

That's the nation's dilemma. The most important job for people who want to spare our nation from economic collapse is not that of persuading politicians to do the right thing but to convince our fellow Americans to respect the limits of our Constitution. In his speech to Virginia's ratifying convention, James Madison said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

Bell to deliver 2011 State of the City

REMINDER from the City of Toledo:

Mayor Bell to deliver 2011 State of the City, January 27th

Mayor Michael P. Bell will deliver the 2011 State of the City address at 7 p.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2011, in Nitschke Auditorium on the campus of the University of Toledo. This public event is free and open to the community. There are no tickets required for admission and seating is on a first come, first available basis. Capacity in the auditorium is 1,000 seats. Convenient free parking for the event is located in campus lots 19 and 20.