One of the most concerning comments a Constitutional Conservative Republican can hear from a fellow Republican is that they are “extreme” in their views.
The schism within the party should seem a remarkable thing if one was to examine what ‘extremism’ truly is. Is there a defined line in the sand, or a point in which an accumulation of thoughts and philosophy render one susceptible to branding with a scarlet “E”? And like much of the politics playing out across the US, Michigan has developed what appears to be a Left-Right paradigm within a party presented as being on the right side of the political spectrum as long as can be remembered.
That, OR the window of tolerance for views once held as standards has been closed.
Extremism is subjective. It is a moving target. And it is a relative condition that exists ONLY from the perspective of those who would label one with such hyperbole. This is unarguable. If someone were to examine another person’s political views and agree with them, they would not likely make the claim that they too, are ‘extreme.’ Their philosophical centering at-rest is the foundation on which their opinions are formed, decisions are made, and with politics, support and votes are rendered.
In 2008, Governor Jennifer Granholm had taken a threatening posture reminiscent of HER AG days, and as pointed out, I believe she was wrong. I approached this subject with support towards those who would profit from temporary misery, and ended with support for those especially miserable:
But when considering the situation, how bad is it to charge more for gas, and at WHAT point is it considered price gouging? Not only that, but what RIGHT does GOVERNMENT have to CONTROL Prices? If a station owner is looking at NO deliveries for the next two to four days raises his prices because his supplier is unable to guarantee delivery, who is in a position to criticize it?. What is that person supposed to do? By gas prices going high temporarily, it guarantees that those who TRULY NEED the resource will have it.
The motion asks Judge David Lawson to rule in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples. The motion argues that the 2011 law banning the benefits “eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair” and promotes “financially sound” local agencies.
In June 2013, Lawson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, Public Act 297, saying the plaintiffs in the case had a good chance of proving at trial that the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.
“A good chance” is a pitiful reason to upend due process and legislate from the bench.
Yet another traditional Michigan community is pressured to elevate a behavior based identity to protected status
If, after reading the previous article by Mr. Heine, any of the Bay County Commissioners could still affirm the dangerous lifestyle of Sodom, we would know there is at least one more formerly ‘traditional’ community that has lost its way.
We are being told thatToday at 4 p.m., those Bay County Commissioners will be considering passage of an ordinance banning discrimination of LGBT workers in Bay County with a public hearing. Actual voting on the controversial issue will not happen until March 11.
And even though there have been no reported incidents of this type of discrimination, it is being pushed through by those with an agenda of self destructive behavior. It’s one more opportunity for this lifestyle to be ‘in our face’ and promoted as ‘normal’ civilized behavior, to grow the ranks of those who participate in an unhealthy paradigm.
Why would a pro-life party embrace a culture of death?
The normal course of action for a pandemic is to mobilize medical resources in order to learn, as quickly as possible, as much as can be learned about the disease, specifically including source of infection and method of transmission. Until this information is learned, the victims are sometimes isolated from the rest of society as a reliable way to contain the outbreak, until either a cure or vaccine is developed. Even if a cure or vaccine isn’t yet available, the knowledge regarding infection source and transmission is made public as soon as it’s known, and widely circulated, so that others who aren’t infected can take appropriate precautions.
But what happens when both the principal source of infection and the principal method of transmission for a global pandemic are known to be directly linked to a lifestyle choice that is a political hot-button issue? Does elected leadership still speak the truth, so that those at risk can know the facts and adjust their lifestyle accordingly, or do they put reelection concerns above all else, bury their heads in the sand, and publicly chastise any of their own who dare speak the truth in public on the record?
Yes, I know the convenient dodge from those who would prefer to avoid the obvious parallels between running an automaker into the ground and running a municipal government into the ground: government is not a business.
Wrong. Both succeed and fail on the strength (or weakness) of managing reality, dollars and cents, not some mythical ideal that exists only in gauzy memory or an eighth-grade civics class. Neither business nor government can allow expenses to consistently outstrip revenue for too long, cannot charge customers or taxpayers more and deliver less, without inviting serious existential consequences.
So many things wrong with the above paragraphs.
Starting with the most fundamental flaw: business adds value by producing something (a product or service) and creates wealth, government can only take wealth (through the force of law) from one group of people and give it to another, adding no value and creating no wealth.
Too often, your local government will have advocates of money-spending that holds out the promise of jobs, or some tangible benefit that can be presented in dollars gained back for the community.
The authors of such fiction typically seek to justify their own positions of employment within that community, and possibly within the government entity itself. Axiomatically however, all of them have a stake in the outcome of the requested spending. They will be asked for, and then will present metrics, or a presumed study of return on investment (ROI) and typically the elected leadership falls for it hook, line and sinker.
A perfect example was during a consideration of funding for the MSU extension office in Grand Traverse County when I was an elected commissioner. County commissioners were given plenty of reading materials by the MSU advocates to show us that for every dollar spent we would see a result of $17 in benefit to the county. The calculations as it turned out were premised on a ‘guess,’ that was then multiplied by a compounding analysis program that is used by MSU intellectuals, that relies on ‘guesses’ for the input variables.