Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Harvard Charlie's Castle Doctrine Ad Fallacies
Here is the ad:
Fallacy #1 - Charlie didn't change the law all by himself, which is the clear insuation. He may have been principal author of the bill that passed but Sen. Ross was but one vote in the Senate, then the bill also passed the House and the Guv signed it. Charlie you didn't pass the bill and I wonder what the other 31 sponsers of the bill in the Senate think of the ad and the omission of their assistance.
Fallacy #2 - Darth Vadar doesn't live in Mississippi, now I have to say having Darth sneak up on your porch would be bad but come on, a Darth invasion in a local political ad is a little over the top.
Fallacy #3 - Ross implies he is a guy who gets stuff done for the people, "protecting families". Look at the bills Ross authored in 2007 that passed. A couple of minor changes to the MBCA, UPA, UCC and bills dealing with notaries, assistant d.a.'s, and a bill promoting toll roads. Not a whole lot of protecting the family going on there. In fact, Ross as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary let a bill, HB 1546 in 2005, that actually did help families die that had already passed the House. Oddly enough that bill was authored by now opponent, if Ross wins the GOP nomination, Jamie Franks.
Fallacy #1 - Charlie didn't change the law all by himself, which is the clear insuation. He may have been principal author of the bill that passed but Sen. Ross was but one vote in the Senate, then the bill also passed the House and the Guv signed it. Charlie you didn't pass the bill and I wonder what the other 31 sponsers of the bill in the Senate think of the ad and the omission of their assistance.
Fallacy #2 - Darth Vadar doesn't live in Mississippi, now I have to say having Darth sneak up on your porch would be bad but come on, a Darth invasion in a local political ad is a little over the top.
Fallacy #3 - Ross implies he is a guy who gets stuff done for the people, "protecting families". Look at the bills Ross authored in 2007 that passed. A couple of minor changes to the MBCA, UPA, UCC and bills dealing with notaries, assistant d.a.'s, and a bill promoting toll roads. Not a whole lot of protecting the family going on there. In fact, Ross as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary let a bill, HB 1546 in 2005, that actually did help families die that had already passed the House. Oddly enough that bill was authored by now opponent, if Ross wins the GOP nomination, Jamie Franks.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Best stuff comes in race for No. 2
I'm not normally a fan of the Greenwood Commonwealth paper but I liked this little editorial about the Lt. Governor's race.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
New laws that go into effect today
- House Bill 617 - State pays tuition, room and board for active military members.
- House Bill 1439 - Patients in nursing homes can choose their own pharmacist to serve their needs.
- Senate Bill 2057- Drivers must move a lane over when an emergency vehicle is aiding another motorist.
- Senate Bill 3034 - Consumers can freeze their credit reports with the three major bureaus if they have been a victim of identity theft.
- House Bill 423 - The state Commission of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks can study whether to allow hunting over grain.
- Senate Bill 2772 - Residents must have a permit to buy a stun gun.
- Senate Bill 2825 - Registered sex offenders cannot be on or near school campuses under most circumstances.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
No Smoke for You
Apparently this, no smoking anywhere thing is spreading across Mississippi. See the city of Ridgeland passing an ordinance banning smoking city wide. This adds Ridgeland to the list of Tupelo, Hattiesburg, Mantachie, Oxford and others. Let me first identify myself as someone who is not a smoker, never has been a smoker and am somewhat allergic to lots of smoke. Most would think I would be in favor this, I am not. However, people should look at ordnances like this as objectionably.
1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.
I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen
1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.
I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
It's time for the gloves to come off in the Lt. Governor's race
The Republicans get to choose between Charlie Ross and Phil Bryant this August, a mere 2 months away and it seems like this week the campaign has really kicked into full gear. Ross started running campaign ads this week and Bryant can't be far behind. We have seen some jabs back and forth but Bryant's association with the Partnership and several jabs at failed audits. I haven't seen as much out of Bryant to this point but he is ahead in most polling so he might be holding out for now. Both Ross and Bryant have over a half million dollars in the bank, I believe last reports were that Ross had over a Million in Cash on Hand, and in two months any left over will just be wasted for one of them so see things pick up in the near future.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Judicial Qualifications
In the light of Judge Leslie Southwick having his nomination being taken back up today I wanted to try and put forth an open thread with more of a question.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)