Thurber's Thoughts

• Rep. Paul Ryan: go bold in 2012
  I participated in a conference call with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) where he previewed the comments he will be making at CPAC 2012.
  
  Throughout the call he emphasized that Republicans/conservatives have a terrific opportunity in 2012 to not only defeat Barack Obama, but to earn a moral mandate for returning the nation to its American Ideals.
  
  "If we give the American people a clear choice, I have faith that they will reaffirm our Founding principles, giving us the moral authority to get America back on track."
  
  He said Pres. Obama told us he wanted to "fundamentally change" the United States. Like so many others, I never understood why we needed to 'change' anything about the greatest, freest and most prosperous nation on earth, but apparently converting us to a European socialist copy was the direction the President intended.
  
  Ryan said we need to "go bold in 2012" and not win simply by default. He said we have an extraordinary opportunity to offer the country a clear vision of the reforms necessary to get us back to the ideals our nation was founded upon. "On nearly every policy front, the President has made matters worse. But I believe the American people deserve better than simply a referendum on President Obama’s failed policies. They deserve a choice of two futures," he stated.
  
  It is his firm belief that if we show Americans the choice they have between continuing down the dangerous debt-ridden path Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have placed us on or returning to the path of American greatness - the ideals and principles upon which the nation was founded - Americans will choose what we offer and we will win not only the 2012 election, but the moral authority to implement the agenda they so obviously support.
  
  The 2012 election will be an election of competing ideas, he said. Our rights come from our creator - not government. The nucleus of our society is the individual and the family - not the government. Ryan said it is already clear that Pres. Obama is going to run on a platform of division, especially by class - hoping people will believe that they are somehow stuck in their current class and the only way to better themselves is through government taking from others in order to attain an equal outcome for all.
  
  "I reject class division. I reject preying on envy and fear," Ryan said.
  
  He had one of the best catch phrases I've heard so far this year. He said Obama's record and failed agenda is one of "debt, doubt, and decline." His CPAC speech will make the case for clarifying the choice between the Republican message of growth and prosperity, or more of Obama's debt, doubt and decline.
  
  But, he emphasized, we must make that choice very clear by accentuating the differences between our two positions. "As reformers, it is our task in the year ahead to make clear the reform agenda needed to get us back on track – to get our economy growing, to tackle the rising cost of health care, to strengthen health and retirement security for all Americans, and to lift the crushing burden of debt so that hardworking families can prosper. We need reforms that expand opportunity and upward mobility."
  
  After hearing this preview, I'm even more interested in hearing his speech to the CPAC attendees. I predict his message will resonate not only with them, but with the American people as well.
  
  
  
  
• Ohio - the new front in the fracking war
  I thought this summary from the National Center for Policy Analysis was especially timely considering that Gov. John Kasich will be discussing fracking in his State of the State speech, which you can watch live here at 1 p.m.
  
  

  A New Front in the Fracking War
  
  The state of Ohio has become one of the main battlegrounds in the fight over the controversial horizontal hydraulic fracturing process, known as "fracking." Though the state is several years behind neighboring states in the exploitation of the fracking system, its abundance of deep natural gas deposits makes it a prime target for future extraction, says the Weekly Standard.
  
  

  • Unique to the state of Ohio is the large concentration of natural gas in Utica shale rock, which is several thousand feet below the normal Marcellus shale that is already widely fracked.
  
  • Within that layer of rock, state officials estimate that as much as 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are trapped.
  
  • In the last month, foreign investors committed more than $2 billion to shale operations in the state.
  
  • According to a study by the Ohio extraction industry's educational arm, exploiting this resource could create more than 200,000 jobs and net the state billions of dollars.
  
  • Amy Meyers Jaffe, a fellow in energy studies at the Baker Institute at Rice University, estimates that enough gas is recoverable from shale in North America to fuel the country for 45 years.

  
  Despite the enormous benefits to be gained from exploiting a high-demand natural resource, Ohioans have turned out in droves to protest fracking on a number of grounds. However, concerns -- which are largely related to the environment -- are unfounded and place unnecessary red tape on an industry that could significantly strengthen the economy of a state with 8.5 percent unemployment.
  
  The most recent claim against the fracking industry is that their disposal wells (storage for fracking residual materials) can cause seismic activity if drilled too close to fault lines. This concern gained momentum because of the strong series of minor earthquakes that hit Ohio during 2011, with a 4.0 magnitude quake striking on New Year's Eve. However, this concern precludes the fact that wastewater wells have been in the state since the 1980s and now number 176 sites.
  
  A number of other concerns relate to the possibility that unchecked wastewater wells could leak into the groundwater supply. However, Ohio has specifically addressed this issue by doubling inspection staff and mandating assessments four times as often as the Environmental Protection Agency requires.
  
  Source: Kate Havard, "A New Front in the Fracking War," Weekly Standard, January 30, 2012.

  
  
  
  
• A conundrum for the Lucas County Board of Elections
  The Lucas County Board of Elections has a conundrum they must address.
  
  You see, at least four Republicans who work at the BOE are in contested races for the Republican State Central Committee: Jon Stainbrook - board member; Meghan Gallagher - elections manager; Tom Morgan - Republican booth official; and Gina Kaczala - administrative assistant.
  
  Longstanding practice at the BOE, as well as the Secretary of State's ethics policy, says that no one in a contested race for state or local political party committee can handle ballots with their name on them. Specifically, the Secretary of State policy states:
  
  

  Employees of the board of elections (other than the director and deputy director) may circulate petitions for candidates, issues, initiatives, and referenda only if they do not participate in any way in reviewing or determining the sufficiency or validity of those petitions filed with or reviewed by the board of elections.
  ...
  Employees of the secretary of state and members of the board of elections who sign candidate and issue petitions as an elector should not participate in any way in reviewing or determining the sufficiency or validity of those petitions filed with or reviewed by the board of elections.

  
  So if any of these four individuals signed a petition for a candidate, they should not handle the ballot.
  
  Additionally, since they all have a vested interest in the votes being cast in the 2nd and 9th Senate districts, they should not be involved with the ballots being cast in those precincts either.
  
  They also can't campaign for those positions on election day, as the SoS policy states members and employees of the boards of election shall not engage in :
  
  

  Wearing or distributing shirts, buttons, stickers, or other campaign paraphernalia for or against any candidate or issue at the office of the Secretary of State, at the office of the board of elections, or at any polling place.(emphasis added)

  
  But that's not all.
  
  Secretary of State Jon Husted has already warned the Lucas County BOE that Meghan Gallagher was in violation of the ethics policy and told the board they should review his office policy and their own policies on the matter.
  
  In his Jan. 6th letter breaking a tie vote to not certify the candidacy of Constantine Stamos, Husted wrote:
  
  

  Additionally, I am concerned that a board staff member was one of the individuals responsible for filing the declaration of candidacy and petition for Mr. Stamos. I ask the Lucas County Board of Elections to review the Secretary of State's ethics policy and the Board's own policy related to permissible political activity of board staff.

  
  While he doesn't name Gallagher specifically, she is the one who was turning in the petitions for the candidate.
  
  The SoS policy also states:
  
  

  The public policy behind these statutory prohibitions favors the separation of politics from the elections duties of the secretary of state, employees of the secretary of state, and the members and employees of the boards of elections to ensure public confidence in Ohio elections. Consistent with these public policy considerations and policies of prior administrations, employees of the secretary of state and members and employees of the boards of elections shall not engage in the following political activities:
  
  

  * Circulating a petition for any candidate (other than their own petition for an elected or political party office), issue, initiative, referendum, or constitutional amendment, when that employee's regular or intermittent duties involve the processing of the petitions in question, including but not limited to the
  determination of the sufficiency and validity of the petition in question.

  
  I wonder how many petitions for other candidates, including state and local central committees, that Meghan Gallagher, the elections manager, has circulated and if that is also a violation of the ethics policy?
  
  The issue now, for the BOE is how to ensure confidence in the counting of the ballots, especially considering the number of detractors Stainbrook and Gallagher have within the Republican Party.
  
  Their first duty is to the BOE and the sanctity of the elections system, ensuring not only the accuracy but also the integrity of the vote totals. Their candidacies are a distant second to that obligation.
  
  They need to share their policy and procedures for how these votes will be totaled without their involvement, and then guarantee transparency in the enforcement of their procedures - otherwise, they open themselves up for a host of problems and accusations that we just cannot afford at the Lucas County BOE or in our election system.
  
  
  
  
• Rep. Bob Latta's statement on failure of President Obama to meet budget deadline
  Press Release:
  
  

  Latta Statement on President’s Failure to Meet Budget Deadline
  
  WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling) issued the following statement after President Obama failed to submit a budget request today for Fiscal Year 2013. By law, presidents have to submit their budgets no later than the first Monday in February. The White House budget is expected on February 13.
  
  “With trillion-dollar budget deficits, it behooves the President to submit a budget on time. This marks the third time in four years that President Obama has missed his deadline to submit a budget to Congress on time. One of the President’s fundamental duties is to present a budget to Congress, and doing so on time will then give both the House and Senate ample time to pass a budget.”
  
  The House Budget Committee has compiled a chronological review of Presidential budget submissions dating back to 1923. Several key points from the data:
  
  In just one term, President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President.
  
  

  * In the 90 years covering FY1923 through FY 2013, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline two years in a row. He is the only President who has missed the deadline in three of the four years of a term.
  
  * All Presidents from Harding through Reagan’s first term met the statutory budget submission deadline in every year. In five of these years, a change in the law was requested and passed to extend the deadline, and the President always met it.
  
  * Since the budget process moved the date of submission to the first Monday in February, the incoming President’s first budget submission has been delayed for practical reasons (the President’s inauguration is less than three weeks before the budget submission’s deadline). Yet President Obama’s first budget in his first year set a new record with a 98-day delay for his FY2010 budget.
  
  * Since the statutory deadline was extended to the first Monday in February, with the exception of the first budget for a new President, this deadline has only been missed three times: Clinton FY1998; Obama FY2012; and Obama FY 2013.

  
  
  
  ###

  
  
  
  
• Buckeye Institute names Holtsberry as new president
  Press Release:
  
  

  BUCKEYE INSTITUTE ANNOUNCES NEW PRESIDENT
  
  Kevin Holtsberry named to lead Ohio Think Tank
  
  February 6, 2012-COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions announced today that Kevin Holtsberry has been chosen as the next president of the organization.
  
  "We are excited about the vision Kevin has for Buckeye," said Greg Lashutka, Chairman of the Board of Trustees. "Kevin's strong background in communications and his experience in state government make him an excellent choice to grow Buckeye into one of the premiere state think tanks in the country."
  
  "Freedom, opportunity, responsibility and community - these are the values that make Ohio great," said Holtsberry. "These are also the values the Buckeye Institute brings to its work on public policy. I am excited about the chance to foster an environment in Ohio where these ideas drive public policy and help our state become a vibrant, growing and attractive place to live and work."
  
  Kevin Holtsberry has a decade of experience in state government - in both policy and communications - including work in the General Assembly, The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and The Auditor of State's office.
  
  Holtsberry has recently been focused on strategic communications and public affairs as a writer, editor and consultant to candidates, organizations and advocacy groups. He has particular expertise in social media and online outreach. He was the New Media Director for Rob Portman's successful US Senate campaign in 2010.
  
  Holtsberry has been involved in online and opinion journalism for over ten years. He has written for National Review and National Review Online as well as Human Events, The Washington Times and The Huffington Post. He has a Masters Degree from Bowling Green State University, a Bachelors Degree from Taylor University and lives in Columbus with his wife and two children.
  
  ###

  
  
  
  
• Blade Bias #11
  I was forwarded this column by The Blade's ombudsman, who is supposed to help monitor 'fairness' in the newspaper.
  
  To say that it hurts my head to read the column would be an understatement. Contradiction and anti-logic abound. If this is the twisted and contorted reasoning the ombudsman applies to his task, perhaps it's no surprise that this is the 11th column I've written on the bias in the paper, at least since I resorted to just numbering the columns.
  
  Let's start with the first sentence:
  
  

  For many years, The Blade has worked hard to see that its news coverage is free of partisan bias.

  
  Actually, this cannot be true when, in a negative story, the Republican is identified immediately as a Republican but the Democrat descriptor waits until the end of the article - or never appears at all. Or when the political party of a prosecutor is emphasized, but the political party of the indicted individual is not?
  
  Or how about the adjectives used to identify partisan philosophy? The paper routinely identifies the Buckeye Institute as a conservative think tank, but fails to identify the Center for American Progress as a liberal (progressive) one.
  
  Clearly, these examples prove that the news coverage is not "free of partisan bias." But perhaps the ombudsman is correct that they "work hard." They just fail.
  
  The next 'logic' is that deciding what stories to cover is not based on 'fairness.'
  
  Now, the ombudsman may have a point in that a decision to cover the actions of elected officials in Toledo may result in more stories about Democrats than Republicans, which is not 'fair.' But that's based upon the fact that there are more elected Democrats, so it's not 'unfair' to end up with a disproportional number of D to R news stories.
  
  But a quick look at headlines for the 2009 Toledo mayoral race shows that 'fairness' clearly isn't an aim when it comes to headlines and identifying the Republican and Democrat candidates, as I've previously documented:
  
  

  Note the not-so-subtle bias of including some candidate names in the headline versus others and note which candidates get their names listed first. Also, do you really think the selection of an advertising firm is a news story (as in Wilkowski's case)? The selection of any particular firm will have ramifications for the other candidates because a firm isn't going to have two mayoral candidates as clients. Do you know who the other candidates have selected? Not from The Blade.
  
  Also, look at the nature of the headlines - whether it's positive or negative. On Wilkowski, you have 'pitches wind-testing program,' 'adds advisory panel,' 'leads in cash,' 'suggests tax credit,' and 'vows aid to small firms.' On Bell you have 'resign' and 'draws flak.' On Konop you have an appeal to sympathy as 'critics' attack him. On Moody you have 'seeks special plates' and 'privatize' along with 'businessman' and 'businesslike.'
  
  The impression from the headlines is one of specific and positive ideas from Wilkowski, but not so much from the other candidates. While it's still early in the race and Wilkowski, as I noted above, has more time as a candidate, those factors do not account for today's Moody headline of 'GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan.' They could have used any number of headlines (like 'Moody offers turn-around plan for city,' 'Moody offers plan to retool city,' or even 'Moody offers 5-point plan for city') that included his name and some description of the plan. They even could have focused on just one aspect of the press announcement and used a paragraph to say that other ideas, including x, y, z, were also presented. But they didn't.
  
  These are specific ways in which the coverage is slanted and biased.

  
  Again, if 'fairness' is the aim, then The Blade is failing miserably.
  
  But anti-logic comes to the rescue, as the ombudsman explains:
  
  

  But it's important to remember two things -- fairness, which is what I, as the ombudsman, am supposed to monitor, doesn't have anything to do with choosing what stories the paper should focus on.
  
  ...
  
  But if the sports editor thinks one team or another is more worthy of coverage, that isn't necessarily unfair but is that editor's call, based on his news judgment and knowledge of the area.

  
  Apparently, using this anti-logic, when a news editor decides what to cover, there is no bias present, despite an editor making a judgment call as to what constitutes 'news.' This article explains the bias well:
  
  

  Bias through selection and omission: An editor can express bias by choosing whether or not to use a specific news story. Within a story, some details can be ignored, others can be included to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of sources can this type of bias be observed.
  
  For example, if people boo during one of President Clinton's speeches, the booing can be described as "remarks greeted by jeers" or the boos can be ignored as "a handful of people who disagree".

  
  As in my example above about the headlines, it was an editor's decision that the selection of an advertising firm by a favored candidate in the 2009 mayoral race was news - but only for the favored candidate, not for all candidates.
  
  Then there was this story about union violence against a business owner. Strangely, The Blade failed to report any of the information that indicated a potential union connection.
  
  Clearly, editorial decisions about what to cover and how to cover it are not always based on objectivity. Again, the paper has failed miserably in both bias and fairness.
  
  In his next point, the ombudsman takes exception to a writer who points out the hypocrisy of the editorial board. He writes:
  
  

  The paper does not, however, have a right to be hypocritical, and one longtime critic of the newspaper complained the newspaper is doing just that. He notes that on Christmas Day, David Kushma, the editor of The Blade, cautioned letter writers to "be civil," adding, "Name-calling is not argument. One-word labels are not ideas."
  
  True enough. Yet the writer was upset because the newspaper nine months earlier criticized those "Luddites in Congress, mainly Republicans," who were trying to repeal the law ordering the phasing out of old-fashioned, energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs.

  
  He is correct that the paper does not have a right to by hypocritical, but then defends the hypocrisy by saying, basically, it's not 'name-calling' if the description is accurate.
  
  

  When a description is completely accurate, it is not unfair name-calling.

  
  
  Huh? The editor of The Blade writes an editorial that says "name-calling is not an argument. One-word labels are not ideas" and when the paper gets caught doing exactly that - name-calling and using a one-word label, the ombudsman says 'that's okay because when we do, it's just being descriptive and accurate.'
  
  I guess calling voters unwise and implying they're stingy when they don't support an endorsed tax levy is 'just being accurate,' as is calling the local United Way board 'rash', or when they say local business leaders are not displaying leadership and exhibiting a 'lack of resolve' because they don't jump on board the paper's push for a charter county form of government.
  
  You may say that these are 'descriptive' from the editorial point of view, but they're name-calling just the same.
  
  It is this type of convoluted exception-making that makes my head hurt - and part of the reason why these types of articles in the paper have to be emailed to me for me to know about them.
  
  But is it any wonder why The Blade has such bias and 'unfairness' in their news and editorial pages when this is the contorted and illogical reasoning of their ombudsman?
  
  
  
  
• Filling in on WSPD - CPAC
  This weekend is CPAC 2012, the Conservative Action Political Conference, in Washington D.C.
  
  I'll be filling in for Brian Wilson and the Afternoon Drive on WSPD on Wednesday, Feb. 8th from 3-6 p.m. as Brian travels to CPAC. I hope you'll join me on AM 1370 or on line here.
  
  Thursday through Saturday, I'll be attending my first CPAC. I plan to live blog some of the speeches and breakout sessions - and will definitely stop by radio row to say hello to the WSPD crew.
  
  As a blogger, I'll also have some access to the speakers as they bring them through bloggers row.
  
  If there's something in particular you'd like asked of them or if there's a particular session you're interested in, let me know and I'll do my best to cover it.
  
  
  
  
• Quotes of the Day - government excess
  

  "The lesson that Americans today have forgotten or never learned -- the lesson which our ancestors tried so hard to teach -- is that the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, property, and security is not some foreign government, as our rulers so often tell us. The greatest threat to our freedom and well-being lies with our own government!" ~ Jacob G. Hornberger
  
  "[It is not the purpose nor right of Congress] to attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." ~ William Branch Giles

  
  
  
  
• Quote of the Day - Was Madison wrong?
  Was James Madison wrong - or are we just lacking a "vigilant and manly spirit"?
  
  
  

  "If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." ~ James Madison

  
  
  
  
• Friday Roundup: smoking in cars, child labor, and racists
  * Democratic Sen. Charleta Tavares of Columbus has introduced a bill to ban smoking in cars where children younger than six are present. She believes the smoke in the cars is more harmful because it's concentrated in a small area. Of course, that only applies if the windows are closed.
  
  Introduced on Feb. 1, S.B. 27:
  
  

  The bill prohibits any person from smoking in any motor vehicle in which a child under six years of age is a passenger. For purposes of the bill, "smoke" means "to inhale, exhale, burn, or carry any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant."
  
  Whoever smokes in a motor vehicle when a child under six years of age is a passenger is subject to a $500 fine on a first offense; on each subsequent offense, the offender is subject to a fine of $500 plus $250 for each subsequent violation.

  
  Law enforcement would have a hard time determining the age of child as a car with a smoker goes by, so how, exactly, they see enforcement of this is beyond me. Does Sen. Tavares think the police should just stop every car in order to find out how old a child might be?
  
  And what about profiling? Will more women get tickets because they're more likely to be driving with a child in the car? What about minorities? I found this government report that shows Blacks and Asians smoke more than whites - will this bill target such ethnic groups because they are more likely to be smokers?
  
  Remember when we were told that they were just going to ban smoking on planes? Then they started requiring smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, then they banned smoking in public buildings and areas, then they banned smoking in restaurants and now they want to ban smoking in cars with kids. Do you think they'll next ban smoking in homes with kids?
  
  This is a slippery slope - and no matter how much you like or dislike smoking, or smoke-free areas, the goals can be accomplished without government mandates. But too often, people turn to government first to force their biases and preferences on others.
  
  It is a slippery slope, with government creeping into your life in various ways until one day you wake up and your liberties are gone - all in the name of safety and 'you're own good.'
  
  * The Department of Labor wants to ban children under the age of 16 from from operating tractors and other machinery and working with livestock. As CNSNews reports:
  
  

  “This is what happens when big city bureaucrats try to craft policies for rural America,” Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said of the proposals.
  
  Rehberg, who has become of the proposal’s most ardent opponents, criticized the Labor Department for drafting regulations that he says are unnecessary.
  
  “(The) most effective way to become a safe and effective operator of farm implements is to learn at a young age under the guidance of a knowledgeable and careful instructor,” he said.
  
  Farm groups like the South Dakota Farmers Union have also joined in the protest.
  
  “Our children are our greatest resource for continuing family agricultural operations. Without being allowed to learn the day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch, the future of rural America would be in jeopardy.” said in official comments on Dec. 1.

  
  See? It's for the children... And if it saves just one life... And it's for your own good... and if the government doesn't act, someone could get hurt...
  
  Also from the article:
  
  

  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 gives the Labor Secretary power to determine both what is “suitable” and “hazardous or detrimental” labor for children.

  
  So we put a bureaucrat in charge of determining what is "suitable" for our kids. No wonder we get laws like the proposed one from Tavares above.
  
  * We're all racists, so get used to it. Duane Lester who writes at All American Blogger, has recently become one of my favorites for well-written sarcasm when it comes to the left. His recent column, Can We Just Resign Ourselves to the Fact That Until November, Everything is Racist?, was eye-opening as well as entertaining to read as he talks about 'code words' for racism.
  
  

  When you can’t mention the Founding Fathers without it being a racist dog whistle, you know what I am saying is true. You need to accept that as fact. This isn’t going to be a campaign about the positives and negatives of a particular candidate’s economic philosophy, or their particular belief in the role of government. It is going to be a campaign designed to divide the nation by class and race.
  
  And they have a head start. (That’s probably racist.)

  
  I hope you'll read the entire column - and add Duane to your blogger list.