Monthly Archives: January 2008

Is Ron Paul’s Fundraising Drying Up ?

Say what you will about his campaign and his supporters, but one of the more remarkable political stories of 2007. There were moneybombs in November and December that brought in more in a single day than some candidates had raised all quarter. By the end of the 4th Quarter, the campaign had raised $ 20 million in three months.

Then, at the beginning of January, the campaign said that it would need an additional $ 23 million by January 31st to be competitive on Super Tuesday. That’s right —- they’d need to raise as much as they did in three months in four weeks.

Right now, it doesn’t seem to be going well.

The tally on the campaign’s homepage shows less than $ 900,000 raised through today, with only 14 days to go. And one site that’s tallying the “road to $ 23 million” shows them to be at least $ 21 million short.

Personally, I’m not sure that $ 23 million is needed just for the Super Tuesday states, but that’s what the campaign is saying.

The question is, what’s happening with the fundraising. Have people stopped giving ? Have they maxed out on the FEC limits ? I’ve got to think that the campaign’s poor showing in the last four primaries/caucuses has something to do with it. Truth be told, people get discouraged.

There is one solution to the money problem, of course, Paul could apply for federal matching funds. However, as I noted in October, doing so would involve violating the very principles Paul claims to be running on.

I think what we’re seeing is clearly a byproduct of disappointment in the ranks, and I’m not sure it’s going to get any better.

Apparently, Ben Bernanke Wasn’t Very Convincing

He went to Capitol Hill today and talked about the need for an economic stimulus package, and the stock market fell 300 points anyway:

Federal Reserve chief Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers today it is “critically important” that any economic stimulus package take effect quickly if it is to help ward off recession, and the White House announced that President Bush would make a speech Friday laying out his criteria for such a program.

Despite Bernanke’s comments, the flow of disappointing economic news today sent Wall Street lower. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 307, or about 2.5 percent, to close at 12,159. The Nasdaq composite index was down about 48 points at 2,347, a loss of 2 percent, and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 40 points to 1,333, 2.9 percent.

I guess Ben doesn’t really have a golden tongue does he ?

Perhaps We Should Call It The Statue Of Security

Apparently, there’s not much liberty at the Statue of Liberty these days:

Nearly 2 million tourists, many from overseas, descend on Liberty Island each year to commune with that green icon of American freedom, the Statue of Liberty. Most of them will actually get to see the monument—as long they put out their cigarettes, hand over any contraband coffees or pastries purchased at the Liberty Island Café, and maneuver their way through an extensive security gauntlet. In 2007 the path to Liberty runs past a battalion of armed guards.

Visiting in October, I was greeted by hours-long security lines at two sets of metal detectors—one gauntlet to board a ferry to Liberty Island, another feeding into two EntryScan bomb/narcotics sniffing machines near the actual statue. A scrolling marquee along the bottom of a TV monitor illuminated the motto of the New York City Security State: “See something, say something.” Just in case the imminent threat of terrorist attack wasn’t clear, plaques indicated that the statue’s monument base closed for almost three years after the September 11 attacks.

(…)

Even at the Liberty Museum in the monument base, the Founders’ vision of liberty is conspicuously absent, unless you count a psychedelic nude painting. (“The artist’s daring expression of naked Lady Liberty symbolizes the desire for the world to return to the peace and innocent days of Adam and Eve.”) Instead there’s a wall dedicated to “the price” Lady Liberty (“born a celebrity”!) has “paid” for her fame, as perfidious “manufacturers around the world have not hesitated to use and abuse the Statue to sell everything from cigars to soap.” So this is the modern Statue of Liberty: exploited by soulless capitalists, famous for doing nothing, an oxidized copper Paris Hilton with the good sense to wear long skirts in public.

A fairly accurate representation of what’s happening to liberty nationwide, don’t you think ?

On Libertarianism And Toleration

Reason’s Brian Doherty has a piece today over at Hit & Run that lends some much-needed sanity to the issues that we’ve been dealing with lately:

I invite all fellow admirers of a tolerant, dynamic, vibrant, liberal, varied and growing world of ideas, expressions, and ways of being to consider, for a moment, that there may indeed have been some wisdom in that famous epigram said to sum up the spirit of Voltaire (though never, apparently, written by him in such words): “I disagree with what this man has said, but I defend to the death his right to say it.”

As ugly and embracing of intolerance as such an epigram may seem in practice, perhaps there are reasons, reasons vital to the flourishing of an interesting, varied, free world of expression, that those summing up the spirit of Enlightenment tolerance did not choose to express the appropriate attitude toward things said with which he disagreed—even strongly and passionately disagreed—like this: “I disagree with what this man has said, and I consider him evil for saying it; furthermore, I consider him having said it the most significant thing about him, and that it overshadows any other accomplishment or statement he has ever made. I fervently wish to have him driven from polite society, and consider that anyone who does not enthusiastically join me in so driving him to themselves be evil, or at least incredibly idiotic and not to be trusted—but don’t worry, I don’t think he should be arrested for saying it.”

It may be that the more famous saying indeed embodies the spirit of a lovable, valuable, rich world of discourse; and that the second one perhaps embodies a less open, free, and dynamic, and thus less valuable and interesting, world of discourse.

In other words, to a libertarian, the fact that you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are evil and doesn’t make them worthy of excommunication from “the movement” (whatever that is). Yes, there are some issues that are fundamental to liberty (for me, one of those is the idea that each person needs to be treated as an individual, not a member of a group), but, quite honestly there are some that are not, and it doesn’t make sense to attack someone personally because they happen to disagree with you.

For Ron Paul supporters, that means that you aren’t accomplishing anything when you engage what can only be called the tactics of a Paulistinian. For those of us who don’t support Ron Paul, it means that recognizing that not everyone that supports the Congressman is of that group of people who have, quite honestly, given the movement a bad name.

Tolerance is required if civility is going to be maintained, and without civility we’re not going to accomplish anything.

Protecting Employer Rights In Virginia

A Republican State Senator has introduced a bill that would permit employers to fire someone who cannot speak English without being liable for unemployment benefits:

RICHMOND, Jan. 16 — A Republican state senator from Fairfax County has introduced a proposal that would allow a boss to fire employees who don’t speak English in the workplace, which would make them ineligible for unemployment benefits. (If you are wanting to learn English though then you should check out this excellent resource to help you speak and write English properly).

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II said the law is needed because a growing number of employers in Northern Virginia are frustrated that some immigrants never learn English, although they said they would when they were hired.

“The point here isn’t to be mean; the point is to allow circumstances to give employers their own ability to hire and fire people who may not speak English,” Cuccinelli said.

Now, Virginia is already an “at will” employment state, meaning that someone can be hired or fired for any reason without liability to the employer unless there was a violation of civil rights law. The problem, though, is that employers who exercise their right to fire someone who refuses to learn English face the possibility of higher unemployment taxes.

Ultimately, it is no secret that navigating employment law can be complex. Nowadays, employers need to stay on top of the latest developments in employment law to ensure that their business is being run correctly. Moreover, in larger companies, it is often the responsibility of the human resources (HR) department to ensure that employment law advice for employers and employees is given whenever necessary.

However, because employment law can seem overwhelming at times, some businesses choose to outsource these responsibilities to professional service providers that have extensive experience dealing with the intricacies of employment law. It will therefore be interesting to see what else the future holds for employment law for businesses.

Cuccinelli said he drafted the bill after a business owner approached him last year and complained that his unemployment taxes rose after he fired someone who didn’t learn English.

“They had an understanding the employee would improve their English capabilities, and that didn’t happen,” Cuccinelli said. “We are an at-will employment state, but there is a question about having to pay more unemployment insurance.”

Well, it makes sense to me. If someone is hired with the understanding that they will speak English in the performance of their job duties, or even that they will take classes to improve their English skills, and they fail to do so, an employer should have the right to terminate them without having to worry about paying higher taxes. There are many opportunities for employees to learn English. The Uceda School is just one example of a place someone can go to learn and understand English if it’s their second language. Bosses and business owners should be encouraging their staff to learn English as it would benefit both parties.

The reaction from opponents, of course, is typical:

“This is the most mean-spirited piece of legislation I have seen in my 30 years down here,” Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said.

Translation — I have no real argument against this law, but Senator, you’re just a big meanie for expecting that people would live up to their promises.

Originally posted at Below The Beltway

1 7 8 9 10 11 20