Slavens Says

Hastings speaks to large crowd at Sussex 9-12 meeting

2010-08-24T18:10:00.002-04:00

Greg Hastings (R-Millsboro), a former State Representative who is running against current 41st District Representative John Atkins (D-Millsboro), spoke to the Sussex chapter of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots last Thursday in the Millsboro Fire Hall. The crowd was the largest I have ever seen at a 9-12 meeting; there were easily 150 people in attendance.

Hastings urged attendees to vote. "Every vote counts. Don't you think that it doesn't. It does." He told of how disappointing it is for a candidate to be approached by a friend on the day after an election who admits that he or she forgot to vote. "If you remember anything from this meeting, please remember: every vote counts."

He spoke of fiscal responsibility, noting that he opposed the budget and bond bills in 2007 and 2008, and pointed out that in 2007 the budget was distributed to lawmakers a mere three hours before they were to vote on it. Hastings thinks the budget should be made available at least five days in advance. "I don't like the six percent increase in this year's budget," he added.

At one point Hastings told the crowd that he had chosen to spend his 37th wedding anniversary speaking to them, which earned him a round of applause.

The question-and-answer session was brief. When asked if he is pro-life or pro-choice, the candidate responded, "I am against abortion," (an interesting choice of words), and when it comes to education, he supports school voucher systems.

In my opinion, Hastings spoke well and was well-received by the crowd, despite the fact that many live in Millsboro, where John Atkins is popular as both a legislator and a neighbor. If Hastings is wise, he will not campaign against Atkins directly, but will instead campaign against the Democratic majority in Dover, of which Atkins is a part.

Westhoff to resign from DelDOT if elected

2010-08-24T17:12:00.002-04:00

One of the issues that has come up a number of times during Jim Westhoff's (D-Greenwood) campaign to unseat incumbent Dave Wilson (R-Lincoln) is Westhoff's position at DelDOT. As I mentioned briefly in a recent post about Westhoff's appearance at a Sussex 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting, many people believe that working as a state legislator and a state employee simultaneously (thereby receiving two state salaries) is a form of "double dipping;" there are also concerns about whether the practice creates a conflict of interest, though it is currently legal.

In a statement released yesterday, Westhoff pledged to resign his DelDOT position if elected, citing voters' concerns. "With all of the problems and issues that need to be addressed, the voters deserve someone who is fighting for them full time. The taxpayers deserve to have their phone calls returned, their letters answered, and they deserve a legislator who is immediately accessible. If am going to serve as the tenacious legislator that I plan to be, it will be more than a part-time job."

Westhoff said that when he told the Sussex chapter of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots that he would keep his DelDOT job if elected, he saw the looks on their faces; this negative reaction from voters influenced his decision, though he has other reasons.

"If I perform both jobs, then I will be away from my family far too much," he said. "If I continue with my current position, the evening hours will be spent answeringletters and returning phone calls. I will be torn between the needs of the taxpayers and my kids who want me to read bedtime stories or help with homework. If I work full-time as a legislator, I will be able to be a Dad while also being a good representative."

This was a smart move on Westhoff's part. It's not likely to change the minds of those who are set against sending any more Democrats to Dover, but at the very least it shows that he is willing to make personal sacrifices to represent his district, and also that he is responsive to voters' concerns. I doubt that he would have made this decision if not for the urging of voters who are tired of double-dipping lawmakers who do a better job of representing the agencies that they work for than their own districts.

The 35th District race will be an interesting one. Wilson has name recognition and a voting record that is difficult to criticize, but Westhoff is likable, fairly young, and is running a clean campaign, all of which appeals to voters in this age of dirty politics.

I expect this race to take off along with others after the September 14 primary election, and look forward to hearing more from both candidates.

A Deaver-DMHOA connection

2010-08-19T17:06:00.004-04:00

If you haven't read my recent post, DMHOA in violation of IRS restrictions on political activities?, I urge you to do so. This post is based on information about the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association which was sent by an anonymous source to an unknown number of individuals in Delaware, including local talk show hosts and myself.

Earlier this summer, Councilwoman Joan Deaver (D-Lewes) began pushing to replace Dale Callaway, the current chairman of the Board of Adjustment, despite the fact that he has served on the board for 13 years, has an excellent reputation, does a good job, and had no plans or desire to quit the position. But Deaver was elected to the Council with a specific agenda and she is pushing it aggressively, even when that means consistently voting against the rest of the Council on seemingly noncontroversial issues.

Her first nominee for Callaway's position was John Walsh, the Vice President of DMHOA and one of the organization's nine registered lobbyists.

My first post about DMHOA highlighted several examples of the non-profit "charitable" organization supporting (if not technically endorsing) local Democratic candidates. I assumed that these semi-endorsements were given in exchange for those Democratic candidates' sponsorship and support of legislation that specifically benefits manufactured home owners, an assumption which is probably mostly correct.

Yet Deaver's initial nomination of Walsh seems to indicate that DMHOA is being given more than legislation; the Board of Adjustment is responsible for granting or denying minor exceptions to county code, and to place a DMHOA officer and lobbyist on that board would create a conflict of interest. It is reasonable to assume that Walsh might have used his new county position to advance DMHOA's agenda (whatever that may be), all on the taxpayers' dime.

Fortunately, the other councilmen recognized this and rejected Deaver's nominee by a 3-2 vote (Councilman Cole (R-Bethany Beach)) joined Deaver in voting for Walsh, for reasons I don't quite understand). Councilman Vincent was concerned about Walsh's status as a registered lobbyist for DMHOA, as the Board frequently hears cases involving manufactured homes.

That was in July, and Deaver subsequently nominated former Lewes police chief Ronald "Beau" Gooch, though a second vote has yet to be held.

The question remains: What was Joan Deaver, a Democrat, trying to accomplish by nominating a DMHOA officer and lobbyist to the Board of Adjustment, knowing full well that it would create a conflict of interest?

It's the standards, stupid!

2010-08-18T11:42:00.002-04:00

A news story came out this week about the Cape Henlopen and Indian River school districts' plan to distribute iPads to incoming freshmen students for use in their math classes this year, because they are required to improve their math scores.

When the Department of Education (or any other educational organization and/or agency) says that the students of a certain public school are not meeting standards, people generally look for a group to blame.

"It's the teachers!" some say. "They're not doing an adequate job of teaching the material!"

Others blame the students. "Kids these days! They're lazy and they don't work hard enough!"

Then a small minority (usually people who don't have children of their own) chimes in and blames parents for not bringing up their kids properly.

Yet all of these blame-slingers miss the point. There is another group to consider, which plays a far more active role in the education of our children than teachers, parents, or even the students themselves: the bureaucrats who establish the standards.

At the state and federal levels, educational standards are set by unelected bureaucrats (they are usually appointed by whoever happens to be in control of the government), whose authority over education trumps even that of school board members, who are elected officials and therefore answer to the people of their respective communities.

In spite of this, whenever conversation turns to students not meeting standards, only rarely does anyone think to question the wisdom and motives of those who set the standards in the first place.

An example from recent history is the Delaware Student Testing Program. An extraordinary amount of time, money, and energy went into ensuring that students passed the high-stakes state-mandated test, and if students failed, those involved acted as though, somehow, the school district and/or teachers weren't measuring up. The problem in that case, of course, was that the DSTP was pure rubbish, designed by meddling busybodies who believed that they knew more about what children should learn than did local school districts (a belief which has yet to be justified).

State-level interference in the classroom was bad enough, but we now have federal bureaucrats in Washington who are setting standards for schools across the nation. It is not unreasonable to consider that, far from being a problem, students' inability to meet politicized standards might be a good thing!

In the future, when a particular school district is being critized for failing to measure up to state or federal educational standards, hold off on criticizing the teachers, students, and parents of that district, and ask, "Are the standards any good in the first place? Who is establishing them and why? And does it really matter if the district doesn't meet standards set by unelected bureaucrats in Dover or Washington?"

DMHOA in violation of IRS restrictions on political activities?

2010-08-16T21:22:00.003-04:00

An anonymous source claims that the Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association (DMHOA) "habitually engages in a substantial amount of lobbying activities to influence legislation, as well as also engaging in political campaigns and even endorsing candidates for political office."

So reads the cover page of a packet of documents, some dating back to 2003, which was anonymously distributed to an unknown number of individuals and organizations in Delaware, including the IRS Fraud Division and the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Delaware Division of Revenue. Judging from the dates on some of the pages, the packet was assembled within the last few days.

Some might wonder, Who cares if the DMHOA is lobbying and endorsing candidates? What's the big deal?

The big deal is that the DMHOA is a nonprofit charitable organization organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code, meaning that "it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." (Source: IRS.gov)

From the DMHOA's Certificate of Incorporation, signed by President Edwin "Ed" Speraw in 2004: "No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I do not have a problem with the Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association, Mr. Speraw, or any of the organization's officers, lobbyists, members, etc. I do not currently live in a manufactured home, but I did for a short period of time, and the rights of both manufactured homeowners and tenants are very important to me; I am glad that such advocacy groups exist. However, based on the information that was provided to me and my own research, I believe that the DMHOA has overstepped the bounds of its 501(c)(3) status.

According to the DMHOA, its mission is "To educate and inform our members, our public servants and the general public, and to work for legislative and legal remedies to protect and strengthen the rights of everyone who lives in manufactured housing on leased land in Delaware."

Another mission statement, printed in a newsletter that was distributed to DMHOA members 7-8 months ago, reads: "Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association is dedicated to working for legislative and legal remedies to protect and strengthen the rights of everyone who lives in manufactured housing in Delaware."

In other words, lobbying is not only a "substantial part" of the DMHOA's activities; it's what the organization is all about. In fact, it has nine lobbyists in Dover -- more than any other employer, save for the League of Women Voters, which has an astonishing and rather unnecessary ten lobbyists working for its causes. (Source: Delaware Public Integrity Commission)

Note: The DPIC lists the lobbyists for the "Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association" and "Delaware Manufactured Home Owners Association" separately, but they share the same mailing address, and are certainly one and the same. I assume that this is an error, as the second is simply an alternate name for the first, which is how the organization is named on legal documents.

Over the last few years, the DMHOA has lobbied for a number of bills, many of which have become law with the help of Democratic officials, notably Reps. Schwartzkopf, Atkins, Longhurst, Kowalko, and Sen. Bunting. This is a matter of public record; the DMHOA has made no secret of its lobbying activities, and what it terms its "successes" have been recounted in local and online news articles which can easily be looked up. Of course, 501(c)(3)'s are permitted to lobby, so long as doing so is not a "substantial part" of their activities (the anonymous source I referenced above erroneously claimed that 501(c)(3)'s are not permitted to lobby at all, but this is not the case).

There is unquestionable evidence that the DMHOA is engaging in far more lobbying than is permitted of 501(c)(3) organizations, but it is less easy to prove that the organization endorses candidates. In fact, I cannot prove it at all; in my research I have been unable to find any official written endorsements of candidates for political office. Of course, the organization is not allowed to orally endorse candidates either, but that particular regulation is practically unenforceable.

The DMHOA itself might not endorse candidates, but its officers and lobbyists make no secret of which candidates they support. For example, in November 2009, DMHOA President Ed Speraw wrote on the organization's website, "We have much to be thankful for because of the representation we helped to elect to the House and Senate. The leadership of Representatives Valerie Longhurst, Pete Schwartzkopf, John Atkins, John Kowalko, Bill Carson; Senators George Bunting and Bruce Ennis are reasons to rejoice."

Speraw makes it quite clear that the DMHOA "helped to elect" these politicians; this may not be the same as officially endorsing candidates, but in my opinion it's a gray area.

Another example from recent history is a campaign flyer for Rob Robinson (D), who ran against Ruth Briggs King (R) last year in a special election to fill the 37th District's seat in the House. It features Robinson with five members of the DMHOA, all wearing yellow DMHOA T-shirts with the organization's name and logo clearly visible. Did this constitute an endorsement on the part of the DMHOA? Perhaps not in the strict sense (their support of Robinson was neither written nor oral), but the photo was certainly intended to imply to voters that the organization supported Robinson's candidacy. Again, a gray area.

Returning to 2010, on Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf's campaign website, petefordelaware.com, there is a page featuring positive comments from "citizens" about the Democratic incumbent, who is facing a challenge from Republican Chris Weeks. One of these citizens is Judson Bennett, who is perhaps best known in Sussex County for using his Coastal Conservative Network to disseminate political news and gossip, but more interesting are three seemingly unrelated comments from Dorothy Boucher, Richard Maly, and John Walsh, who make it clear that they support Schwartzkopf.

These three individuals are lobbyists for the DMHOA (Source: Delaware Public Integrity Commission). Of course, every individual has the right to support the candidates of his or her choice (though Walsh specifically mentioned the organization in his byline), but this raises a question: Does the DMHOA have a partisan political agenda? Is it a coincidence that on a page featuring five positive comments about Schwartzkopf, three are from lobbyists for the organization? Does the DMHOA work for manufactured homeowners, or for the Democratic Party? Surely, the interests of the two groups do not always overlap.

As I stated before, I do not have anything against the Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association, but the information available to me suggests that

The organization is doing too much lobbying, and
It is working to elect Democrats in Delaware, even if not by officially endorsing them.

Therefore, the DMHOA's nonprofit charitable status as a 501(c)(3) should be reexamined. Perhaps the group should file as a different kind of nonprofit organization -- or perhaps its officers should simply form a Political Action Committee, since political action seems to be their primary focus.

As for the politicians who are working closely with the DMHOA to legislate its agenda (all of whom seem to be Democrats), it is plainly obvious that they are taking advantage of the organization's influence on approximately 50,000 manufactured home owners in Delaware, and relying on votes from the residents of sizable manufactured-housing communities in their districts to win reelection term after term.

Westoff challenges Wilson in 35th; speaks to 9-12

2010-08-08T18:33:00.003-04:00

Jim Westoff, a Democrat running against incumbent Dave Wilson for the 35th Rep. District's seat in the House, spoke to a large crowd at the Sussex meeting of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots on Thursday night, held in the Millsboro Fire Hall.

He began by acknowledging that most Democrats avoid groups like 9-12, but said that he had no reason not to come down and talk to the group, calling them his "neighbors."

Westoff was born and raised in Iowa, and said of Delaware, "It's just like Iowa, but with a beach!" The crowd chuckled. He mentioned that he has taught in the Lake Forest, Seaford, and Delmar school districts, and now works as a spokesman for DelDOT.

"I'm frustrated about our government," Westoff said, noting that he has never run for office before. He believes that the Founding Fathers wanted the House to be made up of regular people. "I don't think we have that right now."

Westoff played the populist, attempting (successfully, I think) to connect to those of the working and middle classes in attendance, saying of our representatives, "They don't see the problems that we're seeing." He even suggested that Dave Wilson is out of touch (though not by name) by saying, "I'll bet my representative doesn't live on my street."

The Greenwood Democrat criticized the "status quo" for using "hot-button issues" like abortion and gay marriage to divide us, acknowledging that members of 9-12 might disagree with him on some national-level issues, but probably agree with him on basic principles like "what's right, what's wrong."

His short speech went very well; I felt that he did an excellent job of connecting with the crowd, primarily by speaking against the establishment (never mind that his party is the establishment in Delaware). "We're gonna win, one front porch at a time," he finished, and took a few questions.

The questioners hit hard. One asked Westoff, in a roundabout way, if he favors government solutions over private enterprise. The candidate answered that, when it comes to education, he would like to take funding away from administration and put it into the classrooms, then admitted that that wasn't the best example since public education is government-controlled.

Alex Garcia stood and commented on Westoff's idea, mentioned during his speech, to provide active duty or retired servicemen with free hunting licenses and park passes. Garcia informed the candidate that he served in the military, and would be opposed to free licenses or passes. "I wouldn't want a free handout."

Another attendee wanted to know what Westoff disagrees with Wilson on; he had yet to bring up his opponent's voting record. "I'm not going to do that," the candidate said, to the crowd's displeasure. "I'll let the voters decide."

A word to the wise: If you are a challenger, you must criticize the incumbent's voting record. After all, if he's doing a good job, why should anyone bother to vote for you instead?

If elected, will Westoff keep his DelDOT job? When this question was asked, it was one of those "gotcha" moments; someone had asked the one question that Westoff had probably hoped not to have to answer. The answer is yes, he will. The candidate pointed out, correctly, that being a lawmaker is a part-time job, and other lawmakers of both parties are state employees. However, many people believe that this form of "double dipping" creates a conflict of interest; is a lawmaker likely to cut state employees' pay and/or benefits in trying economic times if he is one of them? Is it possible that he will overlook inefficiency and/or other problems in that particular agency?

I don't expect Westoff to win this race, but I think it's good that someone is running against Wilson; not because I dislike the man, but simply because I believe incumbents need to be challenged, kept on their toes. I appreciated Westoff's willingness to speak to a group that is more accustomed to hearing from Republicans and Libertarians than from Democrats. Dialogue between members of different parties is never a bad thing.

And, hey, perhaps Westoff can speak to the 9-12 Delaware Patriots about DelDOT sometime. That's a Q & A session I'd pay to see.

Letter writer argues against third-party candidates; I respond

2010-07-29T16:11:00.003-04:00

A letter from Penny Atkins of Seaford was published in this week's edition of the Laurel Star, and its sister paper, the Seaford Star, about the recent attempt by two Libertarian candidates to run in major party primaries. I usually enjoy her letters, but I feel that this one presents historically inaccurate information and bad advice for voters.

Throughout the letter, I'll place numbers in bold next to lines of interest, and will respond to them below. Here it is:

Make your vote count
Recently, two Libertarian candidates attempted to secure spots on the Republican and Democratic party primary ballots. William McVay and Brent Wangan [0] invested a serious amount of capital (filing fees are $3,480 each) and effort, only to be rebuffed by both political parties as well as the Superior Court judge who ultimately decided the case.

Why should this exercise in democracy concern you? The primary process is a vital and necessary function of the filtering mechanism in our system of elective government. [1]

No one I know argues against our republic having been founded on a two party platform [2], however, third parties (Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, etc.) go back in history nearly as far, so what causes some individuals to align themselves with other party persuasions?

Sometimes (though not trivial) it is a simple dissatisfaction with partisan "snipping" and division, a desire to not be a part of the "status quo." Other times, it is a sincerely held belief that the third party is more representative of ones' individual views, objectives, and/or ideals. Suffice it to say, there are as many varieties in politics as there are flavors of ice cream, aside from chocolate and vanilla. [3]

In 1992, Americans were presented with just such a choice in the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. Not since 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran under the Reform Party (losing to Taft), has a third party been as successful. [4] Like millions of other disgruntled yet conscientious citizens, I reivewed the evidence and determined that the best individual for the job was Perot. I remain convinced to this day that he was the right choice at that time, however, it was only a number of hours (as the returns came in) that I began to see the implication.

We are all familiar with the old saying, "To the victor, go the spoils." Of the 18.9% who voted for Perot, had we not had that opportunity the majority would have voted Republican.

By doing so, we handed a decisive democratic victory to Bill Clinton. In '96 when Perot ran again, he received less than 9% of the popular vote, indicating that some of us had received an education.

The same has been said of Ralph Nader. Having additional choices, it seems, serves to fracture and divide otherwise united parties. [5] The statistical probability of a third party candidate succeeding in an election, unless it is fairly small and generally localized, as in the case of Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) are relatively small and historically obscure.

Lincolns' great struggle to unite the states of the republic ("A house divided cannot stand") through compromise and cooperation, with force as a last resort, continues in politics today. Moderation is the key. Extremists or Fundamentalists simply fail to reach the majority of the people.

Third party candidates who seek to promote independent viewpoints, no matter how well intentioned, inadvertently pose a threat by underming the platform our republic was founded on and, in so doing, obstruct the political process.

Understanding this, one must wonder why McVay and Wangan fought so hard for placement on the major party tickets. [6] Please keep this in mind when your place your vote in November and resolve to "make it count." [7]

Penny L. Atkins
Seaford

My response:

0. (Added as an afterthought.) Brent Wangen's last name is misspelled as "Wangan" in the letter.

1. The primary process is a vital and necessary function of the filtering mechanism in our system of elective government, as Atkins says. So wouldn't it be better for major party voters to decide through the primary process whether or not they wanted to nominate McVay or Wangen, as opposed to using the Attorney General and Superior Court as a filtering mechanism?

2. If the writer really doesn't know anyone who "argues against our republic having been founded on a two party platform..." then she must not know anyone with an understanding of U.S. history. The republic was not founded on a "two party platform;" in fact, the Constitution does not address political parties. George Washington was an Independent during his two terms in office, and worried that political parties would be used to take political power out of the people's hands.

3. Then why are voters forced to choose between chocolate and vanilla (figuratively speaking) in every election? The Democratic and Republican parties have used their power for decades to make it as difficult as possible for any third party to challenge their dominate positions. Political parties do not play on a level playing field.

4. Really? The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists; Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. The GOP started as an antiestablishment third party; by the letter writer's logic, abolitionists and unionists shouldn't have supported the party, simply because it was newer and smaller than the dominant Democratic Party.

5. Neither of the two major parties is "united." Both are composed of various factions, which spend as much time warring with one another as with the opposing party. For example, many libertarians choose to register as Republicans, because the GOP's platform of fiscal conservatism is compatible with libertarianism's emphasis on the free market. They agree with their fellow Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues. However, the libertarians might favor the legalization of marijuana, to which many of their fellow Republicans are vehemently opposed. It should be no surprise, then, that when presented with a Republican candidate who shares some of his values, and a Libertarian candidate who shares all of them, the libertarian-Republican will often support the Libertarian candidate.

6. I think that Atkins's letter proves exactly why Wangen and McVay wanted to run in major party primaries, though she does not recognize it. Voters who value pragmatism over idealism will vote for a major-party candidate over a third-party candidate, even if they share the third-party candidate's values! Wangen and McVay know that their platform appeals to non-Libertarians (by which I mean voters registered with the Libertarian Party), and that many Republicans would vote for them in a heartbeat if they only had R's (or D's, in McVay's case) beside their name. They filed in major party primaries to reach voters who would ignore them as third-party candidates, but would consider voting for them as major-party candidates.

7. When she urges voters to "make it count" in November, what is she saying? She could simply be advising voters not to vote for any third-party candidates in the general election, and that is probably the case.

But the Republican establishment would have to be blind not to recognize the threat that Brent Wangen (L) will pose to Michele Rollins (R) if she wins the September primary. Urquhart supporters in Kent and Sussex, angered by the party's backing of a "RINO" (Republican in name only) and the deceitful tactics of the Rollins campaign, who have seen Wangen at nearly every political event held in the state during the last few months, might very well decide to throw their support to the Libertarian candidate. Not because they are naive enough to believe that he can win, but because they are crafty enough to recognize that he can win enough Republican votes to make Rollins lose. A Rollins loss might (and should) lead to reorganization within the party leadership, which could then lead to the party supporting solidly conservative candidates in 2012.

Of course, that's assuming that Rollins will defeat Urquhart in the September 14 primary, and I'm not sure that she will. But, if she does, Wangen will quite suddenly have a lot of support from Republican voters who will be more than willing to disregard the reasoning of this letter by Penny Atkins, and vote for a third-party candidate.

Councilman Salters not down with the sag

2010-07-28T18:43:00.003-04:00

Does government have the authority to tell people how to dress?

Yes, according to Dover Councilman Reuben Salters, who wants to ban the public wearing of baggy, sagging pants that reveal undergarments and/or buttocks.

"The main purpose of the ordinance is to ensure decency in dress," Salters told the Dover Post. "It's so we don't have pants below the rump and the cleavage of the buttocks is not exposed."

Councilman Salters is wrong. Government does not have the authority to control how people dress. Decency laws are one thing; obviously it would not be appropriate to allow people to reveal genitalia in public places. However, prohibiting baggy pants is different; it's a fashion issue, and society determines which fashions are and are not acceptable, not the government.

I don't wear baggy, sagging jeans. That particular fashion doesn't appeal to me. However, my fashion preferences are not the same as those of everyone else, and it's not my place to tell others how to dress. Like it or not, our society (or at least the younger generation) has decided that it is acceptable for young men to wear sagging pants. In time, this fad will be replaced by a new style, which will seem just as ridiculous to today's youth as their own styles seemed to their disapproving elders.

If this ordinance is passed by the Dover City Council, I will encourage citizens to violate it, not only because civil disobedience is an excellent way to draw attention to unjust laws and regulations, but also because the enforcement of such an ordinance is unconstitutional, and could lead to a successful lawsuit against the City of Dover.

Will elected officials ever be content to let citizens live their own lives?

Thoughts on alternative currencies

2010-07-25T20:17:00.003-04:00

I recently read a pair of brief articles about the use of a "competing currency" in Michigan. Some business owners are accepting privately-minted silver coins, which retain (and even gain) value as the value of government-issued dollars plummets.

Competing currencies are not illegal, and there is no reason why they should be. So long as buyer and seller agree on a medium of exchange, it makes little difference whether that medium is Federal Reserve Notes (the bills in our wallets and purses today), gold and/or silver, coupons, Monopoly money, or paper cranes. Of course, the buyer could make an unlimited number of paper cranes (at least until he ran out of paper), and thus increase his "wealth," so it would be better for an alternative currency to be made of or based on something that already has value.

Precious metals, including gold and silver, are ideal, for the same reasons that they've been used by practically every human civilization as a medium of exchange. The government can print more Federal Reserve Notes whenever it wants to, thereby directly decreasing the value of those already in circulation, but the government cannot magically produce more gold or silver.

It is fair to say that the competing currency being used in Michigan is a better medium of exchange than the dollar, for the simple reason that the dollar will be able to purchase less six months from now, while the silver coin, increasing in value along with the skyrocketing market price of silver bullion, will be able to purchase more.

After reading the articles, I wondered what kind of currency could be used on Delmarva. Silver coins, perhaps? What would they be called? How would they be designed? An appropriate emblem might be a chicken, or a blue crab, though the peninsula also has a rich history to consider. Caesar Rodney already adorns Delaware's disappointingly boring contribution to the State Quarters program, but what about John Dickinson?

Dickinson is best known for opposing the decision of the thirteen original colonies to declare their independence from England (though he fought for the cause once the decision was made), but he also penned "The Liberty Song," which almost seems like it was written for the present day:

"In Freedom we're born and in Freedom we'll live,
Not as Slaves but as Freemen our money we'll give,
Then join hand in hand brave Americans all,
By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall."

The idea of designing a currency, just for fun, interests me--not only because of my growing interest in government and free-market economics, but because I've collected coins and paper money since I was a child--but, along with many other silly projects, it will have to wait until a less busy time.

Superior Court rules against Libertarians; McVay plans to appeal

2010-07-20T18:47:00.003-04:00

When Will McVay, a Libertarian candidate for the 32nd District's seat in the General Assembly, filed to run in the Republican and Democratic primaries for that race, eyebrows were raised but the Department of Elections allowed it. A few days later, fellow Libertarian Brent Wangen, who is running for Congress, filed to run in the Republican primary and paid a filing fee of close to $3500. Again, the Department of Elections was surprised by the unusual procedure, but allowed it. Both Wangen and McVay were added to the Department's online listing of candidates, and local newspapers commented on their interesting strategy.

You see, fusion candidacies--by which a candidate appears on the ballot for more than one political party--are legal in Delaware, and a handful of other states. Not because the law recognizes them, but for precisely the opposite reason; the law does not expressly prohibit, or even mention, the practice. Therefore, it is legal, until the General Assembly decides to do away with it.

Obviously, the Republican and Democratic establishments were dismayed by these bold Libertarians' strategy. The two parties contacted the Attorney General's office (separately, of course) and requested that the fusion candidacies be disallowed. "Requested" is a mild way to put it; the parties threatened to sue if the fusion candidacies were not disallowed.

Granted, the law is vague when it comes to this issue (it is also vague about whether or not candidates are permitted to breathe while they campaign, but no one has attempted to stop them from doing that, yet), but would it not be better to allow Wangen and McVay to compete in the primaries this year, as the Department of Elections already accepted their Candidate Filing Forms and fees, and leave it to the General Assembly to clarify this point of the law in the next session?

It was by way of the media that the candidates discovered that their fusion candidacies had been disallowed at the request of the two major parties; according to McVay, the certified letter from the Department of Elections informing him that he had been booted from the ballot arrived yesterday. Really? The office couldn't have phoned? Whether one is or isn't on a particular ballot is something that a candidate needs to know during campaign season.

The Libertarians decided to settle the matter in court. McVay's first hearing took place yesterday at in Chancery Court, but Chancery Judge John Noble ruled that the court didn't have jurisdiction, and referred the case to Superior Court, where it was heard today.

McVay, representing himself, argued that

Though he filed for the primaries on July 6, he did not receive official notification of his removal from the ballot until July 19.
The Department of Elections included him on a list of primary election candidates available on its website.
The Republican and Democratic Parties, in requesting that McVay's triple candidacy be disallowed, claimed that he is not and has never been "affiliated" with the parties, despite the fact that he has been registered as a member of both parties in the past.
In Democratic Party of the State of Delaware v. Department of Elections of New Castle County, Judge Henry DuPont Ridgely ruled that a candidate's party registration is not relevant to the primaries in which he can participate.
The Department of Elections has allowed numerous fusion candidacies in the past, including eight in 2008 alone.
If minor-party candidates are not allowed to seek the nomination of one or more major parties (which is done through primary elections), but major-party candidates are allowed to seek the nomination of one or more parties (which is done through party conventions), then a double standard is being supported by the Department of Elections.
The 144th General Assembly considered HB 177 in 2007, which would have prohibited fusion candidacies, but did not pass the bill.
Therefore, his triple candidacy (and Wangen's double candidacy, by extension) should be allowed, based on precedent and the law itself.

The judge didn't buy it, and ruled against McVay. The new decision not only disallows the Libertarians' unusual fusion candidacies, but might prohibit all fusion candidacies in the future, including the type by which a major-party candidate wins the nomination of a minor party.

Said McVay in a statement released this afternoon, "We believe that this opinion is deeply flawed as Delaware has historically allowed fusion candidacies. A number of examples were cited in our arguments, just from 2008. The difference in this case is that this time the candidates of a minor party attempted to fuse with one of the major parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans filed motions to intervene in our case, jointly. Just when you thought the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on anything, they have demonstrated that they do very much agree on continuing their monopoly on political power in the State of Delaware."

He goes on to say that he will appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, and asks supporters to help him cover the required filing fees, which total $480.

Great Conservative Cookout a smashing success

2010-07-18T18:21:00.002-04:00

The Great Conservative Cookout, organized by the Delaware Conservative Coalition and sponsored by local candidates for office, was held at Sam Yoder's Farm in Houston (near Milford) on Friday. Admission was free. The organizers had expected 300-500 people to attend, and were pleasantly stunned when an estimated 1,200 showed up to meet candidates, enjoy free food, and see former Governor George Allen speak.

Passersby, spotting the hundreds of cars and large crowd from the road, might have thought a county fair was being held.

The event was emceed (or MC'd) by WGMD's Bill Colley, who at times could not be heard. The large room was noisy, as hundreds of people milled around, many sporting T-shirts, stickers, and/or buttons advertising their favorite conservative candidates. The air conditioning was a welcome relief after the oppressive heat of the late afternoon, as were the free sodas and water bottles available at the main entrance. In a side room, attendees helped themselves, buffet-style, to hot dogs, hamburgers, baked beans, chicken salad, cole slaw, and what I assume were wedges of Vance Phillips's watermelons.

Candidates present included State Auditor Tom Wagner, State Senators Colin Bonini and Joe Booth, State Representatives Dave Wilson and Ruth Briggs King, Sussex County Councilmen Vance Phillips and Sam Wilson, as well as Glen Urquhart, Christine O'Donnell, Brent Wangen, Chris Weeks, Eric Bodenweiser, Cindy Green, Steven Rust, and Harvey Kenton. Each contributed $100 to cover the costs of the event, which bought them a table at which meet voters and distribute campaign items, as well as a minute at the microphone.

One other candidate showed up, who did not contribute $100; Michele Rollins, a Republican candidate for Congress who is challenging fellow Republican (and event sponsor) Glen Urquhart. She and her staff mingled with the large crowd, handing out stickers, to the disgust of other candidates who had paid for the same privilege. As she was not a sponsor, Rollins was not allowed to speak (though she attempted to, which I'll get to), and was not given a table.

At one point, local writer Angel Clark was pulled onto the stage to show off her toenails, which were adorned with Gadsden Flags. It was impossible for any but those sitting in the front rows to see the artwork, but I had a chance to check it out later, and was impressed. The Gadsden Flag is becoming a symbol of the patriot movement as its slogan, "Don't Tread On Me," is embraced by freedom lovers of every generation.

The keynote speaker, George Allen, who has served the citizens of Virginia as Govenor, Congressman, and Senator, entertained and inspired the crowd. I believe he started his speech by thanking President Barack Obama for bringing everyone together (my apologies if it was another speaker who said this), before heaping praise on Glen Urquhart, the conservative Republican running for Congress (not to be confused with the wishy-washy Michele Rollins, who watched in stony silence). Indeed, he went so far as to endorse Urquhart, which was fairly dramatic considering that the GOP's pick, Rollins, was in the room.

I'm not going to attempt to summarize the remarks of all of the sponsors. Most of it was fairly predictable, along the lines of "Take Back America," "Take Back Delaware," etc. It was interesting, however, to watch as Eric Bodenweiser criticized his primary opponent, incumbent Joe Booth, who was standing twenty feet away and did not visibly react.

Brent Wangen, a Libertarian candidate for Congress who recently filed to run in the Republican primary, told the crowd that he had intended to announce his Republican candidacy at the cookout. Instead, he announced that he would be taking the Department of Elections to court, for removing him from the ballot listings. Wangen spoke near the end of the event, and the crowd had thinned, but it responded enthusiastically to what was, in my opinion, an inspiring one-minute speech, in which Wangen mentioned his fifteen years of military service.

Keep an eye on Brent Wangen. Depending on what happens with his Libertarian/Republican candidacy, and the September 14 primary results, he could quite possibly win the support of many Republicans...especially if Urquhart loses to Rollins in the primary.

The highlight of the event (in my opinion) came at the end, so most folks probably missed it. Bill Colley acknowledged Michele Rollins's presence from the stage, and informed the crowd that he will not be voting for her in the primary. The candidate rushed up to the front, clearly expecting to be handed the microphone. Colley had been instructed by the event's organizers to only allow sponsors to speak, and refused to give her the mic. She gave up, turned to face the crowd, posed for a moment (no one applauded), and left, thoroughly frustrated.

Let's be clear about this incident, because Rollins supporters are distorting the facts, claiming that she was unfairly denied the privilege that other candidates received. This is simply not true. Every candidate who spoke was a sponsor. Rollins was not a sponsor. It's that simple; no conspiracy.

Even so, yesterday's News Journal implied that Rollins was a major part of the event, which is not true. Like any other citizen, she attended and enjoyed the free food. However, she didn't contribute financially to the event, and didn't stick around to help clean up. The News Journal article was mostly accurate, but a photo of George Allen might have been a better choice than a photo of the only non-sponsor to show up.

The Delaware Conservative Coalition, a group of about twenty, first met only three weeks ago, and managed to organize an event that turned out to be a smashing success. With fifteen weeks until Election Day, what will they do next?

Fifteen lawmakers unchallenged; the people need more candidates

2010-07-13T15:11:00.005-04:00

This year, fifteen Delaware legislators will coast through campaign season and the November 2 election unchallenged, to be reelected automatically. In a year marked by the public's growing anger at big government and insider politics, nobody bothered to run against these incumbents.

Who gets a free pass? McDowell, Connor, McBride, Williams, George, Lavelle, Mitchell, Johnson, Mulrooney, Gilligan, Ramone, Outten, Hocker, Short, Lee.

In the case of 40th District Representative Biff Lee (R-Laurel), it doesn't bother me that no one is running against him, because he does a fairly good job of representing local interests in Dover. I'm sure I don't agree with the man on every issue, but in general, when I look on legis.delaware.gov to see how our lawmakers voted on a particular bill, I'm usually pleased to see that Lee voted the way I would have if I were in his place. As well, I hear a lot of good things about Rep. Gerald Hocker (R-Ocean View); it doesn't surprise me that no one would bother to challenge such a positive representative.

That said, I think the people should always have a choice between at least two candidates, if not more, and I cannot believe that every individual on this list deserves a free pass. Someone should have run against them, if only to force them to defend their voting records. If they voted correctly, they would have nothing to fear. If, on the other hand, they played politics and did not represent their districts' wishes, they would be held accountable.

Voters deserve a choice. Even if one candidate wins 99% of the vote, and his opponent receives only one vote (his own), it is important that voters be given the opportunity to choose between (at least) two options. There is nothing democratic about sending the same man or woman to Dover, term after term, without ever being presented with an alternative viewpoint.

I believe that 2012 will be the year of candidates. Encouraged by successes in this year's mid-term elections, proponents of constitutional government (or limited government) will seek office, regardless of political experience, wealth, or connections. It is my hope that every elected official (even those with whom I agree) will face two or more challengers.

School board members, municipal officials, county councilmen, state representatives and senators, and even the Governor himself should be challenged, if only for the reason that voters deserve a choice. If there is no choice, why hold elections?

If the people choose to perpetuate the existence of the present establishment, so be it.

They will not do so because of our inaction, however. If they choose to reelect the same career politicians that have been screwing them for years, they will do so in spite of a coordinated campaign of antiestablishment candidates and proponents of constitutional government.

Whether libertarians run as Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Constitutionalists, or simply as unaffiliated candidates, they must run. Strategies must be developed, so that libertarian candidates present a serious challenge to establishment candidates. It is not enough to be the also-ran who a few intellectuals and political junkies pay attention to, but everyone else ignores.

One strategy, utilized by Will McVay (L-Dover) in the 2010 campaign season, is that of fusion candidacies. By running as a Libertarian (the party with which he is registered), and also appearing on the Republican and Democratic primary ballots, he receives valuable publicity and forces the two major-party candidates into primaries. It's quite possible that the General Assembly will pass legislation to ban fusion candidacies (which would be wrong), but if they don't, all candidates should at least consider this possibility.

Another fusion candidate is Brent Wangen (L-Millsboro), who is running for Congress. He paid the $3500 filing fee (which is outrageous, and designed to keep Joe Blow out of politics) to appear on the Republican primary ballot along with Michele Rollins, Glen Urquhart, and Rose Izzo. I am told that on one occasion, Rollins was asked something about Wangen, who happened to be in the same room. "Who?" She didn't know who he was. She does now. Fusion candidacies serve two purposes:

The publicity is priceless; no reporter or blogger can resist covering the story.
It is conceivable that the underdog candidate could actually win the major-party primary, sending a strong message to that party's leadership, and go on to win in the general election.

Another strategy might be to ally with competing, yet similar, ideologies. For example, most members of the Constitution Party are libertarians, and most members of the Libertarian Party are constitutionalists. It is counterproductive for members of these two parties to run against each other. Personally, I am of the opinion that the Constitution Party of Delaware (which does not have enough members for ballot access) should merge with the Libertarian Party of Delaware, but short of this, the two parties should work together to elect candidates that share their common values.

Likewise, if a small-L libertarian runs as a Republican (e.g., Texas Rep. Ron Paul), it would be counterproductive for a registered Libertarian to run against him. It is more important to advance the ideology of libertarianism itself than to advance the Libertarian Party (or any other party).

Think small. Think local. Libertarians, constitutionalists, independents: Run for the local school board. Run for the town council. In some ways, a libertarian can accomplish more at this level than in higher offices, and these races are very winnable.

We encourage people to vote for libertarians, but unless libertarians appear on the ballot, educating voters about the virtues of libertarianism is a waste of time. Libertarianism is not a fringe ideology to be discussed in hypothetical terms at the local bar; it is the solution for many of our society's problems, and we owe it to future generations to present that solution to as many people as possible.

In the meantime, fifteen legislators will automatically be reelected this year. Will you grant them that luxury two years from now?

Markell, Schwartzkopf lied about CB radio ban

2010-07-07T16:31:00.004-04:00

Delaware became the first state in the nation to ban drivers' use of CB radios, when Governor Jack Markell signed HB 229 into law yesterday, along with companion bills HB 493 and HB 494, which were sponsored to "fix" holes in the first bill.

If a bill has to be fixed before it has even been signed into law, it's probably bad legislation.

Specifically, the "holes" were Citizens' Band radios and other two-way radios, which were to be banned along with hand-held cell phones. Several lawmakers dishonestly claimed that the bill was not intended to target those communication devices, and so the additional bills were passed, much to the relief of truckers and other blue-collar types who still use CB radios.

Surprise! It was announced today, after the bills had been signed into law, that the complementary bills do not exempt CB radios after all, as had been promised (FCC-licensed amateur radio operators are now exempt, along with delivery drivers and state workers). However, according to Joseph Fulgham, Communications Officer of the Minority Caucus, "...CB radio operators are not part of these excluded groups." Thus making Delaware the first state to ban CB radios, which have been in use since the late 1950s.

Where do we go from here? Remove all FM radios from vehicles, perhaps? Ban 8-track tape players? Require all cars to have square wheels and run on pixie dust?

It's hard to tell how far the Democratic majority controlling our state government is willing to go in its never-ending pursuit of utter ridiculousness.

We're dealing with a General Assembly that quickly passed HB 487 in the last days of the session, which was specifically sponsored by Rep. John Atkins (D-Millsboro) to make it easier for Denny Cordrey, a Democrat, to challenge Sussex County Council President Vance Phillips, yet was strangely unable to pass SB 293 (which would have protected parents' right to know about controversial material being taught in schools), HB 353 (which would have protected Delawareans' right to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance), or even an efficient budget--indeed, lawmakers grew the state government by nearly 7%!

Who's going to pay for that 6.5-6.9%? Have they heard about the recession?

As citizens, we must hold elected officials responsible for their lies. In this case, Markell, Schwartzkopf, and a number of other officials falsely claimed that the complementary legislation was being passed to exempt CB radio operators from the unreasonable restrictions of the original bill. They lied. It might seem insignificant, but that is precisely why it must be taken seriously. If these fellows are willing to lie about something so small (knowing that the lie would be discovered as soon as the text of the bills were released), then how can they be trusted to handle more serious matters like taxation and defending our liberties?

Chris Weeks (R) speaks to 9-12 group in Millsboro

2010-07-05T17:50:00.003-04:00

When Chris Weeks speaks of his opponent, incumbent Pete Schwartzkopf, he doesn't do it nastily. He simply states the obvious: "He needs to go."

Weeks, a Republican, spoke to a large crowd of 9-12 Delaware Patriots in Millsboro last Thursday evening, and was frequently interrupted by spontaneous applause. "I believe very strongly that this race is important for all Delawareans," said the candidate, going on to list a number of bills that should or should not have been passed. In every case, Schwartzkopf pushed the bad bills through, and was instrumental in blocking the good ones.

Weeks criticized Delaware's ever-expanding government for "creating a slave state for our children and grandchildren," arguing that "We need to return our government to its founding principles."

"Our government has gotten so big that no one can control it. No one can understand it. And my fear is that no one really wants to." Throughout his presentation, Weeks was earnest and energetic, but not overly so. He spoke confidently, matter-of-factly, telling the crowd what needs to be done and how people can help, without getting wrapped up in the empty enthusiasm that distracts many political novices.

The candidate pointed out, half-shocked, that only the day before the General Assembly had passed a budget that grew the size of government nearly 7%, while the citizens of the state endure what is increasingly being called the "Great Recession." Weeks likened lawmakers' irresponsible behavior to that of a friend who borrows money to put food on his kids' table, then goes out and buys beer with it. Wouldn't that make anyone angry?

"You should be angry. Angry enough to take action," Weeks told the crowd. He admits that one of the problems he is facing is name recognition; Schwarzkopf is well-known and generally well-liked in the 14th District (though, of course, thinking voters support a politician based on his voting record, not whether they like his personality or not). He is also ruthless. It is rumored that Schwartzkopf has, on more than one occasion, tracked down an opponent and initiated an intimidating confrontation. That's not politics; that's bullying. This is probably why groups like OnlyWhenPigsFly.org, which draws attention to Schwartzkopf's tax-raising voting record, operate anonymously.

"Don't follow me," said Weeks. "Send me. Send me to clear a path for you in Dover."

During the Q & A session, a woman stood and told the crowd about how Schwartzkopf, who is her elected representative, had refused to assist her in an effort to improve the streets in her neighborhood. Yet Chris Weeks, who is not an elected official (yet), immediately made phone calls about the issue and has been extremely helpful to the citizens of that community.

It will be interesting to see how Pete Schwartzkopf responds to Chris Weeks as his campaign builds up momentum. Hopefully, there will be a debate. Until then, Weeks had better not wear anything white; mud will surely be slung in his direction.

Cell phone bill (HB 229) should be vetoed, not modified

2010-06-25T17:44:00.003-04:00

A recent topic of conversation in Delaware has been the recently-passed ban on using hand-held cell phones, CB radios, two-way radios, or other communication devices while driving. H.S. 1 for H.B. 229 was sponsored by Rep. Scott (D-Dover). While the lawmakers who favor this legislation, as well as the major newspaper in the state, seem to be able to find hordes of drivers who are eager to take away other drivers' freedom to use a hand-held cell phone on the road, I have yet to speak to anyone in person who favors this bill, which will almost certainly become law. The general consensus is: "Yeah, it's better not to use a cell phone on the road unless you have to, but the government doesn't need to make this decision for drivers."

Proponents of the bill have ignored the fact that it is already illegal to drive while distracted by anything. Inattentive driving is against the law. This bill would not crack down on inattentive driving; rather, it seeks to control the behavior of attentive drivers who are making or taking a call, or operating a CB radio.

If signed into law by Governor Markell, this bill would make it a primary offense to use any of these devices while driving, meaning that a police officer could stop and ticket a driver simply for using his phone, even if he is obeying all other traffic regulations. A first-time offender would be fined $50, yet, oddly enough, no points would be assessed to his license. This is proof that this bill is about one thing, and one thing only: generating revenue for the state. The inept jokers in Dover are unable to control their maniacal spending of our tax dollars, so they turn to Delaware drivers for "assistance."

Before the bill was passed, Rep. Ruth Briggs King sponsored H.A. 5, which would have exempted "FCC-licensed amateur radio operators from the restrictions of the act." This reasonable proposal was defeated; Rep. Schwartzkopf (D) voted against it along with nearly every Democrat in the House. Some of our local representatives who voted for this amendment are Lee, Short, Atkins, Hocker, and Carey.

Question: Why? Since when is FCC-licensed amateur radio operation a partisan issue? Did the Democrats who shot down H.A. 5 truly feel that these radio operators pose a threat to drivers? Or did they irresponsibly (and immaturely) vote against the amendment simply because it was sponsored by a Republican?

With that amendment out of the way, the bill was passed, exempting only police officers and emergency personnel. I don't have a problem with that. Police officers and emergency personnel should be allowed to use their cell phones while driving...but so should everyone else! It is the responsibility of every driver to use a hand-held cell phone only when it is safe and/or necessary to do so; it is not the government's place to decide that it will never be safe or necessary.

From WGMD.com: "It’s already illegal for motorists to use hand-held cell phones in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington..." In other words, the most restrictive states in the nation. If we're looking to those states as models, then the people of Delaware are doomed.

Interestingly enough, the bill, once signed into law, will not be enforced until January 2011. After this year's election. Coincidence? You decide.

Question: Who stood up for Delaware drivers? Who voted against this bad bill?

Lee (my representative), Atkins, Hocker, Carey, Wilson, and Outten. I applaud them.

Question: Who voted for this bad bill?

Nearly every Democrat in the House, including their rascally ringleader, Pete Schwartzkopf. This was to be expected. I was surprised and disappointed, however, to read on legis.delaware.gov (which I assume is accurate) that Dan Short, Ruth Briggs King, Deborah Hudson, and Greg Lavelle also voted for this bill. They're usually good about freedom issues; I want to believe that the website listing the votes is incorrect. I look forward to hearing them explain to the citizens of Delaware why they felt it was necessary to implement a nanny-state ban of this type, robbing drivers of the freedom to make responsible decisions of their own free will, rather than modify their behavior out of fear of a hefty fine. In fact, I expect this explanation. Don't worry, I'll wait.

[Final Jeopardy music]

While we're waiting, let's take a look at a recent development in this story. After local talk show host Dan Gaffney blasted the bill for banning CB radios (he opposes the bill in its entirety, but found the ban on CB radio use to be especially unreasonable), and lawmakers received a barrage of phone calls from angry truckers and workers in the service industries, a new bill was introduced by Rep. Briggs King that would allow the use of CB and two-way radios.

From WGMD.com: "The bill is a reaction to a pending law that will have the unintended consequence of outlawing the use of such radios by Delaware drivers in early 2011."

Unintended consequence? I don't believe for a second that Rep. Schwartzkopf, or any of the other jokers who voted for this bad bill, didn't realize that it would outlaw the use of these radios, which have been used safely for decades, and continue to be used by workers in many industries (including my own!). They knew. I think they're so out of touch with the real world, so far removed from the working man, that they didn't have the slightest idea that everyone from truckers to service technicians still use such communication devices. Caught off guard by a wave of outrage over these unreasonable restrictions (the entire bill is unreasonable, but to ban CB's would be especially malicious), lawmakers are scrambling to reverse them.

They might as well say to constituents, "We screwed up. We voted for a bad bill because we're arrogant elitists, so now we're going to fix our blunder with another bill."

Here's a better idea, boys and girls. The bill, as it stands, is unnecessary and unfair. It's simply bad legislation. There is no way to fix it, any more than one can fix a boat constructed out of chicken wire. The bill has more holes in it than Mike Castle's voting record; it doesn't need to be amended, it simply needs to be scrapped.

Governor Markell should veto the bill immediately, then proceed to personally slap the faces of every lawmaker who voted for it, for wasting time and tax dollars--not to mention grossly overstepping the boundaries of their authority. Otherwise, it will be up to the voters of Delaware to relieve the supporters of this bill from their positions. November approaches.

Jim Rash (L) speaks at 9-12 meeting

2010-06-21T19:10:00.002-04:00

Jim Rash spoke to the Sussex Chapter of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots last Thursday, in the Millsboro Fire Hall. Rash is a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, and currently serves as the State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Delaware, in addition to working as a real estate broker.

Rash's short presentation ranged from the humorous ("I'm running for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Joe the Plunger,") to the informative ("I am not in favor of open borders"). In addition to telling the audience about himself, he made an effort to explain libertarianism to the mostly-conservative (but fiercely independent) group, assuring them that he does not support full legalization of drugs, calling the idea "shallow thinking." "I'm not in favor of a heroin aisle at Happy Harry's," said Rash, earning a few chuckles.

However, he opposes the federal government's controlled substances schedule, and believes that the issue should be left up to the states. This particular opinion earned him a round of applause.

Rash blasted out-of-control federal spending, saying "All Washington seems to want to do is spend more money," and went on to note that he supports states' rights, and believes the Federal Reserve System violates the Constitution. Rash noted that Washington only had four seats in his Cabinet, and that he would like to shut down all unnecessary bureaus, which contribute to waste and inefficiency in Washington, in addition to not being specifically authorized by the Constitution.

He even gave the crowd a bit of a history lesson, pointing out that Delaware used nullification in the early 1800s when the state joined with other northeastern states to challenge an embargo imposed by President Jefferson.

When asked by an attendee about his views on abortion, which he had not yet mentioned, Rash responded, "Personally, I'm against abortion." A man behind me muttered, "Here we go." The candidate continued, promising that he would never vote for federal funding of abortion; however, he is not willing to say for certain that life begins at the moment of conception, particuarly as he is not opposed to "the morning after pill." The crowd sat in uneasy silence, and Rash wisely took another question on a different subject.

He would like to see a Congress ruled not by Republicans, not by Democrats, and not even by Libertarians. Instead, he believes no party should have a majority in Congress, which would force the various parties to work together. I share this view.

It certainly wasn't a dynamite presentation; not through any fault of Rash's, but simply because conservatives often become uncomfortable when discussing libertarianism. Many don't understand it, and think it is either a right-wing kind of conservatism, or else liberalism by a different name. Neither notion is correct. Libertarianism is its own ideology, not based on any other (though both conservatives and liberals borrow heavily from libertarianism when it suits their respective causes), which pushes for more freedom, less government, and lower taxes.

The Libertarian Party of Delaware has more than enough members for ballot access, so Jim Rash will be a choice for U.S. Senate in November, along with Chris Coons and Mike Castle (or perhaps Christine O'Donnell?). I'm sure Mr. Rash wouldn't want me to write a post about him without mentioning that Brent Wangen is another Libertarian running for U.S. Congress; he has also spoken to the 9-12 Delaware Patriots before, and I'm sure we will hear more from both candidates in the coming months.

Parents have the right to know; pass S.B. 293

2010-06-21T18:07:00.004-04:00

S.B. 293, the "Parents' Right To Know Bill," was introduced by State Senator Venables (D-Laurel) on June 10, and its list of co-sponsors includes a number of legislators from both sides of the aisle, many from Sussex County. Rep. Lee (R-Laurel) is one; Rep. Atkins (D-Millsboro) is another.

Synopsis: "This Bill would require schools to notify parents of information being taught to their children relating to human sexuality issues, sexual acts, profanity, violence, drugs and/or alcohol. Such policy would ensure parent/guardian notification no less than 48 hours prior to introduction or instructional use. Such policy would afford parents or guardians the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum or materials through notification to the school principal."

There isn't a good reason for any elected official to oppose this bill. It would not prohibit the teaching of controversial material; it simply requires schools to let parents know about the material. Some schools already do this. Other schools, controlled by inconsiderate administrators and/or school boards, allow elementary children to be taught material about human sexuality and other subjects that simply are not appropriate for the age group, and then make it as difficult as possible for parents to have a say in the matter. It is the second group of schools that is being targeted by this bill, and rightfully so. Parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to their child's education. Not the government, not the school, and not the teachers.

I don't think high schools ought to be required to notify parents every time a swear word is going to appear in a book assigned by an English teacher, but I don't think that is the intent of the bill. It seems to be more about ensuring that young children aren't being taught inappropriate material without their parents' knowledge and/or consent; a lesson about homosexuality might be appropriate in a high school biology class, but not in kindergarten.

It seems obvious to me, and everyone else that I've talked to, that this bill is a no-brainer. Pass it, and move on to the controversial legislation, please.

Yet I am told that Sen. Sokola (D-Newark), who serves on the Education committee, is opposed to this bill. Why? I honestly don't know. Perhaps he feels that parents don't have the right to know what their children are being taught in government schools. Perhaps he feels that educators should make decisions about what material to cover, not parents (even if that material includes borderline pornography). Perhaps he's just opposing the bill out of habit because so many Republicans co-sponsored it. Who can say?

He can. Call Sen. David Sokola at (302) 744-4139 and ask him or a staff member why he is opposed to the bipartisan "Parents' Right To Know Bill," S.B. 293.

The Delaware Family Policy Council is holding a Citizen Action Day event tomorrow, June 22, at Legislative Hall in Dover, to show support for the bill. It begins at 12:30 PM. Citizens will have an opportunity to gather outside, then enter Legislative Hall and meet with their legislators. I encourage concerned parents, students, and teachers to attend; never let it be said that you didn't exercise your right to speak out about an important issue when you had the chance.

Wade drops out; it's Rollins vs. Urquhart

2010-06-13T20:38:00.002-04:00

Kevin Wade, an upstate Republican who had been campaigning for Delaware's seat in the House of Representatives since January, announced to staff last night that he was withdrawing from the race. In talking to various people throughout the last few months, I heard very few negative remarks about Mr. Wade; everyone agreed that he is clearly a good, principled man, even if they disagreed with his platform.

Wade's withdrawal is significant. I had predicted that, if Wade remained in the race, he and Glen Urquhart would split the conservative vote in the September 14 primary election, thus enabling Michele Rollins (who is much less conservative, to say the least) to win with the remaining majority. It was my assumption that Wade would drop out, if only to improve Urquhart's chances of defeating the party favorite.

With Wade gone, Glen Urquhart can now focus on winning a majority of Republican votes (not that he wasn't already working on that). Being as he is from Sussex County, where the majority of Republicans in the state reside, this is very possible, though it won't be easy. The Rollins campaign is a well-funded machine, and it would be foolish to assume that, simply because she is an upstate candidate, her advisors don't recognize the need to woo Sussex.

Ocean City bans pet reptiles from public places

2010-06-12T12:35:00.003-04:00

Last week, the Ocean City Council voted to ban pet reptiles from public places, including the beach, boardwalk, sidewalks, streets, etc., and to prohibit resort shops from selling frogs or lizards that are more than four inches long. Owners of iguanas, snakes, turtles, and the like will not be allowed to bring their pet out in public, unless they are taking it to a veterinarian.

One man who will be affected by this new amendment to an old law is "Iguana Man," who is known for sitting on the Ocean City boardwalk with his 8-year-old pet iguana on his shoulder or lap, a sight that usually delights visitors to what is one of the east coast's most popular tourist destinations. He'll now have to take his iguana elsewhere--one of the Delaware boardwalks, perhaps--or leave it at home.

As I listened to callers debating the issue on 92.7 WGMD a couple of mornings ago, it became obvious that those who support the ban:

Have never owned a reptile, and
Think that people who own reptiles are strange.

Their support had little to do with whether or not reptiles pose a safety hazard when taken to public places (like the sidewalk in front of one's property), and was instead based on a dislike of the habit of keeping reptiles as pets in general.

I have never owned a reptile, and don't plan to. I don't want an iguana, and snakes creep me out. However, I know many people who enjoy their reptile pets just as much as I enjoy my cat (Punky, who was found in a box at the Sandy Fork gas station), and I don't see why the owner of an iguana should be prohibited from carrying his pet as he walks to a neighbor's house, or from sitting with the pet on the boardwalk, if his next-door neighbor is allowed to do the same with her small dog.

I don't quite understand the prevailing mentality in Delmarva beach towns, where all kinds of harmless activities are banned. For example, skateboarding and rollerblading on the boardwalk, walking dogs, smoking tobacco, etc. All of these activities are permitted in Virginia Beach, with no negative consequences that I have observed during my occasional visits to that beach town.

Can't we, on Delmarva, be similarly open to allowing people to do as they please on the boardwalk or in other public places, so long as they are not harming anyone else?

Laurel Star notes (6/10/10)

2010-06-12T11:26:00.002-04:00

1. Police budget cuts - The front-page story is very long, and is continued on pages 4-5, reporting on the Laurel Town Council's decision to cut the town's police budget. A few comments:

Some of the police officers complained about having to pay $15 per week "to use a patrol car as a 'take-home' vehicle." I know for a fact that at least one of these officers lives on the other side of Frankford, over a half hour away, and others live in Gumboro. A fee of $15 per week seems reasonable to me, considering that more is being spent on gas to travel to and from the town of Laurel, in some cases. I would gladly pay $60 per month for the convenience of a take-home vehicle, which would save gas and be easy on the mileage.
Martin Johnson, a retired Major for the Delaware State Police, is quoted as saying, "Laurel has a serious drug problem." He is concerned that cutting the police budget will transform Laurel into a haven for criminals. I have a couple of problems with this argument. First, the "drug problem" has been created by the government and its ridiculous "War on Drugs;" whenever a substance is made illegal, it is automatically pushed onto the black market. Eliminate restrictions on controlled substances, and organized gangs will collapse. Second, criminals don't simply decide to become criminals. There is almost always an economic motivation for their law-breaking. As our government continues to spend and regulate our economy into a depression, incidents of crime, particularly theft and armed robberies, will increase in frequency.
The primary argument against cutting the police budget seems to be that it will make the town less safe. Citizens should remember that the police are not 100% responsible for our safety; their job is to enforce the law, but every human being also has an obligation to look after himself and his family, to the best of his abilities. Homes and businesses should be well-lit, and defended with firearms and other weapons. Robbers tend to become less enthusiastic about invading homes and businesses after they receive a bullet in the leg, or pepper spray in the face.
Frank Calio thinks the town should reinstate the Town Manager position, which has been vacant since William Fasano was arrested in January for attempting to pass a forged prescription.

2. Proposed cell phone ban - Delaware is closer to enacting more laws which will control drivers' behavior and allow the state to bring in more revenue. On page 2, we read that the Senate Public Safety Committee heard House Substitute 1 to House Bill 229 ("Texting and Hand Held Cell Phone Ban") on Wednesday. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darryl Scott, a Dover Democrat, and was passed by the House a few weeks ago. I wrote a letter to the Star about the bill in February, and have voiced my opposition to it several times on this blog.

"This bill would prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones, including a ban on texting, while operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Delaware." Cell use would become a primary offense, meaning that police officers would be allowed to stop a driver who is violating no other traffic laws; a first-time offender would be fined $50 to $100. Currently, drivers are fined $25 for running a stop sign. How can any of our legislators say, with a straight face, that a safe driver who is using his or her cell phone deserves to be fined twice as much, or even four times as much, as someone who directly puts lives at risk by failing to stop at a stop sign? The punishment does not fit the crime.

Make no mistake, this bill (which I suspect will become law, unless the citizens of Delaware speak out against it) is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: To bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. It is not about safety. It is never about safety. In most situations, a driver can use his or her cell phone without putting any other drivers in danger, particularly here in Sussex County, and the legislators in Dover who are supporting this bill (mostly Democrats, I'm afraid) know this. They know, and they don't care.

Why should the citizens of Delaware be burdened with new laws and regulations, designed to generate revenue for the state, simply because the corrupt politicians in control of Dover are unable to control their spending of our tax dollars?

3. So-called "universal recycling" - A short piece on page 6 reports that Governor Markell signed a recently-passed "universal recycling" bill into law on Tuesday. Let's take a look at a few of the glaring problems with this new law:

It violates the Delaware Constitution, because it is a revenue-generating law, yet it was initiated in the Senate. Bills which generate revenue for the state must originate in the House.
The law forces private waste haulers to offer curbside recycling programs. Since when does the state government have the authority to tell business owners how to run their businesses? It would be comparable to mandating that an Italian restaurant must also offer Chinese food, or else.
The law establishes a 4-cent sales tax on bottles sold in Delaware, replacing the 5-cent bottle deposit. The difference is that bottle-buyers won't be able to get the 4 cents back; it goes to the government. Of course, the law labels this new sales tax a "fee," but changing the name of something does not change the thing itself. I can call my cat a "dog" all day long; it's still a cat.
Some who have studied the text of the law, and the motivation behind it, believe that it could lead to a mandatory recycling program within a few years, as well as "trash police" and hefty fines for throwing away recyclable items. Speculation, yes, but such measures seem likely, given the mindset of our legislature and its willingness to embrace green tyranny.

4. Candidate for Registrar of Wills - On page 11, there is a photograph of Cindy Green, who is running for Sussex County Registrar of Wills, surrounded by family. Green introduced herself to me and others at a local meeting a few weeks ago, but I am otherwise unfamiliar with her campaign. I'm sure we will hear more from Green in the coming months.

5. Good and bad in "drug crimes" bill - "Legislation said to 'more effectively' punish drug crimes," which appears on page 17, describes House Bill 443, sponsored by a couple of up-state Democrats. I support some aspects of this bill, such as its elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for some first-time offenders. For years, the insane "War on Drugs" (which should more properly be called the "War on Minorities, Poor People, and the Younger Generation") has placed otherwise-innocent youths, guilty only of smoking and/or possessing marijuana, in prison, where they are transformed into hardened criminals. In an era when the decriminalization of marijuana seems imminent in some states, and even the President of the United States freely admits to having smoked the herb, mandatory minimum sentence laws are outdated. They dole out far more injustice than justice.

There are problems with the bill, however, such as a proposed increase in penalties for prescription drug dealers, most of whom are older people making extra cash by selling their pain medication to recreational users. It is not necessary to penalize these individuals, who are harming no one. Remember, the government does not have the authority to decide what we may or may not put into our bodies--that decision belongs to each of us.

6. Laurel referendum meeting - I reference Superintendent John McCoy's op-ed on page 58 only to remind residents of the Laurel School District that the referendum meeting will be held on June 22, in the Middle School Field House at 6 PM. I have a feeling it's going to be a circus, though hopefully progress will be made.

Why are Republicans bashing Glen Urquhart?

2010-06-09T16:53:00.008-04:00

When Glen Urquhart, a Republican candidate for Congress, incorrectly linked the phrase "separation of church and state" to the Nazis, he misspoke, and unluckily for him the mistake was captured on video. Candidates are always better off leaving comparisons to Hitler and his Nazis to the historians, a fact Urquhart should have known. I suspect he did, and simply became a bit overenthusiastic in his desire to criticize modern religious intolerance. His allusion was poorly chosen, and when called on it, he apologized.

Predictably, a few underage wannabe pundits, who call themselves liberals, stopped watching Twilight long enough to blast Urquhart for the mistake on their blogs. Since I don't link to these blogs and I doubt that many people read them, I'm not going to waste time answering their arguments, which consisted mostly of namecalling and profanity, all bravely written from the security of silly pseudonyms.

Unfortunately, opportunistic members of Urquhart's own party have chosen to use the minor mistake as political ammunition, hoping to gun him down and clear the way for Michele Rollins, who is the party favorite and insiders' choice. I have heard more than one individual describe her as "Mike Castle in a skirt." After Rollins received the nod from the GOP at the party's state convention a couple of weeks ago, it was rumored that party insiders planned to attack Urquhart and his supporters if he did not drop out of the race. Urquhart refused, and rightfully so. He had been campaigning for the seat before Rollins decided to enter the race (I have yet to hear a good reason for why Rollins opted to run against him, rather than lend her support to his campaign), and it would have been wrong for him to let supporters down by withdrawing from the race.

Should one candidate step aside simply because a wealthier newcomer to the race wants him to?

Absolutely not. That's what primary elections are for. There is no good reason for the state Republican Party to endorse anybody; it should be left up to Republican voters in September.

Enter the hypocrisy. While some Republicans are viciously attacking Urquhart and doing their best to turn his minor gaffe into a major news story--a campaign-killer, even--these same Republicans had little, if anything, to say about Rollins's April blunder, which was much more serious. When asked to name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, she flailed about like a fish out of water, turning red and sputtering, clearly shocked that a voter would expect a candidate for federal office (and a lawyer) to be familiar with such basic information.

As I watched her flounder, I thought, That's it. There goes her campaign.

So, why are Republican insiders supporting such an obviously poor choice, and going so far as to turn on one of their own, like ignorant savages cannibalizing a fellow member of the tribe? Or a football player tackling a teammate?

The reason behind this illogical (not to mention dishonorable) behavior might be that there is more going on in this complex situation than meets the eye.

There have been whispers of an arrangement between the two parties, in which Mike Castle was guaranteed the Senate seat (Chris Coons is a sacrificial lamb, regardless of what anyone in New Castle thinks), and in return the Republican Party must run a weak candidate against Carney for the House seat. Rollins is worse than weak; she is unelectable. If she receives support from conservatives, it will be half-hearted, and it is almost certain that some conservatives will choose to "waste" their votes on a third-party candidate rather than vote for a RINO (Republican in name only). And, of course, John Carney will receive support from liberals. So how can Rollins be expected to win? How many unprincipled voters can there possibly be?

Could it be that the parties struck a deal? Could "Beau" Biden's decision not to run for Senate have been part of a bigger plan? Could dirty Republicans be working against Delaware conservatives by attempting to derail conservative campaigns?

It is not only possible, but probable, given that Delaware conservatives are presented with a choice between "the lesser of two evils" in election after election. It might appear as though two political parties are vying for power in our state, but make no mistake, there is one group that is very much in control, and whether its members' names are followed by D's or R's makes little difference.

Meanwhile, the Urquhart campaign moves forward. Will he defeat Rollins in the primary election? That remains to be seen. Will there be more bickering between the two candidates' supporters throughout the summer? Almost certainly.

Laurel Star notes (6/3/10)

2010-06-05T14:19:00.003-04:00

Most weeks, I try to jot down notes as I read through the Laurel Star. I hope you enjoy them, but I hope you enjoy the Laurel Star more; if you don't have a subscription, this weekly local newspaper is worth your time and money.

1. Six valedictorians? A front-page story by Mike McClure reports that "a change in school policy produced six valedictorians and a salutatorian for Laurel High School's class of 2010." All seven were given an opportunity to speak briefly at Thursday's graduation ceremony.

I find it difficult to believe that, after years of schooling, six students emerged at exactly the same level. Surely, one performed better than the others, and that one should have been selected as valedictorian. I say this, not to disparage these fine students' accomplishments--I am happy for them--but because it detracts from the honor of being selected as Number One if five other people are also Number One. Perhaps the new school policy (with which I am not familiar) should be revisited.

2. Stereotyping. In "Immigration law and stereotyping" on page 23, Dr. Anthony Policastro gives several examples of stereotyping (not all racial), and opines that Arizona's recently-passed immigration law sets up a "stereotyping opportunity." It should be remembered that Arizona's law simply mirrors federal immigration law, contrary to what has been implied by many media outlets. Agree or disagree with the law, it's not an Arizona thing. The law was already in place at the federal level, and simply wasn't being enforced.

3. Underage drinking. A short piece in the Police Journal on page 37 describes a new campaign against underage drinking, which "includes an enforcement component in the Delaware beach area to catch minors who choose to turn senior/graduation week into a drinking event. Between June 6-19, Rehoboth Beach Police, Dewey Beach Police and troopers from Delaware State Police Troop 7 will conduct foot and roving patrols looking for underage alcohol violations."

I certainly want new graduates and other teens to remain safe at this time of year. Regrettably, senior week almost always results in a death, somewhere. However, I believe we should move away from the prohibitionist mentality, and focus on promoting responsible drinking. If young adults are drinking and driving, by all means, punish them severely. But if a group of 18- to 20-year-olds are having a few drinks with friends in a hotel room at the beach, and are behaving responsibly, I say leave them alone.

4. Did the 1957 photo of Police Chief Harley Tice and David Calloway (on page 46) remind anyone else of a Norman Rockwell painting?

5. Campground memories. I enjoyed reading Mike Barton's piece (page 49) about the old Laurel Campground. Not the sort for camping, per se, but for revival services. I know for a fact that such campgrounds still exist along the east coast, though they are few and far between. As a child, I played on the sawdust floor of the tabernacle at the small Wesleyan camp in Bloxom, Virginia (which still exists, but is no longer in use), and attended Denton Wesleyan Camp every year, which has since become very modernized (perhaps too modernized...but I digress). Barton observes, "My quick trip through the Laurel setting made me wonder just how many of the current residents ever attended a real camp meeting." Not many, I suppose, which is unfortunate because an old-fashioned camp meeting is an unforgettable experience.

6. Letter to the Editor. A letter from Ed Banning of Seaford and Eric Bodenweiser of Georgetown (who is currently running a primary campaign for State Senate in the 19th District) appears on page 50, and argues that President Obama "is out to change us into a socialist nation and destroy our liberty and freedom!" The focus of the letter is on the authors' belief that America is abandoning its Christian heritage.

I suspect a letter will appear in a subsequent edition of the Star in which someone will laboriously educate readers about how America was not founded as a specifically Christian nation. Yawn.

More interesting is the following quotation, included in the letter: "The American people will never knowingly adopt 'socialism,' but under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt 'every fragment of the socialist program' until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The 'Democratic Party has adopted our platform.'" I'm not sure why a couple of phrases appear in quotes, but this was said by Norman Thomas in 1944, who ran for President several times as a member of the Socialist Party. Agree or disagree, it's interesting to consider.

7. Laurel referendum. On the same page, Superintendent John McCoy wirtes about the referendum again, and urges citizens to attend a community meeting on June 22, to be held in the middle school field house at 6:00 PM. "We anticipate holding a referendum in September based on input from the community and direction given by the referendum committee."

New "federally compliant" ID cards coming to Delaware

2010-06-01T20:52:00.002-04:00

The REAL ID Act was passed by Congress in 2005 in response to post-9/11 security concerns. That's right, the same Congress that supported the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, allowed the federal government to spy on innocent citizens, and essentially gave George W. Bush a free pass to expand the power of the presidency as he saw fit.

Remember that Congress?

The act requires the individual states to comply with federal standards for identification cards, yet doesn't go into much detail about those standards. The same information that has always been included on driver's licenses will continue to be included. The difference is that new licenses and ID cards must specifically state whether they are federally compliant or not; no one is being forced to obtain a federally compliant ID, but if they don't, their ID will say so on the top right corner.

It will read (and I paraphrase): "Hey, look at me! I purposely obtained an identification card that isn't federally compliant! Please detain me, ask me a lot of questions, and harrass me as you see fit, Mr. Federal Agent!"

Delaware is the First State, and usually the first in line to engage in some federal buttkissing whenever a mandate (funded or not) is handed down from Washington. This time is no exception. The Delaware DMV will begin issuing "federally compliant" driver's licenses on July 1.

If residents born after 1964 do not obtain a new identification card by December 1, 2014, and residents born before 1964 do not obtain one by 2017, they will not be allowed to travel on commercial airliners or trains, and will be prohibited from entering federal facilities. Interestingly, the text of the act also authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand this list of restrictions to include any places that he or she deems necessary.

That's comforting.

When applying, residents will have to show four forms of identification: an original birth certificate (tough luck if it's nowhere to be found), a Social Security card, and two other forms of identification, like a utility bill and a state-issued driver's license.

Because the REAL ID Act is an unfunded mandate, the State of Delaware will have to shoulder the costs associated with issuing the new IDs, meaning, of course, that the costs will be passed on to the people through taxes and fees. Pennsylvania has refused to comply with the mandate because of the inherent unfairness of this situation.

It would never occur to the corrupt politicians in control of Delaware to stick up for the citizens of our state in such a way.

While it's difficult to find information about how, exactly, the new IDs will be more secure, the DMV assures drivers that they will be. According to dmv.de.gov, the agency will be "comparing all driver license and identification card photos to our facial recognition database to ensure customers standing in front of us are who they say they are."

Since when does Delaware have a "facial recognition database?" Is my photo in it? I certainly didn't consent to take part in any such program. Ah, that's right, it's there in the text of the REAL ID Act: "[States shall] subject each person applying for a driver's license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture."

Cards will also be offered to non-drivers, so as to assist the federal government in its mission of being able to track, I mean protect, all Americans.

Yes, the DMV also lists several myths about the new identification cards, and pretends to debunk them, but, to put it simply, I don't trust them. I don't trust our federal government. I don't trust our state government. I do, however, trust my intuition, which, along with a number of other articles (not linked to from the DMV website), tells me that this is a step in the wrong direction. Given the number of steps in the wrong direction our nation has already taken under this administration, I say we've already moved far enough in that direction. It's time to turn around and walk back to the land of the free.

In short, the new federally compliant identification cards (which Delaware will begin issuing in one month) will make it easier for identity thieves to prey on the innocent by compiling more personal information in state databases than ever before, will do absolutely nothing to fight terrorism, will cost state governments (or the citizens who pay taxes to those state governments) a lot of money, will lead to discrimination on the part of DMV employees who will have the power to decide whether one is eligible or ineligible to receive a federally compliant card, and is simply the first step in the direction of a national ID card, which would lead to more government intrusion and loss of liberty.

Thanks, federal government. Thanks, State of Delaware.

O'Donnell to speak in Millsboro, June 3

2010-05-31T19:30:00.003-04:00

Christine O'Donnell, who is challenging fellow Republican and party favorite Mike Castle in the race for Delaware's open Senate seat, will be speaking at a 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting this Thursday in the Millsboro Fire Hall, 7:00 - 9:00 PM.

O'Donnell had been scheduled to speak at the April 1 meeting, but sent a campaign worker instead. While she had a good reason for missing the meeting (or so the young man claimed), many in attendance were disappointed. The candidate had been the subject of some negative media coverage previously, and had not adequately addressed concerns about a campaign debt, using campaign contributions to pay rent, past financial troubles, and failure to report campaign contributions several times in previous campaigns. While the campaign worker who spoke in her place did a fair job of explaining her platform, he was unable or unwilling to answer questions in detail, particularly those relating to the troubling rumors that had been printed in the News Journal.

Two months later, and Mike Castle has the official backing of the Republican Party, yet O'Donnell is forcing a primary, in which she is sure to receive plenty of votes from conservatives who are tired of sending a RINO to Washington. But will she receive enough? Doubtful.

While I like some of O'Donnell's ideas, and appreciate the fact that she is not a career politician like Mike Castle, I have yet to be impressed by her campaign. To say that it is weak would be the understatement of the year.

As there are plenty of folks in Sussex County who feel the same way, I'm certain O'Donnell will face some tough questions on Thursday night, and, as some conservatives can become very defensive about her candidacy, the Q & A session might prove to be very interesting.

Laurel Star notes (5/27/10)

2010-05-27T19:21:00.002-04:00

1. I read with interest the story on page 4, which reports that Cari Sheets, a 61-year-old resident of Illinois, visited Laurel last week to continue her quest to drive a golf cart in all fifty states. Delaware was her fortieth stop, and Pocomoke City, MD, was to be her forty-first. Driving a golf cart on a public street is illegal in Delaware (which legislator pushed for that silly law?), so Sheets received a police escort from Laurel PFC Frank Bradley.

Ah, the joy of reading offbeat stories in small, local newspapers.

2. There is a rather bizarre "Heroes" piece on page 8. Boe Harris, or Nakakakena, as she prefers to call herself, a Seaford resident, "has made it her life's mission to spread the word of the Native American people through song, through story-telling and through goodwill." One of her priorities is to teach people that it is disrespectful to dress children up as Indians, whether in honor of Thanksgiving, or for Halloween. The article doesn't mention whether it is also disrespectful to Puritans to dress children up in wide-brimmed hats and buckled shoes; I suppose no Pilgrims were available for comment.

She also feels insulted by the use of Indians as mascots of professional sports teams. The article doesn't say, but I assume she's not a Redskins fan.

"...unless you're a full-blooded Native, somebody in your family came here from somewhere else." Actually, all of our ancestors came from somewhere else. We know that the earliest civilizations (that we know of) developed in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) and northern Africa, and the human race migrated outward into Africa, Europe, and Asia. Some of those who migrated to Asia continued over a land bridge into what is now Alaska, and on down into the Americas. While American Indians, Aztecs, Incas, etc., were present in the New World when Europeans finally got around to crossing the pond, they had not been here forever. They had migrated here, the same as everybody else. So, no, I'm no less of a "native" American, simply because my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born on the other side of the Atlantic.

3. An interesting article appears on page 11; "Parish aims to keep memorable marriages legal in Sussex County," which describes Clerk of the Peace George Parish's efforts to ensure that local weddings are being performed by those who have the legal authority to do so. Clerks of the Peace, current and retired judges, and mayors of Dewey Beach and Wilmington (only those two towns?) can perform weddings, as well as "members of the clergy of recognized religions, even if they are not officially ordained." The article discusses other related issues, like proposed fees, which have been questioned by County Council President Vance Phillips.

While I enjoy listening to Parish's occasional appearances on 92.7 WGMD, and think he is a nice, well-meaning man, I disagree with nearly every point made in this article. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and there is no need for government to be involved in it. If a couple wishes to satisfy the requirements of their faith, and a minister performs the marriage, they are married, morally speaking. It's a bit silly that we have turned marriage (and divorce) into a legal process.

4. On page 36, Tony Windsor criticizes Mexican President Calderon, who recently blasted Arizona's enforcement of federal immigration laws while visiting Washington. Like Mr. Windsor, I was outraged by the standing ovation that this corrupt leader of a corrupt, failing nation received from a number of American Congressmen. I am not going to discuss the complex topic of immigration in this post, but I enjoyed reading Mr. Windsor's column, though I don't necessarily agree with all of his points.

5. On page 50, Jim Jestice of Laurel writes that he originally supported the referendum, but has changed his mind, and Penny Atkins of Seaford weighs in on the same topic that Tony Windsor covered in his column, illegal immigration and the Mexican president's rant before Congress. On the following page, Shaun Riely, who served in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, endorses Glen Urquhart (R) for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Themal on the tea party movement

2010-05-24T21:32:00.004-04:00

The nonpartisan tea party movement made the Opinion page of today's News Journal, not once but twice. I will not comment on the smug 'Our View' editorial, "Tea partiers can't play in the big leagues," other than to say that I think anyone who wasted three minutes to read it found for themselves that it was a feeble attempt to defend the status quo.

However, I would like to address a couple of points in Harry Themal's column. Unlike the editorial, it raises intelligent points and questions about the popular movement, though I don't necessarily agree with the man's conclusions.

He writes, "...many of [the tea party groups] are merely expressing negative thoughts. Above all, shrink government; throw out the rascals, particularly Democrats; kill health care; eliminate social programs...complain about earmarks...snipe at measures designed to prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis; throw out illegal immigrants."

1. "Shrink government" is not a negative thought. In fact, it's an excellent idea, though by no means a new one. I have my own ideas on how the federal government could be shrunk, and I know for a fact that a lot of tea partiers do, too.

2. "Throw out the rascals, particularly Democrats." The "rascals" certainly aren't giving me any reasons not to throw them out. If anything, they out to physically thrown out. How about a Capitol bouncer to throw lying, corrupt Congressmen out onto the front steps?

3. "Kill health care." What? You mean shut down hospitals and stuff? Those tea partiers must be evil! Actually, what I think Mr. Themal means is that tea partiers disapprove of the federal government's recent unconstitutional intrusion into the health-care industry, along with a majority of Americans. While the issue is one for debate, I think we can safely assume that, if health care is ever "killed" by anything, the government will be the culprit.

4. "Cut the deficit." Again, this is a bad idea?

5. "Snipe at measures designed to prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis." What measures? The joke that the Obama administration is calling "financial reform," but which in no way reforms (or even mentions) the privately-owned monopoly on our nation's currency, the Federal Reserve, which is the cause of our economic problems? Financial reforms that ignores the problem of the Fed is not reform at all. It's comparable to bombing Moscow and saying that North Korea has been neutralized. The "reform" is not without its benefits, but it doesn't strike at the real problem.

6. "Throw out illegal immigrants." This one is up for debate, too, even in conservative, libertarian, and independent circles. However, supporting the enforcement of federal deportation laws is a legitimate viewpoint, and is hardly radical.

Themal goes on to describe Rand Paul (the Republican who won a primary election in Kentucky last week) as "super-conservative." What? While Rand is certainly more conservative than his father, that isn't saying much. This statement seems to be based on a complete lack of understanding of libertarianism, which is very different than conservatism. In many ways, libertarianism is a modern version of classical liberalism. It is the misfortune of the libertarian to be called conservatives when liberals are in power, and liberal when conservatives are in power.

Still, I do not criticize Mr. Themal or his motives. I think he is trying to write an honest, accurate assessment of the tea party movement, but his opinion is based on faulty information (perhaps he's been reading...never mind). He would do better, however, to attend a "tea party" meeting or rally.

I had written about the tea party movement numerous times before I bothered to attend a local 9-12 meeting. When I did, I found that those in attendance were simply ordinary Americans, concerned about various issues, with sometimes conflicting views. That's all. No right-wing conspiracy, no torrent of anger, no racist hate speech. I hope that Mr. Themal will make the effort to attend one or more local meetings, and perhaps his view of the movement will change. If not, it will at least be based on more information.

The Dishonest Smearing of Rand Paul by Terrified Progressives

2010-05-21T17:21:00.003-04:00

When I learned that Rand Paul had defeated an establishment-backed candidate in the Kentucky GOP primary for U.S. Senate, I was happy for both him and his father, Rep. Ron Paul. The elder Paul has been, without a doubt, the most consistent voice for constitutional government in the federal government during his time in Congress. He opposed going to war when the other Republicans (and many Democrats) voted in favor, and stood his ground while being criticized by both sides. In short, he is a man of principle, and I trust him.

I don't know as much about his son, Rand, who is a bit more conservative, yet I am confident that he will be a principled voice in the U.S. Senate if elected in November. I might not agree with his views on every issue, but I can at least be assured that his votes will be based on his beliefs, rather than the shifting political winds, which is how most politicians of both parties choose their positions.

The political establishment (which is made up of big-government advocates of both parties) is terrified of people like Rand Paul; a young, popular, libertarian-leaning newcomer to politics who draws support from the grass-roots antiestablishment movement. Like his father, many of Rand Paul's supporters are young voters. This bodes ill for those in power. Suppose the man wins? Suppose he inspires hundreds of others to run for office? Suppose they win, and seize control of an out-of-control government that rarely even pretends to be working for the best interests of the people?

Yes, big-government progressives are terrified, as are their beneficiaries, and rightfully so. Their cause is immoral, illogical, unconstitutional, and just plain un-American. And just when they thought the American people was under their thumb, just when they thought it was in the bag, a vast nonpartisan grass-roots movement sprang up, and is vehemently opposing their sinister agenda.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

They certainly do, which is why the race-baiting began in early 2010. Race-baiting is a political tactic by which an individual (almost always a minority) claims his or her opposition is a racist, with little or no justification. We have seen it from propagandist Keith Olbermann, who has repeatedly referred to the tea party movement as "the Tea Klux Klan," and from black lawmakers who claimed that protesters of the health-care takeover shouted racial slurs at them (which has yet to be proved, despite the hundreds of cell phones and cameras present when the incident supposedly occurred). Race-baiting has also been used by the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over the years, through which they have done more harm than help to the public perception of black Americans.

Race-baiting is just as immoral as racism itself, if not worse. At least the hate-filled racist is honest about his bigotry.

So it should come as no surprise that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow brought up a rather strange topic when interviewing Paul on Wednesday: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Obviously, her producers instructed her to dive into an issue settled decades ago, because they knew that with this issue they could perpetuate the myth which holds that the participants in the tea party movement, and the candidates associated with it, are racists.

Paul voiced his discomfort with the portion of the act which required private businesses to integrate, while explicitly stating that he is opposed to discrimination. However, even a racist's viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment. "I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires."

This is an honest, constitutional answer. There is room to disagree with his opinion, but in no way does the opinion indicate racism or prejudice on his part. Rather, it indicates precisely how tolerant he is; tolerant even of the views of bigots, who he despises. Talk about being the better person.

Immediately, voices of the left began to state online that Paul had told Maddow that he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act. A lie. On Thursday, progressive groups and communist cells across the nation instructed their members to smear Rand Paul online, to their friends, to their family, to complete strangers. The talking point was to be that Paul does not support the Civil Rights Act, that he is a bigot, etc., which is obviously untrue. Meanwhile, Paul clarified on CNN that he would have voted for the act.

It is important to remember that Paul did not change his mind overnight, or change his position. He never said that he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act; he simply pointed out (correctly) that it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and when pushed, affirmed that he would have voted for it, despite the questionable constitutionality of forcing private businesses to do anything.

Rand Paul is one candidate, in one state. How many others will be smeared, in the 2010 and 2012 elections? How many honest, hard-working Americans will be accused of racism, or other ridiculous falsehoods? How many writers will be threatened for daring to criticize those in power?

Make no mistake, a revolution is underway. This revolution will be fought with votes, not bullets, but its results will be no less real. Evil individuals in control of the federal government, the various state and local governments, select media outlets, the university system, the entertainment industry, and all other facets of our trainwreck of a society, will be cast down, and good men and women will be raised in their place.

Reader, I will not tell you what to believe. I only ask that you search for truth, and speak it in turn. Whether you agree with Rand Paul's views or not, the assault on his candidacy is neither based in truth, nor backed by good intentions.

GOP picks Rollins, but Republicans' choice will be made in primary

2010-05-16T17:10:00.006-04:00

At the Republican state convention yesterday in Rehoboth Beach, delegates predictably favored party insiders and career politicians over political newcomers. Challengers like Kevin Wade, who is running for Delaware's House seat, had hoped to ride a tide of anti-incumbency and win the GOP's endorsement, but it was not to be.

Congressman Mike Castle was chosen over Christine O'Donnell for the U.S. Senate race, and wealthy businesswoman Michele Rollins was chosen over Glen Urquhart, Kevin Wade, and Rose Izzo for the U.S. House race. While GOP insiders like Judge Bill Lee had hinted to the News Journal in past weeks that Rollins was the party favorite, many conservatives had hoped that Glen Urquhart would win the nomination, especially as he had recently won a straw poll at a candidate forum in Newark. Meanwhile, money had poured into Kevin Wade's campaign in the past week.

For those who have difficulty keeping the candidates straight, Rollins is the one who was asked at a recent 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting to name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and could not do so. I was present at the meeting and felt stunned as I watched a candidate for federal office flounder around, unsuccessfully attempting to answer an elementary civics question.

I cannot blame the delegates for choosing Castle, RINO that he is. Christine O'Donnell's campaign has been woefully inadequate, and I have yet to hear a straight answer about her recent financial problems. She might be a good person (I hear from many people that she is), but she's not a good candidate. Castle is more than a good candidate; he's a sure win.

In addition, incumbent Tom Wagner was nominated for State Auditor (he performs his job well and I will be voting for him), and State Sen. Colin Bonini was nominated for Treasurer.

But the nomination of Rollins is much more interesting to talk about.

I have no doubt that if Rollins wins the Republican primary in September, and goes on to face John Carney in the general election, she will lose. Conservative voters who are sick of being forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils" are more willing this year than ever before to vote for third-party candidates, even if it means seeing the other side win. I have read and heard the opinions of respected party members, who hold that Rollins is the perfect candidate to challenge Carney. They are probably saying this for one of two reasons:

The party leadership has instructed them to, so they obey.
Their political sense isn't as strong as it used to be; an unfortunate but natural consequence of advanced age.

However, Glen Urquhart has promised to campaign through the primary. He had planned to do this even before Rollins announced her candidacy (I still haven't heard a good reason for why she didn't simply support his campaign). Do I believe Urquhart can defeat Rollins in the primary? Yes. Can he defeat both Rollins and Wade in the primary? No.

For Urquhart to win, Wade must go. Otherwise, the two will split the conservative vote, and Rollins will win the remaining majority. This is unfortunate, because I believe that Kevin Wade is a principled, honest man. A real-life Mr. Smith who wants to go to Washington. It is my hope that he will run for a state or local (New Castle) office in 2012.

GOP Chairman Tom Ross told the News Journal, "[Delegates] work local elections. They are on Republican committees, clubs, and regions...These are the folks who work hard for the party day in and day out. Any candidate who puts himself forth should think of the country and the state before their own candidacy."

This quote was clearly directed to Glen Urquhart, who (assuming that Wade drops out) poses a serious threat to Rollins. Conservatives "in the know" have said that Urquhart, if he remains in the race, will be smeared by his own party. He, his campaign workers, and his supporters will be attacked without mercy, cut down for daring to challenge the up-state party favorite.

If party insiders begin throwing stones, they had better mind their glass houses. Conservatives are tired of going along with the Delaware GOP, which does not have the best record when it comes to winning elections (some believe its ineffectiveness is intentional), and insiders might find themselves in the crosshairs, so to speak, if they decide to launch a smear campaign to protect their own.

It's going to be an interesting summer.

Laurel Star notes (5/13/10)

2010-05-13T17:31:00.002-04:00

Quick notes on this week's edition of the Laurel Star:

1. A note appears on the front page informing us of school board election results in the Laurel, Delmar, Seaford, and Woodbridge school district. There is no analysis or commentary; there will probably be more detailed articles in next week's edition.

2. We find some nanny state propaganda on page 11. It wasn't written by any of the Star writers, and is probably appearing in all of the local newspapers this week, but it would still be nice to see a newspaper say "no thank you" to these kinds of articles, regardless of their source. This one lists a number of reasons for why driving while using a cell phone is dangerous, the obvious conclusion being that Delaware should ban cell phone use while driving.

I wrote a letter to the Star about a proposed cell phone ban a couple of months ago; it was printed in the 2/18 edition, and can be read here.

The government does not have the authority to decide whether a driver may or may not use a cell phone while driving. It's up to the driver to recognize when it is safe or unsafe to do so. Any laws passed in Delaware, Maryland, or the United States which seek to restrict or ban cell phone use while driving cannot be considered legitimate; I have a feeling we're going to have to break a few laws over the next few years while we rein in our nanny-state legislators who believe they have the right to make decisions for us.

3. On page 13, we find more propaganda, entitled "Health coverage is now available for children under the age of 27." Wait...children under the age of 27? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that children are those members of our society under the age of 18, and that age group has always had health coverage. It would be more accurate for this article to say that "health coverage is now available for adults under the age of 27." Which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

4. On page 17, we read about the report released this week by Widener University Law Dean Linda Ammons, regarding the case of child molester Dr. Earl Bradley. It is my belief that the man should be executed. Unfortunately, state law doesn't allow it.

5. On page 58, Laurel resident Holly Black responds to a letter by Donna Reed, which appeared in the 4/29 edition of the Star. The subject, of course, is the school referendum. Black supports the referendum, and says that Reed's suggested changes "are NOT the solution to the problem."

6. On the same page, a letter by Penny Atkins of Seaford lists twelve quotes by President Obama. I have heard some of these before, and, whether you like the man or not, they are troubling. Please don't respond to this post and say that President Bush said some stupid and/or blatantly wrong things; he did, I know it, and I wasn't a fan of him, either. Bad presidents deserve to be criticized, regardless of their party affiliation or skin color.

School Board Elections 2010: Thoughts and Predictions

2010-05-10T17:15:00.003-04:00

Tomorrow, school board elections will be held in the Laurel, Delmar, Seaford, Woodbridge, Indian River, and Cape Henlopen districts. Anyone who is at least 18 years of age, and a resident of a district, can vote in that district's election, between 10 AM and 8 PM.

In the Laurel School District, (David) Brent Nichols is challenging incumbent Jerry White, who has served on the board since 2000, and is currently the board president. Both support the controversial referendum that residents voted down on March 31st, though Nichols "questions the cost of the project," according to an article in today's News Journal. From a political perspective, this is rather disappointing. One would have thought that an opponent of the referendum would have run, and sought votes from the 1,444 residents who voted against it--I believe a candidate taking this position would have won, though it might have become an ugly race.

In short, Laurel residents must choose between no change and little change. Most probably won't bother to choose at all. The campaigning has been minimal (I certainly haven't been asked for my vote, even indirectly), and the incumbent, White, will retain his seat.

A few miles south, in the Delmar School District, David A. Burton Jr., who has served on the board since 2000, is being challenged by Phillip Thompson. Thompson also ran last year against three other candidates, and won about 12% of the vote, less than any of the other candidates (that election was won by Greg Cathell with about 46% of the vote). In Saturday's News Journal, he questioned why parents who live on the Maryland side are not allowed to vote in the school board elections, saying, "That's something I definitely want to look into...we're in a unique situation here."

Maryland residents cannot vote in a Delaware election, just as Delaware residents cannot vote in a Maryland election. There is no way around this, unless Thompson decides to pursue the secession of the Town of Delmar, Del., from the State of Delaware, which would probably be overwhelmingly unsuccessful. In the Delmar school board election, I give Burton 70-85% of the vote.

In the Seaford School District, the board president, John Hanenfeld, is being challenged by Frank Parks, about whom I've heard good things. Parks points out, correctly, that many Seaford students go to Sussex Tech or another district for high school, because Seaford High School has developed a less-than-perfect reputation over the past few years (which is strange, because it had a fairly good reputation only 5-7 years ago).

Based on what I've read and heard about this race, I think the outcome will be a close one. Hanenfeld might retain his seat, but not by a landslide.

In the Woodbridge School District (a name which combines Greenwood and Bridgeville), incumbent Walter Gilefski faces two challengers, John Poe and Darryn Harris. Poe participated in a school board candidates forum hosted by the 9-12 Delaware Patriots a couple of weeks ago (and was the only candidate from western Sussex to show up), and said that he first became interested in running when he tried to sell his home, and lost potential buyers because of the district's reputation.

I don't know enough about Woodbridge, or the other two candidates, to make a prediction, but I was impressed that Poe took the time to drive to Millsboro and speak to a large group of citizens.

Moving on to the Indian River School District (the election is for residents of District 2), I have to say that this race is a bit different. Both candidates participated in the 9-12 Delaware Patriots school board candidates forum, and I was impressed by both. The incumbent, Kelly Willing, is a well-spoken conservative who seems to be doing an excellent job on the board. However, her challenger, Rodney Layfield, seems like he would also do an excellent job. Both are graduates of Sussex Central High School; Layfield is a state trooper, while Willing is a tax assessor for Sussex County.

I have seen a lot of Layfield yard signs in and around Millsboro, but I have heard good things about Willing. Regardless of who wins, the community will have made a good choice.

Finally, the Cape Henlopen School District. I would first like to congratulate Sandi Minard, who was the only one to file for the Area B seat, and won automatically. She is active in the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, and helped to organize the group's school board candidates forum.

Scott Dekuyper, Rob Spicer, Roni Posner, and Jodi Grahne are campaigning for the member-at-large seat. Of these, Posner was the only one who did not attend the 9-12 candidates forum. While each of the other three candidates spoke well, I was most impressed by Spicer, who said he decided to run after the controversial removal of John Yore as high school principal.

Glen Urquhart wins Republican straw poll in Newark

2010-05-04T17:34:00.004-04:00

Last night, Glen Urquhart, Kevin Wade, Michele Rollins, and Rose Izzo participated in a candidate forum in Newark, at which a straw poll was held. Each is running for the House seat currently held by Mike Castle, who is running a Senate campaign.

I expected Rollins to win the straw poll, being as she is both the party insiders' favorite and an up-state resident, but was surprised (not unpleasantly) by the results.

Glen Urquhart: 63 votes
Michele Rollins: 40 votes
Kevin Wade: 39 votes
Rose Izzo: 3 votes

The results are significant, because Urquhart is the only candidate from "downstate," which is Wilmington-speak for any point south of Dover. One of the reasons that the GOP favors (or favored; they might be rethinking their strategy) Rollins is that she lives in New Castle County, and could attract support from Wilmington residents, much like Mike Castle. These results prove that Urquhart can win support in New Castle County, as well as the rest of the state.

It is also significant that Kevin Wade missed tying with Rollins by only one vote. His candidacy has not been taken quite as seriously by party insiders, despite his solid platform and understanding of the issues; the GOP has focused on Urquhart and Rollins, treating Wade as an unwanted third wheel while outright ignoring Izzo.

What does a straw poll really mean? Nothing, but if the GOP is smart, it will stop playing favorites, stop hinting to the News Journal that Rollins is the favorite, and start paying attention to who the voters respond to best. So far, that seems to be Glen Urquhart.

Department of Justice vs. Property Rights?

2010-05-02T18:10:00.003-04:00

An article in last week's edition of the Delaware Wave reported that the Department of Justice placed a Frankford property under "temporary abatement" several months ago, evicting the tenants and boarding up the windows. Neighbors say that the shutting down of this "drug den" has made the community safer, and the article goes on to describe the Drug Nuisance and Social Vices Abatement Act, which was signed into law in 2000, but rarely used until "Beau" Biden took office in 2007.

The statute allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to monitor "problem properties" and work with cooperative owners to correct the problems. If owners are uncooperative, properties can be closed down while the cases are reviewed. So far, fifteen other properties have been shut down, five of which are in Sussex County.

I oppose illegal drug use, but also oppose prohibition-type policies. This fairly uncommon position is not self-contradictory; in my opinion, drug use is a "victimless crime," and it does not bother me if someone chooses to smoke pot in his or her basement, so long as they are not driving a car while high, endangering a child, etc. Evidence indicates that the "war on drugs" causes more problems than it solves, by indirectly creating a black market, disproportionately targeting blacks and Hispanics, filling over-crowded prisons with nonviolent offenders, and empowering various levels of government to make decisions (such as, Thou shalt not use...) which are best made by individuals.

I would much rather a young person decide, I am not going to use marijuana or other drugs because I wish to keep a clear mind, than be forced by the government to make the same decision, without having an opportunity to think it through. Personal responsibility is preferable to blind obedience in nearly every situation.

And, just as the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s empowered the Mafia, drug prohibition has led to the rise of heavily-armed, violent gangs, which can quickly turn an otherwise nice neighborhood into a war zone.

Is Frankford a war zone? I don't think so. There are some rather poor streets, and there is certainly drug use throughout the town (as there is in every town), but I am not aware of any violent drug-related incidents that have occurred, at least not recently.

The Wave article did not specify which house had been placed under abatement, but I believe I know the one. I drive past it frequently, and have noticed that it seems to be empty, with a board covering the front door. Last year, I drove past the house in the early afternoon (perhaps between one and three o'clock), and was surprised to see numerous cars parked in the dusty lot, and a large group of young men congregating outside. Perhaps fifty. The vast majority, if not all of them, were black (their color does not matter, I'm only describing what I saw), and based on their style of dress, their meeting was neither a church gathering nor a softball game.

That said, I do not believe the government has the authority to seize property for any reason, whether it is to build a new highway or place a home under temporary abatement. The latter might be justified in extreme cases (e.g., if several people have been murdered in the same house in a short period of time), but I don't consider nonviolent drug use to be an extreme case. I am also concerned about property owners' rights; by shutting down a property, the DOJ is holding the owner responsible for the tenants' actions, which might not be fair in every case. Are the owners compensated for the loss of revenue? I don't know, but they should be. A rental property probably brings in at least $10,000 per year.

It is not the type of issue that is important enough to spark outrage, or to warrant writing a letter to the local newspaper (unless, of course, one happens to be a landlord in danger of losing a rental property), but I don't think it would be a bad idea to keep an eye on how many properties the Biden DOJ closes down, and its reasons for doing so.

Poor performance by Michele Rollins at Millsboro meeting

2010-04-23T18:12:00.005-04:00

Michele Rollins, the wealthy Republican candidate for Delaware's seat in the House of Representatives, began her speech to the 9-12 Delaware Patriots well enough. There was a large crowd at the Sussex County meeting in the Millsboro Fire Hall (about 100-150 people, not 50 as the News Journal incorrectly reported), and attendees seemed to respond well to her short talk about high taxes and out-of-control government spending. Rollins named the recent vote on health-care reform (or health-care takeover, depending on one's perspective), as the primary cause of her candidacy, saying that she felt the need to "do something."

Rather than support one of the four Republican candidates already running (Glen Urquhart, Fred Cullis, Kevin Wade, or Rose Izzo), she decided to run for the House seat soon to be vacated by fellow Republican Mike Castle. At no point in her speech did Rollins mention why she chose to run, rather than support one of the other candidates.

Throughout her successful career, Rollins has worked for the SEC, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, the EPA, and is best known as the widow of multimillionaire businessman John W. Rollins Sr. She noted that Americans "love being the land of opportunity," and went on to say, "I love America, and I want us to continue to have the America we all knew."

Everyone can agree on loving America, and I saw many nodding heads and smiling faces as Rollins reached the end of her prepared remarks after about fifteen minutes. It was the question-and-answer session that changed the mood in the room.

One of the most admirable things about a 9-12 meeting is that any candidate is allowed to speak, and anyone is allowed to ask a question. Questions are not pre-screened; those in attendance simply raise a hand, and wait to be recognized.

The first question was about illegal immigration, which Rollins had not mentioned during her speech. She answered that she believes the two most important issues associated with illegal immigration are protecting our borders, and protecting our economy. However, as answers to follow-up questions revealed, her position on what to do with illegal immigrations already living in the U.S. is weak, at best. When asked if she opposes granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, Rollins responded, "I'm not sure, for or against," then went on to say that she supports registering the illegal immigrants already living within our borders. A confused murmuring began, and the atmosphere in the large room became tense. Clearly, the crowd was not pleased by her answer.

Matt Walsh, a 23-year-old local radio personality who is currently running for Mayor of Georgetown, stood and pointed out that both Republicans and Democrats have been in charge of the country for over one hundred years, and continue to "screw it up." Could she list three reasons why citizens should have faith in the Republican Party?

Rolllins sidestepped the question by stating that the GOP has heard the message of the Tea Party. "Both parties have to reinvent themselves if they are going to survive."

Both parties? Bipartisanship can be beneficial, and nonpartisanship is even better, but as a Republican candidate, it is hardly Rollins' place to be concerned with the survival of the Democratic Party. At any rate, she did not answer Walsh's question; no reasons were given for why voters should have faith in the GOP.

When asked by a Seaford resident for her position on cap and trade, Rollins said, "I'm against it." However, she refused to criticize Rep. Castle for his support of cap and trade. When asked later to name specific differences between Castle and herself, Rollins referenced Ronald Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment," "Thou shalt not speak ill of any other Republican."

The force of party loyalty is strong with this one.

Local talk show host Bill Colley wanted to know if she would vote to repeal the recently-passed health-care reform law, which she had named as her reason for running for office. "No. Because I won't waste time and energy," she answered, much to the crowd's displeasure.

What about term limits? "I wanna think about that a little more," said Rollins, and went on to point out (correctly) that elections provide the perfect means for term limits.

What about making English the official language? "I'd have to think about that." Eventually, she admitted that there is good in the idea, and said she will look into the issue.

Each time Rollins said she needed to think about an issue, or didn't have a position, or tried to ride the fence, the crowd grew increasingly discontent.

When asked for her position on abortion, Rollins listed several reasons why she opposes the practice, before saying, essentially, that she is pro-choice. Personally, she believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion is wrong, but she will not stand in the way of any other woman who believes otherwise. When questioned several times by Matt Walsh as to whether she believes an unborn child has rights, Rollins became extremely flustered, and did not give a satisfactory answer. At this point, group leader Russ Murphy intervened and admonished the crowd to ask questions, but refrain from debating the candidate. (I thought his intervention was needed, not in response to Walsh's question, specifically, but several questioners had gotten into one-on-one discussions with Rollins, which frustrated others who had their hands raised.)

(The News Journal account of the meeting states: "'You asked me what I believe in, and that's what I believe in,' Rollins said, ending the discussion." This is not entirely accurate. Rollins had lost control of the discussion, and had run out of answers for Walsh's repeated questions. Had Murphy not addressed the crowd, it could have become a very tense situation.)

Angel Clark, a local writer/blogger, mentioned that she had heard that Rollins favors a national ID card, and asked for the candidate's position. "Actually, I don't have a position on that," was the response.

Call me crazy, but I think a candidate for federal office should have a position on everything. Rollins was unable to give simple, yes-or-no answers to questions about term limits, making English the official language, or a national ID card, all of which are issues that a congressional representative might have to vote on, sooner or later. It is ridiculous to believe that Rollins has never thought about these issues before; more likely, she does not want to express her opinion on certain subjects, lest she alienate conservative voters.

About three-fourths of the way through the 45-minute Q & A session came a question that caught everyone's attention. A woman asked if Rollins could name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, as well as the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.

Candidate Rollins immediately answered that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, which she supports. She then stated that the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. When asked to name the four other freedoms/rights protected by the First Amendment, she could not, and said that of course she could not simply recite the Bill of Rights.

I don't necessarily expect a candidate for federal office to recite the Bill of Rights word-for-word (though there are probably some in both parties who can), but one should at least be able to name the general purpose of each of the first ten amendments. Certainly, the first! Based on her answer, Rollins was unaware that the First Amendment also protects the free exercise of religion, the freedom of the press, the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government for a "redress of grievances."

The final blow came when the woman who had first asked the question followed up with, "And you are a lawyer?" Rollins affirmed that she is. The questioner sat down as the crowd murmured in astonishment. A lawyer who spent years working for the government, who is running for federal office, who is less familiar with the Bill of Rights than the average grade-school student?

I believe there were people who showed up to the meeting to hear Michele Rollins speak, expecting to find a candidate worthy of their support, who left disappointed. Perhaps even angry. Her platform is weak, her answers were evasive, and the only thing on her side--lots of money, and support from party insiders--is a turn-off for many voters, regardless of her positions on the issues of the day. In fact, I believe Rollins did serious damage to her candidacy last night by alienating a large group of Sussex Countians, many of whom are influential within their own circles. A Republican candidate in Delaware cannot afford to lose Sussex County.

Michele Rollins might not have lost Sussex County, but she's going to have to do better in the future if she expects to win a Republican primary.

Michelle Rollins to speak in Millsboro on April 22

2010-04-21T19:59:00.002-04:00

Michelle Rollins, who some Delaware conservatives have nicknamed "Rollins the RINO" (Republican in name only), will be speaking at the Sussex County 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting on Thursday evening, in the Millsboro Fire Hall. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. There were about 150 in attendance at the last meeting, which was the first at this location.

Rollins is a controversial candidate. She entered the race for Delaware's lone House seat after several Republicans had already been campaigning for it, and was immediately described as a favorite of the GOP leadership in several newspaper articles. Since then, Fred Cullis has dropped out of the race, Glen Uruqhart has come under attack from insiders of both major parties, and Kevin Wade...well, the GOP isn't going to nominate him, but he continues to campaign (as he should).

Some have compared Rollins to Mike Castle. They are both wealthy, have all of the right connections, share a disdain for Sussex County, and suffer from a strange shortage of conservative values. Both would probably be more at home in the Democratic Party.

Rollins is likely to face some tough questions at the 9-12 meeting; it will be interesting to see.

There will also be a forum for Cape Henlopen school board candidates.

Library of Congress to archive "tweets" permanently

2010-04-20T20:50:00.003-04:00

The Library of Congress recently announced that it will store the billions of tweets posted on Twitter since 2006, a popular microblogging site that many use in conjunction with other social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. Approximately 50 million tweets are posted per day (a tweet is a 140-character status update, like: "Enjoying cup of coffee. It's a beautiful day outside!").

A blog on the Library of Congress website notes that the Library already holds more than 167 terabytes of web-based information. That's a lot of data.

This is utterly unnecessary. There is no justification for storing the random thoughts of millions of users without their consent; it will be a waste of time, money, storage space, and I believe that it violates the right to a reasonable amount of privacy. Average Twitter users have no reason to assume that anyone except their followers are reading their tweets, and even then, they might wish to delete specific tweets or their account. But now there will be a permanent database of tweets, even those that have been removed from the site after the fact.

Thanks, but no thanks. If I want future generations to review my thoughts from the first decades of the 21st century, I'll write a book. Or print all of my blog posts. I don't need an out-of-control, untrustworthy federal government to do this for me.

Considering that the Internet is one of the only remaining ways to share information without any kind of censorship, and is the most valuable tool of antiestablishment activists across the nation, it is disturbing to think that the Library of Congress will be documenting portions of it. And, if the federal government is admitting to this particular program, how many other websites are being monitored without our knowledge? It's probably best to assume that all of them are. Certainly, all political sites.

I strongly urge my friends and readers to check their privacy settings on Twitter, as well as other social networking sites. All provide an option to display information and activity only to approved friends. This might not keep information from being stored on a massive government hard drive for all of eternity, but it certainly can't hurt.

"Smoking Reefer"

2010-04-19T17:00:00.000-04:00

Today is 4/20, the unofficial holiday of marijuana users. Rather than talk seriously about medical marijuana, legalization, or reggae music, let's take a look at this scene from the movie Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, a parody in which Dewey Cox is a combination of Johnny Cash, Elvis, and Ray.

Dewey Cox accidentally barges into a room filled with smoke and groupies.
Sam: Get outta here, Dewey!
Dewey: What are y'all doin' in here?
Sam: We're smoking reefer and you don't want no part of this ****.
Dewey: You're smoking *reefers*?
Sam: Yeah, 'course we are; can't you smell it?
Dewey: [somberly] No, Sam. I can't. (Dewey has no sense of smell.)
Girl Groupie: Come on, Dewey! Join the party! [takes a hit off a joint]
Sam: No, Dewey, you don't want this. Get outta here!
Dewey: You know what, I don't want no hangover. I can't get no hangover.
Sam: It doesn't give you a hangover!
Dewey: Wha-I get addicted to it or something?
Sam: It's not habit-forming!
Dewey: Oh, okay... well, I don't know... I don't want to overdose on it.
Sam: You can't OD on it!
Dewey: It's not gonna make me wanna have sex, is it?
Sam: It makes sex even better!
Dewey: Sounds kind of expensive.
Sam: It's the cheapest drug there is.
Dewey: [at a loss and out of excuses] Hmm.
Sam: You don't want it!
Dewey: I think I kinda want it.

Laurel Star Notes (4/15/10)

2010-04-17T12:17:00.002-04:00

1. Page 15: The Delaware Office of Highway Safety and the Delaware State Police are partnering to enforce speed limits this year, in what is called "a three-week statewide speed enforcement blitz." Their choice of words is interesting; "blitz" is the shortened form of blitzkrieg, a German word meaning "lightning war." It was a favorite tactic of the Nazis during World War II.

I have already written a couple of posts about how state and local governments are attempting to compensate for out-of-control spending by issuing more traffic citations. It is my belief that these speed campaigns are less about safety, and more about revenue. The article notes that the 2009 Stop Aggressive Driving campaign resulted in 6,322 citations, and that number includes only speeding violations. That's a lot of revenue.

Some will say that hefty fines are necessary, because speeders will only slow down if their wallet is affected. I disagree. It is not the fine that influences heavy-footed drivers to lay off the gas; it is the points. No driver wants to lose his or her license.

2. Another advertisement for Doug Lambert, candidate for the Seaford City Council, appears on page 37. (It occurred to me that visitors from New York City, and even Baltimore, must chuckle at what passes for a city in Delaware.) "I will strive to do the very best for all of you and stand on my principles of fiscal responsibilities, honesty, straight forwardness, faith in God and my fellow man, and hard work." The election is being held today, April 17, at the Seaford City Hall.

3. Page 50: Reid Williamson, of Annandale, VA, defends Vice President Biden's recent use of the F-word (when he called healthcare reform "a big f***ing deal"), and uses historical examples and the dictionary to support his rather lengthy argument. I think there are much more important issues to write to newspapers about, but to each his own.

4. I enjoy the statistics about the national debt that publisher Bryant Richardson shares each week on the 'Final Word' page. Our nation's debt, which has grown to the point that I view it as a threat to our national security, not to mention our sovereignty, is a problem that can be discussed without the usual right vs. left partisan nastiness. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this outrageous debt, which will be passed onto our children, grandchildren, and future generations, and both Democrats and Republicans should be held accountable for it.

Drive a car? You're the state's new cash cow

2010-04-13T16:59:00.003-04:00

After years of out-of-control spending in Dover and Annapolis, officials in both states are desperately looking for ways to generate more revenue. Ways that don't involve raising taxes, preferably, because reelection is their first priority.

They've found some ways that will not only generate revenue, but trick most of the public into believing that the efforts are actually for their own good. I'm referring to new restrictions on drivers, stiffer penalties, more police officers out on the roads stopping dangerous speeders, etc. Let's take a quick look at some recent news stories.

1. A new Maryland law will go into effect in October, banning hand-held cell phone use while driving. The fine for a first-time violation is nearly twice that which accompanies failure to stop at a stop sign. Driving while talking on the phone will only be a secondary offense, meaning that police officers will not be able to stop someone unless they are also breaking another law, like speeding. A few points to consider:

Police officers can stop a driver for practically anything. There are so many regulations when it comes to driving that most drivers violate at least one every few seconds. Remember, a cop is not obligated to recognize a 5-10 mph "cushion of safety;" he (or she) can write a ticket for 58 in a 55, if he's out to be a jerk. If you ride past a police officer while talking on the phone, secure in the knowledge that he cannot legally pull you over, he will find a reason to do exactly that.
This ban was probably pushed through the Maryland General Assembly by delegates from busy, urban areas, like Baltimore. Obviously, it is a different matter to be on the phone while driving on the Beltway, than when driving on a back road in Worcester County. But does anyone seriously expect local police officers to take this difference into consideration?
Seat belt violations were also a secondary offense, when the government first decided that it had the authority to require drivers to protect themselves. In most states, they are now primary offenses; a police officer can pull a driver over simply for not being buckled up. The argument is that "seat belts save lives." No, they don't. Smart drivers save their own lives by buckling up, and if they choose not to, they aren't harming anyone else. The same will probably happen with cell phone violations. I can hear it already: "But it's not fair! We watch cars go by all the time while the drivers blab on their phones! We need authority to pull them over before these idiots kill somebody!"

2. A recent story in USA Today warned that the 5-10 mph "cushion of safety" that police officers have traditionally allowed might be the next casualty of the recession, as state and local governments across the nation search for ways to fill budget gaps. Warnings are already virtually nonexistent (I've never received one; not even for rolling through a stop sign in the median of 113 when no cars were coming either way), and it is likely that, instead of watching drivers cruise by at 57-60 mph on the highway, or perhaps 29 in a 25-mph-zone, cops will begin pulling them over and writing tickets.

3. Listening to the radio while working today, I heard that there will be 140 speed patrols in Delaware, beginning this weekend. They will be stopping drivers primarily during the afternoon and evening. A driver who is driving 10 mph over the speed limit (which is not outrageous on a major highway, or even on a back road that has a lot of straight stretches) can expect 4 points on his or her license, as well as a fine of at least $77.00. While officials claim their motive is to keep the roadways safe, I challenge them to prove this by donating 100% of the proceeds of this "war on speeders" to local unemployed workers. Don't worry, I'll wait.

4. An "Our View" editorial in today's News Journal praises a Police Prosecuting Program. It seems to be limited to New Castle County, or perhaps Wilmington, since the last line of the editorial states that the program "should be statewide."

"Most people who pay attention--and especially those who have a heavy foot on their automobile's accelerator--know that if a police officer doesn't show up at a Justice of the Peace hearing on a speedign ticket, the case is usually dropped on the spot. There are many reasons officers can't always show up at the hearing, ranging from police emergencies to illness. In those cases, people who are guilty of a flagrant violation get to walk away without a fine or points against their driver's license...The new program sends police supervisors to the JP court instead of the officer, keeping that officer on the road where he belongs."

That last line should read, "...on the road generating revenue where he belongs." An unintentional omission on the part of the News Journal staff, I'm sure.

In other words, let's free up cops so that they can spend all day writing tickets for new offenses (like talking on the phone), or for insignificant violations (like 60 in a 55), ruining drivers' days, adding points to their licenses, without ever having to report to a courtroom to defend their money-making activities.

Let's not.

Officials always rationalize weekend anti-speeder campaigns by saying that they are in the interest of public safety. The same goes for seat belt laws, cell phone laws, etc. It is a lie. I do not believe that these officials care about the safety of citizens; they care only for dollars. Safety may be a secondary consequence of the items lifted above, but make no mistake; the primary motive is, and always will be, revenue.

Selective Service ad campaign: a waste of money, or something more?

2010-04-12T17:51:00.005-04:00

Every male in the U.S. is required to register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of his 18th birthday, whether he is a citizen, refugee, or dual citizen (a citizen of both the U.S. and another country). Females are not required to register. The purpose of the Selective Service, which I will refer to as "S.S." throughout this post, is to maintain a database of those who are potentially subject to conscription (otherwise known as the draft). Contrary to popular belief, the hated draft is not confined to history; there could be one next week, if the federal government deemed it necessary.

Like everyone else, I registered with the S.S. upon turning 18. If I remember correctly, a form arrived in the mail, I completed it, signed a card (which I still have), and that was it. I didn't think much of it at the time, being more interested in cars and girls and playing bass guitar and things like that. I might have heard advertisements reminding young men to register, but don't remember.

However, after hearing several S.S. ads on local radio stations in the past week or so, I noticed. I looked online, and a handful of other bloggers have mentioned that these advertisements have been unusually frequent in the past few months. Since registration with the S.S. is mandatory, and usually a fairly automatic process, it is a bit odd to hear advertisements urging young men to register, for the sake of their country, with an inspiring background track of patriotic music and/or children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Is there an upcoming war that I don't know about?

Hopefully not. We should be reducing our military presence overseas, if not for ideological reasons, then for financial reasons. At any rate, I do not support the draft, even in the case of a "just" war. The government does not own the lives of citizens, and has no moral authority to force anyone into military service.

Perhaps there is no imminent draft. Perhaps war is not on the horizon. Perhaps the Selective Service is only wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on radio advertisements because, well, they can.

Thanks, federal government!

Laurel Star notes (4/8/10)

2010-04-11T13:00:00.002-04:00

I apologize for posting my weekly notes on the Laurel Star a few days late; I was out of town from Friday evening to Saturday night, and had not had a chance to read the paper.

1. The front-page story is about the referendum, which was voted down the week before, 1,444 to 1,241. The Laurel School District wants to hold another vote, and seems to be rushing to do so. "We want to do it as soon as we could so that when it passes, we will be in line for [state] money that is handed out July 1," said Superintendent McCoy. Most of the article ignores the reasons why the referendum did not pass, and does not indicate that the district is willing to reevaluate the proposal, but instead presents information that is, no doubt, intended to persuade some of the "no" votes to switch sides.

Lynn Bradley, who is well known in the Laurel community, and was recently featured in the Star's "HEROES Series," points out that it is a bit unfair of the district to disregard the 1,444 citizens who voted against the referendum on March 31, and move forward with another vote. "It would be nice if those of us who didn't like the way the presidential election turned out could vote over and over until we got what we wanted," she said. "I think that the people have spoken and that they should leave it at that."

I agree, for the most part. I do not feel the students of Laurel should have to attend schools which are in poor condition (and I know Bradley does not feel that way, either), but the fact is that the district offered a proposal for the citizens' approval, and the citizens did not approve. Rather than treating the referendum's opponents with disrespect, characterizing them as selfish or stupid, the district needs to make some changes in the proposal. Major changes, perhaps. They answer to the people, not the people to them, and they would do well to remember this before putting an identical (or nearly identical) proposal up for a second vote.

2. "Laurel officials supporting 2010 Census participation by citizens" contains a few inaccuracies which I will address (I do not blame the writer, Tony Windsor, for these inaccuracies; he is simply reporting what officials have said about the census). Sue Monaco, of the Census Bureau Partnership, explained to the Mayor and Council on April 5 that the effort to conduct a Census every 10 years is a part of the United States Constitution. She said it is important for everyone to respond to the Census because this is how the government makes plans for disbursement of over $300 billion in federal funds. The data gained through the Census is also used to help plan for future transportation needs, the building of hospitals, nursing homes, clinics and other health facilities and directing funds for people living in poverty. (I am quoting the article's account of her presentation, not Ms. Monaco herself.)

Since she brought up the Constitution, let's take a look at what it really says about the Census. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative..." (Article I, Section 2.) The part about free persons, indentured servants, Indians, and "all other persons" has been repealed; we are all recognized to be free persons. However, it is plain to see that the sole purpose of the Census (or Enumeration, as the Constitution labels it), is to determine congressional representation. No mention is made of federal funds, roadways, hospitals, or any of the other things that our elected officials usually point to as justification for the Census. It is interesting that Monaco mentioned these things that cannot be found in the Constitution, but neglected to mention the one thing that is!

She goes on: "Some people are reluctant to fill out the form because they may not trust the government...They fear that their information will be given to other government agencies, or perhaps they are not from this country and do not understand the Census. But, it is so important that we get these forms filled out, even from those people who are not registered in this country."

History gives us many examples of why we should not trust the federal government. This is not an unreasonable attitude; it is not paranoia, or insanity, or a behavioral disorder. The very men who helped to create our federal government, like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, distrusted it.
The Roosevelt administration used Census data during World War II to locate thousands of Japanese Americans, as well as some Italian Americans and German Americans, and place them in internment camps. If people are afraid that "their information will be given to other government agencies," it could be because it has happened before, and many have not forgotten.
Because the sole purpose of the Census is to determine congressional representation, and illegal immigrants are not entitled to representation, it is not important for "people who are not registered in this country" to participate. In fact, it's important that they do not, or some states might receive additional representation in Congress, based on an illegal population whose residence is an ongoing criminal act. Why should California receive more power in Congress, simply because their population of illegal immigrants has increased in the past ten years?

3. On page 4, we are told that Debbie Keenan, President of the Delmar Education Association, has proposed a candidates forum, or meet and greet, for the two school board candidates, incumbent David Burton and Phillip Thompson. I have no additional information about this, but will mention here that the 9-12 Delaware Patriots are inviting all candidates for school board in Sussex County to attend the April 22 meeting in the Millsboro Fire Hall. There will be a forum for Cape Henlopen candidates, but candidates from all districts will be allowed to speak briefly to the crowd (there were about 150 people at the last meeting). It would be nice to see candidates from Laurel or Delmar represented.

4. There is another advertisement for Doug Lambert, "Your Next Seaford Councilman," on page 37. It reminds voters that the election will be held on Saturday, April 17.

5. I am not going to respond to the pro-referendum Letters to the Editor on page 50, or at least not specifically; both Frank Calio and Dave Horsey make good points. I was disappointed, however, to find that the Star did not print any letters in opposition to the referendum. Judging from some of the comments I have received on this blog, some of the referendum's opponents have detailed ideas about how the district could modify its proposal, and I assumed they would send these ideas to the Star. If they didn't, they have only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of the publicity of a local newspaper, but if they did, it is wrong for only one viewpoint to be presented to the paper's readers.

I will say that Dave Horsey's statement, "Folks, this is wrong. We need to do this now. Let's vote yes on May 11.", rubbed me the wrong way. In a large group of people, there are bound to be opposing opinions. That does not necessarily make one side "wrong," or the other "right."

6. A note on the "Final Word" page (page 51) made me chuckle. "If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?" Yes, all evidence indicates that it is.

14th District: Chris Weeks to challenge Pete Schwartzkopf

2010-04-09T07:54:00.004-04:00

Voters in the 14th District (the Lewes/Rehoboth Beach area) who are tired of having their taxes raised every time they turn around might be in luck. If Chris Weeks is successful in his campaign against incumbent Pete Schwartzkopf, that is.

I had the opportunity to see Mr. Weeks speak in Lewes on Wednesday, and was extremely impressed by his enthusiasm. He spoke confidently, and used simple, yet effective, examples to support his major platform points: quality of life, economy, and government. More specifically, individual liberties, the free market, and a limited government; that is, a government which does only those things that are strictly necessary. Weeks believes that free markets result in the best quality control and customer service, while individual liberties allow us each to use our intelligence to make the decisions that are best for us.

His views come as a breath of fresh air after years of big-government, high-taxes legislation under Schwartzkopf, who is known as "the Governor's waterboy" because his job is to introduce Governor Markell's agenda in the form of bills. He also forces bills to die in committee, rather than allow them to be debated on the floor, if Markell does not approve of them. Or at least, that's what he thinks his job is; in reality, he was sent to Dover to represent the citizens of his district. According to Weeks, Schwartzkopf is not doing this. "He works for the governor, and not the people of the 14th District."

Weeks says that public schools in the area are "administratively heavy," which hinders students from competing in the world marketplace. He calls zero-tolerance growth policies "unacceptable and un-American," and suports tourism-friendly policies to promote job growth and a vibrant local economy.

When asked about term limits, Weeks responded, "I think it's worth talking about." He plans to win votes from the 14th District's large left-leaning population simply by speaking from his heart, being open and honest, and assuring liberal voters that his desire is not to get in their way, but to limit government so that they can live their lives as they choose.

While Mr. Weeks' platform seems to be solid, and his ideas worth considering, I think most voters will be attracted to him for those aspects of a candidate that are less easy to define on paper. He is young, a family man, and speaks knowledgeably about the issues with energy and conviction. Agree or disagree with his positions, here is a man who can be trusted to keep his word, and not to play the sort of political games that have frustrated 14th District voters as Schwartzkopf became more and more of a political insider.

As of April 7, Weeks had not filed as a candidate, but has formed a candidate committee. Candidates for the November election have until the end of July to file, but should probably do so sooner.

Why are illegal aliens being counted in the Census?

2010-04-07T06:21:00.004-04:00

The sole purpose of the decennial U.S. Census is to count the American people, so that congressional representation can be determined. So why are illegal aliens in Georgetown and other Sussex County towns completing and returning census forms? They are not entitled to representation. Their very presence on American soil is a continuous, ongoing crime. Why are they being assured that their immigration status will remain confidential if they participate in the census?

I ask this question in response to an article in this week's Delaware Wave. Guadalupe Sotelo of Georgetown, who helps local immigrants fill out census forms at La Esperanza, describes their hesitation: "The majority of them have concerns about immigration officials coming to their house."

Why would legal residents be worried about immigration officials?

They wouldn't be. Obviously, illegal aliens are being helped to fill out census forms in Georgetown. If not for my dislike of the census, and my distrust of the federal government itself (which is based on history, not paranoia), I would suggest that the census data be used to round up each and every one of these criminals, who do a great disservice to their fellow Hispanics, who entered our nation legally and contribute to our society.

Let me be clear, I am not in any way criticizing our local Hispanic population. I enjoy their culture, food, customs, etc. I admire their work ethic. I don't even mind that many do not speak English well, because their children will.

However, as a hard-working U.S. citizen, it is my right to criticize criminals who sneak into my country, steal jobs from my fellow citizens, put innocent families at risk by driving without insurance (on roads paid for with my tax dollars), and lend credence to negative stereotypes about Hispanics as a group. My right, and the right of every other U.S. citizen or legal resident.

Bands/musicians needed for Laurel July 4th celebration

2010-04-06T20:12:00.003-04:00

After it was announced a few months ago that Laurel's annual Independence Day celebration would not be held this year, due to issues with cost, a number of local citizens pulled together to make it happen. A good local celebration needs good local music, and this one will be no exception.

Musicians/bands interested in performing at the Laurel 4th of July celebration should contact Christie Shirey at cshirey88@gmail.com.

38th District Republican Club to host Legislative Issues Workshop

2010-04-06T20:05:00.004-04:00

The 38th District Republican Club is sponsoring a Legislative Issues Workshop, to be held at the South Coastal Library (43 Kent Avenue) in Bethany Beach, this Sunday, April 11.

The event is free and open to all, though attendees are asked to pre-register because seating will be limited.

The speakers will be Rep. Gerald Hocker, Shaun Fink of the Caesar Rodney Institute, Doug Lileks and Sandi Minard of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, and Phil Drew of the 38th District Republican Club.

It's a good sign when organized party clubs, whether Democratic or Republican, invite speakers from nonpartisan organizations that promote limited government.

For more information, or to pre-register, contact Toni Rogers at (302) 841-7680 or Toni.Rogers@mchsi.com.

No Census Left Behind

2010-04-05T18:50:00.003-04:00

Many University of Delaware students discovered an unexpected piece of mail in their personal mailboxes this morning. Each received a U.S. Census form, which was to have been completed and returned by April 1.

But on April 1, thousands of Blue Hens were on spring break, like hundreds of thousands of other college students around the country. Most were probably counted on their parents' census forms while at home.

A couple of weeks ago, I happened to be in a development in one of the Sussex County beach towns, and noticed that census envelopes had been tucked into the doors of all 75 units. Of these 75 units, only two have full-time residents; the rest are used on summer weekends, or rented out on a week-to-week basis. How many unnecessary census packets were printed, assembled, and delivered on the taxpayers' dime? How many families will arrive at the beach house on Memorial Day weekend and find one? How many confused students will be counted twice; once at home, and once at college?

Many so-called progressives claim to be enthusiastic about environmentalism. They become positively exuberant when explaining the three R's: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. Or something like that. Do your "green" friends a favor by not allowing any duplicate census forms to go to waste. After all, your tax dollars were already wasted, so why not get something useful or fun out of it?

Census packets can be used in wood-burning stoves, or in bonfires. They are especially helpful in getting a fire started if you twist them up.
The paper is not of the best quality, but smokers can tear off a few rolling papers. Paper has other uses for the party-minded.
Did Little Timmy watch with interest as Daddy filled out the family's census form? He won't get to fill one out for another decade or two, but now he can practice! Break out the crayons and let him have at it. Drop it into the mail when completed.
Invent a unique hieroglyphic language, and use it to complete the form. Date it April 1. Mail it back with a note (in hieroglyphs) explaining that it is an April Fool's joke.
When was the last time you and the family enjoyed quality arts and crafts time? Make paper airplanes, hats, swans, and the like.
Put the form in a bottle, and cast it into the ocean. Softly sing the words to "Message in a Bottle" by the Police. Be happy in the knowledge that it might be found by some desperate castaway on a remote island. Everyone should be counted.
Write the Bill of Rights on the back of the envelope. Return to sender.
Save the form, and mail it back during the 2020 Census.
Roll it into a tube, and take it with you to the next pro-liberty rally. If you spot an elected official, use it to make elephant noises at him or her, or shout the patriotic slogan of your choice.
Throw it away, just to tick off your environmentalist friend. Remind them that forests died so the Census could be printed, and nothing you do can bring those trees back.

Want socialistic health care? Not from this free-market urologist

2010-04-03T11:49:00.005-04:00

"If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

So reads the notice on Dr. Jack Cassell's office door at his Mount Dora, Florida, practice. Cassell is a urologist in a conservative area, and has stocked his office with literature shedding light on the recent federal health-care takeover.

William Allen, a professor at the University of Florida, said Cassell is "pushing the limit" when it comes to ethics.

William Allen seems to be confused about the concept of free speech, which Cassell is exercising. After all, the health-care takeover affects doctors, not law professors. If anyone has a right to complain about interference from Washington in his field, it is Dr. Cassell. If anyone has a right to mind his own business, it is Prof. Allen.

Cassell is not refusing to see socialists, because that would be unethical. If supporters of Soviet-style healthcare don't mind putting themselves in the hands of a free-market physician, they are welcome to. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it," the doctor said.

This man is willing to lose patients and income by taking a stand for the principles that he believes in. Apparently, not all physicians are evil, greedy profiteers fattening their bank accounts at the expense of the suffering masses. We will almost certainly see more stories like this, as doctors (and patients) are negatively impacted by the recently-passed health-care law.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (4/1/10)

2010-04-02T11:09:00.003-04:00

1. Two men have been robbed at gunpoint in Wexford Village, after responding to Craigslist ads for used cars and being directed there to see the vehicles. The first was robbed by two black males wearing masks, one wielding a handgun, the other a shotgun. The second was robbed on March 30, but attempted to fight back. This time, two or three more men joined the two original robbers and held him down. In both cases, the men took cash and then ran away like the cowardly human trash they are.

I first heard about these crimes on 92.7 WGMD a couple of days ago. One caller said that a relative of hers had been murdered after responding to a Craigslist ad, and called for the free classifieds website to be banned. I think she was a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but the fact remains that users of Craiglist, or any other kind of classifieds, should exercise caution when meeting other users. Craigslist is a truly free marketplace; one can advertise or request anything, from used vinyl records to casual sex encounters. In the future, it might not be a bad idea for users who are meeting a stranger, to look at a car or purchase some other good, to arm themselves.

2. We are told on page 26 that Alma Roach, a registered Democrat, is running for the office of the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds. Like State Auditor and Clerk of the Peace, Recorder of Deeds is a fairly nonpartisan position. It has been held by John Brady since 2003.

3. "ELECT Doug Lambert to Seaford City Council. You know me to be straightforward, honest, and hard working. Let me be the same as your city councilman!" So reads an ad on page 30. Mr. Lambert notes that he has raised six children, served in the military, and driven millions of miles as an over-the-road truck driver. His major issue seems to be jobs; he mentions DuPont's downsizing. Mr. Lambert was present at a 9-12 Delaware Patriots meeting last night, and seems to be a good guy. He is running against Leanne Phillips-Lowe for a three-year term. A note at the bottom of the ad reminds Seaford residents that the election will be held on April 17.

4. A note on page 36, under the Police Journal heading, reports that Terrence Smith, a 25-year-old Dover man, was stopped last friday for speeding on Route 13 in Laurel. It turned out that he had 15 grams of crack cocaine and 35 grams of marijuana, which were probably worth about $2,000.00 and $275.00, respectively. The moral of this story? If you're transporting illegal drugs, don't drive 73 mph in a 55-mph zone, especially if your license has been suspended.

5. There are several interesting Letters to the Editor this week. One is by Judson Bennett, who points out that the "change" Obama promised is the negative change of socialism. "President Obama's history, voting record, and relationships were all there to see and he was not dishonest in what he promised." Bennett is correct, of course; the programs that Obama is instituting are textbook examples of steps toward socialism. There are many books on this subject, but one that I find to be valuable is the ninth edition of Today's Isms, by William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman. The book compares and contrasts communism, fascism, capitalism, and socialism.

Another letter, by Sussex Tech student Andrew Bell, claims that Tech students were not immediately evactuated after the school received a bomb threat recently, as was reported. "Actually, we weren't evacuated until 1:45 p.m., 45 minutes after the bomb threat." He criticizes the Sussex Tech administration for not taking immediate action to protect the students.

6. The most interesting of the letters is from Michael Tedesco of Magnolia, DE:

"My name is Michael Tedesco and I am a registered nurse. I have worked in the healthcare industry for all of my adult life. I am currently running a grassroots campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate in the State of Delaware. I am a write-in candidate but am working on getting the required number of signatures to be placed on the ballot. I am the proverbial David battling the Goliath that is the U.S. political system. To reach me, email miket66usa@netscape.net."

Mr. Tedesco's enthusiasm is admirable, and I always encourage citizens interested in the political process to run as third-party candidates, independents, or even write-in candidates. Don't allow the two major parties to control the discussion during election season. However, in this case, I think Mr. Tedesco should research the third-party candidates already running. There are two Constitution Party candidates for the House, Doug Campbell and Earl Lofland, as well as one Libertarian candidate, Brent Wangen. There is also a host of major-party candidates for the House. Surely, this fine man can lend his energy, ideas, and support to one of these men who have already been campaigning for months.

Laurel referendum defeated, 1,444-1,241

2010-03-31T20:36:00.002-04:00

An unofficial count was released a half hour after the polls closed at Laurel High School, where about 1,444 residents voted against the sizable tax increases that the proposed project would have required. By a mere 200 votes, they defeated proponents of the project.

I will write a detailed blog post about the issue (probably more than one), but here are a few thoughts.

1. The district worked against itself in its shameless promotion of the referendum. Taxpayer-funded yard signs read "Vote Yes!", at least one of the school marquees read "Vote Yes" or something similar in the weeks leading up to the vote, and newspaper ads encouraged 18-year-old students to "vote yes," despite the fact that few, if any, of these students would be affected by an increase in property taxes. At the high school, an inflatable "Laurel Bulldog" the size of a small house rested out front, undoubtedly to play on a sense of pride in the local community. I believe it is unethical for a taxpayer-funded entity, like a public school, to use tax dollars to promote a single outcome. Look at it this way: How would the good citizens of Delaware feel if a gigantic banner was hung in front of Legislative Hall during election season, reading "Vote Democratic!"?

2. In Texas Hold 'Em terminology, the district "went all in." Voters were faced with two options: Demolish buildings (including one that is not all that old, the high school), build brand new schools, and pay out of the nose for it. Or, do nothing. Had the district thoroughly investigated the possibility of renovation (of the high school, at least), and been straightforward with the public about this possibility rather than downplaying it, voters might have been more receptive. I think it is very likely that the referendum would have passed if it had been held in February, before additional information about the possibility of renovation came out.

3. If any voters were still undecided when they arrived at the high school, its condition (good, from what I was able to see), might have swayed them. It cannot be compared to the condition of Delmar High School in the late 90s, when the residents of that district approved a referendum for demolition and new construction (although that referendum included renovation of a portion of the old school). If the vote had been held in the middle school, a few voters might have changed their minds upon seeing it.

4. The Bill Hitch situation did not help the district.

Christine O'Donnell to speak in Millsboro on April 1

2010-03-29T11:48:00.002-04:00

The Sussex Chapter of the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, which is a nonpartisan grass-roots group promoting political awareness, will begin meeting at the Millsboro Fire Hall this Thursday, April 1. Meetings were previously held in Milton. I think the new location, which is closer to the center of the county, will attract residents of Western Sussex who were reluctant to make the drive to Milton.

This Thursday, Christine O'Donnell, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, will be speaking. She is challenging fellow Republican Mike Castle, in what many see as a chance to dethrone Delaware's best-known RINO. She has also been the subject of unfavorable news coverage lately; a recent News Journal article drew attention to a sizable campaign debt, among other problems.

While I don't know if she will address these accusations or not, it will be interesting to hear her speak. My favorite thing about the 9-12 Delaware Patriot meetings is that all candidates for office are welcomed to speak, regardless of their political affiliation. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and Independents are all given a chance to present their views to large group of voters, and answer questions. This policy is both fair and helpful; it exposes voters to viewpoints they might not have heard otherwise, and results in a more thorough education about the differences between the various parties.

O'Donnell will also be speaking at the Kent and New Castle meetings. For more information, visit the 9-12 site.

What is a "reasonable" amount of medical marijuana?

2010-03-29T10:49:00.003-04:00

Recently, the California Supreme Court struck down a law dating back to 2003, which imposed an 8-ounce limit for medical marijuana patients. Numerous cases, thought to be open-and-shut (like that of a couple caught with two pounds of pot), have been tossed out, to the displeasure of law enforcement officials. The court has ruled that patients are entitled to a "reasonable" quantity of marijuana, but left the term undefined.

"Gray is not a good color for the law," Gerald Benito told the Associated Press. He is the Shasta County District Attorney. "I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."

He's right, of course. There should be a maximum amount of marijuana that a user is allowed to possess, and that amount should be equal to the amount required for a lethal overdose.

Fair enough?

It is impossible to overdose while using marijuana. To do so would be a rare achievement, comparable to overdosing on Newport cigarettes. The comparison is a bit unfair, only because Newports are considerably more toxic than weed.

Every amount of marijuana, for medical purposes, is "reasonable." Why should law enforcement officers be permitted to decide how much a chronically ill patient is entitled to? It's the patient's life. It's the patient's body. Remember, the government does not own our bodies. We are free to decide what we do with them, and and we put into them, so long as we do not harm anyone else. California seems to be figuring that out.

Why is Palin stumping for McCain?

2010-03-27T11:39:00.004-04:00

Sarah Palin portrays herself as a maverick, an unconventional antiestablishment force who has gone "rogue" against both Big Government and the GOP leadership. So why is she campaigning for semi-conservative Sen. John McCain, who faces what might be the biggest challenge of his career from fellow Republican J.D. Hayworth? After all, McCain represents a version of conservatism that is headed for extinction; true libertarians and conservatives are unwilling to tolerate phony neo-cons any longer. If anything, it is Hayworth who is the antiestablishment candidate, not McCain.

But that didn't stop Palin for stumping for her former running mate at a rally in Tucson yesterday, telling the crowd that McCain's predictions of big government under Obama are coming true. And they are. Even so, would the nation be in the present predicament if the GOP hadn't pushed a wishy-washy candidate who was unable to mobilize the conservative base? Many conservatives stayed home on Election Day 2008 rather than vote for another Bush-like neo-con.

Note: The term neo-con, or neo-conservative, does not mean right-wing or "the extreme of conservatism." Many in the media use the term incorrectly. A neo-conservative is a faux conservative, if anything, someone who rejects the traditional "limited government" philosophy of conservatism, and embraces a hypocritical blend of progressivism and conservatism, in which big government, legislative morality, and imperialism are just fine.

By campaigning for the insider McCain, instead of the challenger Hayworth, Palin seems to be proving that her mission is to revitalize the Republican Party and trick another generation of voters into supporting its flawed platform. She has repeatedly been marketed as a leader of the tea party movement, which is nonpartisan, and is most definitely not interested in bringing about another do-nothing Republican administration. It has no central authority, no leader, and if it did, it would not be Sarah Palin.

Some advice for Palin: Campaigning for a candidate who was rejected by the American people in 2008 is no way to improve your own reputation. McCain's long record in the Senate is not going to be forgotten by Arizona voters, simply because the former governor of Alaska swoops in and stumps for him.

Problems with proposed statewide prescription database

2010-03-26T13:37:00.004-04:00

Governor Jack Markell is pushing a new statewide prescription database, which police could access through a secure website. Pharmacies would submit prescription information (e.g., "John Doe was prescribed Anti-depressant X today") to the state, and the information would then be placed online.

"We are using a new technology to battle an old problem--addiction to drugs," said Markell.

But is prescription drug abuse a "problem" of the sort that requires this degree of government involvement? Individuals who abuse painkillers like oxycodone act irresponsibly, to be sure, and are harming themselves in the long run. However, they are not directly harming anyone else, are they? If an individual wishes to waste his or her money on a substance, and put it into his or her body, and does not harm anyone else by doing so, is there really a "problem?"

This is not to say that oxycodone addiction should be scoffed at. Unlike marijuana, oxycodone is far from harmless; a 40 mg dose of oxycodone, which might cost about $30-40 on the street, is comparable to a dose of heroin. An overdose can result in a variety of unpleasant symptoms, including death. An individual's best choice is to abstain; nonetheless, it is still a personal choice.

Aside from the outdated "drug war" sound of the proposed database, there is the issue of privacy. Should information about a law-abiding citizen's prescription for painkillers, anti-depressants, sleep aids, diet pills, or steroids be collected and added to a government database? Should police have access to information about Jane Smith's diet medication? The potential for abuse by government officials and law enforcement personnel is high, let alone if an unauthorized individual were to hack into the database, or steal the appropriate hard drive (which the state cannot guarantee is impossible, or even all that difficult).

And it's not free, though not terribly expensive. Such a database, once it had been set up with federal assistance, would cost the state about $160,000 per year (which is like half a million in government-talk).

The questions we should be asking are:

Are all of our controlled substance laws and regulations justified? Should some substances that currently require prescriptions be made available over the counter?
Are prescription drug abusers (like those snorting oxycodone at college parties) doing enough harm to others to justify this kind of measure?
Considering that the State of Delaware is in bad shape financially, shouldn't lawmakers be cutting programs and reducing unnecessary government involvement, rather than looking for ways to expand their bureaucratic network?
If such a database is created, will the state guarantee that the system will never be abused? Assuming, of course, that its creation does not constitute abuse in the first place.
Would information stay in the proposed database permanently?

A careful examination of these questions and their answers leads to the conclusion that not only is it not the best time to propose such a database, there will never be an appropriate time for it. The matter should be dropped. If not, it should be voted down once it has been filed as legislation.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (3/25/10)

2010-03-26T09:21:00.002-04:00

1. In last week's edition, a note appeared on the Letters page: "We will not publish any letters concerning the referendum in the March 25 edition for this reason: If some misinformation is printed in that edition, we would not have another edition before the March 31 referendum to set the record straight." I specifically predicted on this blog that a pro-referendum editorial or guest column would appear in this week's edition, giving referendum supporters the final word.

Not one, but two pro-referendum columns appear in this week's edition; one by regular writer Virginia "Mike" Barton on page 13, and another by Superintendent John McCoy on page 54. No columns or letters presenting opposing views were printed.

2. As far as the details of the columns mentioned above, Barton tells us, "As Laurel citizens we absolutely must support the referendum on March 31. We have no other choice." I have to say, a lot of people think there is another choice, and whether they get their way or not, they're certainly going to try to.

McCoy's guest column (not the first he was written in favor of the referendum) seems to be a response to a letter written by Dr. Joann Czernik. My guess is that her letter, and the points it raised, worried proponents of the referendum. McCoy recounts a recent visit to Delmar Middle & Senior High School, which apparently proved to him that middle schools and high schools can be combined without causing friction. For the Laurel superintendent to have reached this conclusion, he must not have talked with very many Delmar students or teachers.

3. On the same page as McCoy's column, there appears a guest editorial by Barb Hudson, who is an educator as well as a candidate for office. Appropriately enough, her topic is education-related, but also affects every taxpayer. "The current education budget proposed by Secretary of Education Dr. Lillian M. Lowrey would require local districts to pick up 25% of the cost of student transportation," and "this cost will be passed on, without referendum, to taxpayers in local school districts." Reimbursement for maintenance costs for bus contractors (who purchase their own buses) will also be reduced.

Hudson's editorial could have been printed as a news story, for its number of facts and statistics, which indicate that independent bus contractors could be pushed out of business if the proposed changes are not eliminated from the budget. She encourages citizens to contact their representatives about this matter; Senator Venables, and either Rep. Short or Rep. Lee, depending on where one lives.

4. Speaking of education and candidates, I am surprised that no articles have been printed about the upcoming school board elections. Candidates have filed to run for both the Laurel and Delmar school boards. In Laurel, incumbent (and board president) Jerry White filed, as well as David Nichols. There is over a month left before the election, in which anyone who is at least 18 years of age can vote.

5. On page 14, there is a full-page advertisement urging readers to vote in favor of the referendum on March 31. Specifically, the ad encourages 18-year-old students to vote. Considering that these students probably don't pay any taxes, and might not be affected by increased property tax rates for several years, this is a rather devious strategy, as they will almost certainly vote "yes."

6. A front-page story reports that Delmar science teacher Bill Mills will attend the Honeywell Space Academy for Educators this summer. Congratulations, Mr. Mills! The article describes the program, then goes on to give a brief bio, listing Mills' accomplishments in the military. He currently holds the rank of Major, and serves as the Chief of Operations Plans with the 512th Airlift Wing. Given his impressive record of service, and continuing activity in his church and community, I think Mr. Mills is an ideal candidate for the Star's ongoing series of local profiles.

UK Internet cafe owners to spy on users

2010-03-25T09:53:00.003-04:00

One only has to follow news from the UK to catch a glimpse of the future of the United States, or at least a possible future, in which citizens are little more than subjects of an intrusive authoritarian government.

The latest news from the police state across the pond is that Internet cafe owners are being trained to monitor users who visit "extremist websites," like those dedicated to conspiracy theories, or political ideologies that are not in the mainstream. On its surface, the effort is portrayed as a counterterrorism tool. In reality, it is a dangerous step towards online censorship; the British government wishes to "protect" citizens from information that it deems inappropriate.

Who is to decide what is inappropriate? Surely, those in power would deem any information questioning their authority to be inappropriate. Imagine Nixon with the legal auhority to suppress the viewpoints of his choice!

"The initiative is part of the Prevent strand of the government's counterterrorism strategy, which aims to stop radicalisation by winning the "battle of ideas," reports The Register.

The best way to win a "battle of ideas" is to ensure that all citizens are free to access the information of their choice, and thus educate themselves. Government supervision is not necessary to this process, and is indeed a hindrance. For example, it might sound reasonable for the government (especially in Europe) to ban the reading of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, but is it not better for the book to be read and understood, so that we may learn from history, and fight similar movements in the future? The same rule applies to so-called "hate speech" websites, whether they are affiliated with radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan, or neo-Nazi groups. It is better to view this kind of material, and be informed about its reality, than it is to suppress it in the interest of "protecting" citizens. (Including students; the Delaware public school system blocks many "hate speech" websites, which is an obstacle to research. There are no off-limit subjects in true education.)

Of course, speaking of Nazis, the UK seems to be going the way of Germany in the 1930s, complete with a network of citizen "terrorist spotters." They are trained by government-sponsored commercials to watch for such suspicious activities as using cash, closing curtains, not talking to neighbors, enjoying privacy, etc. Citizens can then call a "confidential anti-terrorist hotline" to report their neighbors' suspicious activities. The rights to free speech and privacy? Ha! Even basic freedoms that we take for granted, such as the right to debate the causes of climate change, or criticize government officials, are considered extreme. Depending on the kind of filtering that a public Internet provider uses, Slavens Says might be blocked at some locations in Britain!

We do not live in the UK, so this unfortunate state of things does not necessarily affect us. However, we should learn from it. Left unchecked, government naturally moves in an authoritarian direction; it is our responsibility, as free citizens, to provide the check. There are movements in the U.S. to censor portions of the Internet, to enforce a "fairness doctrine" with "electronic sidewalks" that would force users to view alternate viewpoints. There are movements to portray those who question the government's rapidly expanding authority as extremists, dangerous conspiracy theorists, who pose a threat to society. These movements are directly opposed to liberty and freedom, and must be resisted at any cost, if we are to remain free.

Will Schwartzkopf stop raising taxes? "Only when pigs fly," new website says

2010-03-24T06:34:00.003-04:00

Will Representative Pete Schwartzkopf ever stop raising taxes? "Only when pigs fly," says a new website targeting the Rehoboth Democrat's voting record.

OnlyWhenPigsFly.org, which seems to have been set up within the past week, includes contact information for the state representative, who is also the House Majority Leader, as well as a helpful list of tax increases that he has voted for "in 2009 alone." I'm not sure how other lawmakers would fare if compared to this list (I suspect many Republicans have voted for just as many tax increases), but it is an impressive one nonetheless.

Residents of the 14th District can "call (302) 227-6252 and tell Pete Schwartzkopf: 'Stop raising my taxes!'"

Speaking of Schwartzkopf, an interesting story came out about him last week. HCR 28 was sponsored by more than a dozen lawmakers, including Biff Lee, to voice concern about the proposed federal health-care takeover. (Proposed then; it is now law). It would have urged Congress to reconsider health-care legislation, pointing to the fact that a majority of Americans were opposed to the "reform," and urged for citizens to be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines, with the newly passed law does not address. A majority of states have passed similar resolutions, and/or threatened to file lawsuits against the federal government for its unconstitutional intrusion into the private sector.

It has been said that Schwartzkopf passed around a trash can for representatives to throw away their copies of the resolution; another account stated that he simply suggested it be thrown away, jokingly.

But should an elected official joke around about literally trashing the opinion of citizens? Is any state representative or senator so far above voters that he can blow off their concerns?

Representative Schwartzkopf is not my representative and does not specifically answer to me, but in a way, he does; tax increases affect every Delawarean. He also acted disrespectfully and immaturely in laughing off a House Concurrent Resolution, which was cosponsored by my representative.

Big Brother wants to be your "friend" on Facebook

2010-03-22T10:54:00.003-04:00

"Think you know who's behind that 'friend' request? Your new 'friend' just might be the FBI."

So reports the Associated Press. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation resulted in the release of an internal Justice Department document, which indicates that federal agents are creating false profiles on Facebook and using them to track suspects, suspects' friends, and tea party activists.

Just kidding, tea partiers. That part isn't mentioned in the story (though that doesn't mean it isn't true).

Some of the purposes mentioned in the article:

To exchange messages with suspects.
To identify a suspect's friends and relatives.
To browse private information, like photos, videos, and wall posts.
To check alibis by comparing them with tweets.
To view photos of "suspicious" spending sprees. ("You were broke last week. How did you pay for that new car?")

The Justice Department claims that these covert online operations are legal, but they're on shaky ground. And they know it, which is probably why it took a lawsuit to obtain the information.

Some might remember the case of Lori Drew, a Missouri woman who created a fake MySpace profile, posed as a teenage boy, and eventually harrassed a local girl into hanging herself. She was charged with computer fraud, the argument being that MySpace's Terms of Service (TOS) prohibited the creation of fake accounts.

Wait a second. Facebook's TOS are even stricter than those of MySpace, requiring users not to "provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."

So...is the Justice Department committing computer fraud? Or is it above the law?

Either way, let this be a wake-up call to users. Big Brother is online, with fake photos and a fake name. He might claim to live in your town. He might be a "she."

That unfamiliar guy whose friend request you accept, because you have 40 mutual friends and surely you must have met him sometime, somewhere--might be a highly paid creep sitting in an office in Washington, monitoring your posts. Or the photos of you playing beer pong. Or your blogs. Or your political party of choice. Or your criticism of the President. Or...the possibilities are endless, and very disturbing.

Facebook has strict privacy settings which can be used to protect your information and activity, although they are not the default settings. Check your settings. Be sure that strangers cannot view private information, and be a bit more discriminating in accepting those random friend requests. Unless, that is, the idea of federal Peeping Toms perusing your information is appealing, in which case you should probably build a time machine and travel back to the Soviet Union.

More trouble for Christine O'Donnell

2010-03-20T10:36:00.003-04:00

The News Journal dealt another blow to Christine O'Donnell's campaign today, with a front-page story by Ginger Gibson affirming a number of rumors (like, does O'Donnell really use campaign funds to pay for rent?), and quite possibly spelling the end of the campaign.

O'Donnell is running against fellow Republican Mike Castle for U.S. Senate, and is considered by many Republicans, especially those in Sussex County, to be the true conservative choice, when compared to Castle and his liberal voting record.

"But while she was courting voters, she amassed thousands of dollars in campaign debt, was confronted by the IRS about unpaid income taxes and sold her Wilmington home to a campaign staffer to avoid a sheriff's sale ordered to settle mortgage claims, a News Journal investigation shows."

Why did the state's largest daily newspaper feel compelled to investigate O'Donnell, only days after she formally announced her candidacy to a crowd of supporters at the University of Delaware? The direct cause has to be the GOP, or the Castle campaign, if not both. No Democrat would blow the whistle; Christine is the best player on Chris Coons' team!

The facts (as reported in the article):

O'Donnell owes $11,744.59 to the IRS from 2005; about a thousand more than her campaign has been able to raise.
She was cited eight times for failure to report campaign contributions between 2007 and 2008.
She has a campaign debt of $23,776, and is currently using contributions to pay off that debt.
She pays half of her rent with campaign contributions.

Reporting campaign contributions is a basic part of running for office. Yes, the laws and regulations can be confusing, especially to the political novice, but that is no excuse for not complying. Any candidate should have a thorough understanding of what a candidate committee is, and how to file campaign finance reports, before he or she ever shakes a voter's hand. Or, at the least, have a trustworthy, knowledgeable campaign manager.

As for the paying of rent with campaign contributions, O'Donnell claims that she pays half, because the three-bedroom, two-bathroom town home is her "technical headquarters."

Does anyone else raise an eyebrow when someone says that a thing is "technically" right or legal?

The practice is legal, although dangerously close to a gray area, if not in it. Still, were O'Donnell supporters aware when they wrote checks to her campaign that they were paying for rent? If so, would they have contributed in the first place? How do they feel now that they know? Some might not care. Others, having found out months after the fact, might feel swindled.

Some of this information was first made public by Judson Bennett, who wrote an open letter that ended up being read and discussed on 92.7 WGMD, as well as on several local blogs. He also made O'Donnell's emailed response public, in which she did little to address Bennett's accusations.

In today's article, O'Donnel continues to play the blame game. "'This kind of behavior from supporters of a desperate career politician is to be expected because he cannot defend his big spending, liberal voting record." She goes on to blame some of her financial woes on technical errors and misunderstandings.

It could be true, but that doesn't mean voters will buy it.

There is an active, enthusiastic conservative (and libertarian) movement in Delaware that would love to see Castle fall in the Republican primary, even if it meant losing to Coons in the general election. Christine O'Donnell has been this movement's only hope, but it might be time for supporters to reconsider. Surely, a conservative Republican with a clean record and untarnished reputation can be found to challenge Castle. Surely, there is a candidate out there whose recent past does not provide opponents with a stockpile of political ammunition.

Can O'Donnell make a comeback? Perhaps. Many supporters will accept her excuses, while others might feel as if there is no other choice. But it is more likely that this newest batch of trouble for Christine means the end of her campaign--whether she sees it or not.

There are times when one must simply push a candidate over and bury them, for they have failed to notice that they are dead.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (3/18/10)

2010-03-19T13:08:00.003-04:00

1. I have already written a post addressing the inaccuracies in Dr. Anthony Policastro's column, "Legalizing marijuana will create a new class of addicts, problems."

2. A short piece on page 36, "'10 Census information session," also contains an inaccuracy. "'By taking 10 minutes to answer 10 questions, people have the power to influence their future. It's a way to make certain that your community receives its fair share for political representation, more services and improved infrastructure--hospitals, schools, emergency services,' stated [Cindy] Mitchell."

Actually, the Constitution authorizes a decennial census for the sole purpose of counting the American people, which determines congressional representation, electoral votes, and district boundaries. Information about one's finances and ethnicity is not needed to do this, and only encourages abuse (like when the Roosevelt administration used census data to find and round up Japanese Americans during World War II).

3. This week's Letters to the Editor are all about the March 31 referendum, featuring three in its favor, and three opposed. The letters in favor were written by two teachers and a board member; one could say that each has a horse in this race. It's also worth mentioning that these three were printed first, while the letters in opposition were continued onto another page. Coincidence?

An insightful letter from Dr. Joann Czernik, in opposition to the referendum, makes seven excellent points, which I will briefly summarize.

Why won't the State of Delaware contribute to additions or renovations?
By offering funding on a one-time-only basis, the state "is holding Laurel's children hostage in substandard conditions if the community cannot come up with the money."
Sussex Tech "operates like a private school with public funds," and should be subject to countywide referendums (or referenda), rather than be allowed to operate at a superior level at taxpayers' expense.
The people of the Laurel School District should not have to beg for funds, and be threatened with "an all or none situation."
Dunbar Elementary is central to the community of West Laurel; without its presence there would be a void in that neighborhood.
Joining the middle school and high school would be a mistake. "Sixth graders should not be placed together with high school students." Separate schools on the same campus would be educationally sound and more economical.
Why does the Laurel School District need a district office the size of the middle school?

Czernik goes on to note that "the state is holding Laurel's children under the sword of Damocles...in other words the message is: 'If you don't put yourselves into debt during these struggling economic times, we're not going to give you another chance to improve your schools.'"

4. There is a note to readers on page 50, informing us that the Star "will not publish any letters concerning the referendum in the March 25 edition for this reason: If some misinformation is printed in that edition, we would not have another edition before the March 31 referendum to set the record straight." Fair enough, but I wish to publicly go on record and state that I will be shocked if the paper does not print a "Vote Yes" editorial or guest column in next week's edition.

Anti-pot column in Laurel Star is inaccurate

2010-03-19T11:41:00.003-04:00

Dr. Anthony Policastro's column in this week's Laurel Star, "Legalizing marijuana will create a new class of addicts, problems," contains several inaccuracies which I feel obligated to address.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate drug use, and do not use drugs myself. However, I believe it is important to be honest about the nature of marijuana and other controlled substances. There are legitimate reasons not to use marijuana (which is why I have chosen not to), and there is no need to add to these reasons with myths or outright falsehoods. Education, not propaganda, is the best way to persuade young people not to use mind-altering substances.

The Historical Inaccuracy
The writer compares the regulation of controlled substances to Prohibition, which banned the sale, manufacture, or transportation of alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930s. (Oddly enough, it did not ban consumption). "Prohibition was a failure because regulation of alcohol was difficult," says Policastro.

This is not quite true, historically speaking. Prohibition was a failure because it was an attempt by the government to make a personal decision (to drink or not to drink) for individuals; to force rational, thinking adults to be sober whether they wanted to or not. It is not government's role to make this decision. Prohibition was a failure because it was a gross overextension of authority, and the American people refused to go along with it.

The Scientific Inaccuracy
"Marijuana is an addictive drug. Making it legal for reasons other than medicinal purposes will result in more people becoming addicted to it." This statement is false, scientifically speaking. Marijuana is not habit-forming; users, even daily users, cannot develop a physical dependency. If a user believes himself to be addicted, it is literally all in his head. Of course, one can become mentally addicted to any activity if it is pleasurable and repeated often enough; like watching television, for example. But it is nonetheless misleading to describe marijuana as addictive, like nicotine or cocaine, when it is not. This is a fact, not an opinion.

The writer goes on to accurately describe several side effects of marijuana use (which are among the legitimate reasons for individuals to choose not to use it), although I question whether or not "one joint can do as much damage to the lungs as a pack of cigarettes." A joint that is laced with DDT, maybe.

I comment on these inaccuracies, not because I wish to encourage teens and young adults to use marijuana or illegal drugs, but because I want them to be educated about the realities of marijuana. Unfortunately, most Baby Boomers believe outrageous myths about the plant, which were spread via government propaganda in the 70s. Even more unfortunately, federal and state laws are based upon these myths.

Random roadside breath tests? Not in a free country

2010-03-16T11:39:00.003-04:00

You're driving down the road after a long, hard day at work, looking forward to a home-cooked meal, a hot shower, and bed...when a police officer pulls you over.

"Is there a problem, Officer?"
"We'll see if there is. I'm going to have to Breathalyze you."
"Um...okay...I'm just on my way home from work."
"If you say so. Blow on this tube, please...uh-huh. Point oh five. Have you been drinking?"
"I had a beer after work. Just one."
"I'm going to have to suspend your license."
"What?"
"You heard me. Under the Road Safety Act I have the authority to suspend your license for three days. Your Blood Alcohol Count is in the 'warning' range."
"But I only drank one beer! I'm not driving drunk! I'm not even driving under the influence!"
"Tell it to the judge. Oh, and you're under arrest for raising your voice to an officer of the law."

This situation could happen in Canada, where the government is planning to institute random roadside breath tests. Police officers will have the authority to pull over vehicles on a whim, without any suspicion or probable cause, and force drivers to blow. In Ontario, officers can already hand out three-day suspensions if the driver's blood alcohol content (or count, or concentration) is between .05 and .08, which is considered a warning. The suspension stays on the driver's record, however.

A number of other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and much of Europe, already allow random sobriety testing. In Canada, this would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a fact that the Canadian government doesn't seem to be particularly worried about.

One of the concerns of opponents, aside from the proposed practice's nanny-state nature, is the potential for abuse and discrimination. A prejudiced officer could pull over drivers of a certain ethnicity, or target the poor by pulling over older vehicles. Imagine if American cops had this power, particularly in urban areas!

Unfortunately, Canadians have little say in the matter. Their nation is already under the boot of socialism. But don't worry, we're catching up. There is no reason to assume that big-government lobbyists would not push for similar legislation in the U.S. if they felt they could get it passed.

There is no reason to assume that, in ten years, U.S. drivers will have any rights at all. After all, the government owns the road (and might own the cars, by then). Drivers will be pulled over for no reason at all; officers will search for an offense. If they don't find one, the driver pulls away, unable to do anything about the harrassment. Or, drivers could be pulled over for being of a certain race. "Black driver! Let's search his car; he's got to have some pot." Or, for being poor. Or, for practicing a certain religion. "Jesus fish! Let's pull this guy over just to screw with him." Or, for supporting a certain candidate or political party. "Bush & Cheney? Where do you think you're going?"

Sounds far-fetched, right? Let's hope so. Let's hope we never reach that point. But if we don't, it won't be a result of resting on our laurels and hoping that the government will do the right thing; it will be because we have aggressively defended our liberties, and halted the march of socialism in its tracks.

Online anonymity undermines political discussion in Delaware

2010-03-15T08:50:00.005-04:00

When I first began using the Internet, it was customary for users to shield their identities with screennames and pseudonyms. Names like mastergolfer73, xoPeachesxo, and Laurel_Guy were the norm, particularly on AOL and its instant messaging service, AIM. Remember "asl?" Age, sex, and location? That was generally about as much information as anyone released, whether one was participating in a chatroom or contributing to a discussion forum.

After a few years, the use of first names became common, as sites like MySpace replaced the once-popular AIM. Numbered screennames became unnecessary; "Jim" could sign up for a MySpace account along with 20,000 other Jim's. Eventually older users, as well as the millenial generation, grew used to simply using full names. We see this on Facebook, and to a lesser extent, Twitter.

We also see this when it comes to blogs. WordPress and Blogger users register with their email addresses, but generally use their full names for bylines, as well as when posting comments on other blogs. This is a good thing. A piece of writing authored by someone who uses their name, someone who is willing to own up to what they have written, is more credible than a rant written by "politicsdude84." It is more likely to be factual, and less likely to be libelous or inflammatory. A piece authored by an anonymous user might contain the wisdom of the ages, but by its nature, it is less likely to be taken serious by mature readers.

This is not to say that anonymous writing is always inappropriate. Benjamin Franklin frequently used aliases to publish letters in his own newspaper, relying on fictitious individuals to make points that he, for professional reasons, could not. An alias or pseudonym can be useful when criticizing a totalitarian regime, or speaking opinions that would endanger one's friends, family, or self.

However, there is also a class of amateur commentators, wannabe pundits, who hide behind screennames and pseudonyms, thinking themselves both crafty and bold as they blast a particular political party, a particular religion, a particular news network, a particular individual, etc., sometimes asserting blatant falsehoods as matters of opinion, or worse, as facts. They write blog posts in favor of communism, socialism, and other anti-American ideologies, smug in the knowledge that their identity is secret, making outrageous statements and snide remarks that they would never dare to speak to a person's face. To put it simply, their behavior is irresponsible and immature; devoid of online etiquette (netiquette? webiquette?).

I have remarked before that much of this behavior can be traced to left-leaning bloggers and users. I do not fully understand why. Perhaps I should say far left; I'm not talking about writers like Frank Calio, a moderate Democrat who owns up to his opinions, and is fair in debating those who question or criticize them. There are other left-leaning voices in Delaware who take responsibility for their beliefs. One who comes to mind is Douglas Marshall-Steele, who is one of the most forceful and persistent voices for the state's gay community; whether one agrees with his viewpoint or not, it is impossible not to admire his dedication. But for every one of these honest liberals there are ten conservatives who write blogs and/or contribute to them, taking responsibility for every opinion, accepting personal criticisms from opponents who cower behind the convenient mask of online anonymity. The best example is the Delaware Politics blog; its several contributing writers (Tim Pancoast, Shaun Fink, David Anderson, Elbert Collins, Frank Knotts, and others) are open and honest in owning up to their beliefs. For that, though I sometimes disagree with their views (libertarianism and conservatism are not the same), and sometimes say so, I nonetheless respect them.

I cannot say the same for most left-leaning blogs in Delaware, particularly a prominent one. Again, I do not understand why. It seems to me that whether one is conservative, libertarian, or liberal, anyone should be willing to own up to his or her beliefs. If you believe in something strongly, why not say so? Why not attach your name to that cause? Why not attach your reputation? If you are a person worthy of respect, some of that respect will transfer to the cause.

Let's assume that more of the left-leaning bloggers (by which I do not mean patriotic Democrats; I mean the ones advocating socialism, bashing anyone who is not an atheist, etc.) are college students. They might be poli-sci majors at U.D. or Del State. They're not willing to attach their reputations to their cause, because they don't yet have a reputation; if "rainbowchild" admits that he or she is, in fact, a child who has never held a full-time job and who has practically no life experience, then they will most likely be ignored, laughed at, or both. That lack of credibility would also affect the cause negatively. Most adults who work hard to support their families are not going to waste their time reading what a "liberal" teenager has to say about taxes, freedoms, and the role of government.

Before I get thought or called a hypocrite by someone who knows me personally, I'll admit that I'm fairly young (and I'd like to stay young, wouldn't you?). I cannot claim decades of education. However, my opinions have always stood on their own merit. I was criticized for some of these opinions when I contributed columns to the News Journal between 2007 and 2009, but was never criticized for being "too young" to weigh in on the important issues of the day. I don't feel that one has to reach retirement age to be welcomed into the political discussion. I also don't wish to alienate young writers and bloggers; I am always impressed when I encounter a teenager who is taking part in the political discussion, or volunteering for a campaign, or working at a polling place on Election Day.

Another reason that left-leaning bloggers might be unwilling to use their names is that they are, quite simply, afraid. Some might say that they are justified in being afraid of "Bible-thumping gun-toting right-wing tea party nuts," but that's a bit silly, and is based on a grossly exaggerated stereotype. It is one thing to criticize Republican policies (as I do, frequently), but it is quite another to criticize America herself, to mock the "land of the free," to speak in favor of ideologies that our nation has waged wars against in the past. Communism and National Socialism come to mind. There is a line between the patriotic dissenter and the domestic enemy, and it is not a fine one; it is very clearly defined, and one must go to great lengths to cross it. In my opinion, some (not all) of the left-leaning bloggers in Delaware, who spout poisonous propaganda on their own blogs, and inject carefully-crafted subversive arguments into the discussions on centrist and right-leaning blogs, are flirting with this line. If I were a Marxist, I would probably be afraid to own up, too, just as I would not advertise myself as a libertarian if I lived in China or Iran.

Whatever the reason, I hope that more honest voices for the left will emerge, if only to return the debate to just that; a debate. Debating should not include name-calling, personal attacks, or outright lies. It should consist of intelligent discussion and respect, if not acceptance, for the other side's viewpoint. It should consist of agreeing on principles (America is good, liberty is good, the Constitution is good) even as we disagree on policies.

The political discussion in Delaware, and across the nation, will take on a more civil tone if more individuals own up to their opinions, stand up for their beliefs, and refuse to give attention to those who are unwilling to take this reasonable step.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (3/11/10)

2010-03-12T17:38:00.003-05:00

1. I saw "Alice in Wonderland" in 3-D before I read the article, but this week's front-page story is about Peter Goebel, a coppersmith from Bridgeville. He made teapots, coffee pots, pans, and a couple of copper lanterns for the movie, though the article does not indicate which scenes they appear in. This is fascinating! The movie was magnificent; a must-see for families and imaginative adults, and it is pleasing to think that a local man contributed to it, even in a small way. When I re-watch the film (not in a theater) I'll have to keep an eye out for these locally-crafted copper pieces.

2. "Traffic deaths on the rise statewide" gloomily reminds drivers to "buckle up every trip, every time," and "observe the posted speed limits...particularly when going around curves." Drivers are also advised not to drink and drive, and to "use a designated driver, cab, or bus service to get you home safely." Unless, of course, you're an adult aged 18-20 who has been drinking, in which case you will likely be harrassed during a traffic stop even if the driver blows a .03. (page 9)

3. Two pieces on the same page, "Drug arrests in Seaford" and "Marijuana found in traffic stop," recount recent local victories in the ongoing drug war. Victories for the government, that is; local police officers managed to confiscate 85.5 grams of crack and 2.4 grams of marijuana in Seaford (aren't drugs usually measured in ounces?), and 11.5 pounds of marijuana during a traffic stop in Laurel.

I do not believe in the drug war. Not only is it ineffective (drug use is on the rise, particularly among members of the younger generation), it seems to unfairly target minorities (black youths are arrested and charged with felonies, while white football players caught with pot receive verbal warnings), it floods overcrowded prisons with nonviolent offenders who are housed, clothed, and fed on the taxpayers' dime, and it violates a core principle of freedom: "My government does not own my body. I am free to decide what I do with it, and what I put into it." I should probably also mention that I do not support or recommend drug use, particularly when it includes hard drugs. However, it is not the government's role to seek out and confiscate marijuana, whether an individual is caught with a dime bag, or 11.5 pounds.

4. There is a rather large advertisement on page 21, from the Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health, which proclaims, "H1N1 flu vaccines are now available. Make it your A-1 priority to get one." Didn't the swine flu scare, which turned out to be unjustified, blow over a while ago? Please, if you are going to use my tax dollars to fund health propaganda, at least publish it in a timely manner!

5. The Delmar football spaghetti dinner fundraiser will be held on Monday, March 15, at the Delmar Fire Hall. Tickets are $7 and can be purchased at the school office.

6. This week's sole Letter to the Editor is from Ed Carmine, who argues against the Laurel referendum on the grounds that most of the buildings could be remodeled. He makes a strong case, and has obviously put a lot of time and effort into speaking to officials and touring the existing buildings. A note follows his letter, stating that the Star will publish "any letters or comments, pro or con," concerning the referendum, in its next edition. However, no letters will be published "concerning the referendum in the March 25 edition," because the editors would not be able to counter misinformation before the March 31 referendum. Fair enough, but I'll be surprised if the March 25 edition doesn't include a pro-referendum editorial. Letters, concerning the referendum or any other topic, can be sent to editor@mspublications.com.

Supreme Court will hear case on protesters at military funerals

2010-03-09T10:50:00.004-05:00

They show up at military funerals holding signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God Hates the USA," and "Thank God for 9/11," proclaiming their backwards belief that U.S. defeats overseas are punishment from God for our society's acceptance of homosexuality. Now, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of a fallen Marine's father this fall, considering the First Amendment rights of protesters and the religious rights of mourners.

First of all, the protesters' message is a bad joke. There is no logical connection between the morality (or lack thereof) of homosexuality, and the deaths of heterosexual soldiers. Their message does not reflect Christianity or the Bible, which teaches that God holds sinners accountable for their own actions. He does not punish the innocent. (I am not opining about the morality of homosexuality; I am putting the issue into scriptural context). If the message of Christ could be summed up in one word, it would be "love." This is not it.

That said, the rights to speak freely and to protest are important, when used properly. Unfortunately, this group of protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka might be doing us all a disservice; a ruling against them could do permanent damage to the right to peacably assemble. Future protests against the government, or other institutions, could be on shaky ground, depending on restrictions that could be enacted by the language of a ruling.

But what else can the Supreme Court do? These evil individuals cannot be allowed to disrespect soldiers' funerals, proclaiming illogical, hateful messages during a family's final moments with a slain son.

I don't know what the Court will do, and am not necessarily certain of what it should do. It's a complex issue. However, I know what the families of soldiers should do.

Do not allow protesters to mock fallen heroes. The use of force to defend their memory, and their honor, is justified; morally, if not legally.

No good reason to identify race on 2010 Census

2010-03-08T11:20:00.002-05:00

There have been numerous news stories covering the various angles of the federal government's propaganda campaign to push the 2010 Census, most of which include blatant falsehoods concerning the decennial questionnaire's purpose.

The sole purpose of the Census is to establish an accurate count of the population, which is used to allocate congressional congressional seats and, by extension, electoral votes. Large states, like California, usually earn additional representation in the House. Should California residents receive additional representation (and more power) at the federal level, based on a thriving population of illegal aliens, who seem to be breed like rabbits? I think not. Only legal residents of the United States should be counted, for only they are entitled to representation. Any illegal resident foolish enough to fill out a census form ought to arrested and deported.

Most of the census propaganda focuses on race: How racial lines are blurring, how the white population will eventually be outnumbered, how Hispanics are beginning to outnumber blacks in many areas, etc. These interesting developments are irrelevant to the Census, the purpose of which is to count. It does not matter if the people being counted are white, black, red, yellow, or neon blue.

Or does it? Why the push to collect racial data?

Because congressmen have a say in determining district boundaries. Obvoiusly, a white congressman might use this to his advantage by excluding a black neighborhood; he wouldn't get many votes from its residents. The same applies to congressmen of all races. A black congressman would want that black neighborhood, knowing that its voters are more likely to favor him in the next election.

This sleazy process is known as gerrymandering. It is dishonest, deceitful, and an accepted part of the political process that voters can do virtually nothing about.

There are worse possibilities, unfortunately. The Roosevelt administration used census data (which is supposed to be confidential) to compile lists of potential enemies based on their nationality, leading to internment camps filled with American citizens of Japanese, Italian, and German origin during World War II. There is no reason to assume that this kind of abuse could not happen in the future; certainly, the current administration is staffed by far worse individuals than those who made up the Roosevelt administration.

When filling out the Census questionnaire this year, do one of two things: Either leave all fields blank, save for the required number of persons in the household, or, if you were born in the U.S., list your race as Native American, since, logically, you are a native of America. It would be equally appropriate to self-identify as, simply, "American" or "human." After all, we are all members of the human race.

There could be consequences. In past years, there have been threats of fines and legal action if residents do not fill out the form in its entirety. Some bloggers have speculated that "Obama goons" will pay follow-up visits to those who skip questions, which might be true; the Census Bureau claims to contact those whose forms are incomplete, by phone or in person. Fines range from $100 for skipping questions, to $1,000 or a year in prison for intending to cause "inaccurate enumeration of population." These threats are hollow, for the most part; the legal basis for making responses mandatory is shaky at best, and might not stand up in a Supreme Court case given the current composition of the court, and at any rate, enforcement of this particular law would be impossible if a large number of people were to violate it. A safe bet is to fill out the information vaguely, rather than with noticeable inaccuracy.

What is your telephone number?
Suggested response: Give a cell phone number, or the number of that extra line you had installed in the 90s for dial-up Internet access.

What is Person 1's sex?
Suggested responses: "I am not comfortable answering this question," or "transgendered."

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Suggested response: "No." Unless, of course, Person 1 is of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin. Does it strike you as odd that there are separate questions for race and Hispanic origin, but no separate questions for whites, blacks, Asians, or any other ethnic groups?

What is Person 1's race?
Suggested responses: "Native American," "American," "human," "Person 1 is wheelchair-bound and does not race," "colored" (we all have a color, even if it's white), or "not sure."

The next Census (following this one) will be taken in 2020, giving those of us who have a silly desire to adhere to the Constitution a decade to persuade, or force, government officials to drop all of these unnecessary (and possibly unconstitutional) questions, which are only symptomatic of the government's shift from being Big Brother, as if that wasn't bad enough, to Big Babysitter and Big Busy-body, poking its nose into the private life of each and every citizen.

Sussex County School Board Candidates (2010)

2010-03-06T17:38:00.003-05:00

The filing deadline for school board candidates in Sussex County was Friday, March 5, at 4:30 PM. The following candidates have two months to campaign; elections will take place on May 11.

Laurel School District (1 seat)
Jerry White (Incumbent)
David Nichols

Delmar School District (1 seat)
David Burton, Jr. (Incumbent)
Phillip Thompson

Seaford School District (1 seat)
John Hanenfeld (Incumbent)
Frank Parks

Woodbridge School District (1 seat)
Walter Gilefski (Incumbent)
Darryn Harris
Evard Hall
John Poe

Indian River School District (1 seat - District 2)
Kelly Willing (Incumbent)
Rodney Layfield

Cape Henlopen School District (1 seat)
Scott deKuyper
Jodi Grahne
Roni Posner
Robert Spicer

Congratulations to two unopposed candidates, Sandi Minard and Randall Hughes (an incumbent), who automatically win seats in the Cape Henlopen School District (Area B) and in the Indian River School District (District 3), respectively.

Anyone who is at least 18 years of age and lives in a particular school district (or sub-district, if applicable) may vote in that district's election on May 11, regardless of whether he or she is a registered voter. All that is needed is a valid driver's license, or some other form of identification that proves residence, like a utility bill.

Coffee, or Tea?

2010-03-06T12:57:00.004-05:00

Not too fond of tea? Perhaps coffee will taste better. That is the hope of Annabel Park, who started the Coffee Party movement to undermine the nonpartisan Tea Party movement.

On its surface, the Coffee Party is not so different from the Tea Party; a grassroots network with no official party connections, bringing Americans together to discuss politics and effect positive changes in the political process.

If only that were true.

In fact, the Coffee Party is a desperate attempt by Democrats to preserve their party's majority and control of the federal government. It is little more than another part of Obama's neverending campaign. (Campaign for what? Didn't he already win?) "We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans."

That's right. The Coffee Party promotes the same vague theme of "change" that got Obama elected; oddly enough, its organizers' idea of change seems to involve aggressively defending and maintaining the status quo. This illogical agenda has been purposely crafted by progressives who feel their grip on the country slipping away as thousands of Americans meet in town halls, community centers, and homes, mobilizing for the approaching election. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, Coffee Party organizers spout rhetoric about changing the political atmosphere in the hopes of winning over uninformed Tea Partiers, but in reality their goal is precisely the opposite.

Some observers have suggested that the so-called grassroots movement has actually been engineered by the DNC, which might explain why left-leaning newspapers the New York Times and Washington Post have shamelessly promoted it.

This political farce consists of self-described intellectuals peering down their noses at all of those silly, uneducated, flag-waving patriots who make up the Amerian majority. The Coffee Party even has its own response to the Tax Day Tea Parties planned for April 15; March 13 has been declared to be National Coffee Party Day. The rallying cry? "Espresso yourself!" Members are encouraged to meet in coffee shops and cafes to discuss politics over $10 cappuccinos and croissants.

Despite this engineered movement's pretense at being a legitimate alternative to the Tea Party, the Coffee Party's progressive foundation shines through. The Coffee Party USA's "About Us" page states, "The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift..."

Founding Mothers?

The authors of every article and blog post in support of the Coffee Party seem obligated to mention that is founder, Annabel Park, is a Korean American, as if her nationality matters. Of course, diversity for its own sake is central to progressive activism. What they rarely mention is that she studied political theory at Oxford University, and has been involved with numerous leftist campaigns, including producing the United For Obama channel on YouTube. A far cry from the working-class Average Joes who head up most of the Tea Party groups!

The group is well-funded, too. Latte-sipping supporters can use their credit cards to donate to Coffee Party USA online. Suggested donations range from a mere $35 to $2500.

All political ideologies are worthy of discussion and debate; capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, fascism, etc., all have their dedicated supporters and die-hard opponents. The beauty of democracy is that it enables all voices to be heard, and the voices of those in the Coffee Party are just as legitimate as those in the Tea Party, legally speaking. But the philosophical justification for its political agenda does nothing to dispel the group's elitist vibe; anyone who takes a few minutes to research the Coffee Party will find that, unlike the decentralized grassroots Tea Party movement, it is not genuine. It is not grassroots activism, it is Astroturf, a single entity manufactured by the self-proclaimed political elite.

In the end, the false nature of the Coffee Party will be its downfall; assuming, of course, that enough Americans can be deceived into buying its propaganda for it to ever truly get off the ground in the first place.

Markell blasts gun rights, warns lawmakers to drop HB 357

2010-03-05T14:39:00.004-05:00

In a letter to Rep. John Atkins (D-Millsboro) and Sen. Joe Booth (R-Georgetown), Governor Jack Markell "blasted proposed legislation that would bar Delaware's housing authorities from prohibiting their tenants to own firearms," according to the News Journal.

Markell: House Bill 357 "will put the public at significant risk if enacted. The legislation prohibits state and local governments, our universities and colleges, our schools and others from imposing or enforcing common sense measures designed to protect our citizens from illegal gun violence."

As opposed to legal gun violence?

The Democratic governor also claims the bipartisan legislation (sponsored by more than two dozen lawmakers) would allow guns:

In day cares and preschools.
On school buses.
On the campuses of U.D., Del State, and Del Tech.
In group homes for the mentally ill.
In public transportation vehicles, like taxis, limos, and DART buses.
In state parks, including beaches and playgrounds.

These points are worthy of debate, but Markell is attempting to sidestep the real point of the legislation, which is to stop the state's public housing authorities from unconstitutionally banning guns, thereby stripping occupants of their Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." The NRA plans to take Delaware to court if these bans are not reversed, and several precedents indicate that Delaware will lose if this occurs.

Atkins conceded that "we may need to go back to rewrite the legislation so it's specifically aimed at the housing authorities."

Even so, Markell crossed a line in urging lawmakers not to proceed with a bill. As Booth pointed out, "The governor and his staff need to examine the legislative process before they start dictating to duly elected officials."

Here's a question for Governor Markell, the members of his administration, and the Democratic Party itself: Delaware's public housing is occupied, primarily, by blacks and other minority groups. Is your opposition to allowing these citizens to "keep and bear arms" based on a reluctance to trust black Americans with guns? "Racism" is too strong a word for this backwards attitude, but "prejudice" certainly seems appropriate.

More information on Delaware's public housing gun regulations, and the effort to overturn them, can be found at the Caesar Rodney Institute and its highly informative blog.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (3/4/10)

2010-03-05T13:58:00.002-05:00

1. Another guest column by Superintendent John McCoy (on page 50) seems, almost, to respond to Frank Calio's blog post from last week regarding the possibility of renovation. McCoy states that the Department of Education will not grant funds to the district for renovation, quoting John Marinucci (Education Facilities Planning, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance Director): "Laurel would not be provided CN's (Certificates of Necessity) to renovate the existing old buildings and bring them up 100% to current educational and new building standards."

McCoy goes on to criticize "some who are attempting to undermine the fine work of our referendum committee and the work of those supporters, with untruths and inaccuracies of their own."

2. On the same page, the sole Letter to the Editor is from Monte Whaley, who owns a gun shop in Laurel. He debunks several myths and falsehoods that were in last week's article about Delaware's "weak gun laws," and poor performance under a Brady Campaign scoring system. Some of his points:

The Second Amendment (which recognizes the right to keep and bear arms) is "the insurance policy for the other amendments."
"Criminals don't buy guns, they steal them." The Brady Campaign would disarm law-abiding citizens, without challenging criminals' ability to obtain weapons illegally.
Federal law already "requires a background check on ALL firearms that a dealer sells or transfers."
"Fully automatic firearms are already illegal in Delaware." An AK-47 is "no different than the .22 Caliber semi-auto rifle we teach our children to target shoot with." This particular gun has become Hollywood's token assault weapon, which is simply based on inaccuracies.
"Bulk purchases of handguns are also already regulated through the Federal Government."
"The Federal Government already requires childproof gun locks with the sale or transfer of handguns."
Brady's push to require all citizens to be 21 before they can purchase any firearm is illogical. "We send our 18 year olds outside of this country with a firearm in their hand, but the Brady Campaign doesn't want that same citizen to even be allowed to own a firearm inside their own country."
"Remember, gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a right. Let's not lose what we have left of it."

3. "Delawareans gain opportunies to work in new 'green' economy" seems to be based more on wishful thinking than solid facts. The so-called "green jobs" listed include "Industry-Certified Residential Energy Auditor," a consulting position that helps "consumers identify ways to make their homes more efficient by reducing air leaks, replacing aging appliances or installing insulation." Right. The thousands of Delawareans who can hardly pay the mortgage or rent are much more likely to simply look up these tips online or in a home improvement publication, than to pay a green consultant to discuss common sense in fancy language. (page 37)

4. "The lost art of playing outside" by Patti Miller brings back fond memories of childhood. The days of setting out on a summer morning to play in yards, fields, and the woods; riding bicycles a few miles to nearby Trap Pond State Park, where swimming used to be permitted; playing army and all manner of backyard sports; using an outdoor water spigot when one got thirsty. God forbid that somebody asked a parent to come inside on a fine summer day. The idea of sitting indoors and watching TV or playing a video game was strange and foreign; that's what rainy days were for! (page 25)

5. Bayview Baptist Church has moved into the old Laurel Wesleyan Church on East 4th Street (Rt. 24). The building was dedicated (or rededicated) on February 21, during a service attended by Mayor John Schwed, Sussex County Council President Vance Phillips, and others. It's good to know that the historic church will once again be home to a congregation. An empty church is always a rather sad sight.

6. Laurel continues its plans for a July 4th celebration, with Mayor Shwed asking the town to approve a $15,000 line of credit "to assure that the fireworks are a part of this year's event." The most expensive attraction is also the most necessary one, in my opinion. An Independence Day festival without fireworks would not be a success; local families would attend the parade, and then simply drive to one of the other towns on Delmarva that sets off fireworks each year. (page 1)

Property confiscation in drug cases is wrong

2010-03-04T08:57:00.005-05:00

James L. Cheeseman owned a gun shop, X-Ring Supply, in Ogletown, DE. He was caught with a small amount of crack cocaine in 2007, as well as three crack pipes in the store, and fourteen firearms that did not belong (along with the 600 that did). All of the firearms were seized by federal authorities, who say they will be destroyed, which means, in government talk, that they will be sold to some third-world insurgency group. The seized guns are worth about $500,000.

The problem is not the arrest for crack cocaine possession, although, from a libertarian perspective, that is a problem, too. Recreational drug use is no business of the government, unless a user harms someone while under the influence. But the law is the law; Cheeseman broke it knowingly, and took the risk of getting caught, and was. He must pay the consequence, and having to answer to future employers for a drug-related criminal record is no slap on the wrist.

The problem is that, in this case, authorities did not merely strip a user of a few unregistered guns, as would be usual. They confiscated 600 legally-owned firearms, which were not only Cheeseman's property, but his livelihood. It would be comparable to seizing $500,000 worth of DVDs, had he owned a video rental shop. It's not about guns. It's about property.

Those who break the law must pay the consequences, but those consequences should not include being stripped of one's business. How can we expect convicts to return to society as productive members after serving their respective prison sentences, if their job, their business, their livelihood has been taken away?

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects "the right of the people...against unreasonable searches and seizures;" this seizure is more than unreasonable. It is outrageous.

In recent history, the federal government has grown increasingly bold in seizing private property during drug investigations. "We see you have a marijuana plant in your backyard. We're going to have to seize this home and property indefinitely." Such cases result of the abuse of power, though the more common outcome is that the officer simply confiscates the marijuana (or other controlled substance) for his personal use.

In Cheeseman's case, the punishment for drug use and possession was right (legally), but the seizure of $500,000 worth of property was wrong, as was this week's decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the seizure.

At the very least, the federal government should have been required to compensate Cheeseman for the firearms. Perhaps he could have used the money--his money--to open a video rental shop.

Want to run for Mayor or Council Member of South Bethany?

2010-03-03T19:14:00.003-05:00

The filing deadline for South Bethany's 2010 municipal election is April 15. Candidates for Mayor, or for one of three Council seats, can obtain applications at the Town Hall, 402 Evergreen Road, South Bethany, DE 19930.

South Bethany consists largely of "second homes" and pricey vacation rentals, and should not be confused with the significantly busier Bethany Beach. Most outsiders are probably unaware that the latter's southern portion is a separate town, and even has its own zip code.

For more information, email townhall@southbethany.org, or call (302) 539-3653.

A Strange Horoscope

2010-03-02T13:15:00.003-05:00

By no means do I place much importance on astrology, but occasionally will read my horoscope while reading the paper each morning. Usually, the vague suggestions are merely good advice that could be applied to anybody, any day.

Today, mine is unusually specific:

"You will receive a curious e-mail from an acquaintance, requesting your assistance on something. It's right up your alley, but you wonder whether there's an ulterior motive. Check it out."

Intrigued, I moved on to the next item of my morning routine, the checking of email, to be followed by Twitter and Facebook.

There were no emails whatsoever.

The day is not over, but I have yet to receive an email today, which is, in itself, unusual. I suppose today's lesson is: when writing a horoscope, the more specific your prediction, the less accurate it will be.

Sandi Minard, Jodi Grahne to run for Cape school board

2010-03-01T15:08:00.005-05:00

Sandi Minard of Milton, who serves as Sussex County Education Concerns Committee Chair for the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, has announced her candidacy for the Cape Henlopen School District Board of Education. Also running is Jodi Grahne of Harbeson. They, and anyone else who files to run for one of the several school board seats up for election in Sussex County, have about two months to campaign; elections will be held on May 11.

The qualifications required to run for school board are, as detailed in a previous post, the same as are required to vote in public school elections: one must be at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the district.

The filing deadline for school board candidates is this Friday.

Calio: "Laurel schools can be remodeled"

2010-03-01T14:57:00.003-05:00

Laurel residents should check out Frank Calio's Blog for some interesting new information concerning the referendum. Apparently, renovation is possible, contrary to what some district officials have said in their push for funding.

Mr. Calio is to be commended for making this information available. He has been a vocal supporter of the proposed referendum, and could have easily chosen to sit on the information, which might change some minds. He notes that he will still vote in favor of the referendum.

Want to run for school board? File by Friday!

2010-02-27T12:30:00.003-05:00

Are you interested in becoming involved in local government or politics? A parent concerned about the quality of your child's education, and the direction of the public school system? Or perhaps a recent graduate with firsthand knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular school district?

If so, you might be an ideal candidate for your local Board of Education. Candidates must be at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the district (though not necessarily a property owner).

In Sussex County, elections will be held in May for positions on the school boards of Laurel, Delmar, Seaford, Woodbridge, Indian River, and Cape Henlopen school districts. Terms are five years (except for IR's, which are three) and begin on July 1, 2010.

School board campaigns are an opportunity for young candidates, or those new to the confusion of election laws and campaign finance regulations, to get involved in the political process at what could be considered an entry-level position. So long as you don't receive or spend much money (the limit on contributions and expenditures is $2,000), you are not required to form a candidate committee or submit campaign finance reports.

Simply fill out a a Candidate Filing Form, have it notarized, and submit it to the local Department of Elections (in Georgetown, in this case), by 4:30 PM this Friday, March 5. A Certificate of Intention must also be submitted to the Commissioner of Elections Office in Dover. Forms and information are available at electionssc.delaware.gov.

I have made this information available so as to encourage participation. In many districts, board members run unopposed, and in my opinion, no candidate for any public office should ever be left to run unopposed.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (2/25/10)

2010-02-27T11:49:00.002-05:00

My apologies for posting this a couple days late; life got in the way.

1. An article on page 4 recaps the Delmar Council's 4-1 approval of a casino ordinance. I have already stated my opinion on the matter, but will say again that I do not believe government, at any of its levels, should have any involvement in gambling, including the restriction thereof.

2. Jim and Lynne Bradley are the subjects of this week's "HEROES Series," best known to many in and around Laurel for their involvement with Boy Scout Troop 90. Truly, this wonderful couple deserves this honor; I know firsthand, from participating in both Pack 90 and Troop 90 as a youth, of their commitment to the young men of the town, teaching positive values and practical skills that last for a lifetime. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is one of the best organizations in existence today, trumping even Little League with its character-building exercises. Countless community leaders, politicials, businessmen, and military officers owe their success, in part, to the BSA. Likewise, countless young men (and men who used to be young!) of Laurel owe much to Jim and Lynne Bradley. (page 8)

3. Does Delaware have weak gun laws? An article on page 9 quotes Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign: "Delaware officials have done nothing in the past year to stop the flow of illegal guns within the state, including changing its laws that allow dangerous people to walk into gun shows and buy guns, like AK-47s, without background checks."

Really? AK-47s? This gross exaggeration reminds me of a little boy at a hunter's safety course I attended years ago, who, in his enthusiasm for the subject, loudly declared to the instructor that his neighbors regularly fired elephant guns. The children present stared in awe, while fathers chuckled.

Certainly, guns are sold illegally in Delaware, as they are in every other state. But I am extremely skeptical about all of these assault rifles (AK-47s!) that Mr. Helmke claims are being sold in Delaware, to "dangerous people," no less.

4. Dr. Anthony Policastro writes about politics again, on page 35. I find his medical columns to be much more insightful. His advice, "Don't let stereotypes dictate your voting decisions," seemed to be good enough until I started reading.

He suggests that "some of the anti-Obama individuals" are racists, especially "Southerners who still carry a Civil War chip on their shoulder." This is one of the first examples of race baiting (accusing individuals who dislike Obama's policies of actually disliking his skin color) that I've seen in the usually respectable Star; I hope this kind of propaganda will not appear regularly within its pages. Even so, I chuckled at the irony of a column warning against believing stereotypes while simultaneously stating a common one as truth.

5. Virginia "Mike" Barton's informative column about the U.S. flags of Alexander Annin is rich in history and facts, and closes with an exhortation for Americans to show our patriotism by displaying a flag, whether on a pole or in a window. (page 41)

6. A guest column by Superintendent McCoy informs us that the referendum has been rescheduled (again) for March 31st, a Wednesday. Apparently the passing of House Bill 244 affected referenda regulations, which is the reason for the second rescheduling. This might work in the district's favor, as the additional time can be used to further educate the public about the issue. (page 42)

7. It's worth mentioning that a political cartoon by William Warren, distributed by Liberty Features Syndicate (which I write for on a weekly basis) appears on page 43. LFS columns and cartoons are available to newspapers and magazines across the country, as well as a wide variety of websites and blogs.

A third way for marriage equality

2010-02-25T11:09:00.004-05:00

As an independent voter and self-described conservative libertarian (heavy on the libertarian), I am frequently asked for my opinion about gay marriage. Conservatives who oppose gay marriage assume that I am on their side, and are usually less than enthusiastic about my unconventional answer. Liberals in favor of gay marriage are also disappointed; they incorrectly confuse "libertarian" with "libertine," I think.

Thing is, we are usually only offered two options when this subject arises (as it frequently does, pushed by dedicated activists): oppose gay marriage, or support it. Yes or no. Right or left. It would be more accurate to phrase the question like this: "Do you support state involvement in heterosexual marriage, and state prohibition of homosexual marriage? Or do you support state involvement in all forms of marriage, and state prohibition of none?"

I choose to support a third option, which I believe would (or should) satisfy both sides, although that's not why I support it. My view is based on the concept of an extremely limited government that exists only to protect individuals from others. If government was not involved in heterosexual marriage in the first place, would there be a problem?

In my opinion, marriage is a religious ceremony. For others, it might merely be a personal ceremony. A public expression of love and commitment. No one should have to seek and obtain government permission for that. I read an article not so long ago about an interesting trend. An increasing number of couples are, usually for financial reasons, taking part in a religious ceremony in which a minister bestows his blessing upon their union, recognizing a "marriage" before God, with no marriage license or state involvement. In the government's eyes the two are unmarried (which can be helpful in a case of bad credit, and other sorts of legal baggage), but they have satisfied the requirements of their faith. This ought to be the rule, not the exception.

Let's get the state out of the marriage business (and by extension, the divorce business), period. That is the best and easiest way to ensure equality for all, without requiring the government to choose a side.

Big Babysitter Watch: Mandatory Flu Shots?

2010-02-25T10:59:00.003-05:00

Not yet. But today, the Associated Press (AP) reports:

"ATLANTA: A government panel is now recommending that virtually all Americans get a flu shot each year, starting this fall." Only babies younger than 6 months would be excluded.

So long as our government sticks with recommendations, there will not be a problem, though I question the wisdom of flu shots for the young, strong, and healthy.

But if, under a future federal-controlled health-care system (sound familiar?), Americans are required to get flu shots, there will be a serious problem. Given the direction our government is moving in, there is no reason to believe that mandatory shots will not become a reality within the decade, in the name of public health.

Cyber security, or a step towards government control?

2010-02-24T09:39:00.005-05:00

This short news piece in the News Journal caught my attention this morning:

Experts say U.S. must secure the Internet
"WASHINGTON - Cyber industry experts are telling Congress the time has come for the government to take a more active role in securing the Internet. Analysts said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that more government regulations may be the only way to force the public and private sectors to adequately counter cyber threats. They liken the need for government intervention on the Internet to regulations on seat belts and safety equipment that made U.S. highways safer." (emphasis mine)

First, seat belts and safety equipment didn't make highways safer. The smart drivers who decided to use them did. Those who choose not to use seat belts do so at their own risk; in the history of automobiles, no one has been hurt in an accident because the other driver didn't buckle up.

Second, the Internet is the greatest tool of free speech in the history of the world. It is precisely its lack of government regulation that has allowed it to function in the way that it does, by connecting anyone to the content of his or her choice.

There is nothing wrong with regulations, to an extent, but if these regulations force any websites offline in the interest of "protecting" us, particularly sites with political connections, watch out.

Delmar Town Council votes 4-1 for casino

2010-02-23T09:45:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, the Delmar Town Council voted 4-1 in favor of altering a zoning ordinance to allow a casino along the highway commercial district, near the race track.

The change is part of an effort to accommodate developer James Rostaki, who wants to build a hotel and casino one mile north of the state line, which would bring hundreds of jobs to the small town, not to mention additional revenue. Both would be helpful in the current recession.

Mayor John Outten's position is that the pros outweigh the cons, like the potential for gambling addiction. His is the correct attitude; the many unemployed residents in and around Delmar must come before the handful who cannot control their urge to drop nickels into a machine.

There will be difficulties. The developer must attain a license from the state (which might be impossible given the political climate, and pressure from Harrington), and pay "impact fees" to the town based on the effect a casino would have on the school, fire department, and police department.

Opponents will continue to argue, but the town's action should not be based on the weak-minded who succumb to gambling addiction. A person can become addicted to anything, including being a wet blanket. It is my belief that social stigmas, such as the moral one that many apply to gambling, can make a practice even more addictive, and it is not the government's role to protect people from themselves. Moral objections to gambling (which are legitimately based in the principles of stewardship and frugality) should be discussed in churches and faith-based organizations; not town councils.

No doubt, more information about the decision, and the proposal itself, will appear in this week's edition of the Laurel Star, which will come out on Thursday.

Mennonite college lifts ban on national anthem

2010-02-21T12:27:00.003-05:00

Before the big game begins, an announcement is made: "Please rise for the playing of our national anthem." Fans stand and take off hats, turning dutifully toward a large American flag while "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played or sung. Respectful silence reigns as hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unrelated individuals with diverse backgrounds are united in a momentary expression of patriotism. After the final words, "And the home...of the...brave," the crowd sits, the sense of unity dividing sharply into two opposing sides: home and away.

The playing of the national anthem before athletic events has become something of an automatic process, so routine that few think twice.

Not so at Goshen College, where the anthem will be played for the first time at the start of the spring sports season next month. The small Indiana college is home to approximately 1,000 students, about 55% of whom are Mennonites, whose faith is the source of a 116-year-old ban on "The Star-Spangled Banner." College officials decided to lift the ban to make non-Mennonite students and visitors feel more welcome. Previously, games have been preceded by a prayer.

But by playing the national anthem, will Mennonite students be made to feel less welcome? Historically, the Mennonite denomination (with doctrines ranging from extremely strict to comparatively liberal) has not used the national anthem for two reasons:

"The Star-Spangled Banner" is hardly an anthem of pacifism; its references to "bombs bursting" and "rockets" are incompatible with Mennonite doctrine, which opposes the use of violence, even in the defense of one's country. In centuries past, Mennonites fled persecution, rather than oppose it with arms.
Mennonites serve God first, country second (nothing wrong with that). Many will not sing the national anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance because they believe that doing so would express a deeper love of country than of God.

This post will not address these beliefs, or comment on whether or not they are correct. In the United States, we recognize that, legally speaking, no faith is superior to another. Therefore all faiths, when being considered in a political discussion, must be treated as equally correct.

Goshen is doing is best to avoid the military nature of the song by deciding to play an instrumental version, in what many see as a fair compromise.

"I don't think that everyone has to show their respect, but we need to at least have the choice to show our respect," said freshman Mike Milligan, a Catholic. But that's not good enough for some of the practicing Mennonites. "It's a good compromise in the sense that it doesn't specifically mention the bombs bursting in air," said senior Allen Shenk, "But everyone listening is going to be thinking those words to themselves anyway, so is it really helping that much?"

Perhaps not, if one's priority is to avoid positive allusions to violence and/or military might. Nonetheless, it is this writer's judgment that playing an instrumental version of the national anthem before sporting events is the appropriate thing for Goshen College to do, taking into consideration the 45% of students who are not Mennonites. One does not need to be a war hawk, or praise the military, to love his country. Neither does love of one's country have to become greater than loyalty to one's faith.

Patriotism should never be forced upon anybody. If Goshen College decided to burn an American flag before each event, its officials would be equally within their rights of free expression, though perhaps open to outraged criticism from the standpoint of decency and morality. It is important that the college made this decision on its own, and not to force the views of the majority upon a minority (for that is not the case), but rather to make a minority of non-Mennonites feel welcome and at home on a predominantly Mennonite campus.

That is the true face of tolerance, and, in this writer's opinion, the true face of Christian love.

Should Delaware apologize for slavery?

2010-02-20T11:55:00.003-05:00

Should the Delaware General Assembly officially acknowledge and apologize for the state's role in allowing slavery over 150 years ago? What about going on to apologize for what the News Journal describes as "the racial discrimination that continues today"?

No one alive today has personally experienced slavery. Does an apology offered a century and a half after the fact, from one uninvolved party to another, mean anything? It would be as though a man murdered a woman, and six generations later, the man's descendants apologized to those of the woman. Such a scenario would be silly and meaningless; descendants of wrongdoers are not responsible for their ancestors' misdeeds. Likewise, victimhood is not hereditary. The injustice of the past, regardless of its severity, does not transfer by blood to the present.

Black citizens living in Delaware today are not slaves, and never, at any point in their lives, have they been. Likewise, today's government officials have never authorized, tolerated, or condoned slavery. An apology would be a farce.

It might be a necessary farce, politically speaking. How many legislators are willing to vote against an apology resolution, knowing that such a stand will become political ammunition for future challengers? Yes, there are numerous reasons why an official apology would be meaningless. Yes, such a resolution would cater to activists who are living backwards, looking for someone else to blame for any and all of their troubles. No, an official apology would not change anyone's present situation; it would help no one.

But would it hurt anyone? It might be simpler for the General Assembly to pass a resolution condemning the actions of long-dead government officials, rather than waste time trying to explain logic to those who refuse to understand it. Yes, condemning; the actions of others can be condemned, but logically cannot be apologized for. An apology admits fault, and none of our current elected officials are at fault in this situation.

There are more inconsistencies in the argument for an apology. If the government is to apologize to one group for injustice, what about the many other injustices that have been carried out against innocents since the birth of our nation? Are we to collectively look to the past for someone to blame for something, anything, that affected our ancestors? What about displaced Native American tribes? Should the Spanish government apologize for financing the expedition of Columbus? Should the Italian government apologize for the crucifixion of Christ?

A personal example: My great-great-great-great-grandfather, Samuel Slavens, a Union soldier who participated in the Andrews Raid, was hanged by Confederates, in violation of laws relating to prisoners of war. Should I sue the State of Tennessee? Should I request an official apology?

Of course not. The past is the past. It should be learned from, not lived in.

Even so, for the sake of avoiding controversy, the General Assembly should pass some sort of resolution condemning the institution of slavery in Delaware. Just do it, be done with it, and move on. Let us collectively wash our hands of the past, and look to the future. Enough challenges exist today for us to face as a society, without adding those of previous centuries!

I have a feeling that even if a resolution is passed, it will not be enough for some activists. It is not an end that they pursue; it is the means, the march, the struggle, the fight, that they thrive on.

Better answers to drivers' cell use than statewide ban

2010-02-19T11:44:00.004-05:00

The following letter was printed in the Laurel Star and its sister paper, the Seaford Star, yesterday. Comments are welcome, but I encourage you to submit feedback to editor@mspublications.com (the Star editor), so that your view might be published as well.

Cell phones ban
There are several efforts in Delaware, led mostly by up-state legislators who neither understand nor care about the interests of Sussex County, to ban cell phone use while driving. One such effort is that of Rep. Darryl Scott, a Dover Democrat who wants to ban hand-held use. Meanwhile, an influential daily newspaper has suggested banning hands-free devices as well. Making calls, taking calls, texting, checking the time—and yes, even using hands-free devices—could result in a hefty fine if nanny-state lawmakers (of both parties) get their way.

Certainly, cell phones can be a distraction on the road, as can radios and CD players, GPS navigation systems, smoking a cigarette, drinking coffee, child passengers, or enjoying beautiful scenery. The best and only way to avoid driving distractions is not to drive. Still, some drivers, especially younger ones, foolishly use cell phones while in heavy traffic or busy intersections. But does that justify a statewide ban, punishing the rest of us who use cell phones only when it is safe and/or necessary to do so?

No, it doesn’t. A statewide ban on anything always ignores the differences between counties, individual towns, and in this case, specific roadways. Sure, phone use in busy Wilmington is unsafe, which is why there’s already a city ban to take care of the problem. Similar bans might be appropriate in Dover, Salisbury, and even Rehoboth Beach during summer. But up-state lawmakers tend to forget that things are slower in Western Sussex; taking a call on Laurel Road (Rt. 24) is not remotely comparable to gabbing away in the midst of a busy city. Keep in mind that the law’s purpose is to protect us from the actions of others, not those of ourselves.

A more sensible solution consists of two parts:

1) Punish, with harsher penalties, drivers who do cause accidents while distracted by cell phones. This will help to solve the problem of inappropriate cell use without unfairly restricting responsible drivers. After all, if a driver is using his or her phone safely, perhaps on a back road, what’s the point of fining them, aside from generating revenue for the state?

2) Let cell phone bans be decided on a town-by-town basis. If Dover residents want a ban (as Rep. Scott obviously does), let them enact one, post signs informing drivers of the law, and enforce it. If other towns (like Laurel, Delmar, or Seaford) decide against a ban, it is our right to make that decision for ourselves, rather than be dictated to by bureaucrats who are unfamiliar with our communities.

There is a growing tendency of government at all its levels to correct perceived problems with blanket bans or mandates, whether statewide or, worse, nationwide. Let’s take a stand, even on seemingly insignificant issues like cell phone use, and resist this menacing form of big government which seeks not to protect us (as it claims), but to control each and every aspect of our lives.

Chris Slavens
Laurel, DE

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (2/18/10)

2010-02-19T10:59:00.003-05:00

1. On page 15, we read a summary of a proposed statewide "universal recycling" program. Among other things, it would require private waste haulers (yes, private) "to provide curbside recycling service" and meet "a target for recycling rates" or face a penalty. I confess, I don't understand why the state is able to require privately owned and operated businesses to do anything. It seems to be another move by a Democratic administration to intrude into the private sector, while appealing to the green lobby. It's a win-win for government, but most likely a loss for business.

2. A notice in the Classifieds section informs us that the Laurel School District referendum vote, originally scheduled for February 10, will be held on March 6. The original much-anticipated election was cancelled due to our recent blizzard.

3. There are a few interesting letters to the editor, one of them mine, which I will post. Another, written by Angel Clark of Rehoboth Beach, concerns the former office of child molester Earl Bradley, and can be read on her blog, here. A letter from L.F. Dill of Seaford criticizes the current administration in Washington for ignoring the will of the people, and closes by quoting Mike Huckabee: "When the people fear the government, it is time to replace that government!" Of course, this is a modification of Jefferson's famous quote: "When the people fear the government, there is tyrrany." As for my letter, it concerns a proposed statewide ban on cell phone use while driving. I will devote a second post to it, but encourage anyone in the Delmar, Laurel, or Seaford area to pick up a copy of the Star, and send feedback to editor@mspublications.com; regardless of your opinion (you might agree with me, or might wish to challenge my view), a letter to the editor about the subject has a good chance of being printed, and will further educate the public about the possibility of a ban on cell use while driving in Delaware.

Presidential Quotes to Ponder

2010-02-15T09:44:00.003-05:00

In honor of Presidents Day, I have assembled a list of quotes of each President of the United States. Presidents are listed in the order they served, along with the years of their term(s) and their respective political parties. It is worth noting that quotes toward the beginning of the list are of a greater quality, and contain more wisdom, than those toward its end, generally speaking.

George Washington (1789-1797, Independent): "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

John Adams (1797-1801, Federalist): "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. "

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809, Democratic-Republican): "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

James Madison (1809-1817, Democratic-Republican): "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Monroe (1817-1825, Democratic-Republican): "It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty."

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829, Democratic-Republican, National Republican): "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837, Democratic): "One man with courage makes a majority."

Martin Van Buren (1837-1841, Democratic): "If laws acting upon private interests can not always be avoided, they should be confined within the narrowest limits, and left wherever possible to the legislatures of the States."

William Henry Harrison (March 4, 1841 - April 4, 1841, Whig): The 9th President served for exactly one month, which is a more interesting fact than any quote.

John Tyler (1841-1845, Whig, Independent): "I can never consent to being dictated to."

James K. Polk (1845-1849, Democratic): "It becomes us in humility to make our devout acknowledgments to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for the inestimable civil and religious blessings with which we are favored."

Zachary Taylor (1849-1850, Whig): "It would be judicious to act with magnanimity towards a prostrate foe."

Millard Fillmore (1850-1853, Whig): "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress."

Franklin Pierce (1853-1857, Democratic): "The dangers of a concentration of all power in the general government of a confederacy so vast as ours are too obvious to be disregarded."

James Buchanan (1857-1861, Democratic): "The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among free men."

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865, Republican, National Union): "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."

Andrew Johnson (1865-1869, Democratic, National Union): "There are no good laws but such as repeal other laws."

Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877, Republican): "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions."

Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881, Republican): "The President of the United States should strive to be always mindful of the fact that he serves his party best who serves his country best."

James A. Garfield (1881-1881, Republican): "He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation."

Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885, Republican): "I may be president of the United States, but my private life is nobody's damned business."

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, Democratic): "Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people."

Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893, Republican): "We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."

Grover Cleveland (1893-1897, Democratic): Cleveland has, so far, been the only president elected to two nonconsecutive terms.

William McKinley (1897-1901, Republican): "Our differences are policies; our agreements, principles."

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909, Republican): "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight."

William Howard Taft (1909-1913, Republican): "Socialism proposes no adequate substitute for the motive of enlightened selfishness that to-day is at the basis of all human labor and effort, enterprise and new activity."

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921, Democratic): "If you think too much about being re-elected, it is very difficult to be worth re-electing."

Warren G. Harding (1921-1923, Republican): "America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration."

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929, Republican): "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933, Republican): "Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt."

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945, Democratic): "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting."

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953, Democratic): "When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth - then all Americans are in peril."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961, Republican): "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963, Democratic): "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969, Democratic): "I am a freeman, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order."

Richard Nixon (1969-1974, Republican): "If an individual wants to be a leader and isn't controversial, that means he never stood for anything."

Gerald Ford (1974-1977, Republican): "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981, Democratic): "I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me."

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989, Republican): "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993, Republican): "I'll be glad to reply to or dodge your questions, depending on what I think will help our election most."

Bill Clinton (1993-2001, Democratic): "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America."

George W. Bush (2001-2009, Republican): "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."

Barack Obama (2009-present, Democratic): "In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (02/11/10)

2010-02-13T19:37:00.003-05:00

1. When former Finance Director Bill Hitch "misappropriated" (or stole) at least $150,000 from the Laurel School District, did he take advantage of an internal control problem (as State Auditor Tom Wagner claims), or exploit a state payroll system flaw (as district officials maintain)? It's difficult to say; probably both. Naturally, state officials will defend the state system (which I'm not accusing Mr. Wagner of doing), while the district will defend its actions (which is exactly what administrators are doing). Hitch had given himself $90,000 in retro pay and $60,000 in Extra Pay for Extra Responsibility (EPER). The situation is similar to that of a restaurant manager increasing his or her own salary without the knowledge or consent of the boss. It's of no use to blame anyone except for Hitch. As Wagner is quoted as saying, "This was an unfortunate situation that could happen anywhere." (page 3)

2. "Laurel town manager may opt out of public hearing" rephrases the headline in its first sentence, then goes on to recap the case of Laurel Town Manager William Fasano, who was arrested on January 10 for attempting to pass a forged prescription. To be honest, this case doesn't interest me very much. A man broke the law, and will have to pay the consequences for doing so. It's not a controversial case. (page 5)

3. A short piece on page 6 describes casino training courses being offered by the Sussex Tech Adult Division. It sounds kind of fun. I can't help but wonder how so-called conservative anti-gambling activists must feel about such programs being funded by a public school. (page 6)

4. "Hands-free cell phone legislation would impose fines up to $200" summarizes an effort by Rep. Darryl M. Scott (D-Dover) to ban cell phone use while driving, with the exception of hands-free devices. In the future, I'll probably write a detailed blog post about this issue, but, at the moment, will state briefly that I'm opposed to the idea for a couple of reasons.

Enforcement would be difficult. Suppose a police officer pulls a driver over for texting. How will the officer prove it unless he checks the phone? That's illegal, by the way. Assuming that he doesn't check the phone, can he write a ticket for an offense if he cannot prove that it occurred?
Cell phone bans should be decided on a town-by-town basis. For example, using a cell phone while driving in Dover or Salisbury, Delmarva's two largest and busiest cities, can be distracting and dangerous, but the same cannot be said for Laurel. Or Gumboro. Let drivers decide when it is safe to make or take a call. I support stiff fines for drivers who cause accidents due to being distracted by cell phones, which would be a more fair and effective deterrent to distracted driving than a statewide ban. (page 37)

5. A letter to the editor, signed by Jim and Janet Jestice, tells of discovering a crying "lady of Mexican heritage" on their doorstep. Apparently, someone within a few miles of Trap Pond Road / Route 24 hired her for a housekeeping job. When the job was complete, the man "dumped her in front of" the letter writers' home without paying her. It was after dark, and freezing. I don't know if the subject of this letter is truly Mexican, or if she should more properly be described as Hispanic (the two terms are often confused in this area, for reasons that I do not understand), but it would certainly be nice to know where these cold-hearted individuals live. To take advantage of a fellow citizen (I assume she is not an illegal immigrant) in such a way is despiccable. I hope we learn more about this story.

At times, I have been strong in my criticism of illegal aliens (who are criminals, to be arrested, not innocent victims to be coddled), but it bothers me when Sussex Countians demean hard-working Hispanic Americans who worked for years to earn citizenship, and are contributing to society. I have worked with legal immigrants, and have the utmost respect for their work ethic and values. I believe God will be especially harsh in his judgment of those who treat their fellow human beings as being lower in importance or intelligence. (page 50)

Restriction of gambling is not government's role

2010-02-13T11:15:00.005-05:00

In a letter to the editor which appeared in Wednesday's News Journal (it arrived yesterday due to the Tuesday/Wednesday blizzard), a conservative Georgetown resident criticized Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf for his role in supporting the Del Pointe Gambling Hall.

"...Pete champions himself as the defender of the poor, the discriminated-against and the downtrodden, yet his willingness to trade jobs for souls will therefore cause more misery, increasing our problems." (Emphasis mine).

If Republicans in Delaware and, more specifically, Sussex County, want to experience a political revival, an agenda of legislative morality is not the way to accomplish one. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I don't want the power of government to be used by any party to shove someone else's ideas about right and wrong down my throat. Particularly if their idea of morality is based on tradition rather than religious texts or, even better; logic.

To gamble, or not to gamble, is a personal decision. When one gambles, he does not violate the rights of anyone else. He does not directly harm anyone. Conservatives claim to belive in limited government; state and/or county restrictions on gambling is not limited government, and I do not believe it is truly conservative, either.

Government's role is extremely simple. It is to protect the natural rights (life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) of each and every citizen. If one kills another, his action constitutes a violation of the right to life. If one steals, the right to be secure in one's property is violated. In both of these cases, and in any situation involving a violation of one's right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness, government intervention is appropriate.

Gambling does not violate any of these rights, which are God-given (not state-granted privileges). Some might choose not to gamble for financial reasons. Others might disagree with the practice based on their personal religious beliefs. Neither of these legitimate reasons to abstain from gambling justifies using government as a tool to force others to make the same decision.

In a free state, citizens are free to do with their money as they please; if they choose to risk it, or to waste it, so be it. It is no one else's business, and certainly not the government's.

Occasionally, as a result of my criticism of the Democratic majorities in Dover and Washington, I begin to feel like a Republican. Aided by liberal criticism and conservative praise, I trick myself into thinking of myself as being on the right; on their "side." But when conservatives advocate such foolishness as legislative morality, and accuse a politician of being willing "to trade jobs for souls" simply because he is in favor of constructing a casino, I catch myself, and remember that I am not a Republican. And, if that way of thinking is true conservatism, then I am not a conservative, either.

There are individuals on both sides of the aisle willing to misuse the power of government to suit their respective agendas. Until so-called conservatives step up and limit their platforms to fit the proper role of government, long-lasting political victory will continue to elude them, both in Delaware and across the nation.

In emergencies, private citizens do what government cannot

2010-02-08T11:09:00.005-05:00

The sense of panic that preceded the blizzard of '10 has faded and given way to a sullen frustration here in Sussex County. Many stores are sold out of such items as snow shovels and boots, not to mention milk, eggs, bread, and toilet paper. Power is still out in some zip codes, and comes and goes in others. Driveways are snowed in by piles of icy snow chunks, and all that is left for snowphobic Sussex Countians to do is sit at home and consume their stockpiles of food. Given the products of choice, one must suppose that many families are dining on French toast, bread pudding, and the like.

If there were any lessons to be learned this weekend, they are:

As the Boy Scout motto states, "be prepared." Flashlights, batteries, generators, bottled water, canned food, and a deck of cards are useful in a number of emergency situations, particularly snowstorms.
Instruments of the state, like DelDOT, cannot be relied upon to the extent that family, friends, and neighbors can be. Those who depend on the government in emergency situations will be disappointed sooner or later.

Which is not to say that DelDOT employees are not doing an excellent job; they are, as are the National Guard, utility companies, and emergency personnel. But no government agency can replace caring individuals, nor do the power and resources of the state release us of our responsibilities to one another.

The road that I live on was plowed by a neighboring farmer on a bulldozer, who gave of his time and gasoline to clear the way for the benefit of local drivers. He did so at nighttime, risking hazardous conditions and potential accidents, in the unpaid service of his fellow citizens. The same has happened in communities across the county; most secondary roads are passable solely due to the labor of individual citizens. If not for their efforts, many would still be snowed in. During the storm, volunteer firefighters checked on the elderly in some towns. In future situations like this, a privately organized militia could be of great value to our community.

But we're not out of the woods yet. Another storm approaches, one that could dump another foot of snow. I urge capable individuals to check on neighbors, particularly the elderly. Simple tasks like clearing off vehicles and shovelling pathways can be very difficult, even dangerous, for them. Residents lacking power will, no doubt, be exceedingly grateful for a thermos of hot coffee, or an invitation to use a shower. Batteries for radios can help to break the monotony (92.7 WGMD's coverage throughout the storm and its aftermath has been invaluable) and those lacking wood-burning stoves will be thankful for loaned non-electric space heaters. There are countless ways to assist those that might be facing a tougher time than we, ourselves, are.

True; we cannot do everything. But let each and every one of us do everything we can.

Notes on this week's Laurel Star (2/4/10)

2010-02-05T08:42:00.004-05:00

This week's paper should have been named the Laurel Referendum, not the Laurel Star.

1. The front page story, "Referendum will come down to a February 10 vote," reviews information about the upcoming Laurel School District referendum. In addition to stressing the necessity of the referendum, the article includes an opposing view from Mr. Ed Carmine, who focuses on the tax burden. "...what I see proposed here in Laurel is fundamentally unfair." I have reserved judgment when commenting on this story, but will state that I believe it is extremely unfair for renters or stay-at-home college students to be permitted to vote in the referendum. It's very easy to vote "yes" for something when one will not have to pay for it. It is my opinion that referendums should be decided by property owners.

2. On page 13 we find a full page propaganda ad for the referendum. A photo features the superintendent, a teacher, and several children (aww). Specifically, the ad encourages 18-year-old high school students "to exercise their democratic right to vote in America." Funny; I wonder how many of those students pay property taxes. Even so, the advertisement will probably be very effective.

3. A brief piece on page 35 describes "Urinetown, The Musical," which will be performed by the Possum Point Players on several dates in April. It is described as a "satirical comedy;" one of the ideas satirized is capitalism. How very, very American!

4. On page 51, "Inmates get second chance at life" describes the Second Chance program at the Sussex Community Corrections Center Work Release Unit. Its goal is to ease the transition from incarceration to freedom. It's nice to read a positive piece about prisoners who are making sincere efforts to transform their lives and become productive members of society.

5. On page 53, Virginia "Mike" Barton makes the case for the school referendum, again. I find it to be interesting that the column is entitled "Vote for Laurel students," not "Vote for higher taxes" or "Vote for new school buildings." Either would be accurate, but the first provokes a positive emotional reaction. When a controversial issue is to be decided, one of the most effective ways to influence the outcome is by tying it to the welfare of children.

6. On the Opinion page, we read an editorial encouraging citizens to "make an informed decision." But with phrases like "...a no vote will send the $101.4 million in state funds to another district" and "This question for voters remains: Am I willing to sacrifice if need be to provide a quality school environment for our children?" the editorial seems to be less about encouraging an informed decision by explaining both sides of the issue (there is legitimate opposition) and more of yet another biased push for "yes" votes. There are also three letters to the editor concerning the same topic.

7. Vital Stats informs us that "the [federal] debt increased by more than $48.5 billion" in the last week. Thanks, Uncle Sam. I wonder who will have to pay for that?

Coons "run against Washington" strategy is misleading and amateurish

2010-02-04T10:22:00.006-05:00

Everyone knew that Chris Coons (D-Wilmington) would face a difficult race against Mike Castle (R-Wilmington) for U.S. Senate. Now that he has officially announced his candidacy, Coons seems to be making it even more difficult by embracing a campaign strategy which is, frankly, amateurish.

"People here in Delaware are hurting, and Congress has failed to deliver the change we voted for in 2008. I'm running to bring energy and a new approach to Washington."

Citizens in Delaware are governed by Democrats at the state level, and represented and governed by Democrats at the federal level. Whether one agrees with that party's platform or not, it is still a bit naive to pretend that a Democratic candidate in 2010 is anything less than a bid to perpetuate the status quo. Moderate though he may be, Castle is conservative enough to threaten the administration's hold on Congress; Coons's run can only be seen as an attempt by Democrats to hold on to as much of the government as possible.

Is that wrong? No, not really. Political parties instinctively try to hold on to seats and support their respective agendas regardless of the consequences. But it's certainly wrong for Coons to masquerade as a modern-day Mr. Smith and feign a run against the establishment; if Mr. Coons goes to Washington, it will be to assist Democratic lawmakers with their present agenda.

Unless he has overestimated the number of Democrats who are dissatisfied with the current administration and who would truly see him as a potential agent of change, his strategy is utterly baseless. Even if it is based on faulty numbers or unreasonable expectations, it is still weak. His party is the majority in Washington, and therefore a run against Washington is also a run against the Democratic Party.

But Castle is already running against the Democratic Party. Despite his years in office, he is a member of the minority party, and can accurately say that he is opposed to the status quo. For Coons to make the same claim should ring hollow to anyone paying attention to U.S. politics.

State reactions to federal mandates could turn ugly

2010-02-02T10:15:00.004-05:00

Many states have a strange view of the role of their federal representatives. In both the Senate and the House, their job is to fight, cut deals, stall when necessary, and generally do anything in their power to bring home federal funding for pet projects. They are reelected term after term for their ability to bring home the bacon. This role is certainly not based on the Constitution, and doesn't do nearly so much good at the state level as some like to pretend.

Even worse, some senators and congressmen believe it is their right and duty to whip the states into line from Washington, using mandates and federal funding (or the withholding thereof) as tools to bully state legislatures into doing their will. Officials from New York, Florida, and California have a say in matters pertinent to Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; not only relating to matters of national security and war, but issues like education, environmental regulations, and health care.

One of the problems with the proposed federal health care takeover, which is stalled at the present, is its very nature. The federal government's influence on health care should be, at least according to the Constitution, minimal. Fortunately, a number of states recognize this, and are continuing to fight the federal effort even as it looks like it might not occur, or at least not in the way originally intended.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, one of many limited government advocacy groups, thirty-five states have state constitutional amendments in the works which would ban federal health insurance mandates. It is their way of putting a foot down and saying to officials at the federal level, "Enough. Not here; this is our state, not yours."

The trouble is that federal laws supercede state and local laws, and a conflict would probably result in a Supreme Court case. If the federal government continues to push, there could be disastrous consequences. Secession is a word already on the tips of many Texans' tongues, and other independently-minded states could cause significant problems for the progressive big government agenda.

One must wonder, how popular will Congress be if it has to order federal troops into a state capital to enforce compliance with one of its unpopular federal mandates? God help us if we reach that point. For now, federal lawmakers play their game, while state lawmakers play another. What happens when the two clash is anyone's guess, but it certainly won't be pretty.

Privatizing NASA's duties is a smart move

2010-02-01T12:11:00.004-05:00

The Obama administration plans to pass some of NASA's duties on to private companies, as part of the new budget, in a move to save tax dollars. Companies will be allowed "to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others," according to the Associated Press. While the motivation for this policy change is, no doubt, purely financial, it will nonetheless benefit space exploration efforts, which have been stuck in a rut since the dramatic moon landing over forty years ago.

Of course, space missions are outrageously expensive. No president or other elected official can safely propose raising taxes for the sole purpose of funding, say, a manned mission to Mars. Such an incredible achievement would be meaningless to the masses, whose small world often ends within a hundred or so miles of home. But by allowing the private sector to participate, spacecraft construction and launches will become more efficient, and that spark of innovation which always seems to be missing from government programs might result in new and improved technologies.

The plans, so far, aren't particularly exciting; astronauts will continue to work at the International Space Station through 2020. But the possibilities of privately-run space endeavors are, quite literally, endless. The only obstacles to projects such as a moon base (which could have military significance), an oupost on Mars, and even farther forays into the outer reaches of the solar system, is cost. We have the technology. It's simply too expensive for our government to handle, particularly during a recession and approaching debt crisis. But a private company doesn't have to worry about reelection; if it can earn or raise the money, it can pour all of its resources into a project, whether the goal is to earn profits or conduct scientific research.

Who knows what might come of private involvement? Commercial flights into space for the wealthy? Space tourism? The boundaries of space are limited, at the present, only by our imaginations. Like explorers of centuries past who feared to sail beyond the horizon, into unmapped regions where mythical nightmares were believed to walk, we who live in the first years of the 21st century have a frontier to reckon with. Like those explorers, our dreams are tempered by financial and technological realities. And, like those explorers, we will eventually succeed.

Politically speaking, it is almost always a good thing for the federal government to turn a duty over to the private sector. And, with the right combination of funding and genius, the results could be truly astronomical.

An Obama-Brown basketball summit? Maybe!

2010-02-01T11:58:00.003-05:00

The recently elected Republican from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, has made it known that he would like to play a game of hoops with President Obama on the White House court. "...I think it would be a good way to kind of break the ice and show the camaraderie that he's talking about. So, we can have our meeting on the basketball court instead of the caucus room."

Is it likely to happen? It's difficult to say. A "basketball summit" would not be so very different from last summer's "beer summit" between the president, the scholar, and the cop. It would be beneficial to Obama, both in reinforcing his connection with the average American, and in bridging the partisan divide. At a time when Obama's appearance in local special elections has been called "the kiss of death," and Democrats are growing increasingly nervous about the approaching November election, it certainly can't hurt Obama to put up a friendly front, and with it, some lay-ups. A one-on-one or two-on-two match might even win over some Republicans, and is certain to be attractive to young and future voters as well.

Will Obama accept the hoops challenge? We'll have to wait and see. For now, the ball is in his court.

Tea Party Nation misses the point

2010-01-31T09:51:00.003-05:00

The unofficial members of the tea party movement belong to the working and middle classes. The chief appeal of the movement, which is based on ideology rather than financial assets or party connections, is that it answers to no singular authority. There is no more a leader of the tea partiers than there was a leader of the punk rockers of three decades ago. But with Tea Party Nation seeming to set itself up in a position of semi-leadership, and selling $350 tickets for Sarah Palin's speech at next month's National Tea Party Convention, its organizers seem to have missed the point.

The tea party movement is often characterized incorrectly as a sort of third party (when it's not being referred to with immature sexual slurs). This is not the reality. It is comprised of members of several parties (Libertarian, Constitution, Republican, Democrat, etc.) who disagree on many issues, but stand on common ground in opposing the increasing size and power of the federal government, and advocating spending cuts, lower taxes, and adherence to the Constitution. It is attractive to conservatives, but the issues it seeks to address were also problems of the Bush administration, which is why the movement must be considered a right-libertarian movement, rather than strictly conservative.

Sherry Phillips, co-organizer of Tea Party Nation, sent an email to its members criticizing the American Liberty Alliance, American Majority, and Campaign For Liberty, claiming that the lack of support for the so-called convention is a result of the groups' apathy or outright hostility. In doing so, she alienates numerous existing and potential supporters, and burns a number of bridges.

Sarah Palin has confirmed that she will still be making her speech, though other conservative luminaries have pulled out or declined to participate. But what's the point? The high ticket prices will exclude the kind of people that make up the heart and soul of the tea party movement. In restricting participation to those able to afford expensive tickets, Tea Party Nation sets itself up as disturbingly similar to the common stereotype of "rich Republicans," which, factually speaking, is as false as the bizarre notion that the modern Democrat Party fights for the working man, but is nonetheless believed by many Americans, particularly in urban areas.

It is inevitable that the GOP will seek to channel tea party dissatisfaction into the election of Republican candidates, if only because the tea party movement is a grass roots reaction against the present administration's policies. But, if the movement is to survive, it must mark a clear boundary between its ideological activism and the similar, yet entirely separate and sometimes conflicting, Republican Party interests. In many ways, the Republican Party works for its own future. The tea partiers work for the future of America.

Fortunately, Tea Party Nation speaks only for itself, and has no control over tea partiers as a group. But, given its recent mistakes, it just might have killed its own chances of having significant influence within the movement. Not to mention the upcoming primary season and general election.