Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 3 at 10:37 a.m.
As i read the article above, I was struck by its summation of current ideas and statistics about the fate of women in our electoral process. Sadly, we don't encourage women to participate, and we are the worse for it. Just as Democrats need Republicans to modify their positions , so do Republicans need Democrats.And likewise for men and women.
We are not well served by obdurate representatives from either party, yet that is what we have been getting. And another thing we really need is an intelligent comment that understands what it reads.
After reading the comments to this article, I have come to the conclusion that the "x" chromosome is alive and well. That doesn't mean that it is also intelligent and thoughtful. For example , the comment that more men than women were laid off during the Bush era induced recession, is a tribute to the fact that women are paid about 25% less than men for doing a job better, not that they were being favored, just the opposite.( First lesson in economics---if the job can be performed better for less money, then do it)
Another more obvious error alluded to, is that the author failed to name Republican women when identifying the women elected in 1992, is that no Republican women were elected at that time, and while I do not want to claim that the election campaigns for Republican representation by women is wanting , it seems as though that party doesn't encourage women to be candidates, altho, if Ms's Palin or Bachman are the choices it is easy to understand why.
And it is only common sense to appraise the current state of our nation as representative of what a male dominated culture produces maybe we would be better off with more female elected officials. ( I wont comment on the bag of rocks relationship to some commenters)
On Winning with Women
Posted on December 15 at 9:29 p.m.
Professor Ruppert leaves a whole of questions unanswered1)He asserts that the Cash for Clunkers program left a big void in later sales. Does he have any evidence that the people taking advantage of the program would have bought a vehicle if there had been no program? If so, why would they drive clunkers before the program was announced, and the unsaid benefit from this program is the removal of an awful lot of smogsters, and of course the sales increase for many struggling auto dealers, which kept some workers employed, not a bad thing.2)The claim that the subsidy for first time home buyers was giving money to some who didn't buy a home implies that all one had to do to obtain one was saying that he or she was going to buy a home and a check would be handed over. Not even his version of the failure of government is that foolish, unless ,of course, the good professor believes in the tooth fairy. Besides I suspect that first time home buyers really don't have enough cash to buy a home without a bank loan. You might remember bank lending to unqualified buyers is what got into this mess. And I think that these buyers had to satisfy the lenders before they could get the subsidy. And so, why is the professor blaming the government, I suspect, because it is easy to since they don't reply.3)And with respect to the claim that politicians telling the Federal Reserve what to do, almost any first year economics student will know that the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency, which politician has the right to tell them what to do? None.4) it is a canard to believe that unemployed people want to wait for a better job, particularly because when they were working they were spending their wages supporting the economy, during a period when savings were less than one percent of our economy. Can you picture an unemployed professor slinging hash in a diner, or picking fruit to make a living? Being unemployed is a tragedy, and after you sit at home for a very short while, it is the last thing you want to do, and of course the psychological trauma of not being able to support yourself is devastating. Those of us who have employment realize that our self respect is important. Any educated person wants to be productive and being unemployed is the other side of a bad coin.5) Business is important and it is what makes our economy function,and being employed is an important ingredient of that economy, and the suggestion that taxes prevent business from functioning is nonsense. All any businessman wants is to be successful, and not hiring people to help sell your product is counter productive, so if you can make a profit by selling more why would any businessman not want to hire more people to serve his customers if his product is desirable? You can't have a democratic society without paying for it, and borrowing to fund it only makes the hole deeper.(How's that for mixing metaphors)
On Politics and Economics Don’t Mix
Posted on May 8 at 8:17 a.m.
I do not believe k9karma is accurate with the statement that virtually everyone supported the PXP deal.I did not and several of my friends agreed with my position. I supported Susan Jordan because she had the guts and the wisdom to recognize that this is and was an unworkable solution, and that every other oil company would look on this as a free pass to increase their drilling as well.It is not possible to allow more drilling in the hope that the drillers would give up their honey pot. you must remember that its well is in Federal waters and the party of no is a strong believer in "DRILL,BABY DRILL" Allan Ghitterman
On Terminating T-Ridge
Posted on March 12 at 10:51 a.m.
These agreements carry a lot with them, the inference that other oil companies will use to allow them to expand their operations, their desire to ask for more than 14 years, (there is no magic in 14,) and my guess is that PXP used that number based on its estimate that they will increase their efforts to remove as much as physically possible in that period and that their field will be exhausted or nearly so.In addition in addition to royalties, there doesn't appear to be any incentive to assert a severance tax, which will clearly help our budgetary problem.The Governors reluctance to assert that tax, while reducing health and education allowances is incomprehensible. Particularly, in view that all the other states which allow oil and gas drilling assert the imposition of this tax. How come the media is silent on this issue? Maybe they are waiting for the Governor to give them a handout? Or an offer to join him in smoking a cigar?I do not believe that we are well served by making anonymous comments.Allan Ghitterman
On Cautious PXP Confidence
Posted on November 12 at 11:06 p.m.
It always surprises me that the criticism of any politician ends up with name calling. If there is a complaint about either Jackson or Strickland surely it can be iterated. However, my recall about Jackson's and Strickland's respective terms demonstrates that Strickland does not any program except obstructionism, his term was notable that he didn't develop any legislation or do anything except occupy space. Has he held any employment except feeding at the public trough. If that is his idea of public service we are al in deep doo-doo. Jackson, on the other hand, introduced several approved bills, which were signed into law by a Republican governor. Not only that, Jackson's environmental record speaks for itself, whereas Strickland's also speaks for him (98.5 % against any bill designed to our state more environmentally secure). But the irony of it all is that Strickland campaigned as the concerned environmentalist. Of course, all you persons supporting him won't recognize the falsity of this. Now,you are concerned with the state spending habits, and I suggest that first we reduce the number of prison guards and sheriffs by at least half, the states medical practitioners equally, and the highway repair personnel at least by 50%. We shouldn't forget probation department or the court system or the schools. We have already cut the benefits of welfare recipients, the disabled, and the needy so there is nothing left to cut.
On UPDATED: Latest on Jackson-Strickland