Saturday, February 18, 2006

THE PLAY BOOK OF THE FLAT EARTH PEOPLE....WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE FACTS....DEMONIZE

DEAR READERS;

I WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF COMMENTS SENT TO MY LAST BLOG AND TO MY E-MAIL RESPONDING TO MY BLOG. FIRST, TO THOSE WHO WISH TO AMMEND MY BLOG PLEASE USE THE COMMENTS SECTION. YOU MAY USE AN ANONOMOUS SEUDONYNM. I HAVE DEBATED WHETHER TO PRINT COMMENTS TO MY E-MAIL, HOWEVER MY EDITOR( YES, I ACTUALLY HAVE AN EDITOR, MY PARTNER TOMMY, WHO UNLESS HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, NOTHING GETS POSTED) HAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THE FACT THAT THE WRITER THEN CAN CHARGE I TOOK THOSE COMMENTS OUT OF CONTEX, OR THEY DID NOT MAKE THOSE COMMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. RATHER THEN DEAL WITH UNNECESSARY GRIEF, I WILL REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY COMMENTS TO MY E-MAIL PUBLIC UNLESS THEY ARE ALSO POSTED ON THE COMMENTS SECTION WHERE THE READERS CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.
************************************************************************************
TO THE COMMENTS POSTED ON MY LAST BLOG, LET ME SAY THAT MAKING THE BOOGEY MAN OUT OF EITHER BIG OIL OR BIG BOX STORES DOES NOT CUT IT WITH ME. IF YOU HAVE A POLICY DIISAGREEMENT WITH A CERTIAN BOX STORE, DON'T SHOP THERE, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. HOWEVER YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM BENEFITING FROM EITHER WILLING TO WORK OR SHOP AT THOSE STORES. IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF EITHER NOT SHOPPING OF STARTING YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND COMPETING IN THE FREE MARKET PLACE AND SETTING YOUR OWN STANDARDS. AS A PERSON WHO HAS OWNED NUMEROUS SMALL BUSINESES, I HAVE DONE THIS. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK YOUR SELF, THEN I SUGGEST YOU REFRIAN FROM TRYING TO SUPLANT YOUR WILL OVER THOSE WHO DID RISK THEIR CAPITAL AND TIME IN THESE CAPITILISTIC VENTURES.
************************************************************************************
AS FOR DEMONIZING THE "EEEEEVIL" OIL COMPANIES, THE PROFITS THAT ARE PRINTED ARE DESIGNED TO INFLAME THE CASUAL OBSERVER. TO THE INFORMED,
THE NET PROFIT ON A GALLON OF GAS IS ABOUT 14 CENTS. HOWEVER THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAXES ON THAT SAME GALLON IS 46 CENTS. THE EXPLOITER IS THE GOVERNMENT. THE ONLY ANSWER WE GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE WILLING FLAT EARTH HACKS IS TO INCREASE THOSE TAXES, OR SIMPLY PUT, INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. IT DOES NOT LOWER THE PRICE OF GAS TO THE CONSUMER, THOUGH IT DOES WHAT THE SCOCIALIST LIKE TO DO, WHICH IS SCOCIAL ENGINERING THROUGH TAXATION. THIS EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR FREEDOMS. HOWEVER BAD YOU MAY THINK OF BIG OIL, BIG GOVERNMENT IS AN EVEN GREATER DANGER. AFTER WATCHING GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF THE DMV, SCOCAIL SERVICES AND EVEN FEMA, THE THOUGHT OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLING OIL IS NIGHTMARISH. SO UNTIL THERE IS A FREEMARKET SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, I WOULD RATHER LEAVE IT ALONE THEN TO GROW GOVERNMENT EVEN MORE..
*************************************************************************************
HOWEVER THE DEMOCRATS WISH TO DEFEAT SUE KELLY FOR CONGRESS, LYING
TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS IS A PITIFUL WAY TO DO IT. IF YOU CAN NOT BEAT HER ON HER RECORD (WHICH SHE CAN BE BEAT ON) THEN YOU BRING DISGRACE TO YOU AND YOUR PARTY BY DEMONIZING AND LYING ABOUT THE FACTS. AS SHE HAS A 93 PERCENT RATING BY THE SIERRA CLUB, HARDLY MAKES HER A TOM DELAY PUPPET.
FYI, TOM DELAY IS NO LONGER THE MAGORITY LEADER, THAT IS OLD NEWS. THAT SHE ACTUALLY VOTES MOST OF THE TIME WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MIGHT BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE IS A REPUBLICAN. HOW MANY NEW YORK DEMOCRATS VOTE THE REPBULICAN LINE? THEY MORE THAN NOT VOTE THE DEMOCRATIC LINE AS THEY ARE DEMOCRATS. THERE IS NOTHING EVIL, OR DISHONSEST IN VOTING THE PARTY LINE IN WHICH YOU AGREE, IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PUPPET. HER INSISTANCE IN TAKING OUT DRILLING IN ANWAR (WHICH WAS AGAINST THE PARTY LINE) FROM THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, SHOWS THAT ON PRICIPAL SHE IS NO PUPPET. ALSO FOR THE RECORD THERE WERE NO CUTS IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON SCOCIAL PROGRAMS. THE CUTS WERE IN THE PROJECTED RATE OF GROWTH. ALL THOSE SCOCIAL PROGRAMS WILL BE RECIEVING MORE MONEY IN THIS BUDGET THAN IN THE LAST, AND MORE THAN THE RATE OF INFLATION. THIS SCARING OF THE IGNORANT, THAT THEY WILL STARVE, BE FORCED OUT INTO THE COLD AND THEIR CHILDREN WILL REMAIN FOREVER INGNORANT LIKE THOSE WHO KEEP YELLING CUTS TO PROGRAMS SPENDING, IS DAMNABLE AND ANYBODY RESORTING TO THOSE TACTICS SHOULD BE SOUNDLY DEAFEATED. IT DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NO HONOR TO RESORT TO THIS KIND OF POLITICS.
*************************************************************************************

FOR THE RECORD THE MANIFESTO IS ROOTING FOR THE CANDIDACY OF BEN SHULDINER IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SUE KELLY FOR CONGRESS. I FIND HIM TO BE THAT RARE BREED OF DEMOCRAT THAT STICKS TO THE ISSUES OF RELEVENCE, AND AT ALL TIMES MAINTIANS HIS HONOR IN THE PROCESS. THAT HE HAS BEEN BOTH A TEACHER AND A PRINCIPAL MAKES HIM MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO ADRESS THE ISSUE OF EDUCATION, WHICH IS A PRIMARY ISSUE. HE HAS CONSENTED TO DO A QUESTION AND ANSWER FOR THE MANIFESTO SO THAT YOU MAY SEE AN UNEDITED VERSION OF HIS VIEWS.

BAZZO 02/18/06

7 comments:

slyypper said...

another reason why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, just to get on Andy's nerves, who is trying to discuss Target & not Wal-mart:

http://tinyurl.com/n2ne2

As long as I'm at it, Andy, would you post your source for the 300-jobs Target's going to bring to Peekskill? Many thanks...

andyland said...

DEAR SLYYPPER:

FIRST, THE SOURCE FOR THE JOBS CAME FROM THE PEOPLE AT THE MEETING WHERE THE PROPOSAL WAS DISCUSSED, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE.

SECOND, I DON'T REALLY CARE WHERE YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY, UNLESS IT IS IN ANOTHER TAXI.

THIRD, I SAT IN THE WALMART PARKING LOT THE OTHER DAY AND NOTICED THAT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO WENT IN TO SHOP, NOT ONE HAD A GUN TO THERE HEAD. THE SAME WENT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE. IF THEY ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WORKING CONDITIONS THEY ARE FREE TO QUIT, AND NOBODY WILL COME TO THERE HOUSE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT AND KIDNAP THERE FAMILY UNTIL THEY RETURN. YOU ONE THE OTHER HAND MAY TRY TO EDUCATE PEOPLE TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING, HOWEVER THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE YOU AND DISMISS YOUR ARGUEMENT. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR CHOICE. IN A FREE SOCIETY, JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY BE RIGHT, DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET TO HAVE YOUR WAY.

BAZZO 02/20/06

ImaginaryCousin said...

Andy, I'll try to hit a few points raised in your blog. With respect to the Box Store issue, I am not a fan of these stores primarily due to their long histories of breaking unions. I firmly believe that employees are best represented as a collective bargaining unit rather than individually. I will limit this discussion to Target, but most of the "box stores" (which is a term I do not like) fit into this discussion.

I am not sure why you are saying if I have a policy disagreement with a certain store my only way to deal with it is to not shop at that store. That is a very limited view of my role in my community. When there is a problem (or at least what I see as a problem) the answer is not for me to remove the problem from my life, but instead I have every right to do whatever I see fit to correct the problem. I don’t see how my ignoring a problem makes me a good citizen. I see a problem with Target, I am going to do my best to make sure I spread my concerns to as many citizens as possible and get their support for my idea. If a significant number of citizens express the same concern I have, the concern is more likely to be addressed. SO please don’t advise me to simply not shop at a store if I don’t like it. I don’t think that is responsible citizenship.

You are correct, in a free market one has the option of either not shopping or starting a competitive business, but these are not the only options. In a free market we also have the right to encourage others not to shop at a business. These are certainly factors that should be considered by a governmental body representing me. The notion that unless I am willing to put up my own capital risk or shut up is insulting. You want me to spend money in your cab but don't think I have the right to engage in governmental law making and licensing in the cab business. The hell I say. I am a citizen who uses your cab (sorry about the term cab, I am not sure if the proper term is cab, taxi, hired car, car service or something else). I want to make sure anyone who gets a license to operate a cab has met certain safety standards in the vehicle they carry me in, carries certain insurance and has a safe driving record. It is not enough to say I will ride in a different cab if I don’t like yours, I have every right to prevent you from operating a business if you are going to operate an unsafe vehicle or are to qualified to operate a vehicle and put my life and financial well being at risk.

The same is true of any business. I have the same right to make sure that Target will not operate its business is such a way that will effect my life or financial well being. If it will, I have every right to make sure my concerns are heard. To suggest I am limited to opening my own store to compete is insane. This is a representative government. I have the right to tell my represent ivies my concerns and get a large number of other citizens to agree. Then we can have our concerns addressed. You may not agree with my concerns, and then by all means say so. We can fight it out in the public forum and one of us will be happier than the other at the end of the day. Don’t tell me to put up my own money or shut up though. Just because someone has stolen enough money from a cab company to buy their own car and start a new cab company does not mean I should be forced to stay quiet about it because I am not opening a cab company myself.

As for demonizing the Evil Oil companies, I am not trying to demonize anyone. The fact is that oil companies are taking advantage of a law that did not intend to provide this windfall. When a law is not fleshed out properly, the government certainly has the right to challenge the party seeking to benefit from the law. The net profit on a gallon of gas is not the issue I raised. I raised a specific concern over oil companies violating the spirit of a law. We will never agree that big government is worse than big oil. Big government changes every year or two through elections, big oil is beyond our control.

The Sue Kelly issue is a tough one for me. I am friends with her family, so I have a hard time speaking ill of Sue Kelly, but she has sold out her constituents several times to vote the party line. Will a democrat do this, probably, but I am probably going to vote against her though it will pain me personally to do so. I agree that lying is never the way to win an election. The Tom Delay Puppet comment is about her party line votes on budgets and other votes even though there is a clear disadvantage to NY. She is a republican in a "liberal blue state" so she often votes with the party in a way which hurts NY. Her votes on military base budgets have impacted NY in negative ways. As has her votes on budgets in general. The Tom Delay issue is hardly old news when he has stated that he intends to regain his position, and the current speaker has publicly stated he would step aside is Delay is able to come back after his legal woes conclude. Sue Kelly is a very good woman who I know personally. She loves her children and grandchildren and is someone I would have no problem leaving my daughter with to care for (which I think is the highest compliment I can pay someone). I do not think she has always done right by her constituents. I can give more examples in a later blog posting, but I have to get back to work now.

andyland said...

DEAR IMAGINARY COUSIN:

POINT ONE: TO EVEN INSIUATE THAT I OR ANY OTHER ENTRAPANURE STOLE THE MONEY TO OPEN SAID BUSINESS IS NOT ONLY INSULTING BUT SLANDEROUS, TO WHICH I TAKE HIGH OFFENSE. TO DISSAGREE WITH ONES POSTION, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGTH TO QUESTION THERE HONESTY, HOWEVER I DO FIND THAT A CHARACTER TRAIT OF THE DEMOCRATS, WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS...DEMONIZE..

POINT TWO: I WILL REPEAT WHAT I SAID BEFORE, AS WE ARE TALKING PAY SCALE, THAT IS A POLICY DIFFERENCE, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, AND AS LONG AS ANY BUSINESS COMPLIES WITHIN THE LAW, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUPPLANT YOUR OPINION WITH THAT OF THE OWNER AND DENY THAT BUSIONESS THE RIGHT TO OPERATE. OYUR ONLY OPIONS LIKE I SAID IS TO SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE, OR OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS. TRYING TO GET YOUR WAY ON SOMEONE ELSES DIME ISNOT THE WAY, NOT IN A FREEMARKET ECONOMY ANYWAY.

THIRD POINT: TO DISPARAGE SOMEONE VOTING THE PARTY LINE SHE MIGHT ALSO AGREE WITH WHO IS A REPULICAN, YET SAY IT IS ALRIGHT FOR THE DEMOCRAT TO DO THE SAME IS HIPOCRICY. THE TOM DELAY THING IS JUST A SMEAR WHEN YOU RUN OUT OF ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RELEVENT. THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TIMES WHEN OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE HAVE VOTED THE DEMOCRATIC LINE EVEN THOUGH THEY HURT N.Y. MORE THEN SUE KELLY EVER DID, BUT TO SAY THAT'S ALRIGHT IS ALSO HIPOCRISY.

FOURTH POINT:
IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE PRICE OF A CAB RIDE, YOU CAN ALWAYS BUY A CAR, TAKE THE BUS OR WALK. OR BETTER YET START YOUR OWN CAB COMPANY AND LET THE CUSTOMER DICTATE YOUR PRICE, IWOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU PAY THE MECHANIC OR INSURANCE THEN.

BAZZO 02/21/06

andyland said...

DEAR IMAGINARY COUSIN:

I CANNOT LET THIS REST, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN UNIONS (WICH IS A POLICY ISSUE, NOT A SAFETY ISSUE)DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT OR ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY THE RIGHT TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO OPERATE UNLESS THEY PAY UNION WAGES AND/OR BENEFITS. WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE THE CHOICES LEFT TO YOU, THE REALITY IS IN A FREMARKET THOSE ARE YOUR ONLY CHOICES THAT DO NOT TRAMPLE OVER THE RIGHT OF THE BUSINESS OWNER. EDUCATE THE PEOPLE ALL YOU WANT ON YOUR POSTION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE TERMERITY TO DISSAGREE WITH YOU AND SHOP THERE ANYWAY, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR CHOICE, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY THINK THEM WRONG. HOWEVER SINCE YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DICTATE WAGES OF PRIVATE BUSINESS, I WOULD ALSO ASSUME YOU AGREE WITH TORT REFORM IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DICTATES HOW MUCH PRIVATE LAWYERS CAN MAKE.

BAZZO 02/22/06

ImaginaryCousin said...

Andy,
Point One, I was not suggesting that you stole money to set up your business. I intended to suggest something extreme to make a point and obviously failed. Please let it be clear that I in no way beleive you have stolen money from anyone at any time. I obviously did not accomplish my goal of using an extreme situation to make a point. I am sorry for the confusion.

Point Two, we often have this problem. You raise an issue, like the Target store, intending ot make a point. Your issue is not the only issue. You may have been limiting your comments to pay scale, but I was not. The majority of the "wage an hour" jobs created by Target's arrival are at or near the state minimun wage. I have complained to you before that the minimum wage is too low and needs to be raised. That issue is not one with Target but with our friends in Albany. However, wage is not the sole issue I felt the need to address. It is need of every citizen to ensure that someone who wants to use land does not do damage to me. You seem to think that merely being an owner of land gives you absolute rights and that position seems to underline most of your arguements. However, you surely don;t beleive that someone who owns a house does not have the right to store toxic waste or set up a firing range without taking certain safety measures (at least I thikn you would agree). This is because any use, however simple, involves a risk to others and we as a society pass criminal, civil and regulatory measures to force people not to hurt others. Safety does not just invovle preventing toxic waste from spilling onto the street or bullets from hitting people, it involves ensuring adequate fire protection, adequate road use and access to property, security from crime and many other issues. I will interject these concerns whenever you raise something about a business being opened and you attempt to tell me I have no right to govern that business. I have every righ tot be sure these issues are addressed. Now, you may think that a business's position on employees and what it contributes to a communitee is meaningless expect for the creation of job, I think there is a lot more to it. If a business is not appealing, I have every right to closely examine everything the business does and encourage others to do so. I have every right to encourage boycotts and encourage my elected representatives to be thourough in making sure the business satisfies every single safety concern. This is what I suggested. Shopping elsewhere or setting up my own business as a way to deal with my concerns is a limited approach, but one that a republican would be sure to suggest.

You are so fond of criticizing Schumer and Clinton for voting the party line when it may be bad for New York for them to do so, but you seem okay with Sue Kelly doing it. That seems like HIPOCRICY. I am okay with someone voting the party line, but the fac tis that NY is not a republican state, and her voting the party line hurts us mroe often than it helps us. There are many reason Sue Kelly needs to go, btu lets table that until the primary season approaches. The Tom Delay thing is not a smear. You are happy to criticize Albany politics for listenign to the bosses without even blinking an eye and want to replace the old boys network up there. It is the same in Washington. Whether Tom Delay is majority leader or another person is leader, Sue Kelly has shown she can be easily manipulated. Using an example of that manipulation is not a smear, it is a valid critism.

On the price of a cab, I am glad to have the government police cabs and lawyers to protect the consumer. Consumers alone do not have a voice. Standing at 2:00 in the morning in the cold waiting for a cab does not give me any power. You could get me int eh car and say I am charging you $500 or you can walk to Cortlandt. I think it is necessary to regulate you to prevent that from happening, I know you would not do that, but the regualtions are there to ensure I am protected from one who might. Also, I think it is necessary to require cab drivers to maintian certain insurance, a safe car and a clean driving record.

As for the regulation of lawyers, we have many volumes of the NY Code regulating us. I have requirments to go to classes each year to keep my license. I have to maintain insurance and I am limited in how I can advertise adn what business I am allowed to take. I am limited in what I can charge a client and how I can ask a client to pay me. I understand that it is frustrating to run a business, but it is the cost of doign business.

Tort reform is different than regulating wages of attorneys. Tort reform is capping the amount an injured party can recover in a lawsuit. I agree with tort reform because it is necessary to save our medical structure which is being killed by lawsuits. I also agree with reguations limiting how much I can take from a client. so yeah, I am fine with that.

andyland said...

DEAR IMAGINARY COUSIN:

AS FOR HOW I STARTED MY BUSINESS, EXPLANATION ACCEPTED. AS A LAWYER YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THE POWER OF WORDS. IF YOU NOTICE I DO NOT USE EXTREMES FOR AN ARGUMENT, I USE THE AVAILABLE FACTS AND HOPE THEY BY THEMSELVES ARE PERSUASIVE ENOUGH.

I DONOT DISSAGREE THAT THE CITZEN AND THROUGH THEM THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN DECIDING A UNIFORM CODE OF SAFETY. AS FOR A BUSINESS BEING APPEALING THAT IS TO SUBJECTIVE A MEASURE TO LEAVE THE FINAL SAY TO THE PUBLIC, THE INVESTOR AND/OR OWNER HAS THAT RIGHT AND RISK, THE FREE MARKET WILL DICTATE THE APPEAL.

ON CAB SAFETY AND REGULATION, YOU CAN CHECK WITH THE PEEKSKILL CITY HALL, I WAS ISTUMENTAL IN THE UPGRADING OF THOSE CODES AS I BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO A SAFE RIDE HOME NO MATTER WHAT THE FARE, AFTGER ALL NOBODY PUT A GUN TO THE DRIVER OR OWNERS HEAD TO OPERATE A CAB. LIKE YOUR PROFESSION, YOU DO IT KNOWING FULL WELL THE RULES INVOLVED, OR YOU FIND A NOTHER PROFESION.

YOU ASSUME (WHICH OF ALL PEOPLE, SHOULD KNOW BETTER) THAT I AM ENDORSING OR WILL ENDOSE SUE KELLY. IF YOU READ THE LAST PART OF MY BLOG, YOU WILL HAVE SEEN WHERE MY POSTION IS. SHOULD BEN GET THE NOMINATION, I WILL PROBABLY ENDORSE HIM. IF NOT THEN IT IS UP IN THE AIR. BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER IT WILL BE ON THE ISSUES, NOT THE PARTY.
\
NEW YORK MAY BE BLUE, BUT SHE IS STILL A REPUBLICAN, TOM DELAY IS NOT THE MAGORITY LEADER. AS I COMPLAIN ABOUT ALBANY, I DO SO IN THEIR VOTING RECORD, WHICH I HAVE AND WILL CONTIUE TO OUTLINE. I DO NOT EXCUSE SUE KELLY OF VINCENT LEIBEL OR SANDRA GALEF FOR CHOOSING PARTY OVER PEOPLE. THEY ARE ALL INTRENCHED INCUMENTS MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE RETION OF OFFICE THEN THE CONCERNS OF THEIR DISRICT.
THE DEMOCRATS FROM NEW YORK IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE ARE ALSO THE SAME, HOWEVER EXCEPT FOR THE SENATE, I NOR YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE. SO I CONCETRATE MY EFFORTS ON THAT WHICH I HOPE TO AFFECT CHANGE. TO CHANGE THE WORLD YOU MUST START WITH YOUR CORNER OF IT.

BAZZO 02/23/06