Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Royal Wedding Preview

An amusing look ahead.


Friday, April 15, 2011

Atlas Shrugged

April 15.   Tax Day.   Arithmetically as far from Election Day, counting forward or back, as it can be.   We continue to believe that taxes should be due, and elections held, on the same day.   But as always we're ahead of our time.

What better way to confront Tax Day than with the resplendent moral vision of Ayn Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, that opens today at the Regal Henrietta Cinema 18, on Marketplace Drive in Henrietta.   A tale of a society in which the successful are punished, and the government controls the economy.   Reminds us of a declining world power we know ...

A scene we especially like:


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Tax-Talk Bullshit

Obama calls tax increases "Reductions in spending in the Tax Code."

You see, every penny that you earn, and every other person and business earns, is the property of the government.

So, whatever part of it the government DOESN'T take from you, equals government spending.

For those of you too cloddish and primitive to understand this, let me explain it more plainly:

If you're walking down the street, and I DON'T hit you on the head and steal your wallet, then I've just SPENT the amount of money that's in your wallet.

If that makes sense to you, congratulations.   You're eligible for high office in the Democratic Party.


Old Enought to Fight; Old Enough to Drink

Pushing Back Against the Prohibitionists

Along with joining the military, 18-year-olds can vote, marry, sign contracts, and even take on a crippling lifetime burden of student loan debt in pursuit of an education that may never land them a job.   Yet we face the absurd phenomenon of colleges encouraging students to go into six-figure debt—which can't be discharged in bankruptcy—but forbidding them to drink on campus because they're deemed insufficiently mature to appreciate the risks.


Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Negative Action

Great read from a local high school senior.   She even got an A!
I had to share this with you.

Affirmative action programs give preference to minority groups to make up for historical discrimination. Affirmative action is one remedy for dealing with the effects of discrimination in American history. Supporters view affirmative action as necessary to counteract the effects of past discrimination, whereas opponents believe affirmative action is reverse discrimination. However, not only do the negative effects outweigh the benefits, but the great decrease in racial prejudice in the past years renders affirmative action unnecessary.

Supporters of affirmative action believe it is necessary to overcome the effects of past discrimination to those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. To make up for decreased opportunities for minorities in the past, we must increase their current opportunities. Affirmative action programs are based on the idea that past discrimination is passed from generation to generation, and minorities therefore continue to experience the effects of discrimination today. Moreover, affirmative action not only benefits minority groups but society as a whole.

Raina Kelley illustrates this idea in her article “Affirmative Action” by stating that “diversity challenges assumptions and forces people to rely on personal experience instead of stereotype.” Diversity in any situation provides a wider range of ideas and perspectives, challenging us to expand our knowledge. For this reason, some believe diverse organizations make better decisions due to a wider variety of opinions. Another point supporters make is that due to the vast diversity in the United States, if each group is given the opportunity to interact, we can better achieve unity. Diversity is also necessary in businesses to service a diverse base of customers. In addition, supporters say diversity does not imply favor toward a particular group, as all groups may benefit from diverse perspectives.

On the other hand, opponents of affirmative action view it as reverse discrimination against whites. Although the goal of affirmative action is to make up for historical discrimination, the programs conflict with the idea of a society based not upon color but on merit. Affirmative action contradicts the goal that we should not judge people based on race, color, natural origin, or otherwise. To impose affirmative action programs is to suggest that minorities are in need of special treatment to succeed, undermining the achievements of minorities who have succeeded without preferential treatment.

In his article on quotas, Rich Tyson describes the concept of affirmative action as “cheapening the successes of those who have worked hard and not looked to have the rules bent to get where they are.” Affirmative action also leads minorities to view themselves as disadvantaged, when in reality they are not, preventing them from reaching their full potential. In addition, we already have anti-discrimination laws in place which are adequate tools in addressing discrimination. Most importantly, demographics are only one aspect of diversity. This detracts from the supporting arguments regarding diversity producing a wide range of ideas, as affirmative action does not ensure diversity of opinion.

Both sides present valid arguments. However, the drawbacks of affirmative action outweigh the benefits. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, we should not be judged on the color of our skin but on the content of our character. If the goal of affirmative action is ultimately to achieve equality, the programs themselves are completely counterproductive. Affirmative action crosses the line from promoting equality to giving minorities preferential treatment. Job positions and school acceptances should be based on qualifications rather than on demographics. Because of affirmative action, qualified whites are passed over in favor of less qualified minorities. In addition, it’s unfair to the individuals who work hard to be successful when opportunities are handed to others because of their race. True successes of minorities may be labeled as a result of preferential treatment rather than hard work. Moreover, our current generation has come a long way since the times of “Whites Only” signs and Jim Crow laws. This is not to say prejudice has vanished entirely; however, the need for antiquated policies that place certain groups over others has come to an end as society has developed over the past fifty years.

Affirmative action continues to receive both support and opposition. Supporters view it as an effective and necessary way of making schools and businesses more diverse, while opponents characterize it as reverse discrimination. Affirmative action may have been beneficial in the past, however, social advances regarding prejudice and segregation have rendered affirmative action programs unnecessary in more recent years. It is well past the time for our society to stop dwelling on the past and begin living the creed of Martin Luther King Jr.


Sunday, April 10, 2011



Friday, April 8, 2011

Rochester's National Embarrassment

Senile joke Louise Slaughter says Repubicans came to Washington to "kill women."


Monday, April 4, 2011

Leadership, at Last, for New York

During last year's election season, we derided Andrew Cuomo's pronouncements on fiscal responsibility as insincere campaign posturing.

Never have we been so glad to have been so totally wrong.

Governor Cuomo, we salute you.

“You can’t spend more money than you make,” Cuomo said on February 5, setting a tone for his administration.   “There are only two groups of people who don’t understand this.   No. 1 is the leadership of the New York State legislature.   No. 2 are my daughters.”