Worcester County Freedom Trail

As if they don’t have enough on their plates already — trying to come up with new ways to spend money the state doesn’t have — now Beacon Hill wants to micromanage sick time programs in the private sector.

This op-ed from the Worcester Telegram makes it painfully clear:

At a time when Massachusetts’ economic well-being depends on promoting private-sector growth, a legislative committee’s plan to micromanage sick-leave policy in the private sector is ill-conceived.

The Labor and Workforce Development Committee last week approved a measure that would require employers to allow each employee a minimum of seven paid sick-leave days per year. It also would establish a very broad definition of what constitutes a legitimate use of a sick day, including going for a routine medical exam, caring for a sick child, spouse or parent, and others.

Most employees enjoy paid sick-leave benefits simply because employers consider that good business and good labor relations. But establishing and defining such a benefit is the prerogative of employers and their employees or collective-bargaining units.

At best, the one-size-fits-all mandate sends an anti-business message — at a time when prospective employers already are leery, in general, of soaring health care and energy costs and, in particular, of Massachusetts’ high cost of doing business, highest-in-the-nation unemployment insurance rates and Beacon Hill’s chronic tendency toward overregulation.

Instead of benefiting workers, the mandate would tend to discourage economic expansion and job creation. The Legislature should reject this unwarranted, counterproductive interference in the private sector.

Hey, maybe this means now I can get taxpayer funds to give all my employees one day off a month to do charity work!!!

A recent letter from Senator John McCain with a solid position on health care:

Unlike my opponents, I do not believe that all of our nation’s problems can be solved by turning control over to our government, with all the tax increases, new mandates and government regulation that come with that idea.

I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves. Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage.

That’s why, as president, I will seek to encourage and expand the benefits of Health Savings Accounts, tax-preferred accounts that are used to pay insurance premiums and other health costs. These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for.

In addition, I will reform the tax code to provide every family the option of receiving a direct, refundable tax deposit – effectively $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 cash for families to offset the cost of insurance.

The reality is that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, in their haste to garner support for their so-called “solutions,” are promising more than they can deliver. And, once again, they are simply out-of-touch with the real problems facing our health care system and how to solve them.

Here are the facts: Under the Democrats’ plan, we will have all the problems, and more, of the current health care system – rigid rules, long waits and lack of choices – and we risk degrading the system’s great strengths and advantages, including the innovation and life-saving technology that make American medicine the most advanced in the world.

This from a Washington Times op-ed by the Home School Legal Defense Association (isn’t it too bad we even have to have such an organization in this “land of the free”?):

Many families have been alarmed at the recent California Court of Appeal ruling that prohibits homeschooling unless the parent is a certified teacher.

In just 10 days, more than 250,000 people signed the Home School Legal Defense Association petition opposing this decision. Not all these families were homeschoolers. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says the ruling was an “all-out assault on the family.”

The good news is that the Court of Appeal has granted a request for a rehearing of its decision on homeschooling, which by law, automatically vacates the decision, meaning it’s no longer binding.

The court has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs, including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three California teachers unions.

Although there is no guarantee the outcome will be different after the rehearing, The homeschool community welcomes the opportunity to file an amicus brief advocating that the court retain the current method of homeschooling in California through the private school exemption.

Just when things seemed to be settling down in California, on April 3, Assembly Bill 2943 was introduced by assembly member Sally Lieber. This bill would have the practical effect of making a noninjurious spanking with an object such as a ruler, folded newspaper or small paddle illegal in California. The bill is identical to Assembly Bill 755, which failed to pass the assembly last year.

This bill amends Penal Code section 273(a), which makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm or injury to any minor child. If the bill passes, spanking with an object such as a stick, rod or switch would be lumped in with throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.

Striking a child with a fist. Striking a child under 3 years of age on the face or head. Vigorously shaking of a child under 3 years of age. Interfering with a child’s breathing. Brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child. These are all factors that a jury could use to conclude that a defendant in a criminal case has inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.

What the bill would do is to equate discipline administered via an implement with the above conduct, which obviously is abusive behavior toward a child.

Senator Barack Obama stuck by Rev Jeremiah Wright these last couple of months, denying he’d been influenced by the fiery minister who seems to hate a lot of people. Then Rev. Wright went quiet for a month before racing back onto the scene with more hate speech this week. Now, with this latest tirade, Obama has finally had enough?!?!?

This sure seems like a setup for Obama to publicly back out of his relationship with Wright, now that he’s seen Wright’s rhetoric isn’t winning him many votes.

Here are Rev Wright’s latest comments from an NAACP meeting in Detroit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9aEWEa0sI

And here’s the video of his performance at the National Press Club:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lV8x_-Uk2c

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am50KvOWaaw

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BWWx4Q1VFg&feature=related

This from BBC News:

Democratic US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has expressed “outrage” at comments made by Rev Jeremiah Wright.

He said that any relationship he had with his former pastor “has now changed” as a result of the comments.

Reverend Wright initially stayed silent when footage of old sermons containing politically-charged remarks were first circulated on television and online in March.

But in two recent speeches, to journalists and African-American activists, Mr Wright has attempted to hit back at his critics, saying that attacks on him were attacks on the black church and that his six years of service in the military was proof of his patriotism.

However, in his comments on Tuesday, Mr Obama said: “I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black Church. They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs.”

Sounds like Obama is trying to split hairs so he can appeal to both sides on the partial birth abortion issue. I can’t be the first to tell him that there are no gray lines on this issue. Either you’re for partial birth abortion (and murder of a child) or you’re against it.

This just in from LifeSiteNews:

Presidential hopeful and outspoken abortion advocate Barack Obama argued on Sunday that the partial birth abortion ban is unacceptable without exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother.

“On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions.  I have said so repeatedly.  All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that,” Obama told FOX News Sunday.

However, multiple health professions have testified in the past that partial birth abortion is neither necessary to save a mother’s life, nor safe for the woman undergoing the procedure.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) could “conceive of no circumstance in which it (partial-birth abortion) would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother,” according to a June 2003 letter to Congress from AAPS member Dr. Jane Orient.

Furthermore, partial birth abortion “carries the risk of maternal injury or death, as by uterine rupture or laceration and hemorrhage.”

Even abortionist Dr. Warren Hern told American Medical News, “I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use…Turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous.  You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do that.”

Complications in pregnancy can be dealt with through a Caesarian section or an induced labor, rather than through a partial birth abortion, noted Orient.

The Massachusetts Republican Party filed a complaint with the State Ethics commission and released the following statement today in response to a Boston Globe story detailing how House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi may have helped fast-track legislation on behalf of a friend who extended him a $250,000 line of credit at a low rate.

Massachusetts Republican Party Executive Director Rob Willington said,

Once again Speaker DiMasi has shown that when it comes to the Democrat party, ethics are optional. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to do anything about it, because they have shown a complete unwillingness to do the right thing, even when blatant violations are staring them in the face. The voters will remember their arrogance this November, and Republicans will be there to remind them.

Unanswered questions in the Globe article include why the house counsel, paid for by the taxpayers, is providing free legal advice to the Speaker, and also the laughable idea that Speaker DiMasi didn’t help get the legislation through the House.

We now have the final answer on the legality of requiring voters to show picture ID when they vote. It’s about time. This has been driving me crazy ever since I started working the polls. Way too many people who are iffy about what their address is. Just show me an ID and go ahead and vote.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

The Supreme Court ruled [today] that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for President Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

Btw, I see nothing “splintered” about a 6-3 ruling.

According to the Day of Silence web site:

The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, - ed.] name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s event will be held in memory of Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed Feb. 12 by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression. Hundreds of thousands of students will come together on April 25 to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior.

Because most Massachusetts schools were on vacation this last week, many Gay Student Alliances (GSAs) are holding their “Day of Silence” on either April 16th or April 30th. Newton North High School, for instance, is doing theirs on Wednesday, April 30th.

I abhor violence of any kind, regardless of the sexual preferences of the parties involved. But I do not want my child peer-pressured into supporting an unhealthy (and usually unhappy) lifestyle choice.

Americans For Truth (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera has called on schools, the media and opinion-makers to “break the silence” regarding the serious health risks of homosexual behavior.

LaBarbera pointed to the Food and Drug Administration’s explanation of why homosexual men are banned from donating blood as evidence of the dangers of homosexual sex. The FDA reports:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence … 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors …. Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5- 6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 [which] causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

“Educators profess to be concerned with guiding young people into making healthy choices,” LaBarbera said. “By celebrating homosexual, bisexual and ‘transgendered’ lifestyles in the guise of ’safety,’ they are putting innocent children at risk instead.”

You have a legal right to opt your child out of your school’s Day of Silence activities. Just contact the school administration prior to April 30.

GOPDave has asked for a thread where we can discuss our favorite, and maybe not so favorite, political books.

I’ll start by saying I loved The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times.

I’ll update this list as we go.

Now that Matt got the ball rolling, I figured I better get the word out about the new MassGOP PR Committee that I’m chairing. I also posted to RedMassGroup:

Based on BrocktonDave’s comments to Matt’s post about the new Issues Committee of the MassGOP, guess now’s a good time to mention that I (Shari Worthington) have just been appointed Chair of the State Committee’s PR Committee.

We have 15 really good people on the committee and we’re ready to work. We’re activists, we’re bloggers, we’re writers, we’re issues people, we’re marketers, we’re PR people…it’s a great mix.

Our focus is in two areas:

OUTREACH: We help the MassGOP get the message out to the grassroots — activists, unenrolled voters, local papers, radio shows, bloggers, etc. Rob’s been going nuts with technology, including Twittering til all hours of the night! It’s a great start, but we need to reach more people and deliver compelling stories about why Republicans are the party of choice at the ballot box…from the local school committee to the Governor’s office.

INPUT: We also will provide input on what’s hot at the local level. This will help the MassGOP to be the first to break stories about yet more Democrats misbehaving

We’re brainstorming ideas now about how to best achieve the above. Send us all your comments.

Please post your replies to RedMassGroup so we have all the info in one place. Thanks!