Ted Sares's blog

Being an "Independent"
Monday, 03 July 2006

I am becoming convinced that people don't want to hear about issues as much as they want to hear about the values that overlay those issues. And not "values" in the sense of religion or the toxic "I hate gays" crowd, but those values that inform us where candidates stand on the issues. Things like "privacy" and "opportunity." As an example, from a values perspective, the Republicans favor smaller government and the Democrats favor one that is large enough to achieve "societal good." If issues like the privatization of Social Security or increasing welfare programs emerge under the canopy of such party values, a voter has at least a philosophical direction to follow. Of course, a voter's own core values often come into play as well.

Let's take a look at some of these party values. Let's peel the onion a bit.

Ted Sares

The PC Police People

While we talk about political correctness ad nauseam, we tend to overlook the perpetrators of this noxious activity. Just who are the ones who act as the enforcing agents; who are the, ugh, police people? Who are these self-appointed moral vigilantes who continue to impose their views on us? Well, for starters, I suggest we look at the work place to see what we can come up with.

Lo and behold, it appears those who would remind us of what is correct and not correct at work appear to be none other than the Human Resources people. Rather than spend their time rectifying the despicable compensatory behavior of their bosses or trying to preserve a modicum of traditional employee benefits, they seem hell bent on pointing out the ABC's of what some greedy consultant told them was proper corporate behavior. I recall years ago when I was braced by one of these types for using the phrase "mensch" while referring to a Jewish associate. (Mensch means a caring, decent and honorable person who can be trusted and who always tries to do the right thing.) Given the horror in this lad's eyes, you would have thought I had just been booked for star chamber punishment. I do recall, however, that this same "enforcer" was discharged some years later for a rather explicit sexual harassment incident.

"At the death of our founder," says W. J. Grundy, the former chairman of Jomac, Inc., a Pennsylvania manufacturer of protective gloves, "we spent over $3 million to redeem stock so estate taxes could be paid and control of the company could be maintained. This was $3 million not available for operations and the division in trouble was sold -- reducing our employment by about 30 employees and our sales by about $5 million."(Boston Globe, June 15, 2000) The Center for the Study of Taxation found that three out of four families faced with liquidating all or part of their business to pay the estate tax would have to cut their payroll in the process. Studies by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) and Congress's own Joint Economic Committee have found that the estate tax costs communities more in lost jobs and lower economic growth than it raises for the U.S. Treasury (William W, Beach, The Heritage Foundation). The very same thing can happen right here in the Valley.

Just about everyone in New Hampshire knows that property can be taken for a road (case in point: the proposed bypass that will run through northern Carroll County), but few believe property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit. Can you imagine our local government taking away homes in the name of private economic development ? Think not? Think again.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo et al v. City of New London, CT (04-108) , which extended the government's power to force individuals to sell their property against their better judgment, represents a deplorable violation of individual rights. Specifically, the ruling centered on that city’s determination that building offices, a hotel and a conference center on a waterfront parcel where private homes were situated benefited the entire community and allowed the taking of those homes by eminent domain. In her dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor noted the following: “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a Shopping center, or any farm with a factory.” N.H.'s own David Souter voted with the majority. Hopefully, he has now deleted our State motto from his license plates.

Lately I have been getting a foreboding feeling of unreasonable governmental intrusion at all levels. What accelerated it was the Supreme Court's recent and, I believe, horrific Kelo decision regarding eminent domain. The Supreme Court, in its continuing need to legislate, sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private economic development. As a result, a fierce firestorm of backlash has broken out among the people and in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress. You will be hearing a lot more about this one. Alas, New Hampshire's David Souter voted in the majority. So much for that state's motto of Live Free Or Die.

Politically correct groups of people, many of whom live in other communities and towns, continually try to tell us on a local basis what is best for us Incredibly, we now have the specter of people from other towns attending our selectmen meetings to argue for issues that increase our taxes! Far, far worse, however, is that if you own a pit bull within the city limits of Denver, the authorities will soon be coming to your residence to take it away and put it down. What next? A Doberman? Rot? Lab? Min Pin? Reasonable? Hardly, and where will it end? But these are simply representative of the many ways intrusion is making its mark.

NH Senate Bill 318, (Deadly Force) recently introduced by Senator Peter Bragdon, R-Amherst, hopefully would have brought NH law more in line with that of Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law......and that would have been a good thing since no person should face the possibility of prison time for standing up to an attacker. Current NH law does just that. It states that deadly force used in self-defense outside of one's own property is not justified if one can, with complete safety, retreat from the situation or surrender property to which the aggressor claims a right. So, if faced with a car jacker in, say, a Home Depot parking lot, let him drive off with your pickup and your shot gun hanging up in the rear. Despite what anti-gun hysterics say, in our "Live Free or Die" state, crime victims are at a distinct disadvantage while a crime is being committed.

Ted Sares

A Line In The Sand
Recently, someone told me that smoking cigars was a "disgusting" habit. I replied that I was quite aware of that but it should be my decision to engage it, not her's......that is, as long as I did not impose it upon her. Being an occasional cigar smoker, I go to certain places to enjoy my H. Uphmans with fellow cigar smokers and without fear of reprisal or finger pointing. Some places will not allow me to do this, and I don't go there if I feel the need to torch up. I am always careful not to bother others with this activity. It's called freedom of choice even if my choice has possible harmful consequences to myself. But once again, there are some who are trying to tell me what's best for me.

To wit, local smoking bans now rolling across the nation may have less to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke than they do with spreading the insidious disease of unlimited government power. This particularly malady has now metastasized and spread to local governments throughout the country. These bans grease the skids for even more intrusive regulation and establish the precedent that the rights of an individual can be violated any time a board of selectmen or city council decides that the "public good" demands it. That it has spread to states like California and Massachusetts, is no great surprise, but when it rears its ugly head in the "Live Free Or Die" state of New Hampshire, it is truly alarming.