Howdy

Howdy folks, this is your friendly co-contributor Ron here. Sorry for the long delay in introducing myself. For those of ya who don't know me, I'm that rare breed, a gay conservative. I used to be a proud member of the Republican Party, but thanks to gay-bashing, corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, arrogance of party leaders, and mismanagement of the war, among other things, I've pretty much set up shop as a conservative libertarian independent. My views are all over the map. Against abortion but for gay rights. For the death penalty and tough on law and order issues, but very critical of the War on Drugs and iffy on the death penalty. Not exactly fond of taxes, but think that tax cuts for Big Business and the rich are even worse. I believe in anti-poverty programs like food stamps, improved public education, even universal healthcare. But I do think the size of the government is way too large and feel that something needs to be done about out-of-control pork-barrel spending, a return of the line-item veto, perhaps. I supported the Iraq War in principle but have been horrified at how it has turned out and now support gradual phased withdrawal of our troops. Basically, my philosophy is that of the happy warrior. For me, politics is FUN. I'm all for a good ole debate, but I don't believe in arguing for arguing's sake. The angry blowhards on the right and condescending snobs on the left annoy the hell out of me because they make everything so personal. You're a BAD PERSON if you disagree with them. I hate that and hope that this blog will help serve as a haven from that kind of crap. So with that said, have at it folks. I'll happily answer any question ya throw at me.

PC Still Down, but I Have an Update

I will be fixing my PC here within this next week, but it is still down, and thus I am still forced to live with limited access.

However, I would like to update about the County Commissioner's race. I spoke alongside of Tim Mara, Tom Luken, Jenny Edwards, and Mike Wood in favor of endorsing independent candidate Chris Dole in the race against Greg Hartmann. As many of you know, the deal between the Hamilton County GOP and Hamilton County Dems gave Greg Hartman, the current Clerk of Courts, no opposition in his race for county commissioner.

Chris Dole managed to get 4700 signatures on a petition so that he could run as an independent against Greg Hartmann. His petitions were certified, and he will now be Mr. Hartmann's sole opposition this fall. Our pro-Dole coalition failed to get the endorsement of the Democratic Party, but I think we were able to convince the Democrats in the room to vote for Dole in the fall.

I will be updating this important race often in this blog, as well as working in some capacity with Chris Dole and his campaign. There is a link to his website in the links section of this blog. I encourage everyone to take the time to read his bio, and possibly contribute money to his campaign. I'm sure that he would appreciate even 1 dollar, which can buy a few stickers or buttons.

Blogging will resume shortly

Sorry that I haven't updated lately everyone. My PC has caught a nasty virus, and I haven't been able to use it. As soon as I get it taken care of, blogging will resume.

Another international law quietly taken away

The Supreme Court this week handed down a landmark ruling this week that you probably didn't hear about. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against what amounts to international miranda rights and habeas corpus standards. I actually wrote a paper about the case, Medellin v Dretke last year.

The case involved a Mexican national who was tried and convicted of committing a gang rape and murder of two women in Texas. No doubt that it was a heinous crime, and the petitioner in this case, Jose Medellin, was given his miranda rights and admitted to committing the crime. He was sentanced to death for this rape/murder. So where is the problem?

According the Vienna Conventions, a treaty that the United States is a party to, a foreign national who is accused of a crime must be informed of his right to contact his state of origin's consular's office. Basically, a foreign national is allowed to contact an attourney from their embassy to explain the law to them. Mr. Medellin, claims that despite the fact that he confessed to the crime and was made aware of his miranda rights, the Texas police did not inform him of rights under the Vienna Convention despite the fact that the police were aware of the fact that he was a Mexican national.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Medellin is guilty of the crime, and that he is probably trying to find a way out of his capital sentance. But by the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state of Texas in this case, we may be loosing something important to Americans travelling abroad, as well as overlooking Constitutional law.

Believing that Texas needed to grant Mr. Medellin a new trial based on the Vienna Conventions, President Bush sent a memo requesting that they state courts give him a new trial. The Supreme Court stated in its opinion that Bush was acting in good faith and that what he did was to maintain possitive international relations, but that no federal or state court should be held to a international court ruling. The problem is, that Mr. Medellin's conviction not only offends the ICJ's ruling, but it violates US federal law. According to the Constitution, if a treaty is ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and the President, it is as good as law. President Bush was not only acting in good faith, he was (for once) actually following the law.

So the Supreme Court has ruled that despite the fact that the Constitution gives a detailed description about how treaties are ratified, and that explains in plain word that they are federal law once in place, that they are still non-binding. This ruling comes from the justices who claim to rule by "original intent" such as Justices Scalia and Alito. The application of the Vienna Conventions Treaty is written as plain as day.

Not only is this a sad day for Constitutional law, but it is also a sad day for international civil rights. Now that the Supreme Court has told the world that the US doesn't have to grant its citizens their Vienna rights, what is to stop a foreign state from denying these rights to an American?

More on Red Light Cameras

Turns out, the idea about Red Light Cameras gets worse. A new study from Texas is showing that the cameras don't even generate much revenue. Worse still, while they do reduce the some accidents from people running lights, they cause more rear-end collisions.

So lets review:

• These cameras are extremely intrusive, and violate the privacy of motorists.
• The purpose of these cameras is to generate revenue and not advance safety.
• They seem to cause more rear-end collisions while slightly reducing accidents cause by people running lights
• The cameras don't even generate much revenue, in fact some cameras don't even pay for themselves.

I believe that the city needs to increase revenue to maintain its budget. It just needs to find another way to do it.

Cameras and Street Cars

The two big issues this session of city council seem to be red light cameras and street cars. The street car proposal includes an initial line being built between University Hospital and downtown. The red light camera proposal seems to have the sole purpose of generating revenue for the city.

I think that the street car proposal is a great way to connect the city. Any increase in accessible public transportation will do a lot to help with traffic problems, as well as generate revenue for local business. It will encourage people to visit downtown and Clifton, and to check out what these two neighborhoods have to offer. I believe that the tax revenue that will be generated from the increase in business will outweigh the initial cost of creating a streetcar system.

City council is already projecting 1 million dollars in revenue for this fiscal year from the installation of red light cameras. This news comes on the heels of another story that says that red light cameras increase accidents. According to this study, many drivers are more inclined to slam on their breaks when they see a yellow light to avoid a ticket, thus causing drivers behind them to rear end their car.

I haven't heard city council even claiming that there is a need for red light cameras based on public safety concern. This is a cynical money grab, not a legitimate concern for the city. I will be watching closely who votes in favor of the cameras and who doesn't.

So I guess I am giving city council a mixed review so far. I am enthusiastic about the street cars, and I am disappointed about the red light cameras. From what I understand, Chris Finney and the NAACP have taken out petitions already to create a ballot referendum against the cameras.