Democracy In Peril

“. . . [T]he Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”--Justice Stephen Breyer

“By its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context.”--Justice John Paul Stevens

Those words in McDonald v. City of Chicago are at the core of a judicial activist attack on the Second Amend-ment, signed by four associate justices of the United States Supreme Court: John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They are the heart of two blunt U.S. Supreme Court dissents filed in opposition to the Court’s majority, which confirmed that the Second Amendment and its implicit individual right to armed self-defense must be applied to all levels of government.

Had these four justices been joined by a single new anti-Second Amendment vote on the high court, their words would have been the law of the land.

It didn’t happen that way, thanks entirely to courageous court appointments by then-President George W. Bush and a pro-Second Amendment U.S. Senate majority that fought hard to clear the nominations of John Roberts as chief justice and Samuel Alito as associate justice.

With those appointments, the future of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was assured: first, in the sea-change D.C. v. Heller case two years ago, striking down the District of Columbia gun ban as violating the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms; then with the McDonald case in June 2010 applying that decision to every level of government, including Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park.

With Heller, the court recognized armed self-defense as a core element of the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In McDonald, Justice Alito’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

This adds up to a stunning victory, but with a huge cautionary flag. The dogmatically anti-Second Amendment minority on the high court is within a heartbeat of reversing both Heller and McDonald, especially with an Obama rubber-stamp Senate and a Judiciary Committee dominated by the likes of New York’s Charles Schumer.

The outcome of any future Second Amendment case before the high court would be disastrous if President Barack Obama and his Senate ideological water-carriers retain power to load the court.

So far--in terms of anti-gun high court nominations--Obama is batting a thousand. Justice Sotomayor, to gain confirmation, pledged that she considered the Heller decision to be “settled law,” yet she signed on to Justice Breyer’s vehement dissent in McDonald, which declared there is no such individual right. And as President Obama’s nominee to replace outgoing Justice Stevens, Elena Kagan has earned our firm opposition for confirmation due to her record of hostility to Second Amendment rights as a staff member in Bill Clinton’s White House.

Since Kagan would replace an anti-Second Amendment jurist on the high court, the 5-4 balance remains the same, but all that could change with the next vacancy.

Again, look no further than the threats leveled by the minority in McDonald.
Had there been five instead of four anti-Second Amendment justices, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

As Justice Breyer wrote, “After all, the Amendment’s militia-related purpose is primarily to protect States from federal regulation, not to protect individuals.” Breyer’s opinion was also signed by Justice Ginsburg.

As for self-defense, try this from Justice Stevens: “In my view, the Court badly misconstrued the Second Amendment in linking it to the value of personal self-defense above and beyond the functioning of the state militias. . . .”

Or this embrace of foreign law: “. . . [T]he experience of other advanced democracies, including those that share our British heritage, undercuts the notion that an expansive right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to ordered liberty. . . . it is silly--indeed, arrogant--to think we have nothing to learn about liberty from the billions of people beyond our borders.”

It takes no imagination to see where this is going. Try the United Nations and the kind of global gun-ban treaty pressed by internationalist billionaire and Obama moneybags mentor, George Soros.

A sobering revelation about the future liquidation of the Second Amendment came last year from Justice Ginsburg, who told the elite Harvard Club that when majority opinions are “grievously mistaken,” as in the Heller case, minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and thus create a purely “collective right connected to the militia.”

Unless we get our friends, family members and co-workers to the polls November 2 to create a pro-Second Amendment Senate that can block anti-Second Amendment nominees, we will face what Justice Scalia warns is “a system in which unelected and life-tenured judges always get their way.” Such an approach, he warned, “puts democracy in peril.”

All of this will come true, unless we do the right thing this November: Vote Freedom First!

-----------------------------------------

Reprinted by permission of the National Rifle Association

New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Presented to City Council

There is an old saying, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It appears that the Public Works and Economic Development Committee of New Philadelphia City Council, PWEDC, has found a new way to get approval for extending the runway at the New Philadelphia Airport.

Last Monday, September 27, 2010, at the regular city council meeting, Resolution 47-2010 was read for the first time, of three required readings, on the floor. Resolution 47-2010, is another attempt to approve the Airport Master Plan to extend the runway at the New Philadelphia Airport. Despite assurances by Committee members to the contrary, passage of 47-2010, by its wording and intent, will pave the way for implementation of the Master Plan.

Section 1 of 47-2010 is explicit in its wording. “City Council wishes to acknowledge, support and cooperate with the New Philadelphia Airport Commission for the continued operations of the Harry Clever Field as a valuable tool and asset for not only the City of New Philadelphia but Tuscarawas County, Ohio as well.”

The important words in Section 1 are "acknowledge, support, and cooperate" with the Airport Commission. Should this resolution be passed by the City Council, two undesirable actions will take place.

If approved, City Council will agree to the proposed Airport Master Plan, which includes extension of the runway, taking of personal property by eminent domain, moving of existing grave sites, closure of at least two existing streets, and the taking of property of Schoenbrunn village. The PWEDC can deny that these actions are included in 47-2010, but other authorities disagree. Consultations with grammarians and legal council confirm that the wording in Section 1 is such as to allow implementation of the Airport Master Plan without further legislation by the City Council.

Approval of 47-2010 will shift legislative action, as applies to the Airport Master Plan, from the New Philadelphia City Council to the Airport Commission. By agreeing to acknowledge, support, and cooperate with the Airport Commission, the City Council will be committed by legislation, 47-2010, to agree to the desires of the Airport Commission regardless of what those desires may be.

This is another attempt to breakdown the division of responsibilities between Administrative and Legislative Branches, the first being Council President Day's appointment of himself as Chairman of an ad hoc committee to study pay increases for elected and appointed officials (See blog New Philadelphia Council President Oversteps Legal Authority, 9/2/2010).

In a statement before City council, a concerned citizen, Mr. Michael Bolinsky, spoke for a number of concerned citizens, expressing his concern for the lack of information provided by the Public Works Committee. According to Mr. Bolinsky passage of 47-2010 will approve all eight options of the proposed Airport Master Plan, a comment with which we agree. He also expressed concern that New Philadelphia citizens have not been told the whole story about the effects approval of the Airport Master Plan will have. His concern about the closing of Delaware Drive is best expressed by his request for the Public Works Committee to provide him with a copy of the letter from the Federal Aviation Committee which states that Delaware Drive should be closed. He also asked the Committee to provide information on how the city was going to provide financing for the airport renovation and the costs associated with taking property by eminent domain.

The presentation of Resolution 47-2010 to City Council is done at a time when many questions are still unanswered. It is apparent that the interests of the the citizens of New Philadelphia have not been considered by the sponsors of this legislation. No information is presented how the residents of New Philadelphia will prosper from this action. No economic advantage to New Philadelphia have been presented. The sole justification given for this proposal is a desire by Lauren Corporation to house a larger jet aircraft at the city airport, a justification which is not valid according to the FAA (See blog titled New Philadelphia Airport Runway Extension To Be Discussed dated 9/15/2010).

The handling of the proposal of the Airport Master Plan by the Administration has been poor. The full impact of the implementation of the plan has been withheld. Questions asked by members of city Council have gone unanswered. Citizen concerns have been ignored. Financial questions have gone unanswered. There has been opposition to the plan from the historical society.

Approval of Resolution 47-2010 by City Council is not in the best interests of the City of New Philadelphia. Urge your council representatives to vote against this resolution.

Pat Condell on the Twin Towers Cordoba Mosque

Pat Condell is a British comedian who has opinions on about everything, some of which we agree with, some we don't. In the following video his humor is lacking, being replaced with one of the better dissertations about the Cordoba mosque scheduled to be built at the Twin Towers site in New York. How come a Brit can understand the implications of building a victory memorial to the deaths of some 3,000 people by Islamic mass murders when likes of Obama and Bloomberg can't. It's worth a listen. It is an audio-visual clip so turn on the speakers.

Click on http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

921 Billion In Tax Hikes Coming January 1, 2011

The Wrong Way to Get America on Track

According to a recent poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that our nation is on the wrong course.

While there are a number of factors behind this result, the economy, jobs and federal spending top the list of Americans’ most pressing concerns. This should come as little surprise given that Americans have been dealing with an economic recession for the past two years. And they’re desperately looking for a way out of it. Our leaders should be, too.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policies won’t fix things. The Obama tax hikes -- not limited to high earners -- are scheduled to go into place on January 1, in less than four months. The $921 billion in tax increases will follow a new “stimulus” that even some in the White House refuse to promise will stimulate the economy.

“Raising taxes now or in the future is the wrong course,” writes Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster. In a separate, in-depth analysis, Foster peels apart the various myths and straw man arguments used to defend tax hikes and increased spending. He explains how increased taxes will slow down economic recovery; kill jobs; and incentivize additional federal spending.

The United States is saddled with unsustainable budget deficits that pose a severe and immediate threat to the economy. The cumulative effects of this spending and regulatory binge is already visible, with America sinking from the ranks of the world’s “Free” nations to the “Mostly Free,” according to Heritage’s 2010 Index of Economic Freedom.

Increasing taxes on already struggling Americans and businesses is based on the leftist myth that we can spend our way out of this recession. But it simply does not work this way. Our leaders must turn to policies that rein in runaway federal spending and promote a sensible tax policy.

------------------------------

Reprinted by Permission of the Heratige Foundation

Two Sides of Illegal Immigration

Despite federal judge Susan Bolton’s July 29 decision to block temporarily major portions of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB1070 is continuing to have rippling political effects this election season. Polls show that the majority of Americans support it, and politicians are quickly reacting. Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah, for example, are among the states where legislators have introduced similar bills.

The issue has rocketed Arizona’s interim governor Jan Brewer to national icon status and breathed new life into her previously stalled gubernatorial reelection campaign

Democratic advisors claim that the Obama administration has plenty of benefit to reap from the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona as well. They cite the likelihood that it will increase the president’s standing among Hispanics, a demographic with whom his poll numbers have been faltering.

Given how much both sides have invested in this fight, it’s little surprise that each is promising that it is from over and that they will take it to the Supreme Court if necessary, all but guaranteeing that immigration will be a major national issue in the months leading up to November.

But what of those most affected by HB1070 and the debate surrounding it – those living and trying to go about their businesses in the Grand Canyon State? Many – both supporters and opponents of the law – say the problem is being distorted to serve one political agenda or another and that the reality of illegal immigration is nowhere near as simple as it looks.

There are an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens residing in Arizona, and Holly Paulsen, a second-grade teacher in a Phoenix school that serves disadvantaged students, says the images of drug smugglers and gangs hyped by politicians don’t always paint an accurate picture of them. She has no idea how many of her students, who were placed in her class because of deficient English skills, are the children of illegal immigrants: “It could be 25 percent; it could be half; it could be the whole class. Unless they tell you specifically, you don’t know.” But what she does know is the immediate impact the law’s passage in April had in her school.

“Two hundred and fifty children in grades k – 8 didn’t come to class the day that Governor Brewer signed (SB1070). I had 10 second graders gone myself.” For the rest of that academic year, she says the atmosphere on her campus changed, and much more time was devoted to weathering the immigration storm while much less time was spent in learning.

“We had to counsel a lot of the kids because they were falling apart. They were scared for their parents and other relatives; they were scared they would have to move back to Mexico and not have a place to live. They were scared their parents would be arrested and deported and would have to leave them behind. These children already have a lot on their plates and then we throw this at them. It was tragic to see how distraught they were.”

And it wasn’t just the kids. Paulsen says she also noticed a dramatic change in the parents, who went from coming to her with concerns about their childrens homework and test scores to coming to her with concerns they would have to pull their kids out of school and flee the state. She describes it as a difficult end to a difficult year that left many of the teachers in her school in tears, fearful for their students’ futures. “You don’t know if you’re ever going to see or hear from some of the families again, you don’t know if they’re going to be safe, and you don’t know if you’re going to have a job next year – it was nerve wracking.”

Paulsen says she understands arguments about needing to secure the border and curb immigration-related crime, but she feels some middle way should be worked out that takes into consideration people who came to the United States for the right reasons, even if it was in the wrong way. “The parents I meet, they are so passionate about their kids – they want them to learn, they want them to succeed….I don’t think anyone after getting to know these families would say, ‘Nope, send them back home; kick them out.' I pray about it and I pray for the families and I hope they’ll be able to stay.”

On the flip side of the issue is naturalized citizen Lisa Hope of Tucson. Born in
Germany, Hope married an American serviceman who was stationed in Munich. She immigrated to the states during a long and arduous, but legal, process.

A mother of three, she describes having to stay in Germany for a year after the birth of her first child without her husband. When her visa was finally approved and she joined him in Indiana, she was confronted with the preparation book for her naturalization exam. “It was so big and full of facts on history and the Constitution . It scared the daylights out of me – I was intimidated by it! I had two small children by then and I had a job so it was very hard to find time to study.” It took her five years to become a citizen.

Citing her own background, Hope says it is unjust to people who immigrated legally to turn a blind eye to whose who would do so illegally. “There is a way to become an American and that is to follow America’s law. There shouldn’t be shortcuts. I waited and I did the right thing.”

What really angers her are suggestions that the law is based on racial prejudice and will lead to racial profiling. Says Hope: “The reality is that most of the illegals in Arizona are from Mexico, so it’s common sense that if the law is going to be enforced it is going to be enforced disproportionately against one racial group – but that’s not because the low or the police are raciest. It’s because one particular racial group is breaking that law more than the others.”

Hope says that while she sympathizes with that portion of the illegal population that is here to pursue better lives for themselves and their children, allowing them to circumvent the law may result in a lack of appreciation for the United States and the liberty that it offers. And she fears that allowing so many people into the country via illegitimate roads has eroded America’s fundamental values.

“I was happy to leave my German citizenship behind, and I am very proud to be an American citizen. Then I see these people marching, waving the Mexican flag, flying the American flag upside down. Of course I look at that and think those people who came here outside the proper channels don’t have an appreciation for what America means. They want to live here but still be Mexicans. They want to take advantage of what this country offers, but they’re getting the wrong idea about what that is because they didn’t have to sacrifice anything to get it. They think they’re going to come to America so the government can give them things. When they don’t go through the process like I did, they’re missing the point of the American Dream.”


(The preceding article by Megan Basham was taken from the August 28, 2010 issue of World, a magazine published out of Ashville, NC., and reprinted by permission.)

New Philadelphia Airport Runway Extension To Be Discussed September 20

It’s “Lets extend the runway at Clever Field” time again. Another meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. on Monday, September 20, 2010, at the new Experimental Aviation Association hanger at the New Philadelphia airport.

The focus of the meeting is the same as it has been. The administration, some of the folks on City Council, and the Lauren Corporation, want to extend the main runway length. The reason for the extension seems to be that Lauren Corporation would like to buy a larger corporate aircraft and a longer runway would be to their advantage. Mention has been made of another corporation, maybe two, which might fly corporate aircraft into the New Philadelphia airport should be runway be lengthened, but determining who those corporations may be, has been difficult to pin down.

It has been said that an expanded runway would bring new business to New Philadelphia, which would certainly be a blessing, but somehow, it never seems to work out that way. Airport construction and enlargement follows the need of existing businesses. If building an airport brings manufacturing to an area, the number of airport facilities would be growing on a daily basis, which obviously it is not.

The adequacy of Henry Clever Field to handle corporate jets, and the possibility of losing FAA certification and funding of the airport if the proposed Master Plan for runway extension is not approved by the City Council, has been called into question.

The Master Plan offers a number of options for runway extension. All of them, every one, would require closing of a number of streets, the taking of existing cemetery plots, and taking of personal property, including family homes, by eminent domain.

The law is specific. Should the city elect to take property by eminent domain, an action done by City Council and approved by the Mayor, the residents of that property have no legal recourse. They cannot stop such action through the courts or any other legal avenue. Their houses will go. The only protection a resident has under an eminent domain order is to challenge the amount paid for their property by the City. Should the resident feel the city’s offer is too low they can challenge that in court and the court will decide what is a fair price for the property. And that’s it.

Much of the concern of proponents of the proposed Master Plan is centered around money, not only for runway extension, but also for maintenance and upgrading of the existing facilities including runways and taxiways. Rehabilitation projects, such as improvements to solve the problem of the aircraft parking area where aircraft tires were sinking into the asphalt on hot days, would still be funded even though the proposed master plan for runway relocation was not approved.

It is necessary to have a current airport layout plan on file with the FAA, which there is, when requesting funding for work on existing facilities. Relocation of the existing runway would require passage of the proposed Master Plan, while funding for maintenance and improvement on any existing facilities shown on the current layout plan is eligible without passage of the proposed Master Plan.

It has been said that without an extension to the runway, the airport may not meet the FAA requirements for handling larger aircraft. A conversation with the FAA cast doubt on that statement.

When asked if the airport classification, as regards the type of aircraft allowed to land on the existing runway, would be downgraded in the future should the proposed master plan not be approved, the response of our FAA contact was prefaced by, “That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

The FAA spokesman explained that when "class of aircraft" is talked about, the classes are determined according to wingspan and landing airspeed. As the wingspan and airspeed increase, the airport classification increases. An airport designed to accept small single-engine airplanes would have a lower classification than one designed to accommodate a large jet airplane. Airports are designed, and classified, to service what are called critical aircraft, by aircraft types of particular wingspan and airspeed. Clever Field is rated B I, landing speeds of 105 to 139 miles per hour and wingspans up to 49 feet.

Can a larger airplane than that use the airport? Yes. The city cannot ban any airplane from using the airport regardless of size. However, when the critical aircraft changes, the city should consider means of accommodating the larger aircraft. But before such changes need be considered, there must be more than 500 operations per year of larger critical aircraft. When the five hundred operations is a reality, not a projection, then is the time to start to plan how to accommodate the larger aircraft on a regular basis.

Don’t be misled by the number of airplanes based at, or using, the airport as being a justification to increase the runway length. The determining factor is the number of critical aircraft which use Clever Field now and exceed the 500 yearly operations criteria.

There may be a reason to extend the runway at Clever Field but justification is hard to find. The question yet to be answered is what is the advantage to the New Philadelphia tax payer of such a project? The figures and talk from the Administration, the Airport Commission, and some members of City Council, favoring the runway relocation do not support the passage of the proposed Airport Master Plan. Until a greater argument than a local corporation wanting a larger airplane is presented, the Master Plan should be rejected.


(Ed: For more information concerning the proposed Clever Field Master Plan, refer to the New Philadelphia Tattler article New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Raises Questions dated May 21, 2010.)

Muslim Terrorists Win Another One

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has been called “un-American.” Jones had planned to burn a copy of the Quran on Saturday, September 11, to commemorate the Muslim attack on the Twin Towers and the associated loss of life. I do not know Pastor Jones, nor have I spoken with him. What I do know is that the response to burning a copy of the Quran is far beyond what it deserves. It is the response, not the action, which is the disgrace, one of which every American should be ashamed of.

While the Quran is considered by Muslims to be a holy book, a statement of the precepts of Islam, it is just that, a book. When Muslims burn and desecrate Bibles or similar texts of non-Islamic religions, there no protest from the government of the United States. When Christian missionaries are murdered by Muslims there is no outrage.

Is it possible that Muslims consider the burning of the Quran as a great propaganda opportunity? Was Jones’s action blown out of proportion by the credo "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"? Could it be that a book burning offers Muslims the opportunity to create justified, at least in their minds, increased terrorism attacks?

Speaking for the Administration, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, “We think that these are provocative acts (burning of the Quran). We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American.”

Whoa. Un-American? The First Amendment un-American? Has expressing an opinion become un-American? Since when is taking a stand against tyranny, murder, overthrow of the country, un-American? It is about time we look at the interests of the United States citizens. It is about time we stand up to Muslim terrorists instead of trying to “understand” the reasons for their worldwide terror.

It is American to defend our country, liberty, freedom, citizens, at home and abroad, with the full strength of the United States military and citizenry. Remember not only the First and Second World Wars, but also the War of 1812, the Tripoli Pirates, the Cuban missile crisis, to mention a few. The United States said “Enough”, took a stand, brooked no nonsense, and prevailed.

Past United States administrations have failed to protect the country and its citizens. Obama has stated often that the United States is no longer respected. His problem is that he refuses to recognize the cause. American administrations did nothing to protect United States citizens, offered no retaliation to the invasion of United States soil abroad, but instead chose top ignore Muslim attacks on United States interests throughout the world.

Take A look: In November 1979, shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
August 1998: 224 killed at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
October 2000: 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen.*

In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War.

Then there was September 11, 2001. In hijacked airplanes Muslim terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. The casualty rate was 2,752 killed, 251 injured. Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, a third airplane hijacked by Muslim terrorists who intended to crash it into the United States Capital, crashed after the passengers fought the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the plane. Casualties, forty. A fourth plane, also hijacked by Muslim terrorists, was crashed into the Pentagon Building outside of Washington, D.C., casualties 200 dead, 53 injured. Total casualties 2,992 dead, 304 injured.

Murder by Muslim terrorists goes on unabated. In the period from August 28 thru September 3, 2010, worldwide known Jihad attacks by Muslims numbered 43 with 269 deaths and 758 injuries.

Under pressure from the United States government, Terry Jones changed his mind and will not burn the Quran on September 11. I guess that there is some logic there, but I can’t find it, probably because it is filed under Politically Correct. Muslims have vowed to destroy Judaism, Christianity, the United States, our freedom, and liberty. An American, Terry Jones stood up and said “Enough.” He may have been wrong in this day of apologetic administrations, but he did display, if only momentarily, the spirit of self-preservation and patriotism that this country was founded on.

I guess Muslims won another one for Islam.





* For a breakdown of Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States , click on
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

MBAs Just Don't Get It

Why short Greeks succeed

by Mike Royko


The moment we sat down for lunch, I knew it was a mistake. It was one of those cute new Yuppie-poo restaurants, with ferns and a menu that listed calories.

I knew it was an even bigger mistake when five minutes passed before the busboy dropped the silver-ware and napkins in front of us.

About 10 minutes later, I snared a waitress as she was hurrying by and asked: "Is there any chance we can see a menu?" She flung down a couple of menus and rushed off. About five minutes later, she was back for the orders.

"I'm so sorry," she said. "We're shorthanded. One of the girls didn't show up today."

When she finally brought the food it wasn't what I had ordered.

"There are some problems in the kitchen", she said. "We have a new cook."

"Never mind," I said, "I'll eat it, whatever it is. But what about the beer?"

"Oh, I forgot, you wanted a beer," she said. The beer arrived just in time to wash down the last bite of sandwich.

When she brought the check, which was wrong because she charged me for what I ordered instead of what I got, I asked: "Who runs this place?"

"The manager?" she said. "He's in the end booth having lunch."

On the way out, I stopped at the manager's booth. He was a Yuppie in a business suit. He and a clone were leisurely sipping their coffee and looking at a computer printout.

"Nice place you have here," I lied. "Do you own it?"

The young man shook his head. It was owned by one of those big corporations that operates restaurants in far-flung office buildings and health clubs. He also proudly told me that he had recently left college with a degree in restaurant and hotel management.

That explained it all. His waitresses were short handed, his cook was goofing up the orders, the customers were fuming, and what was he doing? He was having lunch. Or, as he'd probably say, he was doing lunch.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but when this nation collapses, he, and those like him will be the cause.

First, we had the MBA - especially the Harvard graduate with a Master of Business Administration degree - who came along after World War II and took over American industry. With his bottom-line approach, the MBA did such a brilliant job that the Japanese might soon buy the whole country and evict us.

But we're told not to worry. Now that we don't manufacture as much as we used to, we'll be saved by the growing service industry. The problem is that the service industry is being taken over by people like the restaurant manager and his corporation. They go to college and study service. Then they install computers programmed for service. And they have meetings and look at service charts and graphs and talk about service. But what they don't do is provide service. That's because they are not short Greeks.

You probably wonder what that means. - I'll explain.

If that corporation expects the, restaurant to succeed, it should fire the young restaurant-hotel degree holder. Or demote him to cleaning the washrooms. It should then go to my friend Sam Sianis, who owns the Billy Goat Tavern, and say: "Do you know a short Greek who wants to manage a restaurant?"

Sam will say: "Shoo. I send you; one my cousins. Jus' got here from old country." Then he'd go to Greek Town and tell his cousin, who works as waiter, that his big chance had come.

When the next lunch hour rolled around, and a waitress failed to show for work, Sam's cousin would not sit down to do lunch. He would put on an apron and wait tables himself. If the cook goofed up orders, Sam's cousin would go into the kitchen, pick up a cleaver, and say "You want I keel you?"

He wouldn't know how to read a computer printout, but he'd get drinks in the glasses, food on the table, and money in the cash register.

That simple approach is why restaurants run by short Greeks stay in business and rake money. And why restaurants that are run by corporations and managed by young men who are educated beyond their intelligence come and go. And mostly go.

So, if you are ever approached by a stockbroker who wants to sell you shares in any of the giant service corporations, tell him not to bother showing you the annual report. just ask him one question. "Is it run by short Greeks?" If he says no, leave your money under the mattress.



-------------------------------



Mike Royko was a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune from the 1950s until his death in 1997. The above article, written around the 1970s, still applies with the exception that while Royko predicted Japan would take over the country, China is in the process of playing out his prophecy.

New Philadelphia Council President Oversteps Legal Authority

Last Monday, August 30, the Council President’s “ad hoc” committee met to discuss pay raises for elected officials and appointed supervisors and department heads. The Council President, Mr. Day, feels that the current wage levels are not commensurate with the positions and effort those individuals put into their jobs. While Mr. Day feels the pay is too low, many tax paying citizens feel the pay is too high.

The Council President has a specific position in New Philadelphia city government. He is elected by the populace to his seat every four years. He is elected to be Council President, a position which is a separate, autonomous, position not related to City Council itself. The duties of the Council President are to moderate the council meetings, make committee assignments, and act as parliamentarian should questions of procedure arise. The Council President is not an elected member of the City Council. He has no vote on legislation other than to break a tie vote should that be necessary. By State Code, the Council President is defined specifically as a member of the Administration.

No mention is made in the State Code or City Ordinances which allows the Council President to become actively involved in actions within the City Council, including taking part in discussions by City Council or its committees. Robert’s Rules of Order specifically states the Council President is not allowed to speak from his chair on any matter of legislation under discussion by City Council during either a general or committee meeting while presiding. In short, the Council President of New Philadelphia is prohibited from commenting on, or contributing to, any legislative discussion going on in council meetings. His job is moderation of legislative meetings of the City Council, no more, no less.

The Council President’s moderation tasks include the assignment of proposed legislation to the proper City Council Committee. There are seven committees in the City Council: Finance; Salary; Safety, Health, and Service; Public Works and Economic Development; Zoning and Annexation; Special and Contact; and Parks and Cemetery. It is in these committees that the legislative business of the City is to be conducted The assignment of legislative matters to the proper committee is the responsibility of the President of Council. If finances are involved it goes to the Finance Committee, road construction goes to Public Works, wages and benefits go to the Salary Committee.

How did these committees come into being? Robert’s Rules of Order, which applies when there is no other ordinance or law, is explicit about this. The Council President is forbidden to create a committee for any reason without the City Council’s permission as expressed in the passage of legislation to do so. In the case of an ad hoc committee, Robert’s Rules of Order is specific, stating “a special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing committee.”

Chairmen of committees are appointed when the committee members are appointed to the committee by the Council President, the chairmanship going to the first member appointed to the committee. Members of legislative committees, such as those of City Council, are appointed from elected members of the City Council. and may only be done with the approval of the City Council. The appointments are irrevocable except by action of City Council, the assignments lasting for the entire council term, that is, from one Council election to the next, in New Philadelphia a two year span. Individuals who are not elected to City Council cannot serve on a City Council Committee.

That being said, the legality of the ad-hoc committee, appointed by Council President Day, to recommend legislation for pay raises for non-bargaining New Philadelphia city employees, comes into question. While wage levels of the administration and city department heads and supervisors merit investigation and consideration by City Council, the methods employed by President Day to do this are highly questionable.

President Day created the ad-hoc committee without the formal approval of City Council. This in itself is questionable as it specifically relates to salaries, a subject which without argument falls under the responsibility of the Salary Committee. This action is unwarranted by Robert’s Rules of Order, precedents sent by previous City Councils, State Legislatures, and both Houses of the United States Congress.

President Day appointed himself as the Chairman of this ad-hoc committee in direct violation of all law and precedent as he is not a member of the New Philadelphia City Council and has no legal nor ethical right to sit on any New Philadelphia City Council committee. The President of Council has no authority to speak on legislative matters nor offer opinions on legislative matters. His sole function is moderation of meetings of the City Council which does not include his participation in discussions of matters being discussed on the Council floor.

President of Council Day exceeded his authority when he appointed the current ad-hoc committee without the legislative approval of City Council.

President of Council Day acted illegally when he appointed himself chairman of the current ad-hoc committee. The office of President of Council is by law an administrative position and as such has no authority to act as a member of the city council or its committees, nor take part, except as a guest, in any discussions within the city council.

President of Council Day acted improperly when he created an ah-hoc committee to bypass the standing Salary Committee in which this inquiry legally belongs.

Are more pay raises so important that the integrity of the New Philadelphia City Council is to be trashed by members of the Administration? What can we expect next?