Menıs News Daily
OıConnell
San Francisco Gay Marriages and Roy Moore
February 17, 2004

Mayor Newsom, Meet Judge Roy Moore

By Brian O'Connell 
In late January, trolling for votes in Manchester, New Hampshire, Sen. John Kerry took on one of the Democratic Partyıs favorite punching bags, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. To great huzzahs from the crowd, Kerry excoriated Ashcroft and the Patriot Act by intoning that "we are a nation of laws, not men". Then, in his characteristic, lawyer-like tones, Kerry proceeded to lecture the audience on the propriety of law and the perceived impropriety of the Patriot Act.

Never mind that Kerry voted for the Act itıs obvious by now that Kerry does not want to be in the same room as a decision. In fact, you donıt want to be in a movie snack line behind the agonized Senator from Massachusetts, sweat pouring from his billboard-sized brow over having to choose between Goobers and Raisinettes.

No, the quote, originally a cornerstone of The Federalist Papers, resonates these days after the Mayor of San Francisco defied both state law and the will of the California people in granting marriage licenses to over 1,700 gay and lesbian couples over Valentines Day weekend. Itıs a slap in the face to California voters, who recently approved a ballot initiative prohibiting gay marriages and declaring that the state could only recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The initiative passed into law in March 2000.

Youıd think that a political figure like Kerry who says he supports "laws over men" would be lining up to express his outrage over Mayor Gavin Newsomıs stunning display of contempt for the rule of law. Sorry, but like most big decisions, when the phone doesnıt ring, you know that itıs Kerry.

Perhaps itıs not fair to just pick on the Senator. His avoidance of the issue suggests he has the good sense to at least consider the damage that Newsom has done in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. You canıt say the same for the national media, many of who are only too happy to don their cheerleading outfits and eagerly wave their pom-poms in support of Newsom and gay marriage. The Los Angeles Times calls Newsom a "pinup boy" for the gay and lesbian movement. The Associates Press cites Newsomıs "bold, perfectly choreographed" bid for gay marriages. Reports by CNN describe the ceremony participants as "jubilant" who have had "a barrier lifted". And on and on.

Clearly, the notion of an elected official breaking the law is okay-dokey with the liberal media. In fact, the sentiment expressed by media members seems to suggest a "what took you so long?" mentality.

Ironically, the media hasnıt always supported acts of civil disobedience. Flash back to November, 2003, when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore was fired from his post after refusing a court order to remove a granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the stateıs main court building.

Again, an act of civil disobedience by a high-ranking government official.

But instead of the open arms treatment the press gave Newsom, the media bared their fangs and went after Justice Moore with the gusto of Justin Timberlake delivering a wardrobe malfunction to Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl. A man of conscience to most people in Alabama, Moore found himself under attack by the media elite. Quotes from the indispensable Media Research Center cite ABCıs Robin Roberts accusing the Justice of "trying to restore morality." CNNıs Aaron Brown opted for the Kerry/Ashcroft treatment, asking Moore "Donıt we also, all of us, stand for the rule of law?" Time magazine called Moore a "joke".

Then there was Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift, who called the lead lawyer in the case against Moore, "a hero" for sifting through all the evidence that led to the removal of Moore from office. I wonder if she will call lawyers for the Campaign for California Families "heroes" for taking on the sanctimonious Newsom

Donıt bet on it. Just like in the weeks following 9/11, when Reutersı editor Steve Jukes called "one manıs terrorist another manıs freedom fighter," the likes of Roberts, Brown and Clift will see no comparison between the two men. Theyıll say that the Mayorıs bid for gay marriages was an act of civil disobedience while Judge Roy Mooreıs bid for religious freedom was a heinous, criminal act by a religious zealot who deserved to lose his job.

Oh, the media elite will say that Newsom should lose his job one day, too.

But only after heıs elected president.

The Pennsylvania Report (Political Newsletter)
May 28, 2004

Editorial: Gas Bags
Feature: Summer Daze
Bar Stool: Flips and Flops
Stock Exchange: Di Bona, Onorato
 
By Brian O'Connell

 With Memorial Day weekend on the docket and summer on the holidayıs heels

-- the news from Harrisburg is increasingly about the high gas prices Pennsylvanians -- and Americans have been dealing with in recent weeks.

With gas prices inching above the $2.00 mark and the price of a barrel of Saudi oil hovering around the $40 mark, two Pennsylvania Democratic legislators were snubbed in a recent bid to reducing the state gas tax by 12 cents per gallon.

State Sen. Allyson Schwartz, of Philadelphia, and Rep. Peter Daley of Washington County wanted to give consumers a break on the gas tax, which at 46 cents per gallon (including federal and excise taxes), is one of the highest such taxes in the country. "High gas prices create a massive drag on our economy, slowing the recovery and stifling job creation," said Schwartz.

Standing in the way of consumer tax relief is Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigns like a populist but governs like a Sierra Club hand-wringer. "It doesn't guarantee that the price at the pump will go down one cent," said Rendell. "The oil industry controls the price at the pump."

Thatıs a pretty oily comment, even for Easy Ed. Yes, the oil industry particularly the Saudi oil cartel controls oil prices. But to suggest that a 12 cent reduction in every gallon of gas "doesnıt guarantee that the price of the pump will go down one cent" is disingenuous and the Governor knows it.

No matter whether prices rise or fall, a 12 cent reduction in the stateıs gas tax will reduce the amount of money Pennsylvanianıs have to shell out for a gallon of gas by that exact amount.

Is that not relief? Not to Gov. Rendell itıs not.

As usual, the government needs the taxpayer's money more than the taxpayers do. We know this because politicians like Rendell - - addicted to public money tell us so.

So the next time you fill your tank, ask yourself this question.

Intellectual Conservative
Sorry, I Gave at the IRS Office
December 10, 2003

By Brian O'Connell

 Humorist P.J. OıRourke once said that God was a Republican and Santa Claus was a Democrat.

I canıt vouch for the former but would wager that St. Nick, given his benevolent nature, would grumble over being compared to such a Grinch-like political class.

Why? Because it turns out that, despite their solidarity with the working class, and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth over how conservatives treat the poor, liberals are cheap. You know -- the kind of people who throw nickels around like manhole covers.

Exhibit "A" in defense of that notion can be found in domestic charitable-giving trends. A recent series of annual studies by the Boston-based Catalogue for Philanthropy found that states where bedrock conservative tenets hold sway continue to top the list of charitable givers. Compiled every year by the, the index ranks charitable giving, state by state, by U.S. citizens and companies. In fact, the index accounts for the amount of wealth that citizens and corporations in all 50 states can give, and how much they actually do give, to charities on an annual basis.

The good news is that in 2002, the Catalogue for Philanthropy reports that charitable giving held up fairly well, despite chronic economic woes, especially among individual charitable givers.

The bad news, for Democrats at least (and for hard luck Americans who could use their help), is that affluent states like Massachusetts (44), New Jersey
(48) and Virginia (37) rank at the bottom of the index, outpaced by less well-off states like Mississippi, Arkansas and South Dakota, which top the index in 2002.

Itıs no one-year wonder, either. From 1997 through 2001, the study showed that Bible Belt states like Utah, Mississippi, Louisiana and Oklahoma ranked in the top-tier of the organizationıs "Generosity Index." But supposedly enlightened and decidedly prosperous states where liberal political attitudes flourish are nowhere near the top of the nation's most generous benefactors ­ and havenıt been for years.

In fact, liberal Meccaıs like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island habitually rank among the bottom of the list (itıs only to fair to mention that New York City has proven to be an exception to the rule. Charitable giving has risen significantly in the area in the aftermath of September 11, 2001). Massachusetts, where left-leaning politicians cannot bring themselves to utter the "R" word without prefacing it with terms like "mean-spirited" and "hateful," finished dead last in 1999 and among the lowest every year since. Imagine Ted Kennedyıs home as the stingiest state in the union.

What gives? Or, in the case of the great liberal strongholds, what doesn't give? Evidently, when it comes to feeding hungry children, caring for the disabled and providing some dignity for the weak and poor, "Christian zealots" from the Republican right walk the walk. While itıs true a family with $100,000 in tax-addicted Massachusetts has less discretionary income than a comparable family in Kansas, and thus may give less per capita, the gap is disturbing. It is particularly unfortunate given the national media's disinclination to give conservatives any credit for lending a hand to the less fortunate.

Further fanning the flames is the apparent reluctance of wealthy Americans to part with their money while poorer citizens give generously. According to the Generosity Index, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Michigan rank at the bottom again last year even though they are three of the wealthiest states. States like Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi and other Bible-Belt states invariably top the list each year.

A computer analysis of recent tax returns by the Chronicle shows that contributions varied widely both by income level and by where they lived. Among returns of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of less than $20,000, those who itemized deductions gave an average of more than 10% to charity -- although few taxpayers in that income bracket itemize. Among the wealthiest Americans -- those earning $200,000 or more -- the average charitable deduction was about3.6% of their total income. Most of those taxpayers do itemize. The smallest percentage deductions were among those who earned $75,000 to just less than $200,000. Of those who itemized, the average deduction was 2.6% of income.

The liberal response to this issue is predictable. If you live in a traditionally high-income, high-tax state like Massachusetts or New Jersey, local governments, through higher taxes, are taking the responsibility of caring for the needy. True, there's a much broader safety net of secular institutions in affluent, left-leaning states. In less affluent states, people give more to churches than their wealthier counterparts and churches pass on those contributions to the needy.

That scenario may be true, but it also feeds into the long-lamented cry by conservatives that liberals live by a code of "do as I say, not as I do."

Why else would citizens of wealthier states not contribute more to charity? Geography, for one. The Northeast's apparent frugality might be a result of being compared to heavy religious contributions in the poorer Southern states. The Chronicle has noted that the most generous people tend to live in states with high numbers of evangelical Christians. Others say big-city dwellers like those in Chicago or Boston are constantly inundated with telemarketers looking for contributions -- and not all of them on the up-and up. Once you have been burned by an unscrupulous company purporting to represent a needy charity, it is easy to rationalize that your taxes are more than enough for society's neediest. Itıs also easy for critics to say such rationalization is nothing more than a cop-out.

So, faced with the new realities of charitable giving, what's a liberal to do? Most likely the usual -- deny, obfuscate and paint the enemy as "extremists." But when it comes to charitable contributions, the only thing extremist about conservatives is the higher amounts of money they give to the less fortunate.