Herb Riede's Blog

Pennsylvania House furniture plant closes, with 425 laid off

A title for a better story should read, "Pennsylvania House closes, with 203 members laid off"

I think we should take the pay raises these miscreants in Harrisburg are demanding and put it into the unemployment system.

We need to start flexing our state soveriegnty trade muscles and show people what a Keystone is for.

I don't wear it on my sleeve, I don't push it on my website, I haven't even used it in my campaigns.

I most admire Al Gore (Pro-Choice), Bob Casey Sr./Jr. (Pro-Life) and Ed Rendell (Pro-Choice).

I am enthusiastic about Harry Reid from Nevada (Pro-Life) being our Senate Leader.

I am an officer in the Pennsylvania Young Democrats, and I support Howard Dean (Pro-Choice) for Chair of the DNC.

I voted for John Kerry (Pro-Choice) for President.

I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she is pregnant (Pro-Choice).

I don't believe that a woman has the right to abortion on demand (Pro-Life).

Got that straight?

OK, now that I've dazzled you with the John Kerry treatment, let me get to the point:

Despite assertions by both the "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" groups that a majority believe what they believe by slanting poll results in their favor, poll results clearly indicate both camps are out of the "mainstream". In a poll this month by Quinnipiac, 67% said Abortion should be either "usually illegal" or "usually legal", whereas only 29% answered the extreme "always legal" or "always illegal".

Those not in the extremes - that is the "Pro-Abortion" people who demand the right to on demand abortions up to time of birth and the "Anti-Choice" people who demand the complete criminalization of abortion of any kind whether it be in cases of rape, incest, preservation of the life of the mother in the case of multiples and the (banning of contraceptives to boot - are nearly forced to choose a label due to their greatest relative distance from one extreme. Therefore, those who are "usually illegal" become "Pro-Life" as well, and those who are "usually legal" become "Pro-Choice".

Many Pro-Choice people deny the argument that abortion is even available "on demand" to term, believing Roe enforces a trimester standard. However, the Colautti, Danfourth, and Casey Decisions weakened the trimester standard to one simply of the doctor providing the abortion making the decision of the baby's viability, stripping much of the third trimester enforcement abilities from states.

Many Pro-Life people refuse the statistics that prohibition doesn't work and a federal law isn't the way to go. Abortion rates rose during Bush 41, declined under Clinton, and have risen under Bush 43. One might argue the American people are akin to a rebellious teenager - we're more likely to do something when you tell us not to do it. Now that we all have the right to vote, everybody stopped voting. It took the fact that some had their right abridged (see FL, 2000 - and I think PA's counts were off horribly this year as well as OH, FL, and others) before people remembered. But I digress.

I strongly believe that it is up to the states to decide on their own destiny, even in the global age we are entering. I do believe that any federal law on the subject should be required to be a Constitutional Amendment, only because of the deliberate and elaborate process required for ratification. I do not believe ratification is possible on a wholly restrictive or wholly permissive law, however, because society in general doesn't follow either belief.

The moderates are the most persecuted, not only by the opposition, especially if it doesn't square with the majority of their own party, but with some of the extreme "members" who congregate under the label. While discussions have been very amicable, they can get pointed, particularly because of my tenuation on the subject.

Speaking of which, let me address what I mean on my belief on a woman's right to choose/right to life:

I believe in equality in every case and in every matter whenever possible. This also carries over into the decision of parenthood. While my position may seem naieve in execution, it is the principal upon which I base my position.

I believe the choice to become a parent and become pregnant occurs irrevocably and equally between the man and woman at the time they decide to act, no matter the precautions taken to the contrary. If the precautions fail, they share a responsibility to raise and care for that child.

Since the choice can be violated by the man through rape (statutorily or otherwise), the woman retains her right to choose upon discovery of the pregnancy.

I believe abortion as a backup to contraceptives is morally reprehensible and indefensible. I do not consider protecting one's career or job or even the bleak prospect for people down on their luck enough cause. I am a Pro-Life Democrat, after all, and believe in supporting a child after it's born, including a welfare system that prioritizes one parent home with the child(ren) over working for minimum wage (if that means taxing the rich to raise the poor, so be it).

I do not believe abortion is a "medical procedure" once human life is established. I believe the point at which human life is established should be considered scientifically and not through religious means or potential, whether it be at the point brain waves begin^* or otherwise. Once another human being is established, abortion should be restricted severely.

^* Brain Waves - My standard, and I agree with the linked TNR article which in fact is simply an upholding of Roe using brain waves as a guide while disputing the subsequent weakening decisions, although the central point is still open to debate and modification - brain waves occur as early as 6 weeks to 26 weeks - and I would tend to err on the early side (observations of in utero) thereby being a stricter restriction by far. I would tend to restrict any after six weeks.

I am morally distraught with abortion even prior to this period, however. While I agree that the potential for human life exists at conception, I don't believe human life in fact exists at conception. From a religous standpoint (which my argument is not based upon, but included for reference) the Catholic Church has gone from permissive up to the "quickening" (the soul doesn't enter until the fetus is animated) to completely dismissive as it is now - however while the Jewish Faith's general view of abortion tends to seem permissive, in this overview, "Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried."

Since I base my grounds for restrictions on abortion on principal, so too must I base my arguments that restrictions on those restrictions remain in place on principal. That is to say, I do believe a modified version of Roe - albeit more enabling of the states - is appropriate. I am very wary of government regulation and beauracracy interfering with privacy. Because of this, I would tend to say that any abortion earlier than six weeks would have to be between the woman and her doctor. After this period, an abortion would be considered terminating a life and required to meet higher standards.

It does not matter whether or not I or anyone think's it is wrong to have an abortion if there is no child involved. That is the crux of the argument and the cause of the argument that will continue forever. As I mentioned that I am morally distraught about abortion before six weeks, I nonetheless do not believe that the act of abortion in these cases results in the killing of a human being. As such, I would not feel it principaled to legislate a moral or dislike rather than a principal. I believe that in the case of abortions earlier than six weeks, the privacy rights of the woman trump other considerations and it is up to the medical professional to perform the procedure. I do believe in parental notification, 24 hour waiting periods and other measures to discourage abortion on demand, with the appropriate medical and judicial exceptions.

I believe the argument over this subject is much ado about particulars in the middle. The New Democrats and the Centrist movement on both sides in the 90's built bridges and compromises on many contensious issues facing our country, taking us into the 21st century. While the DLC remains intent on building bridges, they are now building them with RW fundamentalists as opposed to bridges already built with fellow centrists, and selling out by over-compromising and burning bridges between them and their own party faithful. There are many within the party who are where the DLC was in the early 90's - before they had their power trip - ready to solve the next round of issues facing the nation today.

By being a Democrat For Life, I also stand against the Death Penalty and for a moratorium against it as well as against euthanasia.

Perhaps I'll get rabid responses from both sides with this post, perhaps I'll get reasoned support. My intent is to get neither - it is simply to publish my opinion, and move on to pushing for Pennsylvania's 2008 first in the nation primary status, more qualified candidates locally for office, and electing more Democrats.

- I am not a single issue voter -

Herb Riede - LEADing THE WAY - What can LEAD do for you?

A little bit of self-promotion for the day. Also, a promise to post a few times over the Christmas and New Years weekends!

In the May 2003 Primary in the Gettysburg School District, there was a contested primary for School Board. In the Democratic primary, ballots were mis-coded and subsequently miscounted, leading to the Hanover Evening Sun proclaiming 18-year old Don Palesky the winner of the Democratic Primary the next day.

However, this problem, caused by votes for another candidate ALSO counting for Mr. Palesky, was discovered and corrected after multiple recounts.

The point?

Election Systems and Software, (ES&S) counts well over a million ballots in Pennsylvania. This one error did affect the outcome of an election last year, however it did not make state-wide or national media.

ES&S is under national scrutiny in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere, especially on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. ES&S insist's their programs are rock solid, primarily their e-vote machines. That may be true and in fact, the local example may very well have been a printer's error.

That being said, no matter the error, the committee's behind candidates in Pennsylvania are subject to random annual audits - you don't know whether or not your committee will be audited or not, so you better be on the up and up. However, we do not perform basic audits of our vote system.

We do recount when an error is suspected, but only when asked for (which can come at the cost of political capital to the requester for fear of looking like a sore loser).

However, applying the same standard - that every county must perform a random audit of x percent of it's precincts from year to year, would ensure that as we move to new technologies for voting, counting, and tabulation, we do so secure in the knowledge that every vote has indeed counted.

Governor Rendell signed the Emergency & Municipal Services Tax into law Tuesday.

Running through some counties, I found some municipalities that, if they left their tax structure unchanged for their 2005 budget, now have an UNAUTHORIZED tax on the books for 2005.

Skimming through counties beginning with A-C on the DCED's website:
http://ctcoas01.state.pa.us/dced/MSS.DYN_OPT_COLLECTOR_2002.show
(The data is 2004 in spite of the URL)

Wyomissing Hills Borough, Berks County (municipality code 062253)
charges $5, but Wyomissing Area SD charges $0.

Doylestown Borough, Bucks County (municipality code 090243) charges
$5, but Central Bucks SD charges $0

Banks Township, Carbon County (municipality code 130035) charges $5,
but Hazelton Area SD charges $0

Because the TEXT of House Bill 197 changes the law as follows:

     2     PAYMENT OF ANY [OCCUPATIONAL PRIVILEGE TAX] EMERGENCY AND

     3  MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAX TO ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION BY ANY

     4  PERSON PURSUANT TO AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION PASSED OR ADOPTED

     5  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT SHALL BE [LIMITED TO TEN DOLLARS

     6  ($10)] NO LESS THAN TEN DOLLARS ($10) NOR MORE THAN FIFTY-TWO

     7  DOLLARS ($52) ON EACH PERSON FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR.

with the unexplainable, intentional inclusion of a minimum of "no less than" ten dollars, then all situations where the municipality charges $5 and the school district $0 is definately now not authorized by the state, however unintentional it may be.

One might ask why I bother over such fine points?

Well, I would counter that invalidating a revenue source of municipalities is not a "fine point". While the "status quo" and letting it slide will likely be the order of the day, I would prefer that better care be taken when dealing with the core finances of so many local governments to cater to just one.

Yes, it's only $5, but it's only $5 this time.