Here we go again. We have another winner....

Here is a comment from the Lincoln Journal Star paper today regarding a petitioner that was removed from the Jazz in June festival (http://tinyurl.com/ksu3w), and my response. Hoo boy......

AP wrote on June 23, 2006 8:23 AM:

"A petitioner is not creating a disturbance by just asking people to sign a petition. If all it takes is for one person to complain about a petitioner on public property for a petitioner to be removed from public property, the right and the ability of anyone to ever circulate petitions will be greatly impeded. If a petitioner cannot circulate on public property, where exactly can a person circulate a petition? Anyone complaining about a circulator on public property is just trying to deny the people the rights that our constitution has afforded us. I know exactly what that officier was doing. Those that are against the anti-spending spending petitioner are putting information out to public employees telling them to complain whenever they see a petitioner. The university, police officiers and security personnel are paid for by tax money. They are all against the anti-spending petition and are being told to try and stop this effort. That is why so many petitioners in Omaha have been arrested or told to leave public areas. Probably the only reason the university made that statement was because this petitioner was well aware of his rights and contacted his lawyer. Just for your information this circulator was not circulating the anti-spending petition and he was a volunteer petitioner. Maybe none of the petitions that are being circulated this year are things that are important to you personally; but if anyone encourages this type of behavior from law officials or security personnel, they may find that they no longer have the right to express their views with a petition when it is something that they do care about. Once our rights are taken away it is very hard to get them back."


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

Wow, AP. I think Ill put my Tin-Foil hat on now. How many conspiracies can be put into one paragraph? Just because UNL is paid for by taxpayers doesn't mean that it has open access to anyone at anytime, any more that a school ball field or a public library lobby if you aren't checking out books. The Uni has the right to bar people from their campus-you can't just go into their fitness facilities whenever you please, regardless of being taxpayer funded in part. Homeless peopel get removed all the time. Entities that are tax funded can and do have the ability to bar access. If the petitioner wasn't there for the concert, than they weren't part of the group that was granted access, e.g. the concert goers. Therefore, if someone complained, UNL with within their rights to remove them.

And, for a laugh, id love to see someone approach an UNL police officer and insinuate to them them that they aren't a 'real' officer. Id pay money to see that exchange.

Minimum Wage

Posted by me on the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper, Letters section. As a college student full time, employed full time, and father of three who grew up with food stamps, free lunches, etc-I take this personally. I make more than minimum *quite a bit* but the reality is that people still make 5.15 an hour and apparently Congress is more than happy to keep it that way. I don't see how its free market to deny a minimum wage raise, but vote a 3,000 dollar one for yourself with tax paid health and pension, etc. Seems to me that the free market is only talked about when trying to keep some from having all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Senators response to their not voting it down was to say that its
a struggle between allowing the free market and forcing government
control onto small business. While on its face I see that rationale,
he invalidated it completely right afterwards saying that people that
make minimum should move to where the opportunity is and get training
to make them more employable. I laughed-with what are they supposed to
pay for training and when are they supposed to do it? How are they
supposed to move? If they recieve assistance because they are already
below poverty level and move, they have to fill it all out again and
check on a change of status. Realistically, how much training will
offset the stress of making 5.00 too much and losing whatever benefits
they may be receiving for assistance? This guy is an unrealistic tool.

Congress has denied a minimum wage increases, and lawmakers have voted
themselves seven pay raises worth $28,000 in the last decade.
Compounded with changes to bankruptcy laws that took place, I can't
wait for strike 3. Mike Enzi of Wyoming says " Wages do not drive
sales, Sales drive wages." Ummm...so If I make more, I just stick it
in my mattress? Senator Enzi's proposal to raise the minimum 1.10 an
hour would stipulate that states could not change their own minimum
and reclass overtime pay (again;Im a tech worker and that really
hurt). Where do they get these people? Another argument is that
"people shouldn't expect to make it on minum wage". Oh, okay-so a lack
of advanced skills, a medical disability, or bad geography should
determine whether or not someone can have a family? In case some
people haven't noticed, there are large portions of the US that are
completly habitable, but aren't near a major city where higher skilled
jobs usually are-so Urban Sprawl or below poverty wages. Give them a
bullet-at least they could afford that.