Courant’s Business Columnist Gets It Very Wrong
February 6th, 2007 by Peter
Way back on Nov. 15, 2004 on this blog we took note of a column by Courant business columnist Dan Haar. According to Haar the 2004 results showed that “[a]s the nation lurched to the right on Election Day, Connecticut moved hard the other way,” and he smelled an opportunity:
Eventually, progressive-minded folks would settle — or choose to stay — in Connecticut and other like-minded states. Since socially liberal people tend to be well educated, the ranks of technology workers and creative types could swell here… And, that, clearly, would be a boon for the state’s vibrancy and prosperity.
So here we are more than two years later. How are Haar’s predictions holding up? Not well:
Almost 17,000 more people left for other parts of the U.S. than moved into the state between 2005 and 2006, according to the latest Census estimate.
An influx of about 14,300 new residents from Puerto Rico and foreign countries was largely responsible for keeping Connecticut from losing population altogether, as also happened in the early 1990s.
The Census Bureau estimates that Connecticut’s population of 3.5 million grew by 4,108 in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2006. State officials say the federal estimate understates the birthrate and put the increase at more than 9,000. Both figures represent a continuing decline from annual growth estimates in the mid-20,000 range from 2000 to 2003.
“The 2006 number was a confirmation of a significant trend,” West Hartford economist Ron Van Winkle said. “We may not see significant growth in jobs or population in the state of Connecticut for the foreseeable future.”
The article goes on to quote several experts on the shortage of educated workers to fill qualified positions in Connecticut.
We won’t bother to ask Haar to apologize for the bigoted assumption that social conservatives lack education and creativity. But he at least owes the public a column revisiting his prediction and admitting how wrong it was. Alas, on that, too, we won’t hold our breath.
Peter
GET A LIFE!!!!! PLEASE!
Haar didn’t have to assume anything about the education or creativity of social conservatives to opine that “socially liberal people tend to be well educated.” The only assumption he makes is the one he states, and I think there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest he is right. Now, education is not a zero-sum game. That he is calling the socially liberal an educated lot implies nothing about the more conservative.
Your post reveals 2 things:
– your own insecurity about educational standing of the conservative crowd, and
– your delusional obsession with the Courant.
Seriously, this would be funny if it wasn’t a little sad.
Simon, if you want to give Haar the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t implying anything about social conservatives go right ahead. But do drop the whole “I’m shocked! shocked! that anyone would suspect anti-conservative bias from the MSM” act. The Washington Post’s infamous news article from the 90’s describing evangelical Christians as “poor, undereducated and easily led” is fairly representative of a whole strain of MSM reporting and it was hardly unreasonable to see Haar’s column as part of the genre.
Connecticut will prosper because all the educated, creative social liberals will move here to escape the dastardly red states? Yeah, right. How’s that working out for you? Oh, that’s right: it’s not. Go figure.
Question (unrelated to this topic but relevant to FIC):
Does FIC plan to introduce similar legislation anytime soon?
See story below:
KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance then filed the initiative.
I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.
It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file “proof of procreation” within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.
Many people think the law is over the top.
Leaders at a Kennewick church with gay and lesbian members feel the same.
“There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family,” said the Reverend Janet Pierce.
“They don’t necessarily marry to have children,” Pierce said.
I-957 would also force couples who married out of state to show the same proof of procreation or their marriage wouldn’t be recognized, and it would become a criminal act for anyone in an unrecognized marriage to get marriage benefits.
To make it on the November ballot they need 224,800 signatures by July 6.
Yep, it’s them homeesexshuls that’s pushin’ right-minded people to move outter the state. Nuttin to do wit affordable housin or cost uh livin. It’s them homeesexshuls. And Peter done told em so.
Thank ye Yawn, for purvin again, that left-minded peoples have a ‘bigoted assumption that social conservatives lack education and creativity”. Yur REALLY showin those bigots whose, well, biggoted, and providin a good ole’ example on how to win debattin points.
Just to clarify about the Washington State “Initative 957” effort, this misguided notion is actually being brought forward by advocates of same-sex marriage in an attempt to muddy the waters. As the organization states on their own web site (http://www.wa-doma.org/), “By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.”
How very interesting that the organization chooses such a misleading name for itself, “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”, as if to confuse people about their true intentions. They have no interest in defending traditional marriage at all. They chose the name deliberately because of the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) and similar laws adopted by various states, which define marriage as between one man and one woman. Why? Because they seek to mock and undermine DOMA and related laws.
And now, thanks to folks like Simon, we see another way that this approach can be twisted … to sow the seeds of confusion by trying to use such an organization to miselad people and besmirch the reputation of groups like FIC, and by implying that we would advance such a legislative proposal. Why even ask “does FIC plan to introduce similar legislation” when you know full well that this is a disingenuous effort by same-sex advocates, who are simply seeking to use it as a PR campaign. As Gregory Gadow writes in regard to the efforts of his organization (WA-DOMA), “If we can get I-957 on the ballot we have won, no matter what the final vote is. The bigotry and illogic of the Andersen ruling will be put on public display and, hopefully, the voting public will think twice about conservative rhetoric on equal marriage.”
A more appropriate question would be, “When will Anne Stanback and ‘Love Makes a Family’ plan to introduce such legislation?”
What a collosal waste of time and money. Who do they think would vote for this plan? By their own admission, they know it will fail, and they’re just using it to generate publicity.
Not much is directly relevant in this story to our situation here in Connecticut, except one thing. Efforts like these should make it clear to us that homosexual activists will not stop in their attempt to change the status quo – despite any laws adopted by public majority, and despite any judicial rulings that oppose their revisionist agenda – until the matter is resolved with absolute finality. This is exactly why we need a federal constitutional amendement to put this matter to rest, once and for all. In the meantime, we are going to immersed in conflict on the subject of same-sex marriage for years to come, with a dynamically-changing patchwork of incompatible marriage definitions scattered across the 50 states.
Umm, Dave, it is called sarcasm.
Oh, and your point about the amendment to the constitution is downright scary. Let me paraphrase: Hey, some group – let’s call them homosexuals – are fighting for rights that they think they are entitled to. They are trying to use the process provided in our government by going to the legislature. Let’s shut them up once and for all by amending our Constitution to add some stuff that will keep the homosexuals down.
Yikes.
Simon,
Are you saying that you’re willing to use the legislative process only, and forgo any use of the judical process, in your efforts to change the definition of marriage? It seems clear to me that, time and time again, same-sex marriage advocates have used all avenues that are available to them to advance their cause, especially liberal judges who are “discover” new law and override the will of the people (instead of leaving the creation of law within the purview of the people and their representatives, were it properly belongs). If we truly live in a democracy, then you have to accept that the people as a whole have a right to determine what constitutes marriage. And in accepting that truth, you need to face the reality that the outcome may not be to your liking, if the majority disagree with your revisionist agenda.
So far 26 states have embraced the idea of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, and have adopted measures that effectively block such activist judges who would “legislate from the bench”. It is precisely because of the past exploitation of judicial process by same-sex marriage advocates, that we defenders of traditional marriage are compelled to act in this way. The same-sex marriage question is being put before judges, when the question does not properly belong in that venue. If you want to redefine marriage, then make your case to the people to change the law.
The history of the WA-DOMA case is that the people had already spoken, by adopting a law that prohbited same-sex marriage. Having lost in the legislative venue, the same-sex marriage advocates remained undaunted; they brought their complaints through the judicial process instead, but were ultimately denied satisfcation once again. The state supreme court found the law to be valid. And now they decide to bring the process full-circle, by going back to the legislature with this latest ill-conceived plan.
The point is that the revisionists are unwilling to accept defeat in the court of public opinion, and will just keeping trying to drive through the process again and again. The continued drain of energy and resources in fighting this legal battle over and over does not serve our nation very well, and we can ill afford to have a patchwork of states where each one defines marriage differently. We are supposed to be the UNITED states.
By the way, enacting a constitutional amendement is very much a democratic and legislative endeavor. It is hardly the horror that you seem to perceive. Such a constitutional amendement can only happen in accordance with the will of the people. It is in no way permament, because it could be repealed if a sufficient majority desired such a change in the future. So, if such an amendment were enacted, and you didn’t like it, you would still be free to try and organize a repeal effort. You would continue to be free to speak your mind on the subject, and attempt to enlist supporters. In the meantime, though, we would be freed from interference by judges who do not respect our governmental structure and the balance of powers. And children would be freed from becoming innocent victims of this unwise social experiment.
You will notice, of course, that even in these states with constitutional amendements, the same-sex advocates still refuse accept the outcome. Rather than trying to change the will of the people, through the freedom of speech and persuasive arguments, they return to the judicial process … having the audacity to ask for judges to overturn the very constitional amendements just enacted by the people of these states. Thus they demonstrate their complete lack of respect for our democractic form of government. And that’s what it’s been all along, an attempt to foist their minority viewpoint unilaterally onto the rest of society. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You can’t forcibly coerce people to change their viewpoint on this question, and all that your continued efforts will accomplish is to generate friction and animosity. Not animus towards a lifestyle choice, but rather a justifiable irritation with a group of activists who seek to undermine our right to freely govern our own society.
Back to the original topic …
I don’t know about creative types, but with 11 years experience with CT’s largest corporate employer and participation in a technically-oriented professional society, the technology workers I know are overwhelmingly conservative.
This isn’t silicon valley. We have a lot of aerospace, defense, and (gasp!) nuclear power industries here. The political lurch left has made it harder for these employers to attract top talent.
Dave,
The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic; we do not rule by majority.
chele,
Yes, and no, on that we-do-not-rule-by-majority thought. It is true that we have a *representative* democracy. Nevertheless, as Alexis De Tocqueville said in Democracy in America (1831), “The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in democratic States which is capable of resisting it.” He added the following:
“The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is most easily swayed by the wishes of the majority. The Americans determined that the members of the legislature should be elected by the people immediately, and for a very brief term, in order to subject them, not only to the general convictions, but even to the daily passion, of their constituents . . . .”
Unfortunately, our two-party system and gerrymandering have resulted in the will of the majority too often being ignored in the older states. The founders of the western states observed this problem and most adopted referendum processes to ensure that the will of the people always would have sway. The number of states without a referendum process continues to shrink and I look forward to the day when Connecticut too adopts a referendum process.
Do you suggest that we in Connecticut switch to the California-style government by referenda?
Is it FIC’s position that we need to change the governmental process of Connecticut?
I cannot speak for FIC, but I would like Connecticut to adopt a referendum process like all of the western states (including California) and Massachusetts and Maine.
ModernFemme: Thank you for that belly laugh. Well-done!