Come Monday...When No Means Yes

“Come Monday…” is a weekly series that will involve a review of, or commentary about,  websites, movies, documentaries, television shows, sports, music, and whatever else may tickle my fancy at the time.  Be assured that these reviews will be generally positive, as in accordance to the Jimmy Buffett song “Come Monday.”  This is subject to change, however.  In fact, I would be most derelict in my duties to neglect going on a rant every once in a while.  For rants promote change, and change can be good—right?  Therefore, since good is generally considered as being a positive force in 99.3% of the parallel universes that I am aware of, even a rant could be considered as being something positive, and a genuine hissy-fit would be even better (so I’m told).

No, this has nothing to do with unwelcomed sexual advances. Although, it could be argued otherwise with the way measures are so often worded on a typical ballot.

Case in point: [Missouri Proposition A]. For as it is proposed on the ballot, one must vote no in order to be in favor of the measure.

Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, when someone is against something, they should vote no. So, with making it be just the opposite, will this lead to many voting just the opposite of the way they wanted to?

It is the same way with [Missouri Amendment 3]. For I do not want to have to pay an extra tax on real estate transactions, but I will have to vote yes on this measure in order to vote against it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, what it takes is an educated voter, but considering the level of education these days… Alas, woe be it unto us all.

As a side-note, there is another measure on the 2010 Missouri ballot that is much more straightforward. It is [Proposition B], and it says,
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
*require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient  food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
*prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
*create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?

Yes, I am in favor of enacting all of this. Therefore, I should vote yes.

Unbelievably, there are actually commercials against MO Proposition B out there. Here are a couple of examples:

Link: [On YouTube]

Link: [On YouTube]

Okay, this really digs at my conservative roots. For I can see where this well-meaning measure could grow into another bureaucratic nightmare.

On the other hand, I am against any sort of large-scale commercial dog-breeding. For dogs are generally very personable animals, and there is no way that they can receive the amount of attention that they deserve when more than 10 (at the extreme!) are involved.

Yes, I suppose a really good large-scale operation could have 10 or less dogs assigned to individual employees, but that is going to cost them a lot more money. Besides, a kennel is just not the same as a home.

Please Also Visit: [FishHawk Droppings]



Come Monday...MO Proposition A

“Come Monday…” is a weekly series that will involve a review of, or commentary about,  websites, movies, documentaries, television shows, sports, music, and whatever else may tickle my fancy at the time.  Be assured that these reviews will be generally positive, as in accordance to the Jimmy Buffett song “Come Monday.”  This is subject to change, however.  In fact, I would be most derelict in my duties to neglect going on a rant every once in a while.  For rants promote change, and change can be good—right?  Therefore, since good is generally considered as being a positive force in 99.3% of the parallel universes that I am aware of, even a rant could be considered as being something positive, and a genuine hissy-fit would be even better (so I’m told).

To be quite honest about it, I ain’t got nothing for here this week. Well, I obviously have something. For if I didn’t, you wouldn’t be reading even this, but being the razor-sharp somebodies you all are, it shouldn’t take you long to see that it ain’t much.

Yeah, I’ve got a good excuse. Hey, I’ve always got one or two of them in my back pocket, and the one I would like to use in this particular instance is that my energy level has been lower than it usually is for several weeks now, which is making quite a statement. For even on good days, it takes all I have to walk across a small room, and when I get to where I was going, it takes a while before I am able to do anything but sit there until my brain start working again. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you, my dear [Adullamite].

Maybe I could use that excuse for how it came as such a shock to me to hear about [MO Proposition A]. For I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as a city earnings tax—let alone a campaign to keep it from spreading across the state, which is being spearheaded by [Let Voters Decide].

If you are like me just mere days ago, and don’t have a clue about what I am talking about, Kansas City and St. Louis have levied an additional earning tax on top of the federal and state income taxes upon all who make money inside their city limits. Have you ever heard of anything like this anywhere else?

Yeah, I know! For I would think that something like this would have been all over the news, but the first I ever heard of it was just last week.

Well, it was actually about Proposition A that I heard of, and it reads as follows:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
*Repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
*Require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
*Require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
*Prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?


The proposal could eliminate certain city earnings taxes. For 2010, Kansas City and the City of St. Louis budgeted earnings tax revenue of $199.2 million and $141.2 million, respectively. Reduced earnings tax deductions could increase state revenues by $4.8 million. The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown.


Fair Ballot Language:
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.


A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.

So, what do you think about this? Please, try to keep it at least somewhat civil. For we’re all about keeping the peace here. That is, until it is time to go to war, of course.

Please Also Visit: [FishHawk Droppings]