Time to update the site and make some changes.
Stay tuned in the next month as we roll out the new site.
Also be patient as features will go up and down as I move the new site over.
Just keep repeating:
"Technology is our friend, Technology is out friend!!!"
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
1+1+1=2
Ya gotta admit, you just can't get one by Prairie Pravda.
Yesterday, the headline read that the Winona killer of a woman, her daughter and her unborn child was sentenced to prison. The article went on to say that this evil cretin murdered two people. OK. But the story stated one woman, one little girl, and one unborn child. And today, the article reads "Winona killer of mother, girl is sentenced to life." And yet, in the story you read that the killer was sentenced to three life terms. Yesterday the description was an unborn child. Today, it's a fetus. And three life sentences. Oh the judge, being sworn to justice, made sure that those sentences were to be served concurrently, not consecutively. Murder a little girl, eligible for parole in thirty years. Oh, and he sexually assaulted the little girl before he killed her. That also amounts to torture.
And thirty years before parole...Yup-There's justice for you! But! Be NOT dismayed! He will have to serve an additional three year sentence for the subsequent arson. THAT sentence will, of course, be served consecutively. Of course.
And the reason he gave for killing ten year old Taylor? Because she woke up as he was killing her mother and came out of her bedroom, and he didn't want any witnesses. And after all, he had nothing to lose by killing a ten year old girl. Nothing at all.
This is where a review of the death penalty enters in. For years I was opposed to the death penalty. Last December when the lefty wienies were crying for Tookie Williams, I read and blogged an article by Captain Ed. He refers to an L.A. prosecutor who lays out why the death penalty works:"A few examples to make my point: Suppose we have a career criminal with a long record of violent felonies, what we in California would call a "three-striker", who knows that he will be sent to prison for the rest of his life if he is ever caught committing a new offense. When he goes to rob the local convenience store, he doesn't want to hurt anyone - he just wants the money. But he also knows that, as there is no death penalty, he will face the exact same punishment (life imprisonment) whether or not he kills the clerk, the only witness to his crime. He would be a fool not to do so. If he happens to bump into a police officer on the way out, he may as well kill him too - there is no extra charge, so to speak." Now substitute the name of the heinous Winona child torturer and killer and for the clerk insert Taylor and you'll see that he also had nothing to lose. Nothing at all.
The only real justice I can hope for in this is that he somehow gets put into the general prison population. Child killers don't last long amongst prisoners.
Time to re-think hanging.
Yesterday, the headline read that the Winona killer of a woman, her daughter and her unborn child was sentenced to prison. The article went on to say that this evil cretin murdered two people. OK. But the story stated one woman, one little girl, and one unborn child. And today, the article reads "Winona killer of mother, girl is sentenced to life." And yet, in the story you read that the killer was sentenced to three life terms. Yesterday the description was an unborn child. Today, it's a fetus. And three life sentences. Oh the judge, being sworn to justice, made sure that those sentences were to be served concurrently, not consecutively. Murder a little girl, eligible for parole in thirty years. Oh, and he sexually assaulted the little girl before he killed her. That also amounts to torture.
And thirty years before parole...Yup-There's justice for you! But! Be NOT dismayed! He will have to serve an additional three year sentence for the subsequent arson. THAT sentence will, of course, be served consecutively. Of course.
And the reason he gave for killing ten year old Taylor? Because she woke up as he was killing her mother and came out of her bedroom, and he didn't want any witnesses. And after all, he had nothing to lose by killing a ten year old girl. Nothing at all.
This is where a review of the death penalty enters in. For years I was opposed to the death penalty. Last December when the lefty wienies were crying for Tookie Williams, I read and blogged an article by Captain Ed. He refers to an L.A. prosecutor who lays out why the death penalty works:"A few examples to make my point: Suppose we have a career criminal with a long record of violent felonies, what we in California would call a "three-striker", who knows that he will be sent to prison for the rest of his life if he is ever caught committing a new offense. When he goes to rob the local convenience store, he doesn't want to hurt anyone - he just wants the money. But he also knows that, as there is no death penalty, he will face the exact same punishment (life imprisonment) whether or not he kills the clerk, the only witness to his crime. He would be a fool not to do so. If he happens to bump into a police officer on the way out, he may as well kill him too - there is no extra charge, so to speak." Now substitute the name of the heinous Winona child torturer and killer and for the clerk insert Taylor and you'll see that he also had nothing to lose. Nothing at all.
The only real justice I can hope for in this is that he somehow gets put into the general prison population. Child killers don't last long amongst prisoners.
Time to re-think hanging.
Millionaires for Socialism
I got another interesting email the other day. This one got me to thinking...
"The wealthy are the last people you might expect to see leading movements that claim to support the working class, but the strange thong is that without the wealthy leftists the liberal movement in America would be dead. The money from George Soros and the wealthy people who voted for Lieberman’s challenger (the poor voted for Lieberman) are typical examples of how the liberal left has become the creation of elite billionaires and millionaires."
When you consider that the patrons of today's modern left (George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Microsoft co-founder Paul Lewis, entertainment mogul Steve Bing or locally the Patricians from Growth & Justice) you have to admit, my correspondent has a very valid point.
Why is this?
"Let me posit a few ideas:
1. The rich like to enjoy a lifestyle free from moral encumbrances and they are loath to see their personal behavior ruin their reputation and hurt their wallets. By promoting moral relativism they escape serious scrutiny and can behave as they please.
2. The rich know that the poor, upon whose work their fortune rests, are less likely to complain or be a problem is they are both entertained and materially sustained. Using moral relativism they can keep the poor focused on self indulgence rather than their sorry state, using hand-outs they can keep them still too poor to ever compete but not so poor that they riot, and using class or race warfare they can keep the poor focused on “the others” rather than their actual plight and the failure of the leadership.
3. The rich find nation-states to be quite an inconvenience. By reducing or eliminating trade barriers and by reducing the dominance of one or a few nation states they can raise the importance of non state entities, such as their corporations and foundations AND they can get around any national laws that curtail their ability to “buy low and sell high.”
4. The rich want to be able to control the political scene rather than being accountable to government or the will of People, so they tend to support judicial activism, top-down control of education, a liberal monopoly of the media, and keeping the poor in a state of ignorance."
Again, given what we have seen from the actions of those wealthy benefactors of the left, my correspondent has a point. There is an old Biblical saying "you can tell them by their fruit". Well the fruits of the labors of the wealthy leftists are there for all of us to see.
"There are probably other reasons you can cite for the trend amongst the really wealthy to be really liberal, but the point is that the very class that seems to be target of liberal rhetoric is the very class that is actually funding that rhetoric, which begs the question, “why?” For the answer to that question I refer you to the above reasons plus any you may see. What we must remember, however, is that when liberals talk about the rich not pulling their fair share and all that what they are doing is nothing more than a smoke screen: their policies tend not to hurt their rich patrons but, rather, the poor who are misled into believing the rhetoric." (emphasis mine)
WOW - that is probably the most succinct explaination of the whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" that I have ever heard!
Do not despair dear friends....there is some good news. The liberal benefactors appear to be sitting this election out, according to this report from "The Hill":
"This year, those well-heeled donors have yet to join the fray. Soros has given less than $2 million, Lewis a paltry $1.1 million, and the others even less. Some are eschewing election-year operations in favor of long-term efforts such as the Democracy Alliance, a group of more than 80 high net-worth individuals funding projects to amplify the liberal message, identify future leaders and conduct research."
Why are they backing away? Well it is a classic lesson in why you don't want to trust the Democrats with your tax dollars.
"These and other large donors bankrolled America Coming Together in 2004, a 527 organization devoted to turning out Democratic voters in 17 states. Although the group did make significant gains, it was outpaced by Republican organizing in key states like Ohio, leading some big donors to feel burned by the 2004 election, upset that they shelled out millions only to see Kerry lose, Democratic fundraisers said.“There was a lot of questioning about where money went and was it spent properly,” said Andy Spahn, an advisor to Hollywood donors. “In some part that led to disillusionment and cynicism about 527s.” (emphasis mine)
It would be nice to think that the bloom is off of the 527 rose, but I would not count on that yet! Until such time as the odiuos McCain-Feingold BCFRA is history, the 527's will dominate our political landscape. BCFR gave birth to the 527 movement and only its repeal will return politics to the people.
"The wealthy are the last people you might expect to see leading movements that claim to support the working class, but the strange thong is that without the wealthy leftists the liberal movement in America would be dead. The money from George Soros and the wealthy people who voted for Lieberman’s challenger (the poor voted for Lieberman) are typical examples of how the liberal left has become the creation of elite billionaires and millionaires."
When you consider that the patrons of today's modern left (George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Microsoft co-founder Paul Lewis, entertainment mogul Steve Bing or locally the Patricians from Growth & Justice) you have to admit, my correspondent has a very valid point.
Why is this?
"Let me posit a few ideas:
1. The rich like to enjoy a lifestyle free from moral encumbrances and they are loath to see their personal behavior ruin their reputation and hurt their wallets. By promoting moral relativism they escape serious scrutiny and can behave as they please.
2. The rich know that the poor, upon whose work their fortune rests, are less likely to complain or be a problem is they are both entertained and materially sustained. Using moral relativism they can keep the poor focused on self indulgence rather than their sorry state, using hand-outs they can keep them still too poor to ever compete but not so poor that they riot, and using class or race warfare they can keep the poor focused on “the others” rather than their actual plight and the failure of the leadership.
3. The rich find nation-states to be quite an inconvenience. By reducing or eliminating trade barriers and by reducing the dominance of one or a few nation states they can raise the importance of non state entities, such as their corporations and foundations AND they can get around any national laws that curtail their ability to “buy low and sell high.”
4. The rich want to be able to control the political scene rather than being accountable to government or the will of People, so they tend to support judicial activism, top-down control of education, a liberal monopoly of the media, and keeping the poor in a state of ignorance."
Again, given what we have seen from the actions of those wealthy benefactors of the left, my correspondent has a point. There is an old Biblical saying "you can tell them by their fruit". Well the fruits of the labors of the wealthy leftists are there for all of us to see.
"There are probably other reasons you can cite for the trend amongst the really wealthy to be really liberal, but the point is that the very class that seems to be target of liberal rhetoric is the very class that is actually funding that rhetoric, which begs the question, “why?” For the answer to that question I refer you to the above reasons plus any you may see. What we must remember, however, is that when liberals talk about the rich not pulling their fair share and all that what they are doing is nothing more than a smoke screen: their policies tend not to hurt their rich patrons but, rather, the poor who are misled into believing the rhetoric." (emphasis mine)
WOW - that is probably the most succinct explaination of the whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" that I have ever heard!
Do not despair dear friends....there is some good news. The liberal benefactors appear to be sitting this election out, according to this report from "The Hill":
"This year, those well-heeled donors have yet to join the fray. Soros has given less than $2 million, Lewis a paltry $1.1 million, and the others even less. Some are eschewing election-year operations in favor of long-term efforts such as the Democracy Alliance, a group of more than 80 high net-worth individuals funding projects to amplify the liberal message, identify future leaders and conduct research."
Why are they backing away? Well it is a classic lesson in why you don't want to trust the Democrats with your tax dollars.
"These and other large donors bankrolled America Coming Together in 2004, a 527 organization devoted to turning out Democratic voters in 17 states. Although the group did make significant gains, it was outpaced by Republican organizing in key states like Ohio, leading some big donors to feel burned by the 2004 election, upset that they shelled out millions only to see Kerry lose, Democratic fundraisers said.“There was a lot of questioning about where money went and was it spent properly,” said Andy Spahn, an advisor to Hollywood donors. “In some part that led to disillusionment and cynicism about 527s.” (emphasis mine)
It would be nice to think that the bloom is off of the 527 rose, but I would not count on that yet! Until such time as the odiuos McCain-Feingold BCFRA is history, the 527's will dominate our political landscape. BCFR gave birth to the 527 movement and only its repeal will return politics to the people.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Gambling on gambling
I am probably going to stir up a hornets nest with this but here goes anyway...
Here in the Savage Lands we have Indian gaming and a fairly successful mid-size horse racing facility. I have long admired the tribes use of gaming profits to develop non-gaming related business interests. They have built a health club, a daycare center, a strip mall that includes a gas station run by the tribe, a hotel and a golf course. If the day comes when the casino profits dry up (not likely to happen anytime soon) well they can still provide for themselves. BRAVO for free enterprise!
Well now the race track wants to add slot machines (run by the Minnesota Lottery commission) and expand their card club (in addition to their live and simulcast horse racing) in order to do the same thing. They want to build an equestrian/agriculture center and hotel complex that would bring world class equestrian competition to the Twin Cities. Now I will admit my bias up front - I used to show in the type of equestrian competitions that would be brought to the area! I still know people in the business who would be coming up here should this facility be built.
This plan has opposition from the tribe and from conservatives. Now the tribes opposition I can understand. They feel that this will cut into their "action". The conservative opposition is what I am puzzled by. Here we have a regulated business who is wanting to expand the non-regulated part of their operation. Yes it will be funded by their gaming operation, I get that. The conservatives that are blocking this say that they do not want an "expansion" of gambling. The problem is, the tribe can expand their gaming operation at will and we have nothing to say in this, we have no say in the matter. The race tracks expansion would be tightly regulated by the state (which I am not horribly fond of but I understand the reasoning why) and it will ultimately benefit the county in the form of more jobs (and thus more employment taxes paid to the state) and more tourists (in the form of the horse show people who have unreal amounts of money) and in the form of property tax relief. It is a win/win for the area, as far as Ic an see...
However, I want to try to understand the other side. Why should conservatives object to racino at Canterbury Park?
Discuss in ccomments.
Here in the Savage Lands we have Indian gaming and a fairly successful mid-size horse racing facility. I have long admired the tribes use of gaming profits to develop non-gaming related business interests. They have built a health club, a daycare center, a strip mall that includes a gas station run by the tribe, a hotel and a golf course. If the day comes when the casino profits dry up (not likely to happen anytime soon) well they can still provide for themselves. BRAVO for free enterprise!
Well now the race track wants to add slot machines (run by the Minnesota Lottery commission) and expand their card club (in addition to their live and simulcast horse racing) in order to do the same thing. They want to build an equestrian/agriculture center and hotel complex that would bring world class equestrian competition to the Twin Cities. Now I will admit my bias up front - I used to show in the type of equestrian competitions that would be brought to the area! I still know people in the business who would be coming up here should this facility be built.
This plan has opposition from the tribe and from conservatives. Now the tribes opposition I can understand. They feel that this will cut into their "action". The conservative opposition is what I am puzzled by. Here we have a regulated business who is wanting to expand the non-regulated part of their operation. Yes it will be funded by their gaming operation, I get that. The conservatives that are blocking this say that they do not want an "expansion" of gambling. The problem is, the tribe can expand their gaming operation at will and we have nothing to say in this, we have no say in the matter. The race tracks expansion would be tightly regulated by the state (which I am not horribly fond of but I understand the reasoning why) and it will ultimately benefit the county in the form of more jobs (and thus more employment taxes paid to the state) and more tourists (in the form of the horse show people who have unreal amounts of money) and in the form of property tax relief. It is a win/win for the area, as far as Ic an see...
However, I want to try to understand the other side. Why should conservatives object to racino at Canterbury Park?
Discuss in ccomments.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Dodge City or Murderapolis
Oh my friend Amendment X is going to LOVE this one.....
"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places. Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."
What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:
"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."
You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!
Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".
"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."
You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".
One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.
Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.
"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places. Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."
What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:
"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."
You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!
Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".
"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."
You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".
One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.
Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.
The Ethanol Myth
Amendment X, AAA and I have all writen about the false promise of ethanol and how, by their blind allegiance to the ethanol industry, our Senator and several of his colleagues in the House (including the man who wants to be our next Senator) are setting the consumers up for continued high gasoline prices. Well now Consumer Reports has chimed in on the Ethanol Myth and the high price that comes with it. If you have read any of our prior posts on the subject, you will not be surprised at what CR says.
"But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence. Among our findings:
The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.
With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about 440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.
The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use. Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great E85 fuel hunt).
The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces. "
I realize that the government has put a lot of stock in ethanol and they are working hard to make it pay off. However, the Consumer is the one that is stuck paying the higher prices that this blind allegiance to ethanol production has saddled us with. Yes, it is time to find alternative fuels, but let's make sure that the alternative fuels are fuels that will be cost effective AND good for the environment.
"But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence. Among our findings:
The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.
With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about 440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.
The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use. Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great E85 fuel hunt).
The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces. "
I realize that the government has put a lot of stock in ethanol and they are working hard to make it pay off. However, the Consumer is the one that is stuck paying the higher prices that this blind allegiance to ethanol production has saddled us with. Yes, it is time to find alternative fuels, but let's make sure that the alternative fuels are fuels that will be cost effective AND good for the environment.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Conspiracies!
Did any of you hear about this story?
"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."
Apparently, this theory is so prevalent that a FAQ site has been developed in order to debunk these theories. It is an interesting real - both from the conspirace theory phase and from the answer to those conspiracy theories. I work in the same building as a gentleman who firmly believes that the 9/11 attacks were actually a result of US government actions! He can tell you all the theories and when you point to facts like those listed at the FAQ site, he will tell you that it is "all lies". That is his pat answer - no reasoning....just claims that it is all part of the "vast governmental conspiracy". Given that there are many people in this state that are firm believers in handing the government that much control, it should not be surprising that they believe that the government can be responsible for this (or for the rise and fall in the price of gas).
Which is just one more reason why these people should not be given control of the State or US legislature.
"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."
Apparently, this theory is so prevalent that a FAQ site has been developed in order to debunk these theories. It is an interesting real - both from the conspirace theory phase and from the answer to those conspiracy theories. I work in the same building as a gentleman who firmly believes that the 9/11 attacks were actually a result of US government actions! He can tell you all the theories and when you point to facts like those listed at the FAQ site, he will tell you that it is "all lies". That is his pat answer - no reasoning....just claims that it is all part of the "vast governmental conspiracy". Given that there are many people in this state that are firm believers in handing the government that much control, it should not be surprising that they believe that the government can be responsible for this (or for the rise and fall in the price of gas).
Which is just one more reason why these people should not be given control of the State or US legislature.
Campaign Finanace Reform Minnesota Style
I was cleaning out an old folder of saved emails when I came across this.
"On January 21, Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz met with House Minority Leader Matt Entenza. The reason for their meeting was to discuss possible changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. At Entenza's behest, Schultz had drafted a series of suggestions for tightening contribution limits and broadening disclosure requirements.
At the time, Entenza was facing intense scrutiny for pouring money into DFL-affiliated organizations in the final weeks of the 2004 election campaign. The St. Paul lawmaker and his wife, Lois Quam, an executive with UnitedHealth Group, donated some $600,000 to DFL causes during the election cycle. The scope of the couple's political benevolence, however, was not disclosed until after the election--when the Democrats picked up 13 seats in the House and came within one victory of toppling the Republican majority.
Schultz laid out eight suggested changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. Under his proposal, all political donations--whether to so-called 527 groups such as 21st Century Democrats (the organization that received much of Entenza's support last year) or directly to campaigns--would have to be disclosed within 48 hours. In addition, all contributions would be limited to $1,000. There were also measures designed to curb attack ads in the final weeks of campaigns. Many of the changes mimic those implemented in 2002 at the federal level through the McCain-Feingold bill. "
Now many of you know that I am not a huge fan of the McCain-Feingold bill. I am also not a huge fan of Common Cause, which is the organization that Mr. Schultz is affiliated with. However, I am also not a fan of some of the tactics that take place in an election. Unlimited donations to 527s by groups like Move On are indeed ruining the process. However, McCain Feingold gave rise to the 527s and other "issue oriented" groups. Restricting donations (from individual donors) is not the way to go. Rather we should allow more donations from individuals and restrict donations from 527's. People like George Soros are going to find a way to attempt to buy the election, let's make it more open. That way the voters know just who is funding a candidates campaign. Shadow organizations like Move On are simply money laundering vehicles designed to deceive the average voter.
Given that a lot of the players mentioned in the article are either up for re-election or for an even higher office, I thought it would be worth our time to revisit it.
"On January 21, Hamline University political science and law professor David Schultz met with House Minority Leader Matt Entenza. The reason for their meeting was to discuss possible changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. At Entenza's behest, Schultz had drafted a series of suggestions for tightening contribution limits and broadening disclosure requirements.
At the time, Entenza was facing intense scrutiny for pouring money into DFL-affiliated organizations in the final weeks of the 2004 election campaign. The St. Paul lawmaker and his wife, Lois Quam, an executive with UnitedHealth Group, donated some $600,000 to DFL causes during the election cycle. The scope of the couple's political benevolence, however, was not disclosed until after the election--when the Democrats picked up 13 seats in the House and came within one victory of toppling the Republican majority.
Schultz laid out eight suggested changes to Minnesota's campaign finance laws. Under his proposal, all political donations--whether to so-called 527 groups such as 21st Century Democrats (the organization that received much of Entenza's support last year) or directly to campaigns--would have to be disclosed within 48 hours. In addition, all contributions would be limited to $1,000. There were also measures designed to curb attack ads in the final weeks of campaigns. Many of the changes mimic those implemented in 2002 at the federal level through the McCain-Feingold bill. "
Now many of you know that I am not a huge fan of the McCain-Feingold bill. I am also not a huge fan of Common Cause, which is the organization that Mr. Schultz is affiliated with. However, I am also not a fan of some of the tactics that take place in an election. Unlimited donations to 527s by groups like Move On are indeed ruining the process. However, McCain Feingold gave rise to the 527s and other "issue oriented" groups. Restricting donations (from individual donors) is not the way to go. Rather we should allow more donations from individuals and restrict donations from 527's. People like George Soros are going to find a way to attempt to buy the election, let's make it more open. That way the voters know just who is funding a candidates campaign. Shadow organizations like Move On are simply money laundering vehicles designed to deceive the average voter.
Given that a lot of the players mentioned in the article are either up for re-election or for an even higher office, I thought it would be worth our time to revisit it.
Monday, September 04, 2006
A case for parental rights
This is what government provided/mandated health care will get you.
"A 15-year-old Jehovah's Witness with Crohn's disease will be back in court this week seeking to control her own medical treatment and refuse blood transfusions. "
Now I have lots of disagreements with the Jehovah's Witness' - all of the doctrinally based. However, this is one place where I will stand side by side with the girl's parents.
"The case began last April when the teen, then 14, went to hospital during a flare-up of her Crohn's, a chronic illness that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract. When she and her parents refused a transfusion, a Court of Queen's Bench justice granted Child and Family Services an order allowing doctors to give blood transfusions or blood products "as they deem medically necessary" without the consent of the teen or her parents." (emphasis mine)
Where does the government get off telling a patient what treatment she must accept? Where does the government get off telling a parent what treatment their child can and can not have? And what happened to a woman's right to choose what medical treatments she has? I mean a medical proceedure IS a medical proceedure..right? Where does the government get off telling a woman what she can do WITH HER BODY?????
I looked up Crohn's disease just to make certain that this is not a life or death type treatment that this family is turning down and it does not appear to be that way. According to the NIH, the main treatments for Crohn's diease is anti-inflammatory drugs and immunosuppressants coupled with nutritional suppliments to make up for what is not being absorbed in the intestines. The NIH site says that anemia is often a side effect of the disease, so maybe that is what they are treating.
Which makes the case all the more troubling. It is also what makes it all the more important that we do not sign away our rights as parents in the name of "universal health care". Universal health care is what led the parents of this child to this point. They (and their daughter) are not willing to give up their rights as individuals in order to placate some bureaucracy that feels that they "know better".
This is just one more reason why this election is so important. Whether it is on the state or the national level, Democrats want to usurp your rights as individuals because they feel that they "know better". Whether it is health care (the Dems want universal health care) or higher taxes or school choice, the Democrats feel that they know better than you. They can spend your money more wisely than you, can educate your children better than you, they know what medical treatments are "in your best interests". Are YOU willing to give up your rights as an individual? Are you willing to let Big Brother government run your life for you? I know I'M not!
"A 15-year-old Jehovah's Witness with Crohn's disease will be back in court this week seeking to control her own medical treatment and refuse blood transfusions. "
Now I have lots of disagreements with the Jehovah's Witness' - all of the doctrinally based. However, this is one place where I will stand side by side with the girl's parents.
"The case began last April when the teen, then 14, went to hospital during a flare-up of her Crohn's, a chronic illness that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract. When she and her parents refused a transfusion, a Court of Queen's Bench justice granted Child and Family Services an order allowing doctors to give blood transfusions or blood products "as they deem medically necessary" without the consent of the teen or her parents." (emphasis mine)
Where does the government get off telling a patient what treatment she must accept? Where does the government get off telling a parent what treatment their child can and can not have? And what happened to a woman's right to choose what medical treatments she has? I mean a medical proceedure IS a medical proceedure..right? Where does the government get off telling a woman what she can do WITH HER BODY?????
I looked up Crohn's disease just to make certain that this is not a life or death type treatment that this family is turning down and it does not appear to be that way. According to the NIH, the main treatments for Crohn's diease is anti-inflammatory drugs and immunosuppressants coupled with nutritional suppliments to make up for what is not being absorbed in the intestines. The NIH site says that anemia is often a side effect of the disease, so maybe that is what they are treating.
Which makes the case all the more troubling. It is also what makes it all the more important that we do not sign away our rights as parents in the name of "universal health care". Universal health care is what led the parents of this child to this point. They (and their daughter) are not willing to give up their rights as individuals in order to placate some bureaucracy that feels that they "know better".
This is just one more reason why this election is so important. Whether it is on the state or the national level, Democrats want to usurp your rights as individuals because they feel that they "know better". Whether it is health care (the Dems want universal health care) or higher taxes or school choice, the Democrats feel that they know better than you. They can spend your money more wisely than you, can educate your children better than you, they know what medical treatments are "in your best interests". Are YOU willing to give up your rights as an individual? Are you willing to let Big Brother government run your life for you? I know I'M not!
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Minnesota "Nice"
Garrison Keillor has been called a Minnesota treasure, an iconic comedian whose creation "A Prairie Home Companion" is a throw back to a kinder, gentler time. To bad the creator is not as kind as his creation.
"Hard choices need to be made, and given the situation we're in, I think we must bite the bullet and say no more health care for card-carrying Republicans. It just doesn't make sense to invest in longevity for people who don't believe in the future. Let them try faith-based medicine, let them pray for their arteries to be reamed and their hips to be restored, and leave science to the rest of us. Cutting out health care to one-third of the population - the folks with Bush-Cheney bumper stickers, who still believe the man is doing a heckuva job - will save enough money to pay off the national debt, not a bad legacy for Republicans. As Scrooge said, let them die and reduce the surplus population. "
A prime example of "Minnesota Nice" doncha think?
Now in all fairness to Mr. Keillor, he does find one salient point, but he dances around and away from it so fast, you swear he must have gotten whiplash in the process.
"A society that pays for MRIs for headaches and can't pay teachers a decent wage has made a dreadful choice. But health care costs are ballooning, eating away at the economy. The boomers are getting to an age where their knees need replacing and their hearts need a quadruple bypass - which they feel entitled to - but our children aren't entitled to a damn thing."
Here he is correct - our politicians decry the "health care crisis" but ignore the education crisis. We do spend more money on health care (as a country) than we do on education, but the money spent is only PART of the equation. Until such time as we get away from indoctrinating children in acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" and we get back to teaching math and science and english (and not as a second language either!) will we get better educated children. However, Garrison didn't bother to touch on that.
At least Mr. Keillor is honest when he makes this statement:
"And we're stealing from them so that old gaffers like me, who want to live forever, can go in for an MRI if we have a headache."
Now I could stoop to his level and say that if he was all that concerned about the kids then he should quit being so selfish and just die, but I won't. For you see, unlike Mr. Keillor, I don't wish death on those that have the audacity to have an opinion different than my own. I thank them for their input and I wish them well. And THAT dear reader is what Minnesota Nice is all about.
"Hard choices need to be made, and given the situation we're in, I think we must bite the bullet and say no more health care for card-carrying Republicans. It just doesn't make sense to invest in longevity for people who don't believe in the future. Let them try faith-based medicine, let them pray for their arteries to be reamed and their hips to be restored, and leave science to the rest of us. Cutting out health care to one-third of the population - the folks with Bush-Cheney bumper stickers, who still believe the man is doing a heckuva job - will save enough money to pay off the national debt, not a bad legacy for Republicans. As Scrooge said, let them die and reduce the surplus population. "
A prime example of "Minnesota Nice" doncha think?
Now in all fairness to Mr. Keillor, he does find one salient point, but he dances around and away from it so fast, you swear he must have gotten whiplash in the process.
"A society that pays for MRIs for headaches and can't pay teachers a decent wage has made a dreadful choice. But health care costs are ballooning, eating away at the economy. The boomers are getting to an age where their knees need replacing and their hearts need a quadruple bypass - which they feel entitled to - but our children aren't entitled to a damn thing."
Here he is correct - our politicians decry the "health care crisis" but ignore the education crisis. We do spend more money on health care (as a country) than we do on education, but the money spent is only PART of the equation. Until such time as we get away from indoctrinating children in acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" and we get back to teaching math and science and english (and not as a second language either!) will we get better educated children. However, Garrison didn't bother to touch on that.
At least Mr. Keillor is honest when he makes this statement:
"And we're stealing from them so that old gaffers like me, who want to live forever, can go in for an MRI if we have a headache."
Now I could stoop to his level and say that if he was all that concerned about the kids then he should quit being so selfish and just die, but I won't. For you see, unlike Mr. Keillor, I don't wish death on those that have the audacity to have an opinion different than my own. I thank them for their input and I wish them well. And THAT dear reader is what Minnesota Nice is all about.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Compare and contrast
Compare this to the Red Star's reaction to the Richard Armitage revelation.
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago...Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." (emphasis mine)
Any doubt to the Red Star's bias was officially stripped away with their screed in today's paper (that I wrote about last night). The only ones guilty of "spin" in this matter is the Star Tribune editorial staff - not the President's defenders (as the Strib's editorial suggested). It is time for the editorial staff of the Star Tribune to either offer their apologies to the President, the Vice President, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libbey or step down. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen.
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago...Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." (emphasis mine)
Any doubt to the Red Star's bias was officially stripped away with their screed in today's paper (that I wrote about last night). The only ones guilty of "spin" in this matter is the Star Tribune editorial staff - not the President's defenders (as the Strib's editorial suggested). It is time for the editorial staff of the Star Tribune to either offer their apologies to the President, the Vice President, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libbey or step down. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen.
MSM worth watching and taping
I keep hearing about the Clinton acolytes trying to squelch certain aspects of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9-11". When the Clinton syncophants are nervous, well, my ears perk up! Front Page Magazine (David Horowitz's online magazine) has an excellent review here. Hugh Hewitt believes that the Clintonistas are going to fall short in their efforts to trim the series, as does Andy McCarthy of NRO. It appears that the mini-series documents in a fair and even handed way the bungling and PC mind set of the Clinton Administration that killed and injured thousands of Americans.
And Sandy "How DID Those Documents from the National Archives Get in My Knickers that I Subsequently Accidentally Shredded???" Berger is still out and free to roam rather than facing a hard time sentence in a federal prison.
Anyhow, I'll be setting my VCR for this one.
And Sandy "How DID Those Documents from the National Archives Get in My Knickers that I Subsequently Accidentally Shredded???" Berger is still out and free to roam rather than facing a hard time sentence in a federal prison.
Anyhow, I'll be setting my VCR for this one.
A REAL inconventient truth
This article tells us what the drive by media refuses to:
"In just over three months, the United Nations mandat under which the US-led multinational force is present in Iraq will end. This means that the 130,000 troops provided by the US, Britain and 32 other countries would have either to go home or see their stay extended under a new arrangement.
Because Iraq has regained full sovereignty and has a government of its own, the United Nations alone can no longer take the decision whether or not foreign troops should remain on Iraqi soil. The final word on the subject must come from the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki with the consent of the Iraqi National Assembly (Parliament) . "(emphasis mine)
The final word on the subject must come frm the government of Iraq - not the US Government, not the EU, not Jack Murtha, not Coleen Rowley or Patty Wetterling! Iraq is our friend and our ally. It is not in the US best interests to abandon them if they request that we stay. Something that the Dems ignore in their rhetoric. Just one more thing to remember in November!
"In just over three months, the United Nations mandat under which the US-led multinational force is present in Iraq will end. This means that the 130,000 troops provided by the US, Britain and 32 other countries would have either to go home or see their stay extended under a new arrangement.
Because Iraq has regained full sovereignty and has a government of its own, the United Nations alone can no longer take the decision whether or not foreign troops should remain on Iraqi soil. The final word on the subject must come from the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki with the consent of the Iraqi National Assembly (Parliament) . "(emphasis mine)
The final word on the subject must come frm the government of Iraq - not the US Government, not the EU, not Jack Murtha, not Coleen Rowley or Patty Wetterling! Iraq is our friend and our ally. It is not in the US best interests to abandon them if they request that we stay. Something that the Dems ignore in their rhetoric. Just one more thing to remember in November!
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Delusional
That is what the editorial staff - the admittedly LIBERAL editorial staff of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (aka Red Star) is. Why, you may ask, do I say that? THIS editorial (in tomorrow's paper) shows the depths of the liberal delusions at the Red Star.
"Armitage's error doesn't excuse others
He made a mistake, but Cheney, Rove, Libby have no excuse"
Richard Armitage made the initial "leak" and yet it's a mistake. Karl Rove, when asked "did you hear this?" made the mistake of saying yeah I heard something like that and he is STILL the one who needs to be flayed alive!
Just when you think that they can not possibly get any worse......
"Armitage's error doesn't excuse others
He made a mistake, but Cheney, Rove, Libby have no excuse"
Richard Armitage made the initial "leak" and yet it's a mistake. Karl Rove, when asked "did you hear this?" made the mistake of saying yeah I heard something like that and he is STILL the one who needs to be flayed alive!
Just when you think that they can not possibly get any worse......
Acceptable discrimination
This story confirms what many people have long suspected. That it is perfectly ok (according to liberals) to discriminate against Christians.
" The Minneapolis Police Department has temporarily suspended the use of a well-known psychologist who has been screening potential officers for more than a year after community members questioned his affiliation with a group that opposes civil rights for gays.
The issue of Michael A. Campion's affiliation with a conservative Illinois group that says it opposes the "gay lifestyle" was brought to interim Chief Tim Dolan's attention on Wednesday during a meeting with the Police Community Relations Council.
Although he said there's no indication of any bias in Campion's work, Dolan decided the next day to stop using him until an independent review could take place." (emphasis added)
There you have it dear reader. There was no indication of bias, but that didn't stop the city machinery from chewing him up and spitting him out.
Front Page Magazine dug up what the Red Star refused to print - that this was done at the behest of gay rights and pro abortion activists.
"If you’re a Christian working for the City of Minneapolis, watch your step – your job may already be in jeopardy. In what may be one of the most blatant acts of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination by an American government agency, the Minneapolis Police Department has suspended a Police Psychologist, Dr. Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates, at the behest of leftist activists."
The Red Star never said WHO told them about Campion's affiliation with IFI. Just that that accusations of bias (because of his faith) were made!
Christians working for the City of Minneapolis should be very afraid, should this be allowed to stand. Just because Mr. Campion was a consultant, doesn't mean you couldn't be next. Your First Amendment rights, along with those of Mr. Campion, are apparently not as guaranteed as others.
" The Minneapolis Police Department has temporarily suspended the use of a well-known psychologist who has been screening potential officers for more than a year after community members questioned his affiliation with a group that opposes civil rights for gays.
The issue of Michael A. Campion's affiliation with a conservative Illinois group that says it opposes the "gay lifestyle" was brought to interim Chief Tim Dolan's attention on Wednesday during a meeting with the Police Community Relations Council.
Although he said there's no indication of any bias in Campion's work, Dolan decided the next day to stop using him until an independent review could take place." (emphasis added)
There you have it dear reader. There was no indication of bias, but that didn't stop the city machinery from chewing him up and spitting him out.
Front Page Magazine dug up what the Red Star refused to print - that this was done at the behest of gay rights and pro abortion activists.
"If you’re a Christian working for the City of Minneapolis, watch your step – your job may already be in jeopardy. In what may be one of the most blatant acts of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination by an American government agency, the Minneapolis Police Department has suspended a Police Psychologist, Dr. Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates, at the behest of leftist activists."
The Red Star never said WHO told them about Campion's affiliation with IFI. Just that that accusations of bias (because of his faith) were made!
Christians working for the City of Minneapolis should be very afraid, should this be allowed to stand. Just because Mr. Campion was a consultant, doesn't mean you couldn't be next. Your First Amendment rights, along with those of Mr. Campion, are apparently not as guaranteed as others.
The last of the "moderates"?
Much has been said about this Lori Sturdevant column in Sunday's Star Tribune. However, none of the posts picked up on this:
"For Minnesotans, both books serve up some juicy passages. None tops Eilperin's account of Seventh District Rep. Collin Peterson's exchange with the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in late 2004 or early 2005.
It seems that the eight-termer's penchant for voting with Republicans called into question his Democratic caucus' willingness to make him the ranking minority member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Let me get this straight," Peterson is quoted as telling the caucus leaders who had summoned him for a grilling (not of the barbecue kind). "You're telling me I should vote against my conscience and vote against my constituents so I can become a marginal member, and you can spend two million bucks to save my ass? You guys have to understand, you're not in the majority ... . If you didn't have guys like me you're going to be in the minority for a long time." (emphasis mine)
That speaks volumes about the Democratic leadership. That explains why the DCCC is pushing forward candidates like Coleen Rowley and Patty Wetterling - candidates that do what the DCCC handlers tell them...that toe the party leadership line - no questions asked!
"It details how Republican leaders have denied a meaningful lawmaking role to minority Democrats and their own moderate members. "
Gee Lori - I must have slept through the portion of Poli-Sci that said that the majority was supposed to guarantee the minority a "meaningful" lawmaking role. I know I certainly did not see anything like that in the years that the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.
And then there is this little gem:
"Both books argue for change in the way congressional districts are drawn. Gerrymandering -- the practice of drawing political maps for partisan advantage -- is out of control, and should be reined in, the authors argue. One possibility: Take the task out of state legislators' hands, and give it to independent commissions. "
Typical leftist - take the power away from the people and their elected representatives and hand it over to the Judiciary. Wait you say - she didn't say judges.....well yes she did:
"In Minnesota, legislative gridlock and/or lawsuits have given the state something akin to that, by default. Panels of judges have drawn this state's political lines for the past 40 years. That may be why Minnesota is still sending moderates to Congress while much of the rest of the nation is not."
Handing redistricting over to judges - just like they handed over drawing up legislation to judges (in Roe v Wade) and took away property owners rights (Kelo v New London). Just like they keep trying to hand over deciding election results (Gore v Bush) to judges. Judges are being handed more and more power at the behest of the elitist left - because they know better than the proletariat (that's you and me dear readers). It's time to resist the elitist push to hand our lives over to the judiciary.
"For Minnesotans, both books serve up some juicy passages. None tops Eilperin's account of Seventh District Rep. Collin Peterson's exchange with the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in late 2004 or early 2005.
It seems that the eight-termer's penchant for voting with Republicans called into question his Democratic caucus' willingness to make him the ranking minority member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Let me get this straight," Peterson is quoted as telling the caucus leaders who had summoned him for a grilling (not of the barbecue kind). "You're telling me I should vote against my conscience and vote against my constituents so I can become a marginal member, and you can spend two million bucks to save my ass? You guys have to understand, you're not in the majority ... . If you didn't have guys like me you're going to be in the minority for a long time." (emphasis mine)
That speaks volumes about the Democratic leadership. That explains why the DCCC is pushing forward candidates like Coleen Rowley and Patty Wetterling - candidates that do what the DCCC handlers tell them...that toe the party leadership line - no questions asked!
"It details how Republican leaders have denied a meaningful lawmaking role to minority Democrats and their own moderate members. "
Gee Lori - I must have slept through the portion of Poli-Sci that said that the majority was supposed to guarantee the minority a "meaningful" lawmaking role. I know I certainly did not see anything like that in the years that the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.
And then there is this little gem:
"Both books argue for change in the way congressional districts are drawn. Gerrymandering -- the practice of drawing political maps for partisan advantage -- is out of control, and should be reined in, the authors argue. One possibility: Take the task out of state legislators' hands, and give it to independent commissions. "
Typical leftist - take the power away from the people and their elected representatives and hand it over to the Judiciary. Wait you say - she didn't say judges.....well yes she did:
"In Minnesota, legislative gridlock and/or lawsuits have given the state something akin to that, by default. Panels of judges have drawn this state's political lines for the past 40 years. That may be why Minnesota is still sending moderates to Congress while much of the rest of the nation is not."
Handing redistricting over to judges - just like they handed over drawing up legislation to judges (in Roe v Wade) and took away property owners rights (Kelo v New London). Just like they keep trying to hand over deciding election results (Gore v Bush) to judges. Judges are being handed more and more power at the behest of the elitist left - because they know better than the proletariat (that's you and me dear readers). It's time to resist the elitist push to hand our lives over to the judiciary.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Coleen Rowley on WCCO
I haven't gotten an chance to post on this as I have been busy with my own fair related business. Coleen Rowley and Congressman John Kline engaged in a couple of debates at the Great Minnesota Get Together (aka the State Fair) on Friday. The first was an interview that melded into the debate on WCCO's Jack Rice show. Below are some notes and comments from that interview/debate.
When introduced as a "whistleblower" by Mr. Rice, Ms. Rowley said that she prefered being called a "stickler for the truth" (ed holy cow - talk about hubris!) She said that the word "policy" (in describing this country's Iraq policy) is "too good of a term" - stating that what we are doing now is not a working policy. She said that she agreed with Congressman Murtha's plan to "re-deploy" our troops out of Iraq. She said that the current "lack of a plan" in Iraq is not working and she also accused the President of "not leveling" with the American people when it comes to Iraq and our lack of progress over there.
She was asked if she found herself having to figure out who her opponent was. She said that she was the "true Conservative" in the race and that she is seeing more and more "reformed Republicans - like those that Nick Coleman wrote about in his screed last week. My question to her is this - would a true Conservative quote Common Cause (see below)?
She was the asked if they (the Republicans) are the party of "small government", what are you? She didn't answer the question directly - she just went on to attack the special interests that seeem to "control" the Republican party (Mr. Rice interjected here that the Democrats have their own special interest groups "). Coleen answered that yeah that is true but because the Republicans are in power, it is "their problem" (HUH?????) When asked how SHE would fix the problem, she said that she pledged to propose much stronger ethic reform. She admitted that she needed a lot more Dems to sign on to it with her in order to get it passed. She said that we needed "good, common sense reform" such as proposed by Common Cause.
Jumping to National Defense (and the actual debate portion of the program) Ms. Rowley and Congressman Kline was asked about the sectarian violence in Iraq. Ms. Rowley started off slamming the troops by saying "I look at the insurgency as it continues to grow and what I see is them (the troops) doing everything they can but is it enough? How can you stay the course and say it is a good course?" OK - in Ms. Rowley's defense she will say she was slamming the Administration, but in all honestly given the context of the question and her answer, the troops were the ones to get the broadside - in typical Democratic fashion. Congressman Kline's response was much better. He said "The troops are doing a terrific job and morale is high. They are doing a great job. When you say 'stay the course' you imply that there are no tactical changes being made and that is incorrect! The sectarian violence is a problem - this hatred has been building for centuries. The answer to that problem lies in the hands of the new Iraqi government. The key is the Iraqi Army and they have made great progress. The Iraqi Police is not developing as fast, but the Iraqi Army putting a greater presence in these troubled areas will make things better.
Question - "Coleen Rowley, what is the Democratic Party specifically proposing we do? Answer - "I am in the majority now of the people in the country who say that there is no progress in Iraq - that is a no brainer (ed - she has used that phrase a lot in this campaign) One vote did not get us security. Regarding redeployment - I can't go into details that would tke an hour. We need responsible redeployment..." At this point Congressman Kline interjected with "We have seen Marines redeploy to Baghdad and they are making progress. If you sare saying we pull out of the country...you thin it is the wild west now???" Ms. Rowley continued "No one knows how effective this Administration has been in negotiating with the insurgents (ed - more on that little nugget in a separate post). Redeployment is part of the plan." Congressman Kline countered with a question of his own - "You mean redeploy to a neighboring country like Okinawa Japan?" Ms. Rowley answered "I am hoping to get Mr. Murtha here to explain the plan to Mr. Kline so that he can understand it...." Congressman Kline said "that is fine, but I am not running against Congressman Murtha."
Question - just recently 2500 Individual Ready Reserve troops were recalled - a shakey number because it changes. Do we need more troops (in the form of a draft) in order to relieve those that are there now. Congressman Kline "there is no doubt that our military has fewer members. In the 1990's the Army was cut from 16 divisions to 10 (ed - under President Clinton) however, I do not think that a draft is necessary." Ms. Rowley "I think a draft is something we should look at!"
That was the end of the debate time. After that it went into an interview of Congressman Kline (and I got a phone call). I would like to add a couple of thoughts here. First is that Coleen is much more comfortable addressing the issues now (as compared to February when I first heard her speak) however neither the interview nor the debate got off of National Security which is by far the subject she feels most comfortable speaking about. Second was anger - every single one of Ms. Rowley's answers came from anger. She genuinely seemed to be pi$$ed. Congressman Kline, on the other hand, was cordial to both Mr. Rice and Ms. Rowley during the whole debate - no shouting, no harsh words....none of that.
Which leads to one last observation. Mr. Rice asked both candidates what they liked about being on the campaign trail was it "fun". Congressman Kline talked about the parades and how fun it was to get out and meet the people and shake hands and talk to everyone. He admitted that come October, it tends to drag, but it (campaigning) was still fun because he did get to meet so many people. Ms. Rowley's answer was telling. When asked if she found any part of campaigning fun she simply said "No". She went on to add that when she signed on to the FBI she took a vow to protect the country and the Constitution (so did Congressman Kline when he took his Marine oath) and she sees this as an extension of that vow, but there was nothing "fun" about this.
Therein lies the core difference between the two.
When introduced as a "whistleblower" by Mr. Rice, Ms. Rowley said that she prefered being called a "stickler for the truth" (ed holy cow - talk about hubris!) She said that the word "policy" (in describing this country's Iraq policy) is "too good of a term" - stating that what we are doing now is not a working policy. She said that she agreed with Congressman Murtha's plan to "re-deploy" our troops out of Iraq. She said that the current "lack of a plan" in Iraq is not working and she also accused the President of "not leveling" with the American people when it comes to Iraq and our lack of progress over there.
She was asked if she found herself having to figure out who her opponent was. She said that she was the "true Conservative" in the race and that she is seeing more and more "reformed Republicans - like those that Nick Coleman wrote about in his screed last week. My question to her is this - would a true Conservative quote Common Cause (see below)?
She was the asked if they (the Republicans) are the party of "small government", what are you? She didn't answer the question directly - she just went on to attack the special interests that seeem to "control" the Republican party (Mr. Rice interjected here that the Democrats have their own special interest groups "). Coleen answered that yeah that is true but because the Republicans are in power, it is "their problem" (HUH?????) When asked how SHE would fix the problem, she said that she pledged to propose much stronger ethic reform. She admitted that she needed a lot more Dems to sign on to it with her in order to get it passed. She said that we needed "good, common sense reform" such as proposed by Common Cause.
Jumping to National Defense (and the actual debate portion of the program) Ms. Rowley and Congressman Kline was asked about the sectarian violence in Iraq. Ms. Rowley started off slamming the troops by saying "I look at the insurgency as it continues to grow and what I see is them (the troops) doing everything they can but is it enough? How can you stay the course and say it is a good course?" OK - in Ms. Rowley's defense she will say she was slamming the Administration, but in all honestly given the context of the question and her answer, the troops were the ones to get the broadside - in typical Democratic fashion. Congressman Kline's response was much better. He said "The troops are doing a terrific job and morale is high. They are doing a great job. When you say 'stay the course' you imply that there are no tactical changes being made and that is incorrect! The sectarian violence is a problem - this hatred has been building for centuries. The answer to that problem lies in the hands of the new Iraqi government. The key is the Iraqi Army and they have made great progress. The Iraqi Police is not developing as fast, but the Iraqi Army putting a greater presence in these troubled areas will make things better.
Question - "Coleen Rowley, what is the Democratic Party specifically proposing we do? Answer - "I am in the majority now of the people in the country who say that there is no progress in Iraq - that is a no brainer (ed - she has used that phrase a lot in this campaign) One vote did not get us security. Regarding redeployment - I can't go into details that would tke an hour. We need responsible redeployment..." At this point Congressman Kline interjected with "We have seen Marines redeploy to Baghdad and they are making progress. If you sare saying we pull out of the country...you thin it is the wild west now???" Ms. Rowley continued "No one knows how effective this Administration has been in negotiating with the insurgents (ed - more on that little nugget in a separate post). Redeployment is part of the plan." Congressman Kline countered with a question of his own - "You mean redeploy to a neighboring country like Okinawa Japan?" Ms. Rowley answered "I am hoping to get Mr. Murtha here to explain the plan to Mr. Kline so that he can understand it...." Congressman Kline said "that is fine, but I am not running against Congressman Murtha."
Question - just recently 2500 Individual Ready Reserve troops were recalled - a shakey number because it changes. Do we need more troops (in the form of a draft) in order to relieve those that are there now. Congressman Kline "there is no doubt that our military has fewer members. In the 1990's the Army was cut from 16 divisions to 10 (ed - under President Clinton) however, I do not think that a draft is necessary." Ms. Rowley "I think a draft is something we should look at!"
That was the end of the debate time. After that it went into an interview of Congressman Kline (and I got a phone call). I would like to add a couple of thoughts here. First is that Coleen is much more comfortable addressing the issues now (as compared to February when I first heard her speak) however neither the interview nor the debate got off of National Security which is by far the subject she feels most comfortable speaking about. Second was anger - every single one of Ms. Rowley's answers came from anger. She genuinely seemed to be pi$$ed. Congressman Kline, on the other hand, was cordial to both Mr. Rice and Ms. Rowley during the whole debate - no shouting, no harsh words....none of that.
Which leads to one last observation. Mr. Rice asked both candidates what they liked about being on the campaign trail was it "fun". Congressman Kline talked about the parades and how fun it was to get out and meet the people and shake hands and talk to everyone. He admitted that come October, it tends to drag, but it (campaigning) was still fun because he did get to meet so many people. Ms. Rowley's answer was telling. When asked if she found any part of campaigning fun she simply said "No". She went on to add that when she signed on to the FBI she took a vow to protect the country and the Constitution (so did Congressman Kline when he took his Marine oath) and she sees this as an extension of that vow, but there was nothing "fun" about this.
Therein lies the core difference between the two.
Politician on a stick
That is what Fox 9 News is calling their daily interviews with all of the politicians that are running for state wide office this year. Today's interviewee was Michele Bachmann who is running for Mark Kennedy's seat in the 6th Congressional District. Everything you could ever want to know about this race (one of the top 5 highest profile contests in the country) can be found at BachmannvWetterling (another Andy Aplikowski publication). The interview was unremarkable except for one thing. Three times during the interview, Alix Kendall (one of the two morning anchors) mentioned "gay marriage" three times including in a question that was designed to attempt to designate Michele as a divisive candidate. The question was " Given some of the issues you have campaigned on (tax cuts, gay marriage) do you find your support to be cohesive?" Of course, was Michele's answer.
This kind of question has been normal during the campaign. The local drive by media is not fond of Michele's advocacy for allowing Minnesotans to vote on a state wide Defense of Marriage Act.
If you want to keep an eye on this targeted seat, stop by BVW often. If you want to help Michele, contact the campaign at her website. I know that they would love the help.
This kind of question has been normal during the campaign. The local drive by media is not fond of Michele's advocacy for allowing Minnesotans to vote on a state wide Defense of Marriage Act.
If you want to keep an eye on this targeted seat, stop by BVW often. If you want to help Michele, contact the campaign at her website. I know that they would love the help.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Ethanol, flush toilets and Katrina
A few times a week I get an email brief from The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE). They've got great comments on stories of the day. Today, I received the brief and there was a story on gas price projections from the Detroit auto-makers. The follow up at FEE was an article from Michael Heberling from the Mackinac Center (there is an absolutely excellent article on what everything you thought you knew about the Great Depression is wrong. It was a government caused and extended disaster).The article was about one more huge government disaster called Reformulated Gasoline (RFG). RFG flows from the amended Clean Air Act of 1990 and the EPA dictates that followed. It details quite nicely how government interference and mandates hurts the environment, business, health and citizens:
As a result of the government'’s overzealousness in “helping the environment, people pay more per gallon of gas, get fewer miles per gallon, and get sick. The biggest irony, however, is that the environment is worse off thanks to this environmental program. So far, the misguided policy has cost consumers untold billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the environmental and economic nightmare caused by government gas is not over. Be prepared to cough up another $30 billion or more to deal with the clean-up and phase-out costs of MTBE.
This is what always happens when we hear those evil and dangerous nine words "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" As I said yesterday, if these people in Congress can't even get a flush toilet right, why are they trusted with anything? And this morning I made a comment on KTLK that when it comes to Katrina, the left wing idiots and a significant number of Republicans, scream when they want the huge bull elephant bureaucracy called FEMA to dance Swan Lake, get angry when the elephant doesn't and then blame the elephant. And try as they might, an elephant will never dance Swan Lake. But, the voters, both left and right, will keep thinking that the perfect government elephant can and will be designed if we just send the right person or their people to Congress or allow to live in the White House.
As Earnie Larson told me years ago "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
And voters on both sides keep thinking inside the same paradigm that government is the answer, has the answer or will be the answer. That we just need to send the right people to whatever capitol, spend more money, paint the same idea a different color and call it a different idea.
And the insanity continues.And if you, after reading just the few articles listed here, still believe that government is the answer or can be made responsive, well, you need to ask if you live inside or outside the asylum.
As a result of the government'’s overzealousness in “helping the environment, people pay more per gallon of gas, get fewer miles per gallon, and get sick. The biggest irony, however, is that the environment is worse off thanks to this environmental program. So far, the misguided policy has cost consumers untold billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the environmental and economic nightmare caused by government gas is not over. Be prepared to cough up another $30 billion or more to deal with the clean-up and phase-out costs of MTBE.
This is what always happens when we hear those evil and dangerous nine words "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" As I said yesterday, if these people in Congress can't even get a flush toilet right, why are they trusted with anything? And this morning I made a comment on KTLK that when it comes to Katrina, the left wing idiots and a significant number of Republicans, scream when they want the huge bull elephant bureaucracy called FEMA to dance Swan Lake, get angry when the elephant doesn't and then blame the elephant. And try as they might, an elephant will never dance Swan Lake. But, the voters, both left and right, will keep thinking that the perfect government elephant can and will be designed if we just send the right person or their people to Congress or allow to live in the White House.
As Earnie Larson told me years ago "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
And voters on both sides keep thinking inside the same paradigm that government is the answer, has the answer or will be the answer. That we just need to send the right people to whatever capitol, spend more money, paint the same idea a different color and call it a different idea.
And the insanity continues.And if you, after reading just the few articles listed here, still believe that government is the answer or can be made responsive, well, you need to ask if you live inside or outside the asylum.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Differentiation...and the lack thereof
I began my college career in microbiology for pre-med. Unfortunately a chronic illness forestalled that idea. I changed to marketing and business finance. In marketing, there is a term called differentiation. Even if you don't know exactly what the term means, you can easily infer it. How are you, in the customers eyes, different than your competition? Is it a real or perceived difference? Is it significant and/or meaningful to the customer (if not, you're dead in the market)? And it's all about the customer. In politics, the customer is the voter. And he buys your product by voting for you. And differentiation exists in politics also. And remember, perception is reality.
I blogged about Mark Kennedy and his lack of differentiation from Amy Klobuchar regarding oil. With the exception of just one point, he completely agrees with Amy Klobuchar's policy on oil and energy. And so, with great anticipation, I was waiting for my friend and Congressman John Kline to debate his opponent for the Second Congressional District Coleen Rowley on the Jason Lewis Show at the State Fair. And I was crushed in what I heard!
Here was Congressman Kline arguing for ethanol! Supporting ethanol subsidies. Telling us how it was proper to have heavy tariffs on imported ethanol. That the tariffs were to protect the "emerging ethanol market". Despite myriad studies (for over 30 years) showing ethanol is a failure, is an energy sink that gives us a net energy deficit (it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it), that producing ethanol raises food prices for you and me, and that all those subsidies go to support large ethanol producers like Archer Daniels Midland. (And a BTW: ethanol producers do not use ethanol in their ethanol producing plants. Why? Because it's inefficient and too costly). And I thought "where on earth is the differentiation between John and his opponent?"
And in marketing, if there is no differentiation between you and your competition, well...
If ethanol is viable, the free market will bring it to the public, not Congress.
After all , why would we trust Congress on energy when they can't even get a flush toilet or a washing machine right?
I blogged about Mark Kennedy and his lack of differentiation from Amy Klobuchar regarding oil. With the exception of just one point, he completely agrees with Amy Klobuchar's policy on oil and energy. And so, with great anticipation, I was waiting for my friend and Congressman John Kline to debate his opponent for the Second Congressional District Coleen Rowley on the Jason Lewis Show at the State Fair. And I was crushed in what I heard!
Here was Congressman Kline arguing for ethanol! Supporting ethanol subsidies. Telling us how it was proper to have heavy tariffs on imported ethanol. That the tariffs were to protect the "emerging ethanol market". Despite myriad studies (for over 30 years) showing ethanol is a failure, is an energy sink that gives us a net energy deficit (it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it), that producing ethanol raises food prices for you and me, and that all those subsidies go to support large ethanol producers like Archer Daniels Midland. (And a BTW: ethanol producers do not use ethanol in their ethanol producing plants. Why? Because it's inefficient and too costly). And I thought "where on earth is the differentiation between John and his opponent?"
And in marketing, if there is no differentiation between you and your competition, well...
If ethanol is viable, the free market will bring it to the public, not Congress.
After all , why would we trust Congress on energy when they can't even get a flush toilet or a washing machine right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)