A Million Monkeys Typing

And...

2011-06-05T22:57:00.000-05:00

there's no reason that hedge fund managers should be paying income taxes at 17% when I'm paying 28%. Just saying...

Taxation and Lower-income people

2011-05-29T22:39:00.000-05:00

One of the more annoying things I hear some conservatives claim (especially talk radio hosts like Jason Lewis) is that lower income Americans don't pay taxes. In my opinion, this is about as stupid as the liberal notions about how only the rich should be taxed. Everyone pays payroll, gas taxes and other excise taxes, plus state and local taxes. It would be nice if folks could at least agree that everyone pays taxes, and it would even be better if conservatives would acknowledge the tax burden on the poor is greater than they like to admit. Via Clive Crook at the Atlantic, this report on who pays taxes in the US.

Just a little question on taxes...

2010-08-07T01:28:00.000-05:00

In the great debate on whether or not lower income tax rates create increased tax revenue, the answer to one question seems to be missing. To wit: where do US tax rates fall on the Laffer curve? The GOP believes any tax cut increases revenue, and the Democrats believe tax rate increases (on the "rich", of course) can raise enough revenue to fix our fiscal problems. How the hell do they know? They don't know where we are on the curve!

Let's assume for the sake of argument the idea behind the Laffer curve is correct. If, like the GOP, one is using it as a justification for cutting taxes they ought to be able to prove tax cuts to be the correct course instead of just asserting it. In other words, they should be able to make a case that our tax burden is such that we are on the part of the curve where tax cuts generate enough increased activity to generate more tax revenue than a higher rate. But I haven't seen any conservatives attempt to make a quantitative case that this is true.

(Note to conservatives - if capital represents the money used to create/expand business (and jobs), explain why capital gains taxes are too high at 10 (or 15) percent. If a dollar that comes into my pocket from the sale of the business is used to buy stuff and pay bills just like my wages, why shouldn't the capital gains from the sale be taxed as regular income unless the money is invested? After all, I pay higher rates on my paycheck than Warren Buffet does on his billions. Why should capital be taxed less than labor?)

Now the Democrats are even worse, because they don't seem to have any sort of argument for raising taxes except a need for funds for programs they favor and the idea the rich are too wealthy and shouldn't have all that money. There isn't even enough there to properly criticize.... .

Random Jottings

2010-07-24T00:58:00.000-05:00

Just few impressions on a few stories that caught my attention over the last two weeks:

Unemployment insurance extension: I have a question for the GOP: In what universe does cutting unemployment insurance create jobs? I mean, not extending unemployment may give people more incentive to find work, but all the incentive in the world doesn't help one find a job if there are no jobs to be had. Not to mention that 30 billion dollars is small potatoes compared to TARP and 2 wars. This is one of those few things the Dems may be right about. Of course the Dems could have easily used some of the stimulus money or TARP money already borrowed to cover this instead of new borrowing, but I guess bailing out Wall Street , the banks, and funneling money to Democratic interest groups is more important than helping ordinary folks to weather the current economic storm. More proof that our political class is arrogant and out of touch, regardless of party.

JournoList: I think conservative commentators are overreacting somewhat to it. I don't think the emails released by the DailyCaller tell us much that is new. It showed us that the Journolisters in those emails seem to be a spiteful, mean, petty bunch. We also learned the posters in the leaked emails hate conservatives, as if anybody who had ever read any of Eric Alterman's garbage couldn't figure that one out. A bunch of libs, trashing conservatives when they thought they wouldn't be seen doing it. Seems like the kind of slimy, petty behavior found in a junior high school clique.

The one thing I found interesting is the discussions on how to discredit Sarah Palin before these clowns knew anything about her. The exchanges just screamed the "how dare this outsider aspire to this!, she's not one of of us! " meme. Given the immediate trashing she got in the media after John McCain selected her for his VP candidate, it sure would be nice to know how many of the JournoList members were involved. I suspect not all that many, since the Caller didn't name a lot of names, nor were the people mentioned all that prominent other than as left wing hacks. The way she was trashed was so immediate and widespread that it does make you wonder. One hopes that Tucker Carlson will release a list of the JouroList membership so we can get an idea.

New Look for the Blog

2010-06-05T16:19:00.000-05:00

Got tired of the old one, so I think I'll try this one for awhile.

Random Thoughts on Health Care

2010-01-26T17:21:00.003-06:00

Having spent some time watching the circus called the health care reform debate, just a few random thoughts.

It seems to me that both parties have missed the point some when it comes to reforming our health care system.

First, the GOP and conservatives need to recognize that as a society Americans have decided that although health care may not be a right, we do not want people dying in the street because they could not get medical treatment. With that being the case, someone needs to coordinate how this happens, and relying strictly on charity has its limitations (Who to contact, what is paid for, who gets treated, etc. ). So far, I haven't seen a suggestion for anyone to coordinate care for the poor that would work better than government. I'm not saying it's impossible and I can't say that I like to idea of expanded government, but I'd sure like to see some specific ideas that would be better. Relying on emergency rooms to care for the indigent (which some conservatives point to in order to say that no one is denied care in the US) is expensive and inefficient.

I also question the idea that people overuse the health care system (also a common conservative meme). I don't know anyone who enjoys doctor, hospital, or emergency room visits. Generally, these are experiences people tend to avoid if they can. One doesn't go to the doctor because they're feeling great. Moreover, when a doctor suggests a test or a treatment, I'm unlikely to argue. Why? Because I don't have a medical degree or much experience in treating disease. What my insurance buys is the doctor's medical expertise. How do I know if the doc is right or wrong? Am I actually qualified to make those decisions?

What do people who have pre-existing, severe problems do? In our current private system, these people are uninsurable unless they are covered by an employer's insurance. If we move to a system that does not use employer-supplied health insurance, what do these people do?

One last thing, covering the uninsured is not going to be free. If additional taxation is not the answer, tell me how this is to be paid for. Assume there are not enough inefficiencies in the current system that the money could be found as savings due to higher efficiency. History hasn't demonstrated those theoretical savings can be found in reality, so assuming great savings from streamlining doesn't seem valid.

For the Dems, what in the bill you are trying to pass is going to make things more efficient? So far, it looks like an incoherent mess that isn't understood by anyone. It's a bill so bad that the leadership basically had to buy off senators who had problems with the bill. What's worse, it doesn't even solve the problem of the uninsured. So, what good is it?

Face facts, libs. You are not going to get single-payer health care. If somehow you did, the new system would face the same financial/demographic problems faced by similar systems in Europe.

So. Perhaps it's time to pay some attention to ideas from the other side of the aisle (yes, those despised Republicans). Why not start with tort reform? If docs are practicing defensive medicine just to cover themselves against lawsuits, isn't that inefficient and expensive? Wouldn't the wealth spent on this be better not spent, thus resulting in (hopefully) lower prices and thus, lower premiums?

In addition, why shouldn't it be possible to buy insurance from firms in other states? Wouldn't competition result in lower prices? Also, how about some recognition of the free ride that foreign governments get from drug research funded in the US via our higher drug prices. How would you solve that problem while keeping the level of innovation high?

Lastly, how do these problems get solved without taxing us to death? As a people, Americans are not exactly undertaxed. By the time I get done paying taxes to the Feds, the state, and my local goverments, close to 40% of my modest income goes to taxes. Do you really think people like me can afford massive tax increases?

More on Media bias, part "whatever"

2008-11-16T12:04:00.002-06:00

Via Instapundit and Extreme Mortman, Deborah Howell at the Washington Post writes another article about the perceived liberal bias at her paper. To me, one of her most telling points:

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo (emphasis mine).

I wonder if she saw it herself. If the Post is so collegial and objective, why should the conservatives at the Post feel like they have to hide?

The Sun Has Set on Northwest Airlines

2008-10-30T19:53:00.004-05:00

I don't normally talk about my employer here, but yesterday Northwest Airlines passed into history. The people, aircraft and other things that once composed Northwest now belong to Delta.

I suppose I should look upon working at NWA as just a job, but after nearly 15 years that seems insufficient. Northwest has been a part of Minnesota for 82 years flying people, cargo and mail around the world. I've been a small part of it for a good while now, and on the whole I've been proud of what we've done. We've been the Twin Cities' gateway to Europe and Asia, helped a lot of folks get a break from winter, and brought a ton of people to shop at the Sprawl of America. We've provided press planes to the President, charters for the pros, carried our soldiers to the Middle East and brought them home again.

After 15 years it's still a thrill to see those red tails taking off from MSP, and a point of pride we gave Minnesota wings.

Goodbye, Northwest.

Gardens

2008-09-28T23:28:00.004-05:00

Here's a couple of photos of the Japanese garden at the McNeely Conservatory, just because. Politics just kind of sucks as a topic, anyway.

2008-09-04T23:55:00.004-05:00

I was surfing about looking for reactions to Sen. McCain's acceptance speech tonight and came across Megan McArdle's reaction. No offense intended, but what is it about John McCain that is so distasteful to her? She can't seem to comment on the guy of late without mentioning how awful she thinks he is. Generally I find her blog thoughtful and worth reading, but she just really seems to hate McCain. Her post seems rather snarky and cynical, with no indication why:

The words "I fought corruption" should never pass the lips of a charter member of the Keating Five.

Someone should inform Ms. McArdle McCain (along with John Glenn) was cleared of any misconduct. Moreover, Bob Bennett (one of the fellows investigating the Keating 5 at the time) has pointed out that the reason McCain was included in the Keating 5 is that Democrats did not the Keating investigation to be an all-Democrat affair.

"I fight for you" is a clever tag line, and I presume the image that the McCain campaign has settled upon. This will allow them--just barely--to keep making the ridiculous claim that John McCain doesn't like to bring up the fact that he was a POW. If John McCain didn't want to bring it up, he would have instructed his staff not to mention it to every single person they talk to, including the barista at Caribou Coffee.

Yes McCain mentions his POW experience more than he did in 2000. How Ms. McArdle connects the "I fight for you" line to the POW escapes me. I suspect he mentions the POW experience fairly often because of the traumatic and transformative effect those 5 1/2 years had on the direction of his life. Imagine that. Sort of like Obama mentions his upbringing helping to make him the One who will heal the planet.

Ack! The dreaded "Free America from Dependence on Foreign Oil" meme rears its ugly head. This is high definition hogwash. Drilling isn't going to save us from Demon Oil any more than windmills will. It might make us some money. But we'll still be part of a world economy that will be pigheaded about buying their oil from funny people who don't even speak English.

How is this different from Obama's hogwash, except McCain is willing to allow more drilling while we work on alternatives? For all of Obama's talk, we'll still be dependent on petroleum when he leaves office (if he wins).

John McCain does not seem particularly comfortable talking about God. The lines are there, but they're mechanical, clearly recited by rote.

A lot of people are not comfortable talking about their belief in God in public, not even politicians. Just because he finds it awkward to talk about doesn't mean he's being phony. McCain is not the Huck, after all.

McCain claims he'll cut government spending. I'll believe it when I see it.

At least McCain will try, unlike Obama.

Boy, the folks at the RNC really hate national health care.

Don't libertarians hate national (aka government-run) health care too? McCain is for letting people choose their health insurance options from the private market, and provides subsidies for those who need help to buy insurance. What's sooo awful about that?

The other major change isn't really a change--it's a relative shift to emphasizing the martial virtues. This, I think, is why Kerry seemed so ridiculous "reporting for duty"--his political persona was about as far as you could get from the warrior ethos. McCain is the real thing. Too much of the real thing, for my taste--he seems to think that the values that guide a brigade should also guide the nation at large. This is a bad idea for the same reason that we should not be run by the codes of the Bar Association or the Hippocratic Oath.

Where in his speech did Sen. McCain propose to re-organize the country as a military brigade? I must have missed it. What values did he mention that are 'brigade values'? The speech I heard emphasized things like:

Service to/love of his country.

Reforming the Republican Party by moving it closer towards its core ideals.

Working with the opposition to solve our problems, where possible.

What is so awful about that?

Something

2008-05-25T23:56:00.002-05:00

you can see in Minnesota when the weather isn't punishing us...

How Should Tax Burden be defined?

2008-05-01T21:39:00.002-05:00

Depending on whether one is talking with a liberal or a conservative, we are taxed unequally with the liberal arguing the rich don't pay enough and the conservative arguing the rich pay too much and the middle class and poor not enough. Both use a different way of describing the tax burden.

Well, here's my simple definition of tax burden. My tax burden is the tax I pay to any and all levels of government on every dollar that I earn and spend. In other words, the total amount of income taxes, FICA, Medicare, gas tax, property tax, car registration, sales taxes, etc. that I pay as a proportion of my total income. I figure it's about 40 cents of every dollar I make. I'm guessing that people like Warren Buffet pay less, proportionately, since most of the money they make is treated as capital gains and is taxed at 15% vs. the 25% Federal tax bracket I'm in. Anyway it leaves me with two questions.

For conservatives, why should rich folks get a discount on their taxes - i.e. why should I pay more of every dollar I make than Warren Buffet does?

For liberals, just what justification is there for government to cost forty cents of every dollar I make? How does one keep up with the mortgage, pay rapidly increasing fuel costs, etc. when government takes almost half of what I make?

Lastly for both: what's wrong with adopting these parts of the Megan McArdle tax plan shown below?

3) Eliminate the corporate income tax

4) Eliminate the special treatment for capital gains. All income should be taxed at the same level, regardless of its source.

On Bill Maher

2008-04-27T22:15:00.005-05:00

In keeping with this blog's tradition of being far behind the bleeding edge, I just wanted to write a bit about Bill Maher. He stirred up the blogosphere during Pope Benedict's visit to Washington and New York. He called the Pope a Nazi and accused him of being an apologist for pedophilia.

This generated a modest furor of course. Did conservatives get Maher fired? Nope. Did they Maher to apologize to Catholics or the Pope? Nope. Did it change anything? Not really. Personally I don't think it ever will. Bill Maher is a seldom funny, arrogant, smug comic who has found a market niche entertaining people who share a world view similar to his. They're the people who don't respect religious folk, and people who know that conservatives are stupid and/or evil. Conservatives and conservative Christians are not part of his audience, just people for Maher to mock and be contemptuous of. He doesn't care if he offends them. HBO doesn't care as long as he makes HBO money.

Perhaps it would be better if we ignored the jerk instead of giving him free publicity.

2008-04-23T23:09:00.000-05:00

Unlike the LA Times, I think John McCain earned that disability pension.....

Lest one thinks

2008-04-23T22:25:00.002-05:00

that Democrats have cornered the market on stupidity and intolerance, witness the campaign of Tony Zinkle ... . (via Little Green Footballs)

It's stuff like

2008-04-22T00:14:00.003-05:00

this that makes me feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party. What a demonstration of the virtues of embracing diversity and tolerance.

Today at the MIA

2008-04-20T18:12:00.005-05:00

Today is what is called a 'fine spring day' up here, so a break was taken from politics today to visit the Minneapolis Institute of Art to see the John C. Weber collection of Japanese art. Since photography isn't allowed in the exhibit, I had to settle for a photo of the replica teahouse and garden that's part of the permanent collection.

I admit to being an ignoramus about art, but there is just something about the look of the Japanese screens, fans, the tea house that I just find greatly appealing. It's sort of a combination of simplicity with meticulous fine detail that just fits my sense of what's right.

A livelier Star Wars

2008-04-19T23:32:00.003-05:00

Just some nostalgia from years ago... . Not better, just different. James Last's version of the MECO Star Wars theme.

A little self-exmination blogging..

2008-04-19T20:58:00.003-05:00

This post over at Althouse prompted me to take a look at the posts on this little blog to see what kind of blog it is. It seems that I've become a male political blogger of sorts. Funny thing is, I'm not a very political person. This blog started as a place to vent after the Wellstone "memorial" and as a place to express myself on whatever caught my fancy. This included stuff like Project Runway, astronomy pictures, weather, occasionally sports, and lots of politics.

Why politics? It may be my inner curmudgeon prompts me to write about stuff that annoys me. Politics as a subject has a pretty high annoyance factor with me. Since I live in St. Paul and DFL elected officials are thick on the ground, I find lots of things about the DFL to be annoyed about. I get the chance to see the Minnesota DFL and their friends in the press work up close and they are a constant source of disappointment. The GOP isn't much of a power here, but I suspect that if they were, I'd be annoyed with them too. Certainly Jason Lewis wouldn't think much of this place, if it was worth noticing... .

2008-04-13T09:53:00.002-05:00

This development looks like something from the movie "Enemy of the State" . I don't believe that fighting jihadis justifies this kind of domestic surveillance. I think I agree with the Democrats' view on this one.

Democrat Bigotry on Display

2008-04-13T01:12:00.004-05:00

Via Tom Maguire, (who has much more to say about it) this post from the "Big Tent Democrat" at TalkLeft just reinforces my dislike of the way Dems are unable to listen to a Republican without labeling them as a racist or bigot or some other derogatory term. Apparently, if one disagrees with a liberal Democrat that person must be evil in some way. Republicans of course are racist by default. I'd call them jackasses, but that would insult the good name of donkeys worldwide.

Spring in Minnesota

2008-04-13T00:29:00.002-05:00

Worth a thousand words... mostly unprintable ones.

Welcome Back, James!

2008-03-23T01:37:00.004-05:00

I see that James Lileks is once again gracing the pages of the print edition of the Star Tribune. About bloody time. Now, how about adding via subtraction by firing Nick Coleman?

Obama's Speech

2008-03-23T00:55:00.002-05:00

Am I deluded, or was the Kim Ode/Patricia Lopez story about the effects of Barack Obama's speech on racial issues just a little one-sided? They mentioned one person who was critical of Obama's effort. Everybody else, it seems, was sure that white folk just don't understand. Would it have hurt that much to have actually paid some real attention to what his critics were saying? How hard would it have been to report the reactions of more than one person critical of the speech, as opposed to getting one critical opinion, followed by every other person they quoted being critical of those who did not like what Obama said?

Of course that might have been confused with objective journalism, and we can't have that at the Star Tribune, can we now?

Who's to blame for McCain?

2008-03-09T19:55:00.004-05:00

Over the past couple of weeks, I've a lot of comments from alleged "true conservatives" on blogs expressing sentiments like this:

Again, dont blame me if Obama or Clinton win in November. Blame the people that brought us McCain. If they were really interested in winning the general election, they would have known better than to nominate this liberal.

Well, I'm going to go with the " blame it on conservatives " option here. More specifically, the failure of conservatives to produce a GOP candidate better to their liking.

Setting aside differences over policy, I've seen three complaints about how McCain won. He didn't get the majority of Republican votes. He got a lot of support from independents and Democrats in the open primaries. He's been foisted on conservatives by the GOP establishment. Horsehockey.

John McCain didn't cheat to win the nomination. He won it by the rules established by the Republican party. He got more votes than any of the other candidates, enough to win 50% + 1 of the delegates. It's not McCain's problem that the "true conservatives" couldn't find a candidate to unite behind. If conservatives don't like open primaries, get the rules changed to make them closed. It's not like there wasn't time between the 2000 election and 2008. The notion of the GOP Establishment forcing McCain down conservative throats doesn't pass the smell test either. This would be the same establishment that McCain went against so often, on issues like spending, taxes, and campaign finance reform. The GOP establishment didn't really start lining up behind the guy until he started winning primaries. In short, conservatives have only themselves to blame for the current nominee.

What other things should be considered by "true conservatives" before they vote Democratic or stay home? How about 4 possible Supreme Court vacancies in the next 8 years? How about the fact that there are not enough conservatives votes in the US to win a Presidential election by themselves. This means the GOP has to attract some moderates and independents (and possibly some conservative Dems) to win. So perhaps some compromises would have to made after all.

Downs and Ups

2008-03-02T09:21:00.006-06:00

This has been an up and down week. One of the people I've worked with for years lost his eldest son in an auto accident, so I attended his son's funeral this week. When I spoke with my friend/coworker, what could I do or say that would help? Not a single solitary thing.
The same day as the funeral, we had a little congratulations party at work for another coworker who, after 13 years of effort, became an American citizen. I can have only respect for someone who becomes one of our citizens by choice rather than by accident of birth. Congratulations, Jay. (Personally, I think he's gonna frame those citizenship documents.)

Lean Times

2008-02-10T21:17:00.000-06:00

for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Pity Nancy Pelosi doesn't get it. Look, the merits of invading Iraq were debatable but if one styles themselves to be of the "reality based" community, isn't willful denial of the facts on the ground kind of silly?

(via Drudge)

McCain is doing well tonight

2008-02-06T00:29:00.001-06:00

I wonder if Mark Levin's head will explode (figuratively)...

My First Caucus

2008-02-06T00:07:00.001-06:00

After many years of just voting, I went to my first caucus tonight. Since I am not a member of any MN political party I didn't know if I would be considered to be rather like the skunk at a picnic, but I guess when you live in St. Paul and go to the GOP caucus they tend to want to make a fellow welcome.

In truth, the gent running the show seemed quite impressed with the turnout (district 67B for those keeping score) of about 150-200 people (my very unscientific guess) . I ended up as the Sgt-at-Arms for my caucus room, oddly enough. Fortunately the job mostly consisted of making sure the speakers adhered to the time limits for debating resolutions. Anyhow, if I had wanted to be a delegate for my precinct it would have been pretty easy to do (3 delegates + 6 alternates for the precinct, and 5 people present) , but it seemed to me that being elected a Republican delegate when I'm not a Republican wouldn't be cricket.

The straw poll was held first with Mitt Romney winning, followed by Mike Huckabee.

Deranged by McCain

2008-01-30T23:08:00.001-06:00

I'm a political independent, so I don't have a dog in this fight until November, but I confess to having a problem understanding the hatred and vitriol currently being directed at John McCain by many talk radio hosts and other self-styled "true" conservatives. Under what criteria does 25 years of voting with conservatives eighty percent of the time make someone a liberal and a socialist? Those of Jason Lewis.

Why? After listening to his on-the-verge-of-incoherent ranting, it seems to be on five things.

McCain believes that there is such a thing as man-made global warming.
Immigration - supported naturalization for illegals, after legal immigrants have been processed first.
McCain-Feingold.
McCain opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The press likes him.

Here's my opinion on these items (in order):

The debate on global warming is at best unsettled. I think the Senator's proposals are premature, but do you really think the Democrats will produce something more sane? In what universe?
McCain has conceded his error on immigration - what more do you want?
What free speech has been stifled, really? The law has been unsuccessful and misguided, but the Supreme Court did not find it (in the main) unconstitutional, because money is not speech. More on the 1st amendment issue later.
On the tax cuts. McCain opposed the cuts on two grounds, that upper income folks gained disproportionately, and that there were no provisions to limit spending. Lewis only talks about the first, calling it "class warfare". He conveniently ignores the spending side of McCain's objections, which show McCain's conservatism on government spending. Does he really think Hillary/Obama will act the same on spending? Again, in what universe?
It is true the press is somewhat less hostile to the Senator than to some of his fellow GOPers, but that has much to do with him treating the press as something other than an enemy. Perhaps his opponents should try it. In any case, the Dems in the race get much better press than any Republican, according to Brent Bozell's media watchdogs.

In contrast to Jason's rants, let us take a look at McCain' s actions that conservatives should approve of:

Voted against the Medicare prescription drug requirement.
Has never in 25 years voted for a tax increase.
Has always voted pro-life.
Has authored/introduced a bill in the Congress to prevent the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
Stoutly supported winning the war in Iraq, and the "surge", even when it was politically unpopular.
In 25 years in Congress, has never used an earmark. He is one of the best in Congress at resisting unnecessary government spending.
Voted in favor of conservative judges, including Roberts and Alito.
Promised to work to retain the Bush tax cuts.
Acknowledged his errors in the immigration debate, and agrees that immigration enforcement must come first.

By Jason's lights, John McCain is liberal. Jason Lewis is an idiot.

Lileks, Cub Reporter

2007-05-07T23:41:00.000-05:00

The Star Tribune killed James Lileks' column and put him on to reporting local news stories. Personally, if they were going to reduce the number of local columnists, would it not be better to RIF Nick Coleman or Doug Grow instead of their most talented guy? Surely the Strib could survive the loss of one of its DFL hacks, couldn't it?

When Spinning...

2007-04-04T22:01:00.000-05:00

The Strib should really read their own editorials:

Republicans in and out of the statehouse are doing their level best to gin up sticker shock over the Senate DFLers' proposed new fourth bracket in the state income tax -- with a 9.7 percent rate, the highest in the nation! The spinmeisters want every wage-earning Minnesotan to panic about an imminent raid on his or her paycheck. Minnesotans shouldn't ingest too much of such hyperbole.

Here's a hint for the spinmeisters at the Strib: If it's true, it's not hyperbole!

Oh, and one other thing. What compelling reason is there for Minnesotans to be the most highly taxed people in the nation?

I'm Tired of Jason Lewis

2007-03-21T23:31:00.000-05:00

There, I said it. I've really had it with his attitude since he returned to the Great White North. In fact, I think he has become a right-wing version of the shrill, obnoxious busybody that I've come to dislike on the left. Why? Let's see...

First, his insistence on ideological purity annoys the hell out of me. Deviate from the Jason Lewis approved view on what's conservative, and you're a RINO or even worse, a liberal. Take the case of Governor Pawlenty. The guy manages to hold the line on taxes during a budget crisis despite DFL attempts at extortion via government shutdown, but is that good enough for Jason? Nope, the Guv is just another liberal because he won't get an income tax cut out of the DFL-majority legislature this session.

Speaking about taxation, there is his insistence that the poor don't pay any taxes in Minnesota. How does Jason come to this ridiculous notion? By ignoring any taxes that aren't the income tax. Earth to Jason: Sales taxes count. FICA taxes count. Gas taxes count, etc. All of them suck. In addition, since poorer people aren't able to save and invest as much, sales taxes and payroll taxes hit them harder since money spent on necessities other than food and clothing is taxed and they can't not choose to spend the money.

I've had enough.

After the election

2006-11-08T22:45:00.000-06:00

Well, 40% of the people have spoken, and now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be running Congress. Not the outcome I was hoping for, really. It's not that I think all that highly of the GOP (newest practitioners of the circular firing squad strategy), it's just that the Dems managed to take power running on a vague, pretty much undefined platform that seems to reduce to:

Raising taxes.
Spending even more money than the GOP.
"Redeploying" the troops out of Iraq.
Not being George Bush.
Not being corrupt like the GOP.

At least two of those points are of rather dubious pedigree - when your party has guys in it who keep $90,000 bribes in their freezers, plus the new Speaker planning to appoint an impeached federal judge as head of the House Intelligence Committee (?!), it gets hard to legitimately claim the GOP is the only corrupt party in Washington. I also would like to know how abandoning Iraq does not give the bad guys (remember the Islamofascists?) a big victory.

The thing that frosts me even more is how these folks have been rewarded with power after six years of throwing an extended temper tantrum over their election losses in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats have spent that time making things personal. How often did we hear from them how: The GOP cheated, Bush is a criminal, Bush is stupid, Bush is not the President, BushHitler, Bush and Cheney are evil, Karl Rove is the devil, etc. . People who disagreed with the liberals in Democratic party were not merely wrong, they were evil (ask Joe Lieberman how it feels). The Democrats tossed aside all pretense of civility while pursuing an obstructive, scorched-earth policy in Congress. To me, this made them a party unfit to govern. Unfortunately, they are going to have the chance.

But now that they've got power, the Democrats have to give up the carping from the sidelines and actually propose solutions for a change. I expect they'll find it's much easier to bitch than create constructive solutions they will be held accountable for. Maybe they'll even learn some manners. (and exile the Kos Kids to Siberia, but that's too much to hope for - ed.)

As for the GOP, here's my unwanted advice for them. In my view, the GOP lost because they forgot what got them elected in 1994. Smaller, less intrusive, more efficient and honest government, remember that? I hope the GOP's new leadership takes that vision to heart before 2008.

One other thing. Don't give in to the temptation to personally attack the other side. Leave that crap to the Democrats. Don't be saying stuff like this ( a comment I culled from an unnamed righty blog about Nancy Pelosi:

…Pelosi…the greatest thing since Patton and Napoleon and that other general-guy…I quiver to see her in Kevlar!
…wait…isn’t that Kevlar that she has injected in her face?

I think the botox is getting into her synapses.

Soon she will not be allowed to give interviews to anyone other than Larry King.

Work on solutions to our problems that don't compromise conservative and GOP principles, then be ready to sell them if the Dems screw up. The one monopoly the Democrats can have is the one on hate speech.

Kerry's "Apology"

2006-11-01T21:37:00.000-06:00

Somehow I don't think these guys are going to be satisfied with Senator Kerry's "apology".

The funny thing is, Kerry's apology might have been good enough if he had left it at this:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

But then he just had to say this as well:

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Trust John Kerry to turn an apology into a political cheap shot.

Shame on the Strib

2006-10-21T16:09:00.000-05:00

I haven't much felt like writing of late (work pressures and general malaise are a potent combination), but I just feel obligated to vent my feelings about the Strib endorsement editorial for Minnesota Secretary of State. It isn't so much the Strib's disgreement on policy that bothers me. The DFL aversion to any protective measures against election fraud is well known, so the DFL's house organ's disagreement with requiring a form of ID to vote is unsurprising. If Secretary Kiffmeyer annoys some election officials out of their complacency by trying to tighten things up, that seems like a good thing even if it does bug the Strib. The lines that ticked me off are the ones that followed:

Attentive Minnesotans have learned from disgraceful examples around the country that monkeying with the mechanics of registration, voting and ballot-counting has become the modern method for manipulating election outcomes. Also, that Kiffmeyer's Republican Party is usually the leading beneficiary of measures that discourage participation at the polls.

The attempt to tar Mary Kiffmeyer by associating her name with non-existent (to everyone except lefty MoveOn types and Star Tribune editorial writers) Republican attempts to disenfranchise voters is slimy. If the Strib wants to look for examples of attempts to discourage voter turnout they need go no further than their own party, like in Milwaukee. Or St. Louis, if outright fraud is more to their taste. Once again, the Star Tribune demonstrates why their op-ed pages are a joke.

Middle East Conflict, round 37,498 and counting

2006-07-20T00:09:00.000-05:00

I must confess that I don't know what is going through the minds of the Israeli government these days. When Hizbullah invaded Israel and kidnapped (and killed) its soldiers, it was no surprise at all when Israel retaliated. After all, what nation would tolerate random rocket attacks launched at its civilian population, plus attacks on its soldiers?

When the Israelis used their air force to cut off southern, Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon from the rest of the country, it occurred to me the IDF was using this occasion to damage Hizbullah enough to allow the Lebanese government to move in and finish them off. Pound Hiz from the air, then go in on the ground and destroy as many missiles and kill as many Hizbullah thugs as they could find, turn the place over to the Lebanese government.

Then Israel started hitting Lebanese army bases and other targets that I don't associate with Hizbullah. What for? For once, Arab governments were blaming the right parties (Hizbullah and Hamas) for a change, as were substantial numbers of non-Hizbullah Lebanese. I think someone in the Israeli high command has miscalculated this.

Happy Birthday, USA!

2006-07-04T12:54:00.000-05:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

-- He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
-- He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
-- He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
-- He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
-- He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
-- He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
-- He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
-- He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
-- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
-- He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
-- He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
-- He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
-- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
-- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
-- For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
-- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
-- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
-- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
-- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
-- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
-- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
-- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
-- He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
-- He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
-- He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
-- He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
-- He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Obtained from here.

More Proof the Strib Doesn't Get It

2006-07-04T11:34:00.000-05:00

And Adam Platt, too, judging by today's commentary defending the New York Times. He apparently is of the opinion that secret (and legal) anti-terrorist programs work best when advertised in the NYT. But don't accuse him of being a limosine liberal:

Before you pigeonhole me as a limousine liberal, I am personally inclined to give the White House the benefit of the doubt on these programs, even though they are inevitably prone to abuse by an overzealous, secrecy-mad administration. Such is the nature of the threats the nation faces. And I am willing to grant the Times' critics that the SWIFT revelations were merely that. There was no implication of illegality or wrongdoing. Gratuitous? To some. The truth, to me.
What I am not willing to cede is my right to know that these programs exist, nor my elected representatives' right to scrutinize them. In the United States we elect a president, not a king (not that you'd know that these days).

How would I tell?

Here's the gist of his defense of the Times' decision:

What renders the administration's outrage at the Times so hollow is that it has acknowledged since 9/11 that it is using every technique at its disposal to monitor terrorists' communications and impede their fundraising. If Al-Qaida were capable of pulling off 9/11, did it take the NYT to clue it in to the fact that its phone conversations, e-mail communications and financial transactions were subject to electronic scrutiny?

No, but it took the NYT to tell them how the US was doing it. The point, Mr. Platt, is the US government not trying to hide the fact it tries to monitor terrorist communications and financing isn't the same thing as telling the bad guys how it is doing so. If the terrorists were so smart about this stuff, why were the authorities able to use it to nab the dirtbag behind the Bali bombing with it? The fact is the Times unilaterally chose, despite the request of the Treasury Secretary, to deprive our government of a useful anti-terrorist tool by telling the world (and Al Qaeda) about it. That, not hostility to civil liberties, is why a lot of people are ticked off at the Times. Nobody is attempting to take away freedom of the press here, but freedom of the press does not confer freedom from criticism, and the Times' bone-headed stunt has got them some.

2006-07-01T23:53:00.000-05:00

Via Instapundit, this Ana Marie Cox review of Katha Pollit's new book, Virginity or Death caught my attention. I don't really care for her writing, since it's basically the warmed over, narrow-minded, ignorant of the other side leftism that seems to permeate The Nation, where columns that comprise the book were originally published. I'm not claiming to have read the book, a passage from the review did inspire a bit of comment. This one (already commented on by Professor Reynolds):

There's a certain preserved-in-amber quality to some of the thinking here. For example, Pollitt herself confesses that the opinions that underpinned her most controversial column — against displaying American flags after 9/11 — were formed during the Vietnam War; she despairs that her pro-flag daughter cannot see "the connection between waving the flag and bombing ordinary people half a world away." I'm not sure if she's right about that, but it's significant that Pollitt would see the world outside her window through a scrim of 30-year-old lefty rhetoric. She simply rejects the argument that the meaning of the flag (like the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was composed by a 19th-century socialist) might change.

There's some importance to the Vietnam-era leftist prism she looks through, but I think Ms. Cox misses something else. I think Ms. Pollit's prejudices prevent her from understanding the flag doesn't represent the same things to her that it does to people who don't share her narrow, fossilized, stuck-in-the-sixties world view. (Both then and now - ed.) Moreover, in the flag she sees only the things she hates about our country. For all her purported concern for women's rights in the Middle East, Pollit ignores the progress for women's rights there obtained by dropping bombs on the Taliban (not ordinary people). In Afghanistan, a good argument can be made that the high explosives dropped by our armed forces did more for women's rights there than any efforts made by the feminst left. It must grate on her... .

Judging from this passage, I would guess that Pollit really doesn't understand conservatives very well:

"The truth is, most of the good things about this country have been fought for by liberals," she warns in a 2004 pre-election column. "If conservatives had carried the day, blacks would still be in the back of the bus, women would be barefoot and pregnant, medical care would be on a cash-only basis, there'd be mouse feet in your breakfast cereal and workers would still be sleeping next to their machines."

For example, do I have to remind Pollit that the Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow, not conservatives? The quote displays her notion of people who disagree: they are bigoted sexist slave drivers. In other words, you are a good person only if you agree with my politics. How narrow... .

I also have a question - how many guys out there demanded the woman in their lives cut off toes to fit in Jimmy Choo shoes? Any?

2006-06-26T22:04:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to note the passing of Rob Smith, the Acidman. Ornery, intermittently grouchy, always willing to say exactly on his mind and at the same time a Southerner from head to red toes, his site was one of the first I found when discovering the world of blogs. He could be annoying and infuriating at times but I enjoyed my vists to Gut Rumbles anyway. I never had the opportunity to meet the man, but that isn't going to stop me from wishing him well, and in his new abode may the 'fridge never be empty, the ladies always nearby, and 'Dawgs always winners.

Welcome to Hell, Al-Zarqawi!

2006-06-09T00:38:00.000-05:00

Abu, you look so surprised!

On a different note, I just can't feel sorry for a murderous, terrorist SOB. This guy's greatest contribution to humanity will be as fertilizer. Congratulations to the Iraqi government and the United States armed forces for getting this dirtbag.

UPDATE: This is how some of our Democratic elected officials reacted to the news. How twisted and pathetic.

Not much to write about lately,

2006-06-07T00:01:00.000-05:00

but I did want to point out one thing about Minnesota Public Radio. Who else on the 62nd anniversary of the Normandy invasion would run programs about Afghanistan and Vietnam? C'mon folks, how about exercising some sense of history?

To the Fallen:

2006-05-29T00:29:00.000-05:00

Thank you.

More Negativity from the Strib

2006-05-24T23:17:00.000-05:00

Another "Iraq is a Disaster" editorial from the Star Tribune. I think the last paragraph sums it up fairly neatly:

What is to happen to Iraq? Perhaps this new government will defy all odds and actually pull the country together. We can all hope that will happen, but don't bet the farm on it. More likely is what many are coming to expect and some seek: a loose confederation of three states, one Kurdish in the north, one Sunni in the middle and one Shiite in the south. The big question is whether Iraq gets there relatively peacefully, or whether the division results from a protracted, bloody civil war. Either way, it won't be much of a legacy for this failed experiment in exporting democracy from the United States.

To the Star Tribune, Iraq is a failure even if we happen to succeed there.

Just one question

2006-05-24T22:10:00.000-05:00

for Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, and Dennis Hastert. In what universe is videotape of a Congressman taking a cash bribe insufficent cause to obtain a search warrant? I'm not in the business of exhorting people to do stuff, but I'm sure going to write my Congresscritter to express an opinion on the subject...

2006-05-22T23:47:00.000-05:00

After reading the text (courtesy of the Wall Street Journal) of John McCain's speech to the graduates of the New School, I disagree with Professor Althouse's take on his speech. I don't believe the speech was inappropriate for a graduation, being about the need for civil debate and for reconciliation. As far as his delivery of it, I can't say without actually hearing it. I'm not all that sure I'll get an objective account from someone who blogs for the Nation, given that magazine's political slant. I suspect that a different view of his speech would be expressed at National Review, for example.

Was he "asking for it" by speaking in front of a so-called liberal crowd (so-called because they definitely failed to behave in a way consistent with "liberal" values)? Yes, speaking in front of a crowd that disagrees with you tends to encourage hecklers. On the other hand, if the Senator only spoke to friendly crowds, the same people who would turn their backs on him during his speech would accuse him of being afraid to speak to those who disagree. He just can't win.

Not that it really matters all that much. The boorish, rude, and insulting behavior of the students and faculty of the New School who condemn someone for giving a speech to a group they dislike tells me that the actual content of Senator McCain's speech was irrelevant. Their minds were closed long before he opened his mouth to speak.

2006-05-21T14:02:00.000-05:00

Today's Kersten column makes the point (oft-made in the blogosphere, not very often in the mainstream press) about the difference in treatment between works that offend Muslims and those offensive to Christians. I don't have anything to say on the subject that hasn't been said before, but in the very same Opinion Exchange section there is a Garrison Keillor piece making fun of Catholics that makes Kersten's point for her. Does anyone think the Star Tribune would run similar pieces making fun of Muslims?

Note: The link to the Keillor piece is not to the Star Tribune because it's not present on the Strib site.

How things have changed

2006-05-11T20:41:00.000-05:00

I never thought I would ever see this in my lifetime. (Click on the TV ad partway down the left side of the page). Who would ever have thought that California would need to advertise to get visitors?

The Moussaoui Sentence

2006-05-04T23:34:00.000-05:00

Although the editors of the National Review are disappointed in it, I don't believe the jury's verdict in the Moussaoui case is wrong. I admit that it wouldn't have kept me awake nights if the jury had sentenced this clown to death, but I don't know that he's worth killing. He no longer has a soapbox and the jury denied him what he claimed to desire - martyrdom. If he conned the jury to avoid execution, he may find the prospect of spending twenty-three hours a day for the next thirty or forty years counting dimples in the concrete walls of his cell less attractive than he thinks. He will become a pathetic, mostly forgotten figure sitting in a little room from which he can't even see the sky.

Jobs Americans won't do

2006-05-01T23:47:00.000-05:00

According this profile (note: audio file) at National Public Radio, illegal immigrants make up just under 5% of the workforce, and tend to be more concentrated lower skilled occupations. Examples of where they are concentrated include:

24% of farming jobs
17% of cleaning jobs
14% of construction
29% of roofers
12% of food preparation jobs

Average earnings for a Latino male:

undocumented, in US for 5 years: $430/wk
legal immigrant w/green card: $700/wk
immigrant who becomes US citizen: $930/wk

These numbers, if accurate, suggest a couple of things to me. 1st, the majority of "jobs Americans won't do" are done by, well, Americans. 2nd, the gap in earnings between illegal and legal workers is not small, probably more than the 8% figure found in the WSJ. You guys sure there isn't any exploitation going on?

2006-05-01T00:31:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the whole of Firefly this week, and although I don't believe it was intentional the 'verse portrayed in the series has some similarities to the Spinward Marches in the Traveller universe. This in spite of the fact the Alliance is a very statist government compared with the Third Imperium. The constant search for work, dislike of psychs, a certain devotion to free enterprise come to mind. Both places have a touch of the Wild West about them, as well.

I was also wondering why the most attactive of the women charaters to me happened to be Kaylee...

2006-04-22T00:57:00.000-05:00

I haven't had much to say of late (given the traffic level here, who'd notice? - ed.), but there's one question bugging me at the moment. The president and his administration gets a lot of scrutiny and critcism (some valid, a lot of it not) as they should, being the folks in power. The question is, why doesn't the press give more of the same scrutiny to the Democrats doing the critcising? The stock answer is they are not in power, but that doesn't wash. After all the Democrats wish to take over the levers of government for themselves, so shouldn't their policy ideas (or lack thereof) and partisanship receive a similar level of examination? If not, why not?

A Few More Words about Immigration

2006-04-12T23:02:00.000-05:00

I just have a few more words about our immigration policy, directed to some of the parties involved:

To the editors of the Wall Street Journal -

Cheap labor is not the only consideration in forming immigration policy.
The "Jobs Americans Won't Do" line is translated by a lot of folks as "Jobs done for below market pay by folks who can't complain".
People who don't favor open borders (most of us) aren't going to buy the idea of amnesty, then enforcement. Tried it in 1986 and got no enforcement and 11 million more illegal immigrants. Try enforcement first, then make the case for more immigration (of the legal variety).
No guest workers. Look where the guest worker policies in Europe (especially France) got them.

To President Bush -

Vincente Fox does not make US immigration policy.
There are not enough votes on Wall Street to justify the open borders policy you (and they) want. Listen to your party.

To the rest of the US Government -

Our current immigration system is broken. It's confusing, contradictory, and capricious.
Fix it. It's your job. Try to create a new set of rules that are consistent, understandable, and enforceable. You can't please everyone, so don't try. Just remember that citizens should have some claim to your attention over illegal immigrants.
Build the damn wall, if that's what it takes.

To the illegal immigrant demonstrators -

You are not citizens, you do not have a right to be here.
If you insist on demonstrating in order to gain rights that you don't have, the cause is not helped by waving Mexican flags. If you don't want to be citizens, why the hell are you here? You just convinced a lot of people that you're only here for money, and that pisses them off.
If you love Mexico (or wherever) so much, why are you demonstrating here instead of working to make things better back home?

To the enforcement-only folks -

There are 11 million people within our borders who are here illegally.
It is not likely to be practical (or desireable) to deport them all.
Consider settling for proper border enforcement, along with deporting the criminal element among the illegals. The rest probably will need to be given a choice about whether to become citizens or go home.

Open Borders, Closed Minds

2006-04-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

The immigration debate is not advanced by arguments like those in this WSJ editorial. First, they misrepresent the positon of those who do not favor open borders and unlimited immigration, by claiming they want to "seal the borders". No, they don't. What's desired is control of the borders, which is very different. The issue isn't whether to allow immigration or not, it is what to do about illegal immigration. The majority of those who want stricter border enforcement don't want to end immigration, they want it controlled. No one of any importance has called for an end to legal immigration, just the illegal variety. A distinction ignored by the Journal, either out of sloppiness or disingenuosness.

The Journal also ignores another reason for stricter border controls, like security. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that the same routes used by "coyotes" to smuggle Mexicans into the US can be used by terrorists and criminals. How can we call our borders secure, when law enforcement officials discover stuff like this running under our border?

The Journal also shows little or no concern for the problems faced by the border states popular with illegals, including added burdens on social services (taxpayer supported, of course) and the heightened competition for low-skilled jobs that hurts our poorer citizens. I guess WSJ editorial writers don't think that being a citizen merits anything over being in this country illegally.

I guess they've forgotten that economics is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The extent to which our economy fails to meet the needs of our citizens is also a kind of measure of its failure, not whether every last theoretical measure of profit is wrung out of it. Insteat, the Journal prefers subsidising employers via depressing wages via illegal immigration rather than allowing the market to work fairly, i.e. by hiring people who are legally permitted to be here.

2006-04-04T01:12:00.000-05:00

Via Best of the Web - I'll bet the folks cheering this guy have all reserved their places in the other ten percent. My suggestion: with courage like theirs, they can be the pathfinders! (on some other planet, that is...)

One hopes this is a lame April Fool's joke, but somehow I doubt it.

Courtesy of CNN,

2006-03-29T00:17:00.000-06:00

we get this nugget of wisdom from Christiane Amanpour:

Each time I go to the Palestinian territory of Gaza, I am shocked by the reality on the ground. On a recent visit, I passed through a short tunnel from the First World in Israel and emerged into the Third World that is Gaza. The poverty there is among the worst in the world.

Hamas officials told me they did not expect to win the election as overwhelmingly as they did. They say their main priority now is to meet the demands of the people for a better life.

But that may be impossible, because Israel and the United States refuse to deal with Hamas and have already cut funding to the new Palestinian government.

Why am I not surprised that she omitted the part about how those Third World conditions she is so shocked by are largely the result of self-inflicted wounds?

Not much to write

2006-03-27T00:53:00.000-06:00

I haven't written much of late (not that anyone will notice, given the talent level around here...), mostly because work issues have taken precedence over blogging, and when I started this blog I made the decision not to blog about work or about my employer, mostly because I'm not sure what kind of potential reaction my employer would have to my blogging about them.

What little spare time I've had lately I've used to play Traveller and to start reading the Black Book of Communism. I haven't finished it yet, but judging from what I've read so far, one question comes to mind: given the historic "accomplishments" of communists, why would anyone even consider adopting a Marxist ideology?

2006-03-15T23:10:00.000-06:00

At Miss Kelly's, advice on what to pick out for a home defense weapon for Buy a Gun Day. Personally, I don't have the dough to be buying guns, so one has to make do with the gun(s) one has.

Anyhow, what to choose, the 12ga Benelli autoloader or the Ruger 10/22? The shotgun has the hitting power, but the little Ruger is easy to handle and has greater magazine capacity. Decisions, decisions... .

2006-03-09T00:07:00.000-06:00

Saw the last episode of Project Runway this evening, mostly just to see who the winner was. Chloe won, and I guess I don't have any argument, but none of the 3 collections really impressed me. It could be my fashion ignorance and lack of taste showing, but I was just unimpressed.

Maybe the kind of clothes shown at Fashion Week are not intended to be the sort of thing ordinary guys are supposed to be able to relate to.

About the collections:

Santino: I wonder if the judges penalized him for not being the Santino they expected. It seemed sort of subdued, somehow.

Daniel: Although he said the theme of the collection was invoke a combination of Japanese and military influences, but I couldn't see it and apparently neither could the judges.

Chloe: Shiny, shiny, shiny. I didn't understand it, either.

I wonder if the Project Runway people could have found a way to separate the model contest a bit more from the designers. I guess for the models it was very much a matter of luck, depending on who the winning designer is. Personally, I thought that Daniel's model really should have won.

As far as it's successor show in that time slot, "Top Chef", I watched it a bit out of curiosity and discovered that there is an industry with people even more full of themselves than the fashion industry. The chefs they picked seemed to be a pretty arrogant, nasty bunch. I don't know if this is typical of the industry or the producers selected for cattiness. In any case, I don't think I'll pay attention to this one.

2006-03-08T00:11:00.000-06:00

Because of these $#@*!s, our state legislature is considering a bill limiting protests, specifically to ban protests at funerals. I can't say that funerals are out of bounds for that sort of thing, but I'm wary of anything rule that interferes with our rights to speech (even the offensive kind) and I think it's a bad idea.

At the same time, if Phelps and his cronies showed at a funeral for one of my relatives, the temptation to rearrange his face could prove to be overwheming (and you haven't been in a fight in 30 years - ed). Judging from the furor over the protesters, I'd say their actions showed us more about the protesters themselves than the "cause" they represent. They represent a sort of idiotic,petty vileness that comes from something other than the Christianity they claim to profess.

If they really hate homosexuals that much, I understand Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have some open positions these days.

G'bye Kirby

2006-03-06T20:56:00.000-06:00

Kirby Puckett died today after suffering a massive stroke yesterday at his home in Arizona. I don't have a lot to say that other people with more talent will be saying in a lot of places, but...

I didn't get to see any of Kirby's big World Series games in either '87 or '91, since I was working nights at the time. I saw the replays later, but what I remember was Gordo's calls when Puckett robbed Ron Gant, and then winning Game 6 in '91 with an 11th inning home run.

I didn't get to see many ballgames while he was playing, so most of what I remember is the games I heard on WCCO, saw on TV, and the stories in the newspapers. What I remember is the guy who hit the ball, threw the ball, caught the ball and looked like he had a great time doing it. Thanks Kirby, wherever you are.

Garrison Keillor, Pop Psychologist

2006-03-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

Oh. Yeah. Garrison Keillor wrote an "Impeach Bush" commentary today. (broken link provided by the Star Tribune. It seems that it was on their servers less than a day.) Shocking surprise, right? No?

Garrison has decided that Bush is a torturer,so he must go. Interesting, since the military is punishing those personnel who have been caught mistreating prisoners, and the President has stated over and over again that torture is not acceptable conduct. Bush has also failed to defend the country. But what the hell, we'll just take Gar's word for it, right? He admits the Dems have come up short of doing a bang up (or any type) job of presenting an alternative policy. But Impeach Bush!

Oh, and why else should Bush be impeached? To "bring some focus to this man's life". I don't recall Mr. Keillor recommending that course of treatment for Bill Clinton's focus back in '98.

If we're lucky, this piece will get about as much attention as it (and Keillor) deserves.

Why Nick Coleman Riles

2006-03-05T22:48:00.000-06:00

Kate Parry lets us know that columnists who generate strong reactions to their work are good. I think she fails to understand why some folk disapprove of Nick Coleman.

"The reason they're often on the front of the paper or a section is they're often doing some of our best work. The fact that Nick, Doug and Katherine attract a tremendous reaction is a sign they're doing a good job," he added. Coleman's recent trio of columns critical of television commercials supporting the war in Iraq were, to Gyllenhaal, a good example of a columnist "bringing the news home to readers." So was Kersten's rejoinder that she thought criticism of the ads by Democrats was hypocritical. Why does the paper put these columns on pages that otherwise contain news stories? Is there a difference between columnists whose work appears in a news section and columnists who appear on the editorial pages? Gyllenhaal thinks there are many similarities, but the emphases differ: Op-ed columnists tend to write directly about issues; metro columnists often get at issues by telling a story. They have license to push storytelling further than a reporter would and to add their two cents.

[snip stuff about confusing opinion columns with news stories]
"Our columnists are very capable, dedicated reporters. They occasionally make errors, but they're minor, not at the core of the column. Considering the battleground they're working in, their work stands up to tremendous scrutiny," Gyllenhaal said.

I think they both miss the point about Coleman. The problems I have with his work fall into two general categories. First, he has a nasty habit of getting important stuff wrong. He also tends to use his column to make personal attacks on people he doesn't like (mostly conservatives). The second problem is how the Strib seems to protect Nasty Nick. Where criticism of Katherine Kersten's columns often appears as early as the day after one of her columns is printed, critcism of Coleman on the letters page tends to be sparse and late in appearing. Why is that? Doesn't the Strib get reader mail critical of Coleman?

Endangered Blondes?

2006-03-01T22:22:00.000-06:00

Yes, natural blondes really do have more fun but are dying out, according to the Times of London. Fortunately, it looks like the Times got taken.

And now for something just a little bit different...

2006-02-28T22:01:00.000-06:00

Via Slashdot and MPR, the Minnesota Republican party may have provided a lesson in privacy and data security, by way of a bad example. Next time guys, tell your survey subjects that their personal data is being collected and please, don't post that data on a public website. (link not given) Oh, and send your IT consultants out for a refresher on data security.

On Further Consideration

2006-02-27T22:36:00.000-06:00

I was premature in trashing all of the members of the US men's Olympic team for bad behavior. Perhaps his teammates should emulate Joey Cheek's example. Via Harry's Place.

Coleman, Again

2006-02-27T00:56:00.000-06:00

Nick Coleman produces another column complaining about the ads currently running here in Minnesota that paint a different picture of Iraq than the one he believes.

I've written twice about the pro-war TV ads sponsored by a fat-cat conservative group based in Washington. My points were simple: 1) The ads exploit the deaths of soldiers in order to advance the political agenda that led to the unnecessary war in which they fell. And 2) The ads do NOT represent all troops and families (the mother of one fallen soldier, an opponent of the war, was coldly left out).

Not all veterans agreed with the point of view expressed in the ads. Fair enough. One of the problems with Coleman, though, is the double standard he applies. I haven't seen any columns from him decrying the support by liberal fat cats who enable Cindy Sheehan's efforts to exploit her dead son for her political views, nor have there been any about the folks supporting Code Pink, who busily are attempting to exploit the war's wounded to their political advantage. As to his second point, veterans do not unanimously oppose the war either, which is the impression he tries to create in his column. Both points he makes are trivial. Plus, the only people he criticizes are those whom he disagrees with.

It isn't surprising that supporters of the war feel need to use paid advertising, given the inability or unwillingness to report (last link just in case the Strib link is bad) any stories other than negative ones out of Iraq. The other problem he has, namely getting his facts right, is better discussed by the guys at Power Line. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune is unwilling to print much criticism of him for his sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty, rather unlike the way Katherine Kersten is treated... . Given his rabid partisanship along with his propensity to use his column to make personal attacks on his political opponents, I once again urge the Star Tribune to engage in a little addition by subtraction, and drop this guy.

A Not-so-Fine Whine

2006-02-23T00:05:00.000-06:00

If there were a medal count for whining the US men's team would be atop the leader board. It kind explains why I've lost interest in the Olympics since the '80s, I guess. They should take a lesson in sportsmanship from the US women.

Who's Threatening Free Speech?

2006-02-22T22:38:00.000-06:00

Via Instapundit, more evidence that the largest threat to freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry may be coming from academic left.

I didn't write anything about the Summers flap, mostly becuase it was so ludicrous. Summers posed a proposition/question that was a researchable question. He wasn't stating a conclusion, he posed a hypothesis. It was the reaction to what he said that didn't make any sense.

The people who had a case of the vapours over his words and forced an (in my view unwarranted) apology and an even more unwarranted resignation reacted in a emotional and political way to an idea outside of their emotional and conceptual comfort zone. They heard a voice from outside the echo chamber and rather than meet the challenge posed by the question, they attacked the person who challenged their comfortable world view. Instead of the academic give and take that is at the heart of free inquiry, these faculty showed the close-mindedness these same faculty undoubtedly assume is the province of rednecks, hicks, and midwestern hausfraus.

Update: Maybe the Summers debacle is just a symptom of this (via Arts and Letters Daily).

2006-02-14T23:39:00.000-06:00

I came across an interview Laura Ingraham was doing with a a Long Island mayor this morning while driving to work. The subject was illegal immigration, and the mayor was explaining why local officials did not have any responsibility to help enforce immigration laws. He cited two reasons.

First, it was not the responsibility of local officials to make up for a failed federal immigration policy/system. Reasonable enough. His second reason was the economy of his upper-class New York suburb depended on illegal immigrants for labor. In his view, American citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling to do the jobs done by illegal workers. Basically, he took the same position often espoused by President Bush and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Setting aside the security problems posed by our inability to control the movement of people across our borders, the problems with this reasoning are twofold. First is the disrespect for the rule of law that happens when we turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Why should anyone go through the legal processes required to immigrate to the US legally when there is essentially no penalty in coming here illegally?

Second is the distortion of the labor market due to the presence of large numbers of illegal workers. When someone says that legal residents of the US are unwilling to do a job, what they are really saying is they are unwilling to do the job at the price the complainer is willing to pay. Not to mention doing the work under conditions that would normally be considered unsafe or unfair. Are legal residents willing to do dirty jobs? Yes, if paid enough. For anecdotal proof, one could watch a few episodes of Dirty Jobs, which documents all sorts of tough, dirty jobs. Fact is, if there were not illegal workers here to do those kinds of jobs the mayor was depending on them for, the price of doing those jobs would go up, and legal residents could then be found to do them. Illegal competition in the job market by illegals drives down wages and distorts the market. This makes life even harder for people who work the lower wage jobs by increasing competition in a market that is already extremely competitive. Appparently, that didn't bother the mayor much.

It's funny how the WSJ types decry market distortions caused by regulation when it raises costs for owners, but encourage government negligence in controlling our borders when it drives down labor costs. A fellow could get the idea that it's just all about the money or something.

Dick Cheney's Hunting Accident

2006-02-14T23:07:00.000-06:00

There've been a lot of jokes over the last couple days about the Veep's shooting one of his hunting companions. Assuming Mr. Whittington recovers, there is a lot of humor potential. I think I'll leave that to people who are actually funny. I've only got a couple of things to say about the incident.

First, Cheney screwed up. Despite some people's claims that Cheney was not at fault due to Whittington's failure to warn his fellow hunters that he was in the area, Vice President Cheney is still responsible for knowing what is in front of him when he fires, and is the fellow who pulled the trigger. That makes him responsible, no ifs, ands, or buts about it and he should publicly say so. Also, in a reasonable world the fact that he was involved in a hunting accident would not be a political issue. Unfortunately, we don't live in a reasonable world.

Next, the hissy fit thrown by the White House press corps because they didn't get the story first is embarassing. David Gregory in particular made a jackass of himself (Windows Media video via Michelle Malkin).

Wonder if they've got openings?

2006-02-14T21:27:00.000-06:00

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

I was quite pleased with this result....

Nick Coleman Rides Again

2006-02-12T23:06:00.000-06:00

Nick Coleman, Star Tribune ~~resident partisan hack~~ Master of Misinformation, writes a smear job on the folks who produced the "Midwest Heroes" ad that started airing this week. The Power Line guys disassemble it here, so I don't have much to add. It's the kind of piece the I've come to expect from Coleman, showing his usual ability to ignore truth when it gets in the way of an attack on people that he politically disagrees with. Naturally, it also wouldn't be a Nick Coleman column without his usual application of double standards - to wit, condemning Progress for America for the same kind of activities that he never criticizes MoveOn or ACT for. In Nickworld, political speech funded by liberal groups = goodness and "speaking truth to power" , political speech from conservative groups = evil Bush administration spin.

All in all, another example of why getting rid of him would be an example of "addition by subtraction" for the Star Tribune.

Confusing Criticism and Censorship

2006-02-09T23:33:00.000-06:00

at the DFL, of course. In this story about the DFL's new blog, David Ruth hints that GOP criticism is the same as attacking freedom of speech:

"There is a lot of overheated editorializing," said Mark Drake, communications director for the GOP Minnesota.
"I think the DFL is playing catch-up with the blog in the state," Drake said. "A lot of the energy from blogging has always been on the GOP side."

Although the state Republican Party does not have its own blog, Drake said it has a good relationship with bloggers across Minnesota who promote the ideas and messages of the GOP.

"It is a new medium, but the same old tired DFL attack stuff," Drake said of the new DFL site.

Said Ruth: "If they [Republicans] want to hammer on the freedom of speech, I welcome that. And if it drives more people to our site, I encourage Mark Drake to post regularly."

Just once, I would like to see proof that the GOP is against the 1st Amendment. Seems to me that lefty types who push stuff like banning hate speech are a bigger threat to free expression than the GOP.

Once more down the Runway

2006-02-08T23:08:00.000-06:00

This week's installment of Runway was a challenge requiring each designer to makeover one of their colleagues. The outfits were at best a mixed bag, but it was interesting that the two women did the best job on designing the menswear. Especially since Chloe admitted that she had never designed or constructed men's clothing before. None of the guys did a particularly praiseworthy job.

The episode also provided more illustration of the overall bad attitude of Santino. Nothing is ever this guy's fault, even when the outfit (he designed a jumpsuit for Kara) is falling apart on the runway. He also is a remarkably brazen liar, telling tall ones about Kara's opinion of his outfit. All this while draining all of the goodwill out of the workroom.

Anyway, the outfits:

Chloe : designed pinstriped pants and vest for Nick. Looked like it fit well and it looked finished, it improved the way he looked. The winning outfit. Can't really argue with the judges about that.

Daniel V : red dress and leather vest for Chloe. Must have been slacking off becuase of his immunity. Not good. With the mere addition of a pair of fishnet stockings, she would have the compleat hooker look in his outfit. A rotten thing to do to her. I am disappointed because Chloe is adorable, gorgeous and absolutely pegs my hormone meter, she deserved better.

Kara: Sportswear for Santino. She had the almost impossible task of making the Great Santino presentable. She mostly succeeded, what greater praise can I give? Perhaps the judges should have given her the win.

Nick: A "gray" suit for Daniel. No pockets, the fit wasn't good, it didn't look well put together, even to my ignorant eyes. The material looked almost lavender on the runway, and the transformation of Daniel to Leisure Suit Larry was complete. The cause of Nick's farewell to Project Runway.

Santino: a jumpsuit for Kara. He literally sewed (and glued it) on to Kara for the runway show, and it was literally falling apart on the runway. The fit was terrible, making her look a little like the Michelin Man. He lied outrageously to the judges about the fit and and Kara's reaction to the garment prior to the show. I thought Kara did him a service by making sure to cover the disintegrating sleeve with her hair and by not giving him away on the runway. This outfit should have gotten Santino auf'ed. I guess with Santino, not even three strikes is enough.

Right wingers hate Muslims!

2006-02-08T00:07:00.000-06:00

Yep, the word is out thanks to that beacon of reason and light, Antonia Zerbisias. The sign she picked up on is the willingness to defend freedom of expression by being willing to publish something that some Muslims are offended by. The horror! Worse yet, they actually have the temerity to criticize the rioting, killing, embassy-burning morons that have been making the news of late in Europe and the Middle East. Heaven forbid that someone actually hurt their widdle feewings... . What a steaming pile of you-know-what!

I wonder if she was so caring about the feelings of Christians and Jews being oppressed and persecuted in Muslim lands, or those Christians offended by the Virgin Mary depicted in elephant dung, or Jesus Christ dunked in urine? I'll bet she backed those artists to the hilt. When will we see columns from her objecting to cartoonists in Arab newspapers depicting Jews and Israelis in the same ways the Nazis did? Maybe sometime after Hell freezes over, I expect.

In any case, in Zerbisias' world criticizing the groups she defends is the same thing as hatred. Dumb. Moreover, I didn't see glee in the postings of those supporting the Danish cartoonists. I did see a spirited defence of free expression, which Zerbisias is quite willing to abandon as long as it is Muslims and leftists who are offended. I also saw that name-calling is all right by her, as long as it is directed at people she disagrees with. Hypocrite.

2006-02-05T05:05:00.000-06:00

From the Malaysia Star, an excerpt from the Vatican's statement on the Mohammed cartoons:

"The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion," the Vatican said.

"Any form of excessive criticism or derision of others denotes a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation," it said in a statement issued in response to media demands for the Church's opinion.

With all due respect to His Holiness, I think they got this one wrong. There is no right of not being offended by others. The reaction to the offensive material, though, is up to the viewer and parts of the Muslim world have not aquitted themselves very well.

They can dish it out, but

2006-02-04T11:32:00.000-06:00

they sure can't take it. (via Michelle Malkin)

The Muslims now engaging in a violent temper tantrum because of a few cartoons of the Prophet need to grow up. Threats of violence, beheadings, riots are not exactly the hallmarks of a mature, peaceful faith or culture. It's more like the whiny, adult version of whiny, childish behavior. Given the intolerance and disrespect shown by extremist Muslims to those of other faiths, it also is pretty hypocritical.

Yes, I understand that depictions of Mohammed are not allowed in Islam. Yes, I can see how that would be offensive to many Muslims. Is it in good taste to print these kind of cartoons? Probably not. Does that justify death threats and acts of terrorism? Absolutely not.

See the larger versions of the cartoons here.

This Year's SOTU

2006-02-01T23:56:00.000-06:00

wasn't all that impressive, but in a way I can understand that. The country is in the middle of a long grind in Iraq, blind opposition from the other party, and a desire not to offend people in swing districts represented by GOP congressmen/women probably lead to a less than bold, exciting speech. The mention of the defeat of Social Security reform is worth mentioning, if only because of the Democrats' applause showing their eagerness to proclaim themselves part of the problem.

The Democratic response was pretty lame, basically consisting of claiming they have a better way, but no explanation of what that "better way" is. The stuff to generate apathy with.

2006-02-01T22:39:00.000-06:00

The latest Project Runway challenge was to design a garment for garden party, using materials available from plants and a gardening supply store. The dresses didn't really hold my interest, but the Santino's reaction to the prize of immunity to the winner was interesting.

He had two incentives to win. First, proving that Santino is still Santino, was that immunity would allow him to design something "really offensive" for the next challenge. Considering a couple of the dresses he designed for previous challenges, what, does one suppose, would Santino consider offensive? Since offense is subjective, which judge or judges would he try to offend? Nina Garcia, Michael Kors, Heidi Klum, or all of the above? It's a shame he didn't win, because it might have been fun to find out.

The second incentive was as he put it, to keep an undeserving designer from hanging around an extra week. Kind of illogical, since if that other designer won the challenge, wouldn't it imply that he/she would be "deserving"? (Scratches head)

Words for the Day

2006-01-30T23:30:00.000-06:00

Today's words are Filibuster and Failure, as in the Democrat's attempt to filibuster Judge (soon to be Justice) Alito's nomination was a failure.

Now that Judge Alito's confirmation is all but assured, the next question is: when the Democrats (or their successor party, whatever it is) wins a presidential election and nominate a Supreme Court Justice, will the GOP engage in the same lame, BS partisan exercise just completed by the Dems? Hopefully not, as it would make them even bigger partisan jackasses than the Dems because they saw an example of what happens and ignored it anyway.

Today's words brought to you by the letter F, along with the words bluster and bloviate.

Trivia

2006-01-28T00:44:00.000-06:00

Ten Top Trivia Tips about Million Monkeys Typing!

The Eskimos have over fifty words for Million Monkeys Typing.
A sixteenth century mathematician lost his nose in a duel over his love for Million Monkeys Typing, and wore a silver replacement for the rest of his life.
It's bad luck for a flag to touch Million Monkeys Typing!
All shrimp are born as Million Monkeys Typing, but gradually mature into females.
If you drop Million Monkeys Typing from more than three metres above ground level, it will always land feet-first.
Million Monkeys Typing can usually be found in nests built in the webs of large spiders!
South Australia was the first place to allow Million Monkeys Typing to stand for parliament!
Million Monkeys Typing can be very poisonous if injected intravenously!
Million Monkeys Typing has a bifurcated penis.
Never store Million Monkeys Typing at room temperature.

I had no idea! I wonder if I sleepwalk or something... (via the Acidman)

2006-01-27T23:57:00.000-06:00

Saw this list of the 10 most hated athletes over at GQ Features. Two things about caught my attention. First, that A. J. Pierzynski made the top 10. I had heard that he was a bit of a jerk, but I would never had guessed he was Top Ten material.

The other was how the article's authors felt no explanation was needed to rank Terrell Owens at #1.

Honorable mention goes to Kurt Busch (#3 on the list), for channelling Eric Cartman after winning the 2004 Nextel Cup - "To NASCAR - they can lick my salty balls!"

Since I'm bored with politics ...

2006-01-25T23:54:00.000-06:00

... more Project Runway blogging. Tonight's challenge was to create an outfit from a photo (taken by self) the designer finds inspiring. I have to admit with the exception of three designers, I didn't see how (except for color) the designs produced would remind me of the photos. Of course I'm handicapped by being a fashion/design ignoramus, so no surprise there. On to amateurish comments about the outfits.

In no particular order:

Kara - simple black dress with a yellow hazard warning tape sash. Kind of boring, but the dress did flatter the model, who looked great in it.

Zulema - red dress that looked about half put together. Liked the color choice though, too many of the designers avoid bold colors. In my opinion, the worst outfit of the lot. It was ironically funny that she gets eliminated for lack of imagination and poor construction, given that she would criticize others for lack of sewing ability.

Santino - Love his Tim Gunn impressions, liked his colors, hated the dress. Is his ideal model an asymmetrical woman who looks 7 months pregnant? I wonder if the producers slipped some Prozac in his water this week, he actually seemed sort of likeable this time.

Nick - Top was interesting, skirt was not. After getting over his fit at losing his model, he seemed to do a really good job of getting his new model to show her best stuff. He seems to have a good rapport with his models as opposed to Zulema for example.

Andrae - No dramatics this week, thank goodness. His dress seemed to be closer to the idea for the challenge than the others, I would never have thought a good looking dress could be made from the image of dirty water in a gutter. But, what the hell do I know? It shows I have the same potential for a fashion career as I do for playing center in the NBA.

Chloe - Liked the skirt, disliked the top, but I could see the similarities to her photo of a curtain wall in the dress.

Daniel - Judges liked the outfit, me not so much. It did seem to fit the challenge though. Of all the remaining designers, he seems to be the nicest fellow of the bunch. He could have played tactically and not helped Nick through his loss-of-model funk instead helping Nick put his head on straight. Give him an additional award for Sportsmanship.

Amazing, really, that after dissing reality shows since Survivor came out, I've actually become a bit hooked on one. I'll be damned... .

Runway Blogging

2006-01-20T00:58:00.000-06:00

Over at Althouse, there be Project Runway blogging. I didn't come across this program until recently, but as "reality" TV goes it's rather interesting. Probably because if one defines designer fashion at one end of a scale, the way I look defines opposite end of it. I am puzzled by many aspects of fashion as depicted on Runway, but to me the most puzzling is the continued presence of Santino.

In two of the challenges, he has clearly created the most craptacular outfits, yet someone else is sent packing. I have two ideas as to why. First, Santino stays due to his shall we say, dramatic personality. His theatrics may make for better TV than the fellows that were auf'd, so the producers intervened. The other is that part of the judging is based not on the clothing produced for the challenge, but on whether in the view of the judges the designer has potential to be in the final 3 or not. This is a little disturbing because to me it implies that some of the contestants are given more room for error than others, and thus the playing field is not quite level. If so, that rather sucks.

Today's Cross Burning

2006-01-19T23:02:00.000-06:00

Today's Strib included a story about how some dimwits burned a cross at the Liberty Temple Church of God in Christ the day after Martin Luther King Day. It was a stupid, hateful act, but I must admit my first reaction was "How cliche'!". I mean, after almost 150 years of practice, couldn't these idiots be a bit more original? I mean, if moldy old chestnuts like burning crosses is the best they can come up with, I don't think they will be remaking society in their image anytime soon. The same could be said for their spiritual comrades in Minnesota's very own Nazi Party (their website is here, if anyone cares), who still model their clothing on Nazi Germany's brownshirts, worship der Fuhrer, and use Nazi era terminology (in the original German, no less). No originality whatsoever, slavishly copying the trappings of a failed ideology. Talk about inability to learn from one's mistakes... . Don't the citizens of Minneapolis find the presence of this group in their midst just a little bit embarassing?

I suppose that providing a link could be seen as giving them some legitimacy, but exposing this crap to the sunlight is a necessary step in draining the cesspool. The ideas expressed by these folks don't hold up when subject to scrutiny, so why be afraid of them? Make them defend this garbage in public, hold their ideas up to much-deserved ridicule, and they'll go back under their rocks.

2006-01-16T01:25:00.000-06:00

Over at Harry's Place I found a post containing this excerpt from an interview with Paul Berman in the New York Press: The people who conclude, “Bush has blundered, therefore I don’t want anything to do with it” ought to remind themselves that Bush blundered from day one. He wasn’t taking bin Laden seriously; he blundered on September 11th; he blundered on September 12th when he allowed the bin Laden family to leave the country. He made a million blunders. But just because Bush has gone about things idiotically doesn’t mean that we should abandon the struggle.

I get tired of people who assert that George W. Bush's every move in response to the terrorist slimebags who attacked us 4 1/2 years ago was incompetent. Especially when repeating the bin Laden family bilge from Michael Moore. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've seen precious little analysis from his critics that wasn't made from the view point of 20/20 hindsight. Given only what he knew at the time, what was the better response? Surely these know-it-alls can at least do us the service of tellings us that.

2006-01-16T01:10:00.000-06:00

I was reading the Strib's Blog House piece Saturday. and came across this little gem from Matthew Yglesias (full post is here):

Realistically, hopes of keeping Alito off the bench were lost in late fall 2004, when George W. Bush was re-elected and the GOP expanded its Senate majority. ... Realistically, the question facing the Alito nomination has always been whether Alito will be confirmed and the nuclear option implemented or whether Alito will be confirmed without the GOP needing to break a filibuster. But a congressional minority can't actually stop the Republicans from doing what they want to do. ... The Republicans won a majority, the Republicans are bad people (emphasis mine - ed.), and so they're going to do something bad. It's their fault, and the only remedy is better performance on Election Day.

More proof to me about which side is more intolerant. If you're a liberal and someone disagrees with you, that person is Bad. The prominent Dems on the Judiciary Committee seemed to act that way. On the other hand could it be, Mr. Yglesias, that you guys are just wrong about some things and need to rethink?

Into Thin Air

2006-01-09T00:40:00.000-06:00

Of late I've been reading one of my Christmas gifts, Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer. The book is his account of his experience as a climber on the Adventure Concepts expedition to climb Mt. Everest in 1996. Four of the climbers in his group died on the mountain, including the man who led the expedition, Rob Hall. It's a gripping and personal recounting of the climb and how things went wrong in the Death Zone, more than 5 miles up.

I guess I have trouble comprehending why a person would be willing to do what it takes to climb Everest, given the odds are about 1 in 4 the mountain will kill you. That's with modern equipment and the fifty years of experience gained since Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay climbed it first in 1953. The danger starts even before you reach the base camp, with the possibility of dying from altitude sickness. Then the mountain gives you warnings on the way to the intermediate camps on the route to the summit in the form of bodies of those who have died on the mountain in previous expeditions, all the while the risk of serious illness or death just from the altitude continues to increase. Then there's the chance of a fall, or being crushed by an avalanche before getting to the last camp at 26,000 feet, from which the climbers make the final ascent (usually with supplemental oxygen). The climbers can be trapped and/or blinded by storms at the peak, and incipient hypoxia makes decision making in the event of emegency a bit dodgy at best. I just fail to comprehend what drives people to do it.

Patterico, Stalinist

2006-01-06T00:43:00.000-06:00

Although I frequently criticize the Minneapolis Star Tribune for the sloppiness, vitriol, and general unfairness on their opinion pages, at least I don't have to put up with the Los Angeles Times. Unlike the LA Times, no one actually pays attention to what the Strib's editors think. Patterico, however, takes up the burden of fact-checking the LAT and gets this reaction for his pains. Apparently it's rather easy to be a Stalinist these days - just correct the LA Times! Not one to take it lying down, his response is here.

On the Local Radio Front

2006-01-05T00:02:00.000-06:00

we have a change in format at 100.3 FM (now known as KTLK-FM) from "Smooth Jazz" to mixed misc. talk, and I had a chance to sample their wares today.

I heard some of the Janecek and Lambert show and I guess I wasn't wowed. Part of the problem is that although he's not as annoying on the air as he was in his reviews at the Pioneer Press, I still find Brian Lambert grating. I resented his political commentary in his reviews at the PP, and I don't see any reason to reward him for it by listening to his talk show.

I guess the more interesting question will be how KSTP-AM fares, with the loss of Limbaugh and Hannity to KTLK, and Tommy Mischke moving to evenings. I don't think evening drive is quite ready for Mischke... .

I Forgot

2006-01-04T23:45:00.000-06:00

to say what should be done with the folks that Abramoff bribed. If they're convicted, throw a whole damn library of books at 'em.

The Abramoff plea deal

2006-01-03T22:17:00.000-06:00

Jack Abramoff (Lobbyist, Thief) copped a plea today, pleading guilty to offenses including wire fraud and tax evasion. Since WSJ's Law Blog did the work, I'll point to them for links to the plea deal and other info on the deal and on Abramoff.

Abramoff is a thief, perhaps not a common thief but certainly no better than any other. And the fact that politicians from both parties were busy lining up at his trough disgusts me. I don't think it matters what party all that much, since if the Dems were in power instead of the GOP, Abramoff would have still probably done the same sorts of things, since getting stuff and making lots of money were his lodestars.

The GOP should be especially ashamed. Part of reason they gained control of the House in '94 was because they convinced us they were better, less corrupt than the other guys. I don't think many really believed they were that much better, but it wouldn't taken much to be better. What they've proved instead since '94 is they were just as venal as the Dems who controlled the Congress in the days of Rostenkowski and Wright. Not to mention how cheaply they could be bought. Charge millions, buy politicians for a few hundred grand, what a racket! So what do we have now? Two major parties, neither of which is fit to govern. A Republican party that can't see past keeping control, getting lots of campaign dollars and lots of perks, or a Democratic party obsessed with regaining control and campaign dollars, plus ideas which make them unfit to govern my backyard. The pols in New Orleans would be so proud. I'd yell for throwing out the sleazebags, but who there isn't one?

Just color me one disgusted American citizen, at least for today.

Oh those guys at Reuters

2006-01-02T19:48:00.000-06:00

In a story about the Pope's call for the defeat of terrorism, trust Reuters to use only the incidents involving the United States as examples of bad behavior. Beheadings and suicide bombings don't count, eh? Hamas and Islamic Jihad just don't rate, I guess.

Welcome to 2006

2006-01-01T01:25:00.000-06:00

which so far, seems rather like 2005... .

I just want to wish everyone who stumbles across this place a happy 2006, and especially I want to thank those who are serving us in hostile places far from home. May you all be safe and make it home for 2007.

Fours

2005-12-31T02:05:00.000-06:00

Reposting this set of fours from my comment at Mitch Berg's:

FOUR JOBS YOU'VE HAD IN YOUR LIFE
1) Farmhand
2) Domino's Delivery Driver
3) Teaching Assistant
4) Computer Programmer

FOUR MOVIES YOU COULD WATCH OVER AND OVER
1) Quigley Down Under
2) Friday Night Lights
3) Star Wars
4) The Great Escape

FOUR BOOKS YOU COULD READ AGAIN AND AGAIN (only 4?)
1) The Guns of August
2) India: A Million Mutinies Now
3) Lord of Light
4) The Mote in God's Eye

FOUR CITIES/PLACES YOU'VE LIVED IN
1) Adrian, MN
2) Brookings, SD
3) Mpls/St.Paul, MN
4) Atlanta, GA

FOUR TV SHOWS YOU LOVE TO WATCH
1) Mythbusters
2) House
3) Gilmore Girls ('til they jumped the shark...)
4) Columbo

FOUR PLACES YOU'VE BEEN ON VACATION
1) Ireland
2) UK
3) Germany
4) Chicago

FOUR WEBSITES YOU VISIT DAILY
1) National Review Online
2) Instapundit
3) Arts and Letters Daily
4) Althouse

FOUR OF YOUR FAVORITE FOODS
1) Lemon Grass Chicken
2) BBQ Beef/Pork/Chicken
3) Pizza
4) Indian

FOUR PLACES YOU'D RATHER BE RIGHT NOW
1) Kennedy Spaceflight Center
2) Ireland
3) Mexico City
4) Tokyo

And a Bonus catagory, since what fun is food without drink...

FOUR FAVORITE ATTITUDE ADJUSTING BEVERAGES
1) Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
2) Basil Hayden's Straight Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey
3) Talisker
4) Midelton Very Rare Irish Whiskey

Oh, Star Tribune...

2005-12-28T19:50:00.000-06:00

You editorial types at the Strib should take a look at this work from your colleagues at the Chicago Tribune. Just be sitting down before you do, so there is no injury when the vapours strike. They concluded the fellow you so love to hate (that guy in the Oval Office) did NOT lie about Iraq. Would y'all like to reconsider a whole bunch of your editorials now? (via Instapundit)

The Conservative Mind

2005-12-28T19:04:00.000-06:00

Jeffery Hart's essay in Opinion Journal is worth reading (especially by liberals) if only to remind people that there is an intellectual basis to conservatism. I don't have the ability to critique most of it, but there are a couple of points that I have some disagreement with.

On abortion, he contends that the Roe v. Wade decision was a libertarian one. With all due respect, it cannot be considered a libertarian decision if the child in the womb is considered to be human since the child's rights are not considered. If the fetus is not considered to be a child, there is still the question of ownership. Half the genetic material comes from another person who surely has an interest of some kind in the fetus, also not considered by Roe.

On foreign policy, he considers the GOP to be a party of Wilsonian utopianism, because George W. Bush has decided embrace democracy in the Middle East. I don't think Bush's policy has been chosen out of utopian impluse but out of pragmatism. The other types of 'realistic' foreign policy implemented in the past haven't improved (and maybe helped create) the mess the region is in now, so why not try democracy? It isn't utopian to look at a situation, and decide that trying the same failed solutions over and over again probably won't get us a better outcome this time.

I would like to unreservedly endorse his remarks about the environment. It is my belief that conservatives have not lived up to their ideals on this concern. Private propery rights and the free market by themselves are not a guarantee that the wild will be preserved or our environment will not be poisoned. Both can be useful tools but they rely on the goodness of human nature, which conservatives know to be flawed. Thus a need for some government intervention.

Overall, a fine essay well worth the read. For more debate over the contents there's plenty at The Corner. (Just keep scrolling).

Those Sinister Conservatives

2005-12-24T01:10:00.000-06:00

The Strib has detected an 'attack' on the Livable Communities program. Apparently questioning whether the best way to spend two and a half million dollars in project money on a park by the Mall of America and in Apple Valley is an attack, in the view of the Strib's editors.

Do the Strib's editors actually think that money couldn't be better spent in other parts of the metro? Especially since Bloomington and Apple Valley are both weathly suburbs that could come up with the money themselves if they really wanted the parks? I expect there are projects in Minneapolis, Richfield, St. Paul or other not-so-wealthy suburbs that would be of greater benefit. So why is questioning the spending an attack? Or are the questions bad because they are being asked by conservatives?

Now I expect that conservatives could make a pretty good case against providing tax subsidies to private developers, which doesn't fit in well with the idea of free markets. But from reading the items linked above, that wasn't the intent of the objections from Mr. Georgacas. So, is this more distortion from the Strib's editors?