OK – so it’s 8am and I’m listening to the Fox 9 Morning News anchors talking about the story that MNDOT is broke. They discuss all the possible reasons for the lack of funding (like the fact that there are a lot more road projects being undertaken by the state). Alix Kendall, the female anchor, then goes on to mention that all of the members of the Minnesota House and Senate are not going to campaign on this because it means they have to talk about because (wait for it…..you know what’s coming….”
...
...
...
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE TAXES TO DO IT!!!!!

That’s right – every answer to every problem in the state is raising taxes! The schools aren’t teaching your kids – raise taxes and throw more money at the problem. The city you live in is over-run with criminals and there aren’t enough cops on the street – go crying to the state demanding that they RAISE TAXES to give you more money. You have a problem the government will give you money to solve it. To HECK with the fact that we are going into the next budget biennium with a surplus – RAISE TAXES!

Remember when the last biennial budget was set up, the state had serious budget deficit. As a result, projects had to be postponed – spending had to be curtailed. It is part of the adult process called BUDGETING - a process that each and every family in Minnesota has to deal with. You can’t spend more money than you take in! However, this year it was announced that the state was taking in more than it was spending, because of that, the state will now have MORE MONEY to spend on things like roads.

No Alix - raising taxes is NOT the answer. There is a budget surplus and once the legislature convenes, the money will be in the budget to start the construction projects that were put on hold.

It is TIME!

Oil prices are still skyrocketing and the turmoil in Israel is not going to make it go down anytime soon. In response our congress people are doing what exactly?

It is time for the US to start drilling it's own oil in ANWR and on the Gulf Coast. It is time for the US to quit dilly dallying around. The high cost of oil is hurting jobs and the economy and it will get worse if we don't take care of it soon. So says Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and I couldn't agree more. He says more:

"We are losing our ability to farm, while rich, elite people in this country that support some of these environmental Taliban organizations are out there with the propaganda that is trying to say that some of us that are trying to get to energy independence are the ones that are causing the difficulty. "

The Congressman is right! It is time for the US throw off the dependence on foreign oil once and for all! It is past time.

How low can they go?

The Democratic Party is self destructing. I know, I know....Democratic pundits say the same thing about the Republican Party, but there is a difference. Republicans yell and scream at their politicians that they disagree with, but they do not go to the lengths that the Democratic "netroots" is going to in order to purge the party of "nominal" Democrats. The Daily Kos has made a mission on getting rid of Senator (and former Democratic VP Candidate under Al Gore) Joe Lieberman for the "crime" of supporting President Bush in the War on Terror! When they are not running against their own, they are wailing over the perceived failings of the Bush Administration, totally ignoring their own.

It has finally gotten so bad that the DLC has met to try to figure out how to combat this. Some members of the DLC understand the DNC's plight.

"We may consider ourselves the party of the middle class, but too many middle-class Americans no longer consider us their party," the Indiana Democrat said Monday. "They have left the Democratic Party in droves — costing us the last two presidential elections and the last six congressional elections. If we don't learn some lessons, we'll lose in 2006 and 2008 as well, and we must not let that happen."

Meanwhile the voters that the DNC has abandoned is crying out for one thing and one thing only...IDEAS. If the current administration is doing such a bad job, what would you do different? That is not a totally unwarranted question. Voters want to know what the opposition party would do differently. Remember the Contract with America in 1994? It was a list of ideas that the Republicans had and it swept them into controll of the House that year. If the Democrats were smart, they would develop their own Contract with America. So far, however, we have not seen anything like that out of the Democrats. Some smart Democrats have said as much. They answer from the "netroots" was "Ideas? FEH!"

Don't get me wrong. The netroots can be an important part of shaping the national dialog in the 21st century! However, the netroots is not the whole party and until they grow up and realize that, the Democratic Party is doomed to continue it's rapid slide into political oblivion. Can they stop the slide? Only time will tell.

Want to increase voter turn out?

I have a quick break in the fair preparation so I thought I would get a couple of quick posts out.

I got a chuckle out of this story in the NY Sun.

"Who wants to be a millionaire? Anyone using the ballot box in Arizona, if campaigners have their way.
Under the scheme, which is designed to increase turnout, a $1 million prize will be handed to a voter selected at random after elections held every two years. Those taking part in party primary elections could win another $1 million prize."

Now I am the first to agree that voter turn-out is important. Our community is trying to think of ways to improve voter turn out (at the last Presidential election turn out was 82% but at the last municipal election was a paltry 29%), however is this really the way to do it? What ever happened to civic pride? What ever happened to doing your duty as a citizen?

Drawing more voters to the polling place on election day is great, but do we want to settle for just more voters or do we want more EDUCATED VOTERS? The best way (in my mind) to get more people to the voting booth is to get them engaged. Get them to care about the candidates and the issues. However, in order to do that, politicians have to get out among the people. They have to come to town hall meetings and to the town festivals and where ever the people are. Ad buys and newspapers are not enough. Seeing you in our neighborhood is!

And playing "who wants to be a millionaire?" isn't the ticket either. What's next? Scratch 'N Win ballots where the winner get to buy a ten thousand extra votes for the candidate of his/her choice?

Light blogging

Blogging will be sporadic for the next two weeks. One of the many hats that I wear is adult club leader for the Junior Logicians 4H club and our county fair is next week. We have lots and lots of work to do as a club to get ready for the fair. I will try to get posts in as I can.

If you are in Jordan Minnesota starting on the 26th, be sure to come check out the "5 Best Days of Summer" otherwise known as the Scott County Fair.

Finding their religion

The Democrats are working hard to try to "find" religion. Chairman Dean is speaking of religion, Senator Clinton is speaking of religion, Senator Obama is speaking of religion. They all speak of religion, but do they really understand religion? Based on this, I would say the answer is a resounding "NO":

"As part of the Democratic Reunion campaign, resources have been made available to assist those canvassing their neighborhoods on behalf of the Democratic Party. A canvassing tip sheet at the website instructs volunteers to discuss the issues important to their neighbors and then lists things to look for in order to get an idea of what those issues are. The first two items listed are:
Bumper stickers or window decals: What issues are brought up? Do they indicate issue preferences? Do they indicate particular values?
Religious items: Do they have any religious items in view? What can you tell by the nature of their religious display?”
The tip sheet continues, “Take a quick look around. What do you see and what might it tell you about the person whose home you are visiting? What might each of the cues listed below tell you about the voters who live there?” Cues then listed include “religious symbols,” “U.S. flag,” “well tended flower garden” and “expensive car.”

So a US flag, a well tended flower garden and expensive cars are "indicative" of religion according to the Democratic Party? If that is the case, then they will definately misjudge my neighbor, an NEA Democrat. They have well tended gardens and a Volvo. Another Democrat that I know has a lit American flag in his front yard and fairly well tended gardens. One is "religious" the other is not. How is a poor canvaser supposed to tell, based on that, whether the house is "religious" or not?

Here is a hot tip for the Democrats. If you really, really want to connect with religious values voters, don't look for the WWJD bumper sticker or the cross hanging on the wall...GET THEE TO CHURCH and hear what is being spoken in the pulpits of America. Don't you campaign from the pulpit, listen to what the pastor is teaching! Talk to the congregants and find out what is important to them. Don't dictate from on high with the assumption that you "understand" them because you understand the symbolism.

One thing the author touches on, something I have commented on repeatedly is the "schizophrenic nature" that the Democratic Party has about religion. They campaign from the pulpit constantly and yet if a conservative speaks to a church or if a conservative church hands out voters guides, the same Democrats cry foul. They speak of what their religion means to them, but heaven help the conservative who does the same....that is untenable! Liberal pastors speak out on politics - WELCOME fellow traveller. Conservative pastor tries to do the same....well we can't have that...it violates the so called seperation of church and state!

The Democrats need to make up their minds. Do they want to keep religion out of politics? Or do they want to engage religious voters?

When will we learn?

When will we learn that "self-esteem" does not equate happiness?

"Lessons in happiness are to be introduced for 11-year-olds in state schools to combat a huge rise in depression, self-harm and anti-social behaviour among young people.
Special behavioural techniques imported from the US will be used from September next year in an attempt to make children more resilient in the face of the pressures of 21st century living."

It figures they are importing this nonsense from the US.....

Look, it's really not too difficult. Kids want borders, kids want rules, kids want parents to tell them what is right and what is wrong. They certainly don't want us to be their best friends! They want teachers to teach them subjects like Math and History and Geography, not self-esteem. They certainly don't want teachers to be their best friends either. Rather, let the older kids help the younger to work out problems and only turn to the staff as a last resort.

If you want to curb depression, self-harm and anti-social behavior, tell the kids that the anti-social behavior is unacceptable, but otherwise let them be KIDS. They are not mini-adults to be plugged into set pegs and roles. They need to be allowed to experice life, the good and the bad. They don't want us to live their lives for them, they just want us (parents and teachers) to be there for support (when needed) and to encourage them!

Writen with the assistance of the Junior Logician who just happens to be in the age range mentioned in the article!

Coleen - wrong on energy

I've written many posts on why Coleen Rowley is wrong for the second district and will continue to do so up until the November election. This one is about her stand on gas prices as listed on her "Issues" statement on Energy Independence.

"As long as we depend on Middle Eastern oil, we will be involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and invite the wrath of terrorists everywhere. As long as we are held hostage at the gas pump, our economic growth will be less and less guaranteed. As long as we must drill deeper into habitats to sustain our growing energy needs, we will continue to deface many of the remaining pristine areas we share."

The above paragraph is full of contradictory statements. Coleen wants us to be independent of "Middle Eastern oil" (more on that in a minute) but she does not want us to drill our own oil. She laments that we are "held hostage at the gas pump" (true statement) but wants to keep pristine areas pristine.....

Regarding dependence on Middle Eastern oil, Coleen has a problem The US gets a majority of it's oil from North and South America! As a matter of fact, of the top 15 sources of US oil, Middle Eastern sources make up 12% of oil demand (per the chart below):


Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Apr-06 Mar-06 YTD 2006 Apr-05 Jan - Apr 2005

CANADA 1,710 1,716 1,726 1,676 1,551
MEXICO 1,601 1,697 1,692 1,541 1,510
SAUDI ARABIA 1,582 1,322 1,413 1,449 1,533
VENEZUELA 1,171 1,183 1,190 1,391 1,352
NIGERIA 1,022 1,114 1,149 1,130 1,030
IRAQ 531 476 498 542 522
ANGOLA 389 510 446 365 461
ECUADOR 312 242 289 240 302
ALGERIA 256 281 235 232 182
KUWAIT 225 111 139 164 179
UNITED KINGDOM 169 145 108 256 225
COLOMBIA 149 170 154 183 128
BRAZIL 111 123 114 36 38
CHAD 82 84 79 75 74
TRINIDAD/TOBAGO 80 52 63 87 64

Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.

Our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts has nothing to do with oil. Even if we cut off all Middle Eastern oil needs today, we would still be involved in conflicts in the Middle East. Because as long as there are people in the Middle East who refuse to accept Israels right to exist, there will be conflict in the Middle East! Oil has nothing to do with the conflict - IDEOLOGY does. Until Coleen addresses the ideology, she will have no idea how to handle the situation and if she has no idea how to handle the situation, she is the wrong person for the job of US Congressman.

States right on immigration

The other morning, Laura Ingraham was railing about the fact that states and municipalities were having to do the "federal government's work" by taking on immigration.

"At least 30 states have passed laws or taken other steps this year to crack down on illegal immigrants, often making it harder for undocumented workers to find jobs or receive public services."

Now the Logical Husband has always accused me of being a glass half full kind of person. I suppose he is correct because I generally do see the postitive in a situation, like this.....

I see this as a shining example of how our representative republic should work. The states are obligated to do whatever is necessary to protect their citizens from any danger. In Minnesota's case, the danger coming from methamphetamine.

"Meet Alberto Zatarain. He was the local face of a highly organized Mexican drug cartel selling high-grade methamphetamine across Minnesota. Now he's behind bars. But his case shows how cartel trafficking is intensifying here -- and why it's tough to stop."

Alberto is (I know this will shock you) an illegal immigrant to Minnesota. He and his cohorts from the cartel come into and out of the country at will. They are not hear, as some will tell you, to work hard and get their American Dream. They are here to poison our neighborhoods. If you don't believe me, take a look at this. THIS is what meth does to those who use it. THIS is what Alberto and his friends are bringing to America. THIS is what needs to be stopped and if the federal government will not do it, the the states are obligated to do so.

Liberal Arguments

While I can not take credit for the sentiments below and it was not sourced when it came to me, I can definately echo the sentiments. Just go to the comments section of any conservative leaning blog and you will see the following:

#1: Attack Your Opponent - If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, insult his career, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Neo-Con, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him. I have also seen the k for c replacement used to imply fascism in conservatives.

#2: Switch Your Arguments - If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory! There have been wonderful examples of this over at Shot in the Dark especially in the comments about the blogswarm of the Patricians who signed the "Happy to pay more" ad. After the initial comments like "nothing like going tinto a project with a predetermined result" and "happy to see you wingnuts spinning your wheels" and it became obvious that the research was showing exactly what we expected, the comments changed to "well of course they are Democrats - they never claimed to be anything else!"

#3: Raise The Bar - When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable". And if you do provide multiple sources for your data, you can be sure that it will be dismissed as "scattered", "inconclusive", "incomplete"...the list goes on. No matter how much proof you provide it is never enough!

#4: Attack The Source - When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel (FAUX news)and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point. There is a gentleman in the building I work in that has this down to an art form. Shortly after the Popular Mechanics issue came out debunking all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, he sent someone in my office a link to a website that said the PM issue was part of the conspiracy. No proof to that - just the claims. Then when the video showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon was released and was aired of Fox News, his response was a) it's Faux News - they are biased and b) all TV news sources are tools of the government!

#5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency It's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Conventions did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond the supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in the movie Platoon and there is always a conspricy surounding anything that happens on our soil that points back to the goverment.

The funny thing is, if you confront the liberals on thiese tactics, they will deny it which is not unexpected. They expect conservatives to admit their prejudices, but liberals refuse to admit theirs.

Now you are forwarned. If you know what to expect, when debating liberals, you can be more prepared to counter their tactics. Good luck and good debating!

Gotta love the New York Times

Even when they are being hammered for their publishing the details of secret DHS programs for battling terror, they carry on. Such dedication they have to the liberal cause....

Three stories this week that illustrate their dedication to the cause. First is this story in which they downplay the fantastic economic data that came out this week.

"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."

Anyone who has been looking at the last 11 quarters of economic data knows that this uptick in revenues is hardly "unexpected".

The second was this story about the death of the mastermind of the Beslan massacre:

"In a long and notorious career, Shamil Basayev, the elusive terrorist leader of the most vicious separatist faction in Chechnya, was an airplane hijacker, a hostage taker, a guerrilla commander and a war-scarred spokesman for terror who tried to justify mass killings of civilians, even school children, for political ends and revenge. "

The original headline for the story called Basayev a "renegade" which is what drew my attention. They made it sound like he was some sort of harmless rebel when in fact he was responsible for some of the worlds worst terrorism.

Lastly (even though it was first chronologically) was this story from Sunday's Times.

"In Miami last month and now in New York, terror cases have unfolded in which suspects have been apprehended before they lined up the intended weapons and the necessary financing or figured out other central details necessary to carry out their plots... But the Miami and New York cases are inspiring a new round of skepticism from some lawyers who are openly questioning whether the government, in its zeal to stop terrorism, is forgetting an element central to any case: the actual intent to commit a crime. "

So now we actually have to wait until the terrorists strike us before we can arrest them? Weren't these the same people who wanted to know why the government didn't do anything to stop the 9/11 attacks before the planes hit New York?

Is it any wonder that many feel that the press is engaging in an all out war on President Bush?????

The patricians get their wish!

Well, well, well....the Happy to bend over, er, PAY for a better Minnesota signatories must be happy about this....

"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief..."

The effect has even trickled down to the state level!

"Money is rolling into the state treasury at a faster clip than finance officials were expecting, and it's looking more likely that lawmakers will have a surplus to work with when setting the next budget."

The constant, from both stories, is that the the rich are paying more in taxes this year than the have in the past! Whether it's estate taxes or capital gains taxes, the rich are getting hit hardest when it comes to paying tax revenues and isn't that what the patricians wanted??? Here is a thought for the patricians....how about we make those tax cuts permanent?

Or maybe is that isn't what the patricians are after. Maybe their real motive that they feel that there are others who should be the ones who should be paying the lions share of the taxes????? Maybe they really don't want to pay their fair share after all and this is their way of disguising their desire to soak the middle class for more money....

Inconsistency

I had to chuckle over the inconsistency in thinking in this story:

"A New Zealand peace activist is facing serious assault charges after he allegedly punched a rock singer in London, leaving the man in a coma.
Christiaan Briggs, 30, who spent three weeks in Iraq with the Truth Justice Peace Human Shield Action Group in 2003, appeared at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on Tuesday to face a charge of grievous bodily harm."

Here is a link to the website for TJPA.

" The action’s primary goal, instigated by Ken O’Keefe, was simple; get thousands of (mostly white) Westerners to Iraq to make the bombing and invasion of Iraq politically untenable."

Mr. Briggs is even quoted in this BBC story on the human shields:

"The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here, there would never be a war."

Let me see if I have this straight....Mr. Briggs feels that war is bad and should be avoided at all costs, and yet he feels it is all right to beat a man nearly to death over a girl? Yeah - that's consistent.

To be fair, Mr. Briggs father says that there is more to the story:

"It just worries me what they're publishing over there is just one side of the story, not both, so you people should be wary of that."

Maybe Mr. Briggs should think about that - maybe there was more to the IRAQ story than the peace activists were privy to. Maybe, just maybe, he should have given the same consideration to the Bush and Blair administrations that he is now asking for. Just maybe.....

Gateway Pundit (from my collegiate home in St. Louis) is all over this story.

More on global warming

Much has been said recently on the global warming and mankind's responsibility (or not) for it thanks to Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I posted about it when the movie first came out and Tracy (over at Anti-Strib) had an interesting conversation on it yesterday.

"The left is getting mighty defensive about Global Warming lately.I got an email from The Liberal Oasis that claims that there is no real debate over global warming and Bush is the only person in the world that hasn't conceded that Al Gore is right."

Well Tracy - here is another person who is not totally sold on the "facts" of global warming as presented to us by the former Vice President...

"Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. " (emphasis mine)

I will not deny that it seems as if the earth is getting warmer. We are having one of our hottest summers on record in Minnesota this year. HOWEVER, global warming (and cooling) is a natural cycle. Remember, once upon a time Minnesota was covered by several feet of ICE. What do you think cause all that ice to receed if not "global warming"? In the 1970's the environmental lobby was all concerned about global cooling that was caused by (you guessed it) man's use of fossil fuels!

The real inconvenient truth is that while global warming is happening we DON'T KNOW what is causing it. However, this we do know. Curbing greenhouse gas emissions will condemn a large portion of the earths population to a lifetime of poverty and starvation.

"From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050."

Are we really willing to be that selfish? Is that what you are advocating Mr. Gore? You've got yours....you want to prevent others from getting even a small piece of that pie? Don't you care about "economic justice"? It would be interesting to find out the answers to those questions.

What is a racist?

I have been told many times that minorities can't be racist because they don't have the "power" to discriminate. That has always struck me as a rather illogical argument so I looked it up:

"racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]"

"rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race. "

So based on those definations, would you say that this is "racial intolerance" or "a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others"?

"David Yassky has a solid résumé, lots of campaign cash and plenty of ideas for improving the slice of Brooklyn he wants to represent in Congress. In another Democratic stronghold, he might be the runaway favorite...David Yassky has a solid résumé, lots of campaign cash and plenty of ideas for improving the slice of Brooklyn he wants to represent in Congress. In another Democratic stronghold, he might be the runaway favorite."

Now it seems to me that if a black candidate was facing this kind of a campaign pressure, the charges of racism (including from this quarter) would be deafening! It sure seems interesting to me that there isn't more of an outcry over such a textbook defination of racism.

The silence of the feminists!

The National Organization "for" Women has been a favorite subject of mine, mostly for their silence on issues such as human trafficing and the treatment of women under Sha'ria law. Now comes this story from The Sydney Morning Herald.

"WORRIED that her daughters' budding breasts would expose them to the risk of sexual harassment and even rape, Philomene Moungang started "ironing" the girls' bosoms with a heated stone.
"I did it to my two girls when they were eight years old. I would take the grinding stone, heat it in the fire and press it hard on the breasts," the mother said. "They cried and said it was painful. But I explained that it was for their own good."

It's WHAT?????? Yes I understand that protecting a child from rape is a good thing, but when you have to resort to mutilation to do so something is dreadfully wrong with society!

When is NOW going to start speaking up on issues like this where women are really being abused? Instead of demanding that women should be allowed to kill their babies up until the moment of birth, lets start demanding that women and young girls be able to live in a society where there parents do not have to mutilate them in order to prevent rape (or worse).

Is the UN biased?

A friend forwarded me a link to this article in the Scotsman:

"SERBIA yesterday denounced a two-year sentence given to a Bosnian Muslim as a mockery of justice and proof that the United Nations war crimes tribunal in the Hague was biased against it."

Now anyone who remembers this particular brutal period of European history is aware that both sides were guilty of commiting atrocities. However, compare this sentence to the ones that were handed out to non-muslims in Bosnia by the same tribunal and you get a feel for the disparity that the Serbs are complaining about.

What may be surprising to some Americans (those who have not been paying attention to this story that is) is that many of those who committed war crimes for the Bosnia Muslims were foreign mujahideen. Given what we are hearing out of Iraq today, we can fairly confidently state that this is a common tactic for the radical Islamists. My friend, Dr. Bruce Tefft, would tell you that this is not a surprising tactic.

However, this verdict gives fuel to the thought that the UN is more "Muslim friendly" than it is to any other religion/ethnic group. The fact that the UN seems to bend over backwards to protect/excuse Muslim excesses and/or atrocities and seems to prosecute non-Muslims more fervently is again in the fore. Will anything be done about it or will it be swept under the rug? Hopefully, our new Ambassador to the UN will be able to raise a red flag.

Imagine a world without the US

Peter Brooks does just that in his July 4 op/ed in the New York Post.

"The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century - just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001. "

Let's see - without a United States of America to come to the rescue where would the Indonesian government be in it's recovery from the Christmas Eve (2004) tsunami? Whether is is earthquakes, drought, flooding or whatever else Mother Nature has throw at the world, the US has been the first on site with helicopters for rescue, food, potable water and dollars to help the stricken.

"On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. "

Right now there is a multitude of voices calling for the US to "do something" in Korea. Former Vice President Walter Mondale even suggested (to a Minneapolis television station) that the US take "pre-emptive" measures to stop Kim Jong Il's weapons tests. Yet every time we do "do something", those that made the calls then say "but not that!"

"Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" - starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries.
Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries - and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. "

Let's also make sure that we mention the prime real estate that their headquarters sits on in Manhattan! Between the $8.5 million that was spent for the land (back in 1954) or the $65 million intrest free loan that was given to build it, the US has born the lions share of the costs of running this "global organization".

"The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine.
We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries. "

Indeed - where would the African continent be without the millions of dollars in relief that the US sends every year!

"And what does Uncle Sam get in return? Mostly grief, especially from all the ungrateful freeloaders who benefit tremendously from the global "public goods" we so selflessly provide with our time, effort, blood and treasure. How easily - and conveniently - they forget . . . unless they need help, of course.
But let us never forget, especially today, that despite the name-calling, the jeers, the petty jealousies, we're the envy of the world - and rightfully so. "

Indeed what do we get in return. We get accused of being stingy with our dollars, we get accused of being thugs, murderers....worse than Hitler. Now some would say, "fine - you want to play that way - we'll just withdraw within our borders and let you take care of yourself!" While I certainly understand that sentiment, I hope that my wonderful country never becomes that selfish. For that is the one thing that truly makes this country the greatest - our continued generousity with our time, our talent and our finances. For you see, this country always tries to do what is right, regardless of the reward.

So for the rest of you out there in the "global community" I have a bit of advise. Next time you want to complain that someone is not "doing enough" to solve the world's problems, take a long look in the mirror before you look over here to the US. We do have your back should you stumble, but for once could you take the lead? Especially when we have our own that are still hurting from our own natural disasters.

The blame game.

Remember the partial government shut down at the end of the 2005 legislative session? If not, you had best refresh your memory on it because it will be part of this year's campaign. Many blamed Governor Pawlenty and the Republican led House for the shut down. If that were the case (that hard right Republicans would rather shut down the government than increase taxes) then what do you say about this?

"TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Atlantic City's casinos were ordered to close Wednesday, the latest casualty of a state government shutdown that entered its second day Sunday after the Legislature failed to adopt a budget by its July 1 deadline...

Most Democrats in the Assembly and several Senate Democrats oppose the sales tax increase, fearing voter backlash and reserving any tax increase for property tax reform. Assembly Democrats proposed a series of alternatives, some of which Corzine accepted, but both sides remained $1 billion apart as the budget deadline passed."

Here we have a Democrat Governor, a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate shutting down because they can't agree on whether to raise taxes or not! While this is a partially good sign (Democrats holding off on increasing taxes because they fear voter backlash) it is still a bad sign because no one even considered cutting unnecessary spending in order to free up the additional funds.

So when we are in the height of the campaign and some DFL'er tries to tell you how the Republicans are responsible for government shut-downs, I hope you will refer them back to what happened in New Jersey last week.

Coleen is at it again!

This time it is in a fundraising email to supporters. In it she tries to paint Congressman John Kline as tainted because he took "$31,000 from DeLay in campaign contributions". Well let's take a look at that claim, shall we?

If you do a Google search (or Yahoo Search for that matter) on the words Tom DeLay PAC, you find that Mr. DeLay was involved in two PAC's - Texans for a Republican Majority and Americans for a Republican Majority. Both PAC's were run by a man named Jim Ellis who, along with 2 others, was indicted for money laundering at TRMPAC. They took illegal corporate contributions (at TRMPAC) and gave the funds to state wide candidates. That the men indicted were close friends to Congressman DeLay and helped his campaigns can not be denied. ARMPAC was also audited by the FEC (no doubt because of the TRMPAC irregularities and rightly so) and the FEC found that ARMPAC under-reported debts and had their state arm pay debts that were incurred by the federal arm of the PAC. It should be noted that Congressman DeLay's indictment focused on actions taken in state elections and not federal elections. There is no indictment or investigations (other than the FEC audit) for the actions of ARMPAC.

A search of the database at Open Secrets shows no individual contributions from Tom (or Thomas) DeLay to Congressman Kline. If you look at the database for Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions, you see that the Americans for a Republican Majority PAC had contributed $30,000 to Congressman Kline's 3 campaigns for Congress ($10,000 each in 2000, 2002 and 2004). There's a shocker - a PAC dedicated to getting Republican candidates elected contributed money to a Republican candidate - somebody call th FBI! Seriously - here you have a candidate that campaigns on her "ethical decision making" sending out campaign literature that lies about her opponent PAC income and yet she accuses her opponent of being unethical?! $1,000 may not seem like a large amount, but it is yet another false claim made by the Rowley campaign designed to make her opponent look bad. Whether it is lying about the Congressman's votes on relief of gas prices or his stands on sending troops to the border, Ms. Rowley's campaign has not been truthful with the residents of the 2nd District about her opponents record. What is ethical about distorting your opponent's record? If this is Ms. Rowley's idea of "ethical decision making" I think I'll pass.

Another claim in Ms. Rowley's fundraising piece is that Congressman Kline "voted to change the House rules that allowed DeLay to keep his leadership role" (ed - is it so wrong to ask that you refer to someone as "Mr." or by their title? end manners lession) if indicted. Even if that is the case (on a side note I notice how this was not an issue when Representative Jefferson D-LA was videotaped taking bribes...) when the indictment came down, Congressman Kline went on the record as stating that Congressman DeLay must step down for the sake of "the party".

Lastly the fundraising piece says "And as you know, only 34% of the district said they'd re-elect John Kline." This is based on internal polling that was done back in MARCH when no one was really paying that much attention to either candidates or issues. Precinct caucuses had just finished and that was PRIOR to Ms. Rowley's much publicized mis-steps of photoshopping a picture of the Congressman onto a stock photo of Werner Klempler during his days playing Col. Klink on Hogan's Heros and the FBI report that came out stating that Ms. Rowley is also guilty of mishandling the Moussaoui case. More seasoned political voices (like Larry Sabato) contend that the 2nd Congressional District is a relative lock for the incumbent.

I can not, in good faith, address this fundraiser without pointing your attention to the unintentional laugh line of the piece "Kline votes 98% of the time with the Republican establishment". A conservative that votes conservative????? Why that is as unheard of as a liberal voting 98% of the time with other liberals! Who would have thought????

If Ms. Rowley hopes for any chance of taking Congressman Kline's seat, she needs to stop distorting her opponents record and start telling the voters what she will do on such key issues as immigration and the Global War on Terror and how she will pay for her education and health care proposals.

Ethanol's false promise

Ethanol is supposed to be the great American replacement to fossil fuels. Congressmen and Senators from the "heartland" (including my own here in Minnesota sadly) all flock to the "promise" of biofuels. However, the "promise" may be a false promise, at least according to this Washington Post article.

"Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and other crops are being touted as a "green" solution for a large part of America's transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too, were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of oil imports. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic?
But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating."

This is the part I love...

"Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn -- about 60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still, all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility."

Do you know the main reason why corn stover was first plowed back into the ground every year? Ever heard of a little phenomonon called the Dust Bowl??? HELLO ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY!!!!!

The article even addresses the "Brazil" buzz:

"Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America's 170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America -- Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane -- more than 300 million tons annually -- so it has lots of agricultural waste to make ethanol."

All of that is well and good, but this paragraph address the one thing that the ethanol cheerleaders (my governor included) never talks about...

"Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for growing food -- not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes -- one child every five seconds. The situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live."

Governor Pawlenty, Senator Coleman, Congressman Kennedy...any comment?????

One man + one woman = Constitutional

Well now, doesn't this just beat all. Two courts today ruled that legislation that defines marriage as one man and one woman is Constitutional.

"The highest courts in two states dealt gay rights advocates dual setbacks Thursday, rejecting same-sex couples' bid to win marriage rights in New York and reinstating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Georgia. "

The most radical turn was this, out of the New York Court of Appeals:

"In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed. "

It's up to the Legislature not the courts to decide???? What a radical thought!

The entire New York decision was a refreshing, well spoken, common sense response to the debate. Unlike the exchange that I heard on Michael Medved's program today. A caller to the program was chastising Republicans - stating that Republicans were "afraid" to allow the important issues of the day go to popular referendum. Mr. Medved's response was a simple statement "you mean like the gay marriage?" - his reference clearing being the fact that Democrats in many states (like Minnesota) have been blocking popular referendums on Defense of Marriage amendments for quite a while now.

This debate is far from settled. Each state will, as is their Constitutional right, have to address the issue. Once that is done, gay rights advocates will try to find a sympathetic judge to over-throw the will of the people. This will end up in the Supreme Court. Which is why confirming the judges - on the Appelate and Supreme Court level - is so very important.

A time honored practice

Gerrymandering is a time honored political tradition., going back to the early 1800's in practice. It is usually used by a state to protect incumbents by redrawing district lines to favor the incumbent. However, it has been used, on occasion, to try to move an incumbent out of a "safe" district and into a district that is deemed to be not so safe (as was done to Congressman Mark Kennedy in 2002). Sometimes the tactics succeed, other times (again as was the case with Congressman Kennedy in 2003) they don't.

Given that, last week's Supreme Court ruling that upheld the practice of Gerrymandering should come as no surprise to political watchers.

"At the heart of Lulac v. Perry is the question of whether courts or politicians should have final say in shaping Congressional districts."

I find it highly ironic that the same groups that used the practice to their own benefit time and time again, would object when it is used against them. I will be curious to see if the reverse is true the next time power shifts. If I were a betting person, I would put my money down now...

Peggy Noonan on Hillary, Flag Burning and the NY Times

Peggy Noonan is one of those magnificent writers that I am honored to feature here at Ladies Logic. He columns for the Wall Street Journal are must reads. This column, while a departure from her normal, is chock full of the type of insight that one expects from a Peggy Noonan column.

Most telling is her take on the New York Times and their relevance today:

"Once the New York Times was extremely important, and often destructive. Now it is less important, and often destructive. This is not a change for the worse.
The Times is important still because of its influence on other parts of the media: Other journalists, knowing the great resources of the Times, respecting its air of professionalism (which is sometimes not an air but the thing itself), key their own decisions on news coverage to the front and opinion pages. If you're a blogger or a talk-show lion, you key some of the things you talk about to the Times. It's still important.
But it's not what it was. Once it was such a force that it controlled the intellectual climate. Now it's just part of it. Seventy years ago its depiction of Stalin's benignity left a generation confused, or confounded. Fifty years ago, when the Times became enamored of a romantic young revolutionary named Fidel, the American decision-making establishment believed what it read and observed in comfort as an angry communist dictatorship was established 90 miles off our shore. The Times' wrongheadedness had huge implications for American statecraft. "

Republican Do's and Don'ts for 2006

A friend emailed this to me knowing full well that it was something I am most interested in.

Some of the "Do's" and "Don'ts" are fairly obvious...."DO" cut the spending, "DO" confirm the judges, "DO" secure the borders (maybe the author listens to Hugh Hewitt regularly?), "DON'T" lose heart on the tax cuts...fairly obvious stuff.

A couple of the "Don'ts" caught my eye though..

" Don’t fall into the old traps of the left via self-inflicted wounds. Often conservatives use bad methods to fight noble causes. " The Logical Husband often calls it "Dan Quayle syndrome". Vice President Quayle may have been a very lovely person, but he had a horrible habit of making the most obvious, popular conservative issue sound baked at best. Conservatives cringed every time the man opened his mouth because we knew that the left would have a field day with whatever he said. Remember the TV show "Murphy Brown"? How many of you only remember it because Dan Quayle attacked it because the shows title character was a single mother? The point he was trying to make was that Hollywood was (and is still) glamorizing sex without relationships - downplaying the need for two parents in a childs life. The author of the article linked above even has the "marriage issue" as one of his don'ts (Don't forget that marriage is a winning issue).

The other don't that caught my eye was "don't forget the other side has problems too". It is profound in it's simplicity and truth. There are so many times when we are so fully engulfed in our "problems" that we forget that everyone else has problems too. Yes, our party's leader has "strayed" from some of our core principles, but remember that the DNC has a full scale civil war going on within it's ranks. Whether it be the Joe Lieberman and Ned LaMotte battling it out in Conneticutt or Keith Ellison, Ember Reichgott Junge and Mike Erlandson battling it out in Minnesota's 5th Congressional district there is a war being waged for the heart and the sould of the Democratic Party. The winning side - the far left (personified by the netroots) or the centrists (personified by the DLC) will determine the DNC's prospects for the next 5-10 years! We would be well served to remember the optimism of President Reagan and have that be what the voters see between now and November. If the Republican Pary can present an upbeat, positive agenda to counter the negativism that is coming out of the Democrats, they will gain seats in November.

Will the Republican leadership take note of this very important advice? Only time will tell...

Conservative Core Beliefs

I got this (along with permission to reproduce it ) from discussion group that I belong to. While the original title is tailored to the group from which it came, I think that the core principles are shared by conservatives everywhere.

Conservative Principles and Activism Core Beliefs
1) That individual human rights are granted by God. Not by any King, governmental entity, or man. This is asserted in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Bill of rights, and other national historical documents.
2) Government exists primarily to protect the inalienable God-given rights of its citizens.
3) The Founding Fathers never intended to separate God from government, or inhibit the right to the free exercise or _expression of religion therein, but simply to prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
4) The original intent of our Founding Father's Constitution is as valid and binding today as the day it was ratified, and the only legal alteration of the Constitution is through the amendment process.
5) Of government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
6) Our Constitution was written to govern a moral and religious people and its destruction is sought by those who are neither.
7) The traditional institutions of marriage and family are the foundation and cornerstone of any society. We must oppose any and all attempts to undermine or redefine these institutions in our own society.
8) That the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness applies to all, including those too weak to speak for or defend themselves: the old and infirm and babies yet to be born.
9) The United States has the moral and legal obligation of protecting our Republic, our freedoms, free trade, and our national interests...as well as opposing Communism, Socialism, or despots that threaten these principles.
10) Our government must immediately take effective steps in securing our borders from both terrorist threats and the flood of illegal aliens, and against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
11) Our government must use stringent guidelines and screening procedures for all immigrants as it relates to their suitability to enter the country on: health, security, potential to contribute, functional use of the english language and comprehension of American History.
12) Our government officials, Federal, State, and Local must clearly understand their role in the public trust, as public servants.
13) The right to bear arms must not be infringed. It is the last resort for the citizens in defending their God given rights, to face and repel tyranny, foreign invasions, and in the rejection of slavery in any form.
14) The culture of the United States is its Constitution. To destroy or weaken the Constitution is to destroy or weaken the United States, its society, and its culture.
15) The freedom of religious expressions must equal the rights given to a free press, free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to bear arms.
16) Our national security and interests demands that we maintain a world class military power and intelligence gathering capability that are second to none.
17) The United States must follow Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of "speak softly and carry a big stick" in our dealings with other nations. We must possess the unyeilding resolve and perseverance required in defense and promotion of our Constitutional principles.
18) As a nation we must say what we mean and mean what we say. Our word must be our bond and trusted to the benefit of our allies and to the dismay of our enemies.

© 2005 CPA. Permission to repost is granted provided that the following credit is reproduced in full: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Conservative_Principles_and_Activism/

If I were to pick two or three that mean the most to me I would have to pick #2 (government is only there to protect the rights of the citizens), #8 (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness apply to all - born and unborn) and #15 (freedom of religious expression is equal to free speech, free press and freedom to assemble). All others are supportive players. Which mean the most to you?