Ladies Logic

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Dialing for dollars!

We got a call, in the Logical Household, today from Senator Coleman's campaign. Given that today IS the final fundraising day for the second quarter, everyone is working the phones hard to get those last few dollars in. It's no surprise.

The Logical Husband took the call. Now the Logical Husband has had more than his fair share of issues with our Senior Senator in the last 12 months...mostly over Iraq (as an Army man, he is dead set against politicians running the war effort) but that is certainly not the only issue.

Of course the caller was pushing hard for the donation and the harder he pushed the more he trotted out the "standard" MNGOP reasons....the same standard reasons that drove me batty in 2006 and that caused me to vote for a change in leadership on the state level. The same old "you don't want _____ to be in the seat do you?" (fill in the blank with the DFL boogey candidate de jour).

MEMO TO SENATOR COLEMAN AND THE MNGOP!!!!! The people of Minnesota want a reason to vote FOR YOU, not a scare tactic to get us to vote against your opponent! The sooner you figure that out, the better off things will be for you amongst the base and with the moderate voters in this state. You need to figure this out sooner rather than later or you will be another casualty of the disenfranchised voters!

Labels: ,

Friday, June 29, 2007

That's moxy

I like the way this Brit pub owner thinks.

"For pub-goers who enjoy a cigarette with their drink, next week's ban will make England a very different place.
So one landlord has claims to have found a loophole to fight the new law - by declaring his pub to be part of a different country.
The Wellington Arms in Southampton is set to transform itself from a public house into the official embassy for a tiny Caribbean island. "

I wonder if the King of Redonda would like to open a Minneapolis embassy. I know one pub owner who would probably be happy to discuss the possibility with him. What do you say Sue???

Labels: ,

A call to continued action

I got this in the inbox this week and I thought it worth sharing!

Last year many conservative voters stayed home on Election Day because they felt that they could not make a difference in the actions of the politicians. As you take a look back over the last 6 months, I would like you to consider that thought in light of the following:

Almost 19,000 people sign a Tax Cut Petition and 7000 of them show up on April 15 to protest high taxes. Due to intense pressure for Minnesota taxpayers (via phone calls and letters and emails) the Governor vetoed the tax increases and a normally fractious House Caucus upheld the vetoes!

Several members of the US Senate craft a back room immigration bill that is essentially blanket amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants – something the American people are dead set against. Millions of calls, faxes and letters later the bill goes from being a slam dunk to being DOA…TWICE!

Another stealth bill that was wandering through DC for the last 6 weeks was a bill that would effectively silence grass roots organizations like NumbersUSA and the NRA. Well, that piece of legislation was defeated due to overwhelming pressure from the average citizen.

If you stop and take a look back at what the House and Senate caucuses beat back this year, we have so much to be proud of them for! Whether it is the “Freedom to Poop” Act or the Metro Area Sales tax (to pay for stadiums) things could have been much worse. Yes, we did get stuck with a smoking ban but that was probably the ONLY set-back we suffered in St Paul.

The bottom line is that we conservatives need to get more active on a daily basis if we want our voices heard. We need to make sure that Senators Klobuchar and Coleman and Congressman Kline hear from us on any and every issue that is important to us. The time is now! Please make sure that you are writing to your elected officials now and they will listen. Get your “apolitical” friends and family involved too. The elected officials need to hear from ALL of their constituents!

The bottom line is we have to get off of the couch. Even if it is just once or twice a month, contact your legislator. Let them know you thoughts on the legislation that is before them. They will listen if you make the effort.

Labels:

Robbing St. Peter to pay St. Paul

Lots of fun stuff today kids....

There may be hope for Twin Cities media. The St. Paul Pioneer Press takes Mayor Coleman to task today while at the same time pushing the cry for the need of Local Government Aid.

"St. Paul will get $60 million in state aid this year - and complained about not getting more. But 26 east metro suburbs will get nothing from the state, despite growing problems with blight."

Whether the Met Council likes it or not, the suburbs are growing. A lot of people are moving out of the cities (and first ring 'burbs) because of crime and blight and decreasing property values. The inner city DFL'ers have chosen LGA as tool to "punish" those of us who fled.

"The 2007 Legislature passed a tax bill that would have provided a $70 million increase in state aid to cities, but suburbs would have received little of that money.
When Pawlenty vetoed the tax bill last month, city officials in St. Paul, Minneapolis and numerous outstate communities cried foul. But few suburban officials complained. "

Just like they did with the K-12 Education funding bill, the inner city Democrats made sure that their communities got all the money, to heck with the rest of the state. However, there has to be a "logical" reason for them doing that, right?

"Suburban officials and lobbyists cite two reasons why suburbanites aren't getting much property-tax relief from the state.
There's a perception problem, said New Brighton City Manager Dean Lotter: "Folks at the Legislature view any suburban community in the metro area as a wealthy city."
But that isn't the case, Lotter said. Some first-ring and fully developed suburbs are struggling.
"Not every suburb is an Edina, an Eden Prairie or a North Oaks," Lotter said. "

Now, I can not complain too much. When the Logical Husband and I bought our home here in the Savage lands, we knew that our little town would change dramatically once the Bloomington Ferry Bridge was completed and change it did. In the last 10 years, the population of our little town has skyrocketed and a lot of those homes are "executive homes"...homes that start in the low $300,000 range. While our humble little abode is not valued nearly that high, the value has increased with the growth.

That said, our city government has not been shy about complaining about a lack of LGA. Not one city in our county (or in our Congressional district for that matter based on the chart in the article) receives LGA and there are a couple that certainly could use it. However, because the perception is that our whole county is "rich" (the wealth is mostly contained in small pockets of the county), the Legislature thinks that we don't "deserve" the money.

LGA was derived as a "relief" for skyrocketing property taxes across the state. However, as we saw this session, rather than statewide property tax relief, LGA has been used to city against suburb and suburb against rural towns.

Maybe what we should do (in order to do away with the inequality) is to get rid of LGA entirely and finally learn to make our cities and municipalities learn to live within their means. Just like the citizens of this state do.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 28, 2007

A picture worth 1000 words



Oh what a pain those pesky citizens are.....

Labels: ,

Fun with phones.

I have really tried to stay away from the Immigration debate but this story was just too much fun.

"Many Senate office phones were down Thursday morning due to a “modest increase in call volume,” according to an e-mail from the Senate assistant sergeant at arms and the chief information officer.
Opponents of the bipartisan immigration reform bill that stalled in the Senate after a 46-53 cloture vote this morning said foes of the bill had flooded Senate offices with phone calls.
“The Verizon telephone switch[board] serving the Senate is experiencing problems that are being exacerbated by this morning’s modest increase in call volume,” says the e-mail, which was sent at 9:45 a.m.
Verizon is attempting to resolve problems and the voicemail system has been temporarily disconnected from the telephone switchboard.
“Calls will still go to the voice mail system, but callers will receive the generic voice mail greeting (‘You have reached the United States Senate voice messaging service ...’) rather than the voice mail greeting of the person or office being called,” the notice continued."

I've worked in telecommunications on the equipment side of the house and the dial tone side of the house. As such I tend to look for the key words and phrases. In this case the key phrase was " the voicemail system has been temporarily disconnected from the telephone switchboard." Most current voicemail systems are computer driven and computer programmable. In order for the individual mailboxes to go to a "generic greeting" the voicemail system would have to be a) turned off and then the phone would have to b) not get answered so that it can c) roll into the phone company's overflow voicemail box. In simpler terms they shut off the voicemail system and quit answering the phones because things were getting too hot for them to handle!

Which leads me to ponder this....suppose that a customer service based industry (say a phone company like Verizon) had done something so totally stupid that they were getting innundated with calls from angry constituents - er customers. Now suppose Verizon, rather than take the calls from the angry constituents/customers, decided to unplug their phones so that they could no longer take calls from said angry customers. Do you suppose that the US Senate would stand idly by?

I'm just sayin'....

Labels:

If it's Tuesday it must be....

Sharia law at it's finest in Pennsylvania USA.....

"MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- A Bucks County father was accused of going to extremes to break-up his daughter's romance. Police said the father and his son tried to kidnap her fiancé by beating him up and tossing him into a sport utility vehicle. Robert Webber, of Middletown Township police, said he thought he was being dispatched to a Bucks County diner Friday night for a fight but once he got there he was in the middle of a family disagreement turned violent.
"The victim advised me that his fiancée's family was trying to kill him, drag him into a car and take him somewhere, where he believed he was going to be killed," Webber said.
Webber said the alleged victim told him his fiancée's family was upset the two had moved in together. He said there were cultural differences and that's why 48-year-old Mohd Nasher and his son 20-year-old Mohammed Nasher were allegedly gunning for the fiancé.
"The father and son came in, grabbed our victim, pulled him outside, began choking and beating him. Drug him into the back of a Ford Explorer and that's where they advised him that they were going to take him somewhere.
He jumped out the other side window in fear for his life and as he went to run away the father told him, 'I'm going to find you and I'm going to shoot you.'
The son went and grabbed a bat and went to chase after him," Webber said."

Now here is the kicker....the family said that this is not a criminal matter but a "family matter" and (when the TV station asked for comment) said "That's the problem with this country, we put everything on TV." No ma'am - the problem in this country is that certain groups of people living here seem to have no respect for the laws of this land!

The investigating officer had it right when he said "It's a little more than a family matter. Once you touch somebody or put your hands on somebody and try to harm them, that's when we come into the situation,." This is more than a family matter. It is a cultural matter. American "culture" has an inherent respect for the rule of law that is routinely ignored in this country.

Is this really something that we want for this country? Have we lost ALL respect for the rule of law?

Labels:

Out of control parents

Over the last couple of weeks I have been taking our school district to task and discussing with some of our wonderful teachers school issues as they relate to our kids. Now to take "their side" if you will and tackle another problem...parents or should I say out of control parents.

"Wade Campbell threatened to shoot his son's Little League coach when the 12-year-old didn't see enough playing time, the coach alleges.
Campbell denied the accusation from jail Monday and said he isn't one of those pushy parents on the playing field. He cursed at the coach, he said, but never threatened him.
On a St. Paul baseball diamond Friday, witnesses' statements say, Campbell joined the ranks of overbearing parents at children's sporting events and later made a threatening phone call to the team coach and his wife. "

As the parent of a sports crazed kid (soccer, basketball AND baseball) I have seen more than my fair share of overbearing parents. I have seen parents yell at referees (usually kids themselves that play for the high school team). I have seen parents yell at coaches - although not often as our sports league has a zero tolerance policy that is strictly enforced. The common theme with all of these parents is that the parent is of the opinion that their child should never ever suffer disappointment in life. That they are to be affirmed at each and every turn. Now I understand the theory behind positive reinforcement - I used it all the time in training my horses and dogs. However, I also fully understand that children have to be told that they are "wrong" from time to time - that they have to be told to "work harder" from time to time - that they have to be told "NO" from time to time. These parents who fully indulge their child's every whim are doing the kid no favor. For the rest of the world will not see little Johnny as Mumsy and Daddy do. The rest of the world will say (in much harsher terms than Mom or Dad will) the things that the kid needs to hear.

I personally think that the Junior Logician is a stellar catcher and short stop and those are his favorite positions to play. However, the last two seasons of baseball he rarely, if ever, got to play those positions and the kids that did get to play those positions struggled there. However, everytime the Junior Logician came complaining to Mom and Dad we deferred to the Coaches decision - stating "he must have a reason why". This years coach has used the Junior Logician a lot at both positions.....using him as catcher for a couple of pitchers that "struggle" with everyone else. As a result of not playing the position for 2 years, he has a deeper appreciation for the positions and is putting his all into his game. He has learned not only to play positions that he did not like (outfield, 3rd base) he has discovered how to play them well.

It is hard to say "NO" to your kids or to not go to bat for your kids. You feel like such a heel when you don't - but sometimes it needs to be done. Especially at this age. Kids need to learn how to deal with difficulties that arise when they arise - it is one of those larger lessons in life that we all need to learn. By not letting them learn how to handle disappointment, you do them a disservice. You will not be around forever to handle things for them. The sooner they learn how to deal with life's unfairness the better. Threatening to shoot a Little League coach who does not play the kid does not teach them anything but how to be a bully.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

John McCain takes another hit

This time via the Supreme Court. I didn't say anything on it yesterday because so many others have summarized the findings so well. First up we have the erudite legal minds over at Powerline.

"This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a case we wrote about here and here. The opinion can be accessed here. On a five-to-four vote, the Court affirmed the District Court's conclusion that Section 203 of McCain-Feingold would be unconstitutional if applied to prohibit the issue ads in question that were run by Wisconsin Right to Life.
The history of this decision can be summarized as follows: Section 203 makes it unlawful for any corporation (i.e, any entity other than a person) to use its "general treasury funds" to pay for any broadcast that refers to a candidate for public office and is aired in the jurisdiction where he or she is running, within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, decided in 2003, the Court held that Section 203 is not unconstitutional, so long as it is applied only to ads that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a particular candidate, or are the "functional equivalent" of such express advocacy. McConnell left open the possibility that Section 203 could be found unconstitutional as applied to particular ads, and did not define functional equivalency."

The always tought provoking Captain Ed had this to say.

"While this is a good start, it does not eliminate the BCRA's restrictions altogether. It ruled that issue ads do not equal partisan campaign ads, and that the Wisconsin groups ads did not amount to a challenge to an incumbent. It does, however, make it much easier for outside groups to encourage voters to "contact their representatives" and identify incumbent Senators and Representatives in the final days of an election.
Unfortunately, only three justices appear ready to throw out the broader restriction on campaign advertisements, and therefore on free political speech. Unsurprisingly, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued for the broader ruling, but both John Roberts and Samuel Alito opted for a more careful approach. However, the surprise came from Anthony Kennedy, the moderate and now the swing vote on most matters, who sided with Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts probably wanted to gain a stronger consensus before declaring that portion of the BCRA unconstitutional. However, it represents a lost opportunity to gut the worst attack on free political speech in America since the Sedition Act of the first World War. Roberts -- and the rest of America -- may have a long wait before getting another opportunity to remind Congress of the explicit language of the First Amendment."

Gary over at Let Freedom Ring takes the dissenting minority to task in his post.

"Implicit in Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion is that political advertising ‘consumers’ (those that watch the advertisements) can’t judge for themselves which advertisements appeal to them and which ones disgust them.
Also implicit in Souter’s dissenting opinion is that the Constitution shouldn’t be taken literally. Most political junkies (I fit into that category) can recite the First Amendment but I’ll repeat here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The key operative word in the First Amendment is abridging. Here’s the first definition of abridging provided by Dictionary.com:
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom.3. to deprive; cut off.
TRANSLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law that…cuts off the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
You’d also be right in translating it to say “Congress shall make no law that…deprives any person of their God-given right to speak freely on any subject…”
MEMO TO JUSTICE SOUTER: Notice that it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…except if it has corrosive effects on the political system.” The First Amendment said that the ninnies in Washington can’t make any law that cuts off anyone’s right to express their political opinions. To cut off one man’s right to air his grievances is censorship."

My biggest beef with Senator McCain has long been BCRA. Between that and now his championing of the amnesty bill, is it any wonder that his campaign is floundering to the point where pundits are trying to call when he will give up his Quitoxic quest for the Presidency?

Labels: ,

Another reason

Here is another reason to stop the illegal border crossings.

"After three years of cleanups, the federal government has achieved no better than a 1 percent solution for the problem of trash left in Southern Arizona by illegal border-crossers.
Cleanup crews from various agencies, volunteer groups and the Tohono O'odham Nation hauled about 250,000 pounds of trash from thousands of acres of federal, state and private land across Southern Arizona in 2002 to 2005, says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
But that's only a fraction of the nearly 25 million pounds of trash thought to be out there.
Authorities estimate the 3.2 million-plus entrants caught by the Border Patrol dropped that much garbage in the Southern Arizona desert from July 1999 through June 2005. The figure assumes that each illegal entrant discards 8 pounds of trash, the weight of some abandoned backpacks found in the desert."

This also does not count for all the damages to vegetation from foot traffic and off road vehicles or the oil and fuel leaks from those poorly maintained off road vehicles.

"Here are examples of what the immigration invasion has wrought in publicly owned resources like the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the Coronado National Forest and the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area. Jesse Juen, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) Field Representative in Tuscon told the Senate Subcommittee that, over the past two years wildfires caused by immigrants smoking cigarettes or building fires to warm themselves at night have destroyed about 20% of the riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River in Cochise County. Plastic water bottles, food wrappers, toilet paper and human feces cover large areas where fences have been cut for the passage of human coyotes. Mr. Juen said the off-road vehicles of alien smugglers often go down steep embankments and motor oil and fuel leaks into streams and endangered species habitat. " (emphasis mine)

Yet for all of this damage, nary a peep has been heard from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. If they DO complain....it's about the border patrol agents!

If ever there was a compelling reason for serious border enforcement (including a real fence) protecting our fragile natural resources is one of the best. It's a no brainer for true conservationists and yet we only seem to be hearing silence out of the ones who are ideologically married to the Democratic Party. I wonder why that is...

Labels: ,

Monday, June 25, 2007

Are you ready?

Are you ready to hear the TRUTH? Do you think you can handle the TRUTH?

I refer to the truth of what it means to live under a TRUE theocracy....not the one that the left imagines Christians are plotting for them....the true theocracy of Sharia law. The Iranian government has started cracking down on dissent in that country.
Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed both have the pictures and the disturbing video that everyone MUST see.

One question that desperately needs an answer - where is Amnesty International? Where are the so called human rights organizations that are supposedly looking out for this kind of activity? Why is there no outcry or coverage from the US Press?

The reason why I tend to highlight these kinds of stories is because we Americans really don't have a clue what real torture is, what real human rights violations are. We are so abundently blessed in this country that we really don't know what real hardship is. We tend to critique that which we know and we forget that we are a part of a much larger world and that the much larger world has even bigger problems than we do. Retrospection and self examination is a good thing, but only if we do it in light of our place in the larger world. Yes, we have our problems and our abusers, but in light of what is happening in Iran today, can you honestly say that George W. Bush's America is the worlds worst violator of human rights?

Labels: ,

Speech Codes...

Free speech was such a "hot button" issue for the Founding Fathers that they made it the FIRST right guaranteed in their fledgling democracy. They had seen - first hand what government run "speech codes" were and how easy it was to abuse them. Even today, we see how governments can abuse their authority and shut down media outlets that do not tow the "party line". That is why the calls (from the right and from the left) for the renewal of the "Fairness" Doctrine should scare the pants off of freedom loving Americans from all walks of life. Speech "codes" have been gradually creeping across the American landscape for many years now. Starting first at the university level and on now to the government, free speech in this country is increasingly under attack. The proponents of the "Fairness" Doctrine say that the airwaves - being public - are required to provide all sides of the story.

Whether it be pornography or hate crimes legislation, religion or talk radio the government is encroaching in what we say and what we do. While some on the left may think that the reinstatement of the "Fairness" Doctrine may be a good thing, let me run a hypothetical past you. Say (for sake of argument) the Fairness Doctrine is passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Then President Bush finds a way around the 22nd Amendment (which limits the President to only two terms). CBS airs a tape of a violent anti government protest and under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, President Bush demands that CBS air footage of a pro-government demonstration or he will yank their license (after all the airwaves should be "fair"...RIGHT?????). Do you really think that Senator Diane Feinstein would go on Fox News (as she did this weekend) praising the Fairness Doctrine? If she did, do you think her supporters on the left would be encouraging her as they are today?

Another hypothetical....suppose the WCCO gives (as it did this weekend) coverage to the local gay pride parade. Under the Fairness Doctrine, they would be forced to give EQUAL COVERAGE to the counter demonstrations that took place at the same time.

So while all of you out there who hate Rush Limbaugh and hate Sean Hannity and hate Jason Lewis and everything that they stand for are pushing for this realize one thing....if the fairness doctrine gets enacted all of their listeners will be scrutinizing Air America, MPR, WCCO and any other media outlet that has a license for the "public" airwaves for any perception of bias and they will be filing complaints. Are you sure you want to open yourself up to that kind of scrutiny? Or would you rather let free speech rule the day and let the market decide?


Choose wisely - it may be the only time you get to make the choice.

Labels: ,

Slacking...

OK - I have been a big time slacker (on the blog front) lately. It's not totally due to a lack of subject matter, it is mostly due to an insane personal life. Between the Logicial Husband, the Junior Logician and I we had something going every day last week and when there wasn't an outing of some sort I was trying to get through all of my newspapers etc.

Things should be somewhat more normal after tomorrow night. Meanwhile, I will try to squeeze out a post or two this afternoon before our early baseball game.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

A Night with Jason Lewis

I got an email from the SD35 Executive Committee and they have a big announcement.

"The SD 35 Republicans Executive Committee is excited to announce that Jason Lewis is coming to speak to us on August 7. The event will be held at the Brackett’s Crossing Country Club. The event starts at 6:30 with a social hour and we will have a couple of local guest speakers including our own legislative delegation to St. Paul. The details (of the guest speakers) will be announced later.

Tickets will be $25.00 per person in advance and $30.00 at the door."


You can send all ticket requests to SD35republicans@yahoo.com. Seating is limited so get your requests in as soon as possible. Jason has a lot of fans in the Savage lands and I'm sure that tickets will go quickly!

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Well, it's done...

The school board reached it's decision last night.

"The Prior Lake-Savage School Board decided Monday night to terminate the employment of a high school campus supervisor that had been talking about religion and morality to students inside and outside of school, according to the school board."

Because the decision has been reached the school board is now able to discuss their reason for the action.

"The school board says Lind was fired for "job performance and employee insubordination," but Lind's supporters -- who showed up dozens-strong at Monday's meeting-- say it's an issue of free speech and religious discrimination."

What troubles me is how this is being reported.

"In May, Lind was placed on unpaid administrative leave after a student complained to a teacher that the student heard Lind tell another student at the high school that today was "National Pick-On Lesbians Day."

The WCCO report says that the teacher who filed the report is the one who overheard the remarks. That coincides with what I had heard from other reporters and from some of Chris' supporters, but I did not comment on it earlier because at the time it was second and third hand information. I don't know what the cause in the difference in reporting was but the difference is telling. What I do know (as born out by the WCCO report) is that a teacher overheard one snippet of the conversation. He/she did not hear what came before or after that small statement. Now because I did not hear it either, I will not quote it directly, but I will say (and if anyone reading this has any DIRECT information on this, I would appreciate it being left in the comments) that there was much more to the conversation and that in context, the remarks were not as inflammatory as the teacher who overheard the remarks assumed them to be.

I have to admit, I am bothered by the remarks that the Superintendent made (in the Star Tribune).

"Superintendent Tom Westerhaus said he was "saddened" that this has become such a divisive issue for the district, and that the board is made up of "faith-filled people" who would never trample on an individual's religious rights. "

As a parent who has a child in this school district, I have had my fair share of wonder "faith-filled people" in the district who wouldn't trample an individual's religious rights. HOWEVER, I have also experienced teachers who have no problems ridiculing Christian students beliefs. I have experienced "religious" indoctrination into subjects (man-made global warming comes to mind) that are about as "proven" as the secularists say the Bible is. I have dealt with this district, for good and for ill, and I know that they have no problems enacting policies that are not First Amendment friendly at all. The Establishment Clause only seems to get pulled out (by this board) when Christianity is at play and that is wrong.

Also, the Superintendent said that Chris was fired because of "on campus activities" yet earlier in both stories they say that the final straw came from a complaint that was made because of an off campus conversation so I have my doubts there.

This, sadly, is going to court and it already (according to local reporters) has national reporters sniffing around it. I do honestly wish the outcome of this had been different. I do wish the school board could have reached a settlement (rumor had it this week that there was a settlement pending) however it didn't happen. This is not good for the community, the school district or our students.

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Unnatural Selection

Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St.Paul) announced yesterday that he was going to introduce a bill next session banning 5 breeds of dogs - Akita, Pit Bulls, wolf hybrids, Rottweillers and Chow Chows. His "logic" behind this proposal is that these breeds are "known" to be aggressive and therefore need to be eliminated from society. A concerned dog owner (and proud "mama" of a well trained and well socialized pit bull) wrote to Rep. Lesch on the eve of his announcement.

"Dear Representative Lesch,
I understand you are planning to introduce a piece of legislation banning "exotic species of dogs" and will have a press conference on this subject tomorrow. I am writing to ask that you reconsider.
There are several problems with such legislation. Dogs all belong to the same species: Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of gray wolves. There is currently no reliable, accurate scientific way to prove a dog's breed. There have been many court decisions in several states which have found that laws which single out a specific breed of dog are unconstitutionally vague and deny dog owners their constitutional right to due process. The latest such decision was handed down in 2006 in Ohio (975-Ohio-2006). Denver, Colorado is currently being sued in federal court on this very issue.
Another problem with such legislation is that it singles out one or a few breeds of dogs, when over 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in fatal attacks on humans--and many more in severe attacks. The issue is not the breed, but the individual dog. Owners who make sure their dogs are confined to their own property, socialized and trained to be good canine citizens can be trusted with any type of dog.
Please consider my own situation before going forward with your plan to introduce this legislation. I am the mother of an autistic son who sometimes runs away. This is a problem for many parents of autistic children--such children are often skilled at leaving a house undetected, but they have no social skills and little concept of danger. We looked into a global positioning system to track my son should he leave our home, but found the ease with which such devices can be removed to be impractical. As a result, we are now training our adopted American Pit Bull Terrier as a tracking dog. Rudy is a very sociable little dog who loves people, and he is doing fabulously well in his training. He could be the key to my son's safety.
Because I have a disabled child, I am in touch with many people with disabilities who train and use service dogs. I know several people whose service dogs are "bully" breeds--which are often targeted by dangerous dog laws that are breed specific. These people rely on their dogs to detect seizures, guide them, pull wheelchairs, retrieve items and perform many other tasks which make their owners able to be independent. Their dogs are trained to the highest standards--would you wish to target these people with such a law?
Please reconsider introducing a law targeting one or more breeds of dogs. Instead, demand that owners keep their dogs confined, and train their dogs to behave in a calm, unintrusive manner around strangers. In doing so, you will serve the interests of all your constituents.
Sincerely,
K B"

First off - thanks to KB for permission to use her emails in this post. I'll get to Rep. Lesch's reply in a moment.

KB lays out a lot of important facts here. Breed specific bans ARE impracticable. Too many people don't know a pit bull from a pug (I had a pug at one time and someone actually INSISTED that he was a pit bull - despite my protestations to the contrary). Pit bulls are actually one of the most MIS-identified breeds in the country. However, the larger point (as addressed in the previously linked Dog Bite Law webpage) is that if "pit bulls" are banned all a determined owner needs to do is get a Presa Canario or another dog that can (if treated or trained poorly) be equally dangerous. Being pack animals, a dog's instinct is loyalty to and protection of it's pack and that is something that can never completely be bred out of a dog - no matter the size of the dog (more on this later).

One of the primary causes of dog bites, the one that Rep. Lesch conveniently leaves out of his bill is the human cause. A lot of people don't know how to react to strange dogs. Our border collie, who is bred to herd and protect her herd, is a quiet docile dog. However, many times I have had kids come up to her in such a manner that it could (if she were not well trained) spook her. They come running up to her (sign of aggression to a dog), they go to pet her on the head first (another sign of aggression to dogs), they squeel and make lots of high pitched kid noises (which activates the prey instinct) - basically they do everything wrong. However, because we have put her into situations where she is exposed to this kind of behavior (5 years of the Junior Logician training her with other kids) she knows that she is to sit there calmly regardless of what happens around her.

The other primary cause of dog bites in dogs is bad owners. These are the owners that don't bother to train or socialize their dogs. The two cases that has Rep. Lesch so concerned dealt with two dogs that were "known biters" meaning they had biten others before this. Why were the owners not made responsibile for the bites? Why weren't the owners required to restrain their dogs? Or keep them muzzled or take them to training? Why are the owners not being held responsible?

Aggression is also not the only reason why dogs bite. Timid or frightened dogs do too. If a dog is stressed - THEY BITE! If they are afraid - THEY BITE! It is a multi-purpose defense mechanism.

Which gets us to Rep. Lesch's reply...

"Dear Ms. B:
I had to figure that I'd hear from someone who contends that banning dangerous breeds which maul children is actually BAD for children. I am sure you have an individual pit bull which you have trained thorooughly (sic) not to attack helpless toddlers. Similarly, there are exotic species like tigers, bears, alligators and the like, many members of which have never killed a human - but that doesn't mean they're safe.
No one ever heard of a cocker spaniel killing a child on the street. If you made yours safe (so far) it doesn't mean the rest of them are. I have a duty to keep the children in Minnesota safe. I urge you to support our efforts.
John Lesch"

I will leave the dripping condescention aside for the moment and simply deal with the facts here. ANY breed of dog, no matter the size can potentially kill a child. A 4 pound Pomeranian mauled an infant to death in California - does that mean we should "ban" Pomeranians? I am certain that I am one of many who (as a child) was attacked by a cocker spaniel and I have also seen Labrador Retrievers - by far and away the most docile people friendly breed in the world - turned mean by the actions of humans.

But this is what gets to me...

"Under Lesch's proposed legislation, anyone owning one of the banned dogs would be subject to misdemeanor charges and face as long as 90 days in jail and a fine of as much as $1,000."

If Representative Lesch were really concerned about his "duty to keep the children of Minnesota safe" you would think that there would be more than just a $1000 fine and 90 day jail term. I mean aren't our children "worth" more than that? He would also not have so blithley dismissed KB's service dog comments. No, this bill is NOT about the children at all. It is simply another blatent power grab. Rep. Lesch obviously knows more about this than responsible dog owners and breeders do therefore he is going to dictate to us what we can and can not do. I'm sure then next thing he will ban (for the children of course) are small fuel effecient cars because they can kill kids too...if they are used incorrectly.

UPDATE: Chief (an Akita owner) has a few things to say about this proposal.

Labels:

Friday, June 15, 2007

The blind squirrel found a nut!

I am not one to write about Nick Coleman's weekly rantings, because others do it so much better. However, in this weeks entry Nick does manage to stumble across the nut.

"You might think panhandlers would be a low priority in a city where a 14-year-old girl just got gunned down after a birthday party.
Not in Happy-apolis.
Here in Happy-apolis, where everything is shiny and great, the biggest problem is street people with their constant requests for pocket change. We are not going to tolerate that anymore. Mayor R.T. Rybak has said so, and he has instructed citizens to dial 911 when they feel intimidated by a panhandler. "I do it all the time," he said recently.
Dear God.
Parts of the city are collapsing in a heap of foreclosures, school closings and gang activity, and we are told to sic the cops on panhandlers, as if the cops have time to respond to any panhandling problem short of a shootout in front of the basilica. I am telling you that when the history of this time and place is written, we will look like complete fools." (emphasis mine)

Nick, believe it or not, is right here. To a point....Yes the cops do have much bigger fish to fry. We are on our way to another record year for murders. I mean, when kids aren't even safe in front of their own homes or walking around the Uptown area something is seriously wrong. Then again, what do you expect when the Mayor would rather spend money of "green" roofs and bicycle paths - as opposed to hiring more cops to stop the rampant crime in the streets...

However, Nick does (in his usual style) wander off of the path in a big way here....

"These days, only upscale kinds of begging are allowed.
It is OK, for example, to beg on the Internet by placing a "tip jar" on your blog. Just click the icon and send the blogger a few bucks from your credit card. But don't insult them with quarters. For blogger-beggars, the minimum acceptable offering is $1; the maximum is $50."

Nick, Nick, Nick......do I really have to spell out the difference between a panhandler approaching you as you wait to cross the street at Hennepin & 7th and a blogger's tip jar. OK maybe I do....I have no choice when a panhandler approaches me. On the other hand - I can chose not to go to a blog that has a tip jar. Or perhaps Nick considers the tip jar at his local espresso shop to be panhandling...

Also, the clueless one isn't exactly truthful when he says that panhandling has been "banned". Panhandling in Minneapolis has not necessarily been banned. Panhandlers are prohibited from verbally asking for money within 10 feet of a cross walk, convenience store, liquor store or sporting arena and 80 from a bank, ATM or check cashing facility! They CAN stand at the street corner holding a sign begging for money. They just can't walk up to you and say "GIMME MONEY!"

Nick manages to make one valid point...probably his only one for the year. If the residents and visitors to Minneapolis need to stop giving money to the panhandlers directly.

"Give your money to the nuns, the Salvation Army, the churches and the shelters. They know what to do with it. A network of kindhearted caregivers provides support for the homeless, the mentally ill, the chemically dependent and the odd ducks who ask for money."

Now I can already hear the Logical Husband quoting our pastor's sermon from last week admonishing me for paying the "church" to do what I should be doing myself and he does have a point. However, a lot of the "chronic" panhandlers have chronic health issues that I simply am not capable of taking care of, no matter how "caring" or "kindhearted" my intentions.

I understand what Nick is getting at here...the panhandling problem is not the most pressing crime issue in Minneapolis. However, in his usual over-the -top style, Mr. Coleman glosses over the big point. We DO have crime problems in Minneapolis that the Mayor is ignoring. That is an story that is long over-due (for reporting) and one that we will probably never see honestly reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Because if the Star Tribune were to report it honestly, they would be forced to admit that a lot of their "pet" projects are a waste of time and need to be scrapped.

Labels: ,

Stupid and SILENT...

That seems to be the state that our "rulers" in DC prefer the voting public to be...stupid and silent. They (apparently) do not like to be bothered by what "we the people" have to say on the important issues of the day!

"Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” (emphasis mine)

Cry me a river Senator Lott! We have a Representative Republic here (in case you have forgotten) and WE THE PEOPLE do get to have our say in our governance...and "we the people" are speaking out decisively against S.1348.

"Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to “take smaller steps towards reform” while 16% believe they should wait until next year. "

The public's disapproval of this bill crosses party lines. While 84% of professed Republicans say that they are against this bill (which is to be expected) however 55% of ALL DEMOCRATS and 69% of Independents are also against this bill! If "talk radio" were indeed pushing this sentiment, there would be a lot less Democrats and Independents against this bill.

If talk radio really were "running" this country, we wouldn't be discussing this issue now. The Bush tax cuts would also have been made permanent a long, long time ago.

Here's an idea Senator....if this bill is really as "good" as you say it is, why don't you try to tell us WHY we are wrong in our opposition, rather than insulting us. However, given that you stooped to the insults, rather than the education and edification of the electorate, it seems crystal clear to me that this bill is NOT all that you and the President claim it will be.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Chris Lind Update

Well, I certainly struck a chord with this post. Members of our local educational community have made multiple comments defending the action of the school board in the comment section. That the comments were (mostly) respectful and worked toward greater understanding of the issue is greatly appreciated. It is imperative that we all communicate if we are ever going to resolve probems within the community. Talking WITH one another (as opposed to talking AT one another) is sometimes a lost art.

Two commenters took issue with my characterization that this is "persecution". I will concede that the title of the post may have been a bit hyperbolic, but given the past history of this school district it is not a totally unfair characterization - especially given today's Star Tribune
story on the issue.

"His story is difficult to tell -- he's reluctant to say much, and the school district says it's legally prevented from saying much, including the substance of the complaints against Lind.
A dedicated Christian, Lind has become a de facto advice-giver, friend and religious mentor to some students. He said the district told him not to talk to students -- even off campus -- about "traditional values," namely, the district didn't want him to talk to students about abstinence or their sexual orientation. He didn't listen.
"I can't say I followed that directive," said Lind, 43. "I didn't feel that, morally, I could."

Again, I go back to one of my basic complaints about how the district is handling this. The district can not, under the tenants of the Constitution, dictate someone's speech off campus. I fully understand the need for restriction of speech ON CAMPUS. However, off campus is another story. Whether a teacher (or any other employee of a school district) chooses to use it or not, they have the same basic rights of free speech that all Americans have. They can and should advocate for the things that they believe in - as long as that advocation is off campus and on their own time and that is where Chris limited his speech about his faith. According to the Star Tribune report the board is targeting Chris because of his faith and that my friends is persecution, it is discrimination, it IS unConstitutional.

"He says students of all stripes -- "the popular kids, the goth kids, the brainiac kids" -- have approached him looking for advice. He's met with them off campus, at places such as Caribou Coffee, to talk. Sometimes, he said, parents with a troubled child would ask him to help. Some of these relationships went on for years, he said.
Lind says he would meet with students "maybe once" without parents' knowledge but would call parents for permission to mentor their children beyond that point."

This is a point of contention for the teachers in the comment thread. I do understand their concern, but there are circumstances when prior parental approval may not be wise. I would ask the teachers to put themselves into the following hypotheticals. Suppose you found out that one of your students was being sexually or physically abused by a parent or guardian. You know, as a "trusted adult" that you should try to counsel that child into making the right choice (going to the authorities). Would you go to the parent or guardian for permission to talk to that child first or would you just talk to the kid off campus where they might loosen up? Doing the former would set that kid up for retaliatory abuse from the abusive parent and doing the latter puts you in the same boat as Chris. WHAT DO YOU DO???? The second hypothetical is this. You overhear a student talking to a friend about commiting suicide. Mindful of the suicides that we had in the high school just two short years ago, what do you do? Time is of the essence in this situation....mom and dad are at work and the kid said he wanted to stage it so that he (or she) was dead by the time that mom and dad got home! What I am getting at is that there are times when parental permission is not appropriate or available on the first chat. Subsequent visits, oh heck yeah, and never, ever EVER in private. Since it appears that Chris was doing both of those anyway I would think that those concerns have been addressed.

"According to Joe Flynn, the district's lawyer, because Lind wasn't a licensed school employee or a union member, the district doesn't need to go through an extensive hearing process before dismissal. There have been no Scott County criminal or civil charges filed against Lind." (emphasis mine)

No criminal or civil charges have been filed....that is a telling statement. According to this there has been no negligence, no criminal activity, no other compelling reason for the employment action. Why is this happening if there is no negligence or criminal activity? Because the School Board, in it's role of employer, gave the employee an unconstitutional order? An order that the employee rightly refuse because of it's unConstitutionality? It is certainly looking that way...especially in light of this statement.

"Human resources director Tony Massaros wouldn't answer a generic question about what off-campus staff behavior the district can regulate. "

If the Human Resources Director can't even answer a generic question about off campus behavior, how are they going to be able to justify this action to the public and to any attorney's that might come as a result of the action (yes there are lawsuits being talked about that are dependent of the boards decision....our tax dollars at work).

A lot more detail is becoming known (thanks to the Star Tribune) we are getting a clearer picture of the school boards actions in this matter. I can not say that this is a picture that I (as a parent in the district and a taxpayer) am completely comfortable with. I may have been quick on the trigger (with the hyperbole) last week but it is starting to look justified. Should we the taxpayer, as the employers of the school board, take a closer look into this issue?

Labels: ,

Friday, June 08, 2007

The most what???

Remember during campaign 2006 how we heard how the Democrats were going to get rid of Congressional perks and clean up the "culture of corruption" in DC. While others have been focusing the House, I thought I would bring your attention to a story out of the Senate that is getting little play.

"On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton was challenged by the press about the Clinton family's acceptance of more than $900,000 in free private travel from Infousa, a company linked to scamming the elderly.
Her reply? She said that she had complied with all Senate ethics rules and reimbursed the company for the amount of a first class air ticket — usually about 1 percent of the cost of the luxurious private jet travel. According to Hillary, "Those were the rules. You'll have to ask someone else if it's good policy."

Now when the Republicans were in charge, did we accept that excuse from them? NO - we demanded resignations and restitution. Meanwhile, what do we hear from the Democrats and the media? Crickets....

So while Mrs. Clinton is standing on the floor of the Senate decrying executive pay and "obscene" oil company profits, she accepts lavish gifts from "her" corporate executive.

Typical....

Labels:

We're back!

Sorry about that guys....we had a minor glitch in the Domain Name registration. The registrar apparently "lost" my email address and thus did not send me the renewal notification. I had to scramble to get the new registration set up and thanks to the wonderful folks at Go Daddy we are back up in less than 24 hours.

Labels:

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Oh yeah - this is a great idea

Universal health care that is. There are three new reasons why. First is this one out of the UK.

"Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand. "

Being an ex-smoker (who quit after having my ankle surgically repaired) I know just what smoking does to your ability to process the anesthesia out of your system and I am fully aware that smoking is unhealthy but really what other unhealthy habit is next? Junk food consumption? Drinking?

Next we go slightly north and west of the UK...to Scotland...(HT Noodles at Freedom Dogs)

"POOR NHS treatment has led to almost half a million Scots dying in the last 30 years, a new study has revealed.
Doctors at Glasgow University found that between 1974 and 2003, a total of 462,000 people died in Scotland as a result of health service failings
It means Scotland has one of the highest avoidable death rates in western Europe."

Oh I am so comforted by this. What is even more comforting is this report.

Policymakers should ignore imagined outcomes and focus closely on the performance of existing models: the British, Canadian, and other state-run systems. In these systems, health care is subject to bureaucratic and political rationing and driven by political and budgetary pressures. This leads to inevitable adverse effects, including:
Long waits and reduced quality. In Britain, over 800,000 patients are waiting for hospital care. In Canada, the average wait between a general practitioner referral and a specialty consultation has been over 17 weeks. Beyond queuing for care or services, single-payer sys­tems are often characterized by strict drug for­mularies, limited treatment options, and discrimination by age in the provision of care.
Price controls, a routine feature of such sys­tems, also result in reduced drug, technology, and medical device research.
Funding crises. Because individuals remain insulated from the direct costs of health care, as in many third-party payment systems, health care appears to be “free.” As a result, demand expands while government officials devise ways to control costs. The shortest route is by pro­viding fewer products and services through explicit and implicit rationing.
New inequalities. Beyond favoritism in the provision of care for the politically well-con­nected, single-payer health care systems often restrain costs by limiting surgeries for the eld­erly, restricting dialysis, withholding care from very premature infants, reducing the number of intensive care beds, limiting MRI availability, and restricting access to specialists.
Labor strikes and personnel shortages. In 2004, in British Columbia, Canada, a health worker strike resulted in the cancellation of 5,300 surgeries and numerous MRI examinations, CT scans, and lab tests. Canadians have a shortage of physicians, and the recruitment and retention of doctors in Britain has become a chronic problem.
Outdated facilities and medical equipment. Advances in medical technology are often seen in terms of their costs rather than their benefits, and investment is slower. For example, an esti­mated 60 percent of radiological equipment in Canada is technically outdated.
Politicization and lost liberty. Patient auton­omy is curtailed in favor of the judgment of an elite few, who dictate what health care needs and desires ought to be while imposing social controls over activities deemed undesirable or at odds with an expanding definition of “public health.” Over time, government officials will claim a compelling interest in many areas now considered private"

Someone want to remind me again why "universal health care" is a good thing?

Labels:

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Where are the feminists?

Before I get into the critique of Islamic culture, a little history. Contrary to Some Made Up Name's allegations in the comments of this post, our "close" relations with Saudi Arabia did not start with George W. Bush and Halliburton. Au contrare, mon frere....they started with a Democratic President - Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Our close relationship is not "just" for oil either. The Washington Post addressed some of the Myths of the US/Saudi Relationship in a May 2006 article., including SMUN's favorite BDS classic.

"The Bush family and the House of Saud are too close for comfort. An overstatement. Filmmaker Michael Moore and others are fond of pointing to the personal and business ties between the Bush family and the reigning Saud family. Unquestionably, the two families are close, in no small part because Saudi Arabia contributed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991, one of the highlights of President George H.W. Bush's tenure. The late King Fahd provided extensive financial and political assistance to the operation, and allowed U.S. troops on Saudi soil.But there is little evidence to suggest that such support has led the Bush family to make decisions at odds with U.S. interests. All previous presidents have sought close relations with the kingdom, recognizing its value to the United States. Even presidents such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, who were initially skeptical of the Saudis, found themselves drawn to this relationship for strategic reasons." (emphasis mine)

Gee Michael Moore exhaggerating or engaging in propoganda and all out falsehoods? Who'da thunk it?

So now that we have that little cannard out of the way, we can get on to Islam and it's eternal oppression of women. (HT Captain Ed)

"Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — THE hem of my heavy Islamic cloak trailed over floors that glistened like ice. I walked faster, my eyes fixed on a familiar, green icon. I hadn't seen a Starbucks in months, but there it was, tucked into a corner of a fancy shopping mall in the Saudi capital. After all those bitter little cups of sludgy Arabic coffee, here at last was an improbable snippet of home — caffeinated, comforting, American.I wandered into the shop, filling my lungs with the rich wafts of coffee. The man behind the counter gave me a bemused look; his eyes flickered. I asked for a latte. He shrugged, the milk steamer whined, and he handed over the brimming paper cup. I turned my back on his uneasy face.Crossing the cafe, I felt the hard stares of Saudi men. A few of them stopped talking as I walked by and watched me pass. Them, too, I ignored. Finally, coffee in hand, I sank into the sumptuous lap of an overstuffed armchair."Excuse me," hissed the voice in my ear. "You can't sit here." The man from the counter had appeared at my elbow. He was glaring."Excuse me?" I blinked a few times."Emmm," he drew his discomfort into a long syllable, his brows knitted. "You cannot stay here." "What? Uh … why?" Then he said it: "Men only." He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the "family" section. As a woman, that's where I belonged. I had no right to mix with male customers or sit in plain view of passing shoppers. Like the segregated South of a bygone United States, today's Saudi Arabia shunts half the population into separate, inferior and usually invisible spaces." (emphasis mine)

Imagine, if you will, for one moment that instead of "Men only" the barista had said "Whites only". Do you think the silence from the left would be as deafening as it is in this case? Do you think that for one moment there would be any calls for "understanding a different culture"? To the author's credit, she asks that question of herself.

"I spent my days in Saudi Arabia struggling unhappily between a lifetime of being taught to respect foreign cultures and the realization that this culture judged me a lesser being. I tried to draw parallels: If I went to South Africa during apartheid, would I feel compelled to be polite?"

The abaya was more than a garment, it was nothing more than soft shackles....designed to keep the woman bound to her "superiors".

"The sleeves, the length of it, always felt foreign, at first. But it never took long to work its alchemy, to plant the insecurity. After a day or two, the notion of appearing without the robe felt shocking. Stripped of the layers of curve-smothering cloth, my ordinary clothes suddenly felt revealing, even garish. To me, the abaya implied that a woman's body is a distraction and an interruption, a thing that must be hidden from view lest it haul the society into vice and disarray. The simple act of wearing the robe implanted that self-consciousness by osmosis."

To be fair, not all Saudi men want to keep their wives and daughters enslaved.

"Over coffee one afternoon, an economist told me wistfully of the days when he and his wife had studied overseas, how she'd hopped behind the wheel and did her own thing. She's an independent, outspoken woman, he said. Coming back home to Riyadh had depressed both of them."Here, I got another dependent: my wife," he said. He found himself driving her around, chaperoning her as if she were a child. "When they see a woman walking alone here, it's like a wolf watching a sheep. 'Let me take what's unattended.' " He told me that both he and his wife hoped, desperately, that social and political reform would finally dawn in the kingdom. He thought foreign academics were too easy on Saudi Arabia, that they urged only minor changes instead of all-out democracy because they secretly regarded Saudis as "savages" incapable of handling too much freedom."I call them propaganda papers," he said of the foreign analysis. "They come up with all these lame excuses." He and his wife had already lost hope for themselves, he said."For ourselves, the train has left the station. We are trapped," he said. "I think about my kids. At least when I look at myself in the mirror I'll say: 'At least I said this. At least I wrote this.' " (emphasis mine)

He's right - these propoganda papers do nothing but continue to promote the kind of "soft racism" that the liberals tend to pedal. They talk about civil rights all the while keeping minorities tied to dependence on the government (welfare) to take care of them. He's right and we are just too blind to see it!

Finally the author tells a story that should make a cold shudder run down the backs of ALL western women.

"WHEN Saudi officials chat with an American reporter, they go to great lengths to depict a moderate, misunderstood kingdom. They complain about stereotypes in the Western press: Women banned from driving? Well, they don't want to drive anyway. They all have drivers, and why would a lady want to mess with parking?The religious police who stalk the streets and shopping centers, forcing "Islamic values" onto the populace? Oh, Saudi officials say, they really aren't important, or strict, or powerful. You hear stories to the contrary? Mere exaggerations, perpetuated by people who don't understand Saudi Arabia.I had an interview one afternoon with a relatively high-ranking Saudi official. Since I can't drive anywhere or meet a man in a cafe, I usually end up inviting sources for coffee in the lobby of my hotel, where the staff turns a blind eye to whether those in the "family section" are really family.As the elevator touched down and the shiny doors swung open onto the lobby, the official rushed toward me."Do you think we could talk in your room?" he blurted out.I stepped back. What was this, some crazy come-on? "No, why?" I stammered, stepping wide around him. "We can sit right over here." I wanted to get to the coffee shop — no dice. He swung himself around, blocking my path and my view."It's not a good idea," he said. "Let's just go to your room." "I really don't think … I mean," I said, stuttering in embarrassment.Then, peering over his shoulder, I saw them: two beefy men in robes. Great bushes of beards sprang from their chins, they swung canes in their hands and scanned the hotel lobby through squinted eyes."Is that the religious police?" I said. "It is!" I was a little mesmerized. I'd always wanted to see them in action.The ministry official seemed to shrink a little, his shoulders slumped in defeat."They're not supposed to be here," he muttered despondently. "What are they doing here?" "Well, why don't we go to the mall next door?" I said, eyes fixed on the menacing men. "There's a coffee shop there, we could try that." "No, they will go there next." While he wrung his hands nervously, I stepped back a little and considered the irony of our predicament. To avoid running afoul of what may be the world's most stringent public moral code, I was being asked to entertain a strange, older man in my hotel room, something I would never agree to back home."

This is a very long, very important article. Anyone who is a woman or knows a woman needs to read it and understand that Osama bin Ladin and his Wahhibist teachers come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Oh sure, the House of Saud says they are modern and understanding, but after this article, we all now know better!

Labels:

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Interesting....

The newest Rasmussen poll is out and oh my....(HT Captain Ed)

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top, but his support has slipped to 23%. That’s down two points from a week ago and is his lowest level of support all year. Earlier, Giuliani had consistently enjoyed support in the mid-30s. That was before Thompson’s name was added to the mix and before Giuliani stumbled on the abortion issue in the first GOP debate of the season."

This is horrible news for the Guiliani campaign. Former Senator Thompson was within the margin of error (+/- 4%) and he is not even "officially" in the race. While I am not a fan of polls this early on, I will say that this is telling...

They polled likely Republican Primary voters....this is bad news for anyone who thinks that the reason for our losses in November had to do with Iraq. Simply put, this last election was about a lack of real conservative leadership both in St. Paul and DC. A lesson that both the State and the national party seem to be quite adept at ignoring.

Labels: ,

Persecution of Christians

I never thought I would see the day, but the persecution of Christians has begun in my very own backyard. Chris Lind is a Christian employee of the Prior Lake Savage ISD 719 School District at the Prior Lake Savage High School. This is the same school district that refused to let a local Christian youth pastor onto school grounds but invited an Imam to speak to one of the elementary schools. Chris recently spoke to a group of students after school and off of school property about abstinance and why he thinks it is the optimal form of birth control. Yes that did include a discussion about his faith. Now, Mr. Lind (in all fairness and disclosure we do go to the same church) is on unpaid administrative leave pending a final decision by the school board on his employment status. The school board will meet tomorrow to decide his fate.

Now I am well aware that there is more to the situation than meets the eye. Mr. Lind did admit that he did have these discussion with students, as well as conversations about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle with the Gay Student Alliance. However, because these conversations took place off of school grounds and outside of school hours, there does not appear to be any reason for administrative actions. Mr. Lind is not employed in a teaching capacity, or so I have been told, and the supposed infraction did not take place on company time or property. This appears to be a simple 1st Amendment case. Mr. Lind has hired an attorney who feels that he has a fairly decent case against the school district.

I will be getting reports from the school board meeting (I am going to try to attend, but I do have a prior engagement that overlaps with the meeting time). It will be intesting to see what will come of this.

If you live down here in the Savage Lands and you want to have a say in the boards action, or even if you just want to sit back and watch, I would encourage you to go to the board meeting tomorrow night. The board meeting is held at the District offices at 4540 Tower Street in Prior Lake (the old Pond's Edge Early Learning Center). The meeting starts at 7pm. If you do attend and decide to speak, please be respectful.

If you don't live in the district and you would like to write a note of encouragement to Chris, you can reach him via his website.

UPDATE AND BUMP - Lady Predator asked for an update in the comments, so I thought I had best follow up on last night's school board meeting. There were approximately 100 students and concerned citizens at the school board meeting. Considering our school board rarely gets ANY audience, I think they were a bit taken aback by the response by the community. I arrived late (the Junior Logician had a baseball game that ended at the same time the board meeting started) so I only got to see one speaker, but it was enough. The board, citing privacy issues for the complaintant, decided that this issue should be resolved in a closed meeting, but that they would be taking written input from all citizens. The two local papers (the Prior Lake American and This Week Prior Lake) were in attendance and spent a lot of time interviewing those of us who came to lend support to Mr. Lind.

This is far from over. I suspect that the public outcry will get louder once the story hits on Saturday.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 04, 2007

FOUL!

I find it curious that the same people behind the attack letter on Joe Repya, the same people behind calls pushing delegates to vote for Col. Repya for Vice Chair (and not the seat he is running for) are crying FOUL over a leak of internal emails to the Star Tribune!

Methinks they are protesting a little too much.

Given how quickly and how close together this things all happened, one can not help but suspect that this is indeed a concerted effort to derail the challenge to the status quo. I mean, how else do you explain the line in the letter that was written on May 31 knew that there was going to be "falsehoods and half-truths" coming in the media?

This kind of campaigning is something that I find to be totally appalling! We need to be above this - WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!!!!! Or are we? It's all about maintaing power to these folks! Do whatever you have to to get and keep power. To heck with the state or the country.

As I said before....SHAMEFUL! And they wonder why voters are turning away in droves....

Labels: ,

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Shame!!!!!

As most of you are aware, there is a campaign for the Minnesota State GOP Chairmanship. I have two very dear friends on both sides of the campaign and because of that, I have kept my preferences in the race to myself. Something I intend to continue to do. So far, the campaign had been positive with each candidate laying out, for the delegates, what he will do in the next two years to move the Minnesota Republican Party forward. However that ended yesterday when I got the most shameful letter in the mail.

"As the race for state party chairman begins to heat up, I feel compelled to urage a not of caution to the campaign of Joe Repya. Perhaps he and members of his campaign should remember our party's history..." (all emphasis is in the original)

The letter writer then goes on to talk about the 1966 campaign that led to Reagan's 11th commandment "thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". I shall come back to this.

"I was reminded of this recently when I rea a comment by Mr. Repya where he made the following statement.

"I turned down the offer because of the despicable condition the Minnesota Republican Party is in following a greatly mismanaged and poorly executed election in 2006." - Joe Repya May 23, 2007

Whipping out my handy dictionary/thesaurus I looked up the word "despicable" and found the defination of the word. "Despicable [dispikebl] adjective contemptable, worthless and deserving to be despised"."

OK - I don't know what dictionary the letter writer used, but according to Merriam Webster online the defination is "so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation . " I bring up this defination, not to quibble with the letter writer, but to give a broader concept of the word, for the letter writer does choose a very narrow defination of the word.

That said, there is certainly a lot going on in today's MNGOP that would lend itself to the Merriam Webster defination. The actions of certain people within the party HAS BEEN contemptable. What is going on right now (in the immigration debate) is indeed worthy of moral indignation! We have not (as a party) lived by our core beliefs of smaller government and personal responsibility. Instead we do "whatever it takes" to keep power and that is, to a majority of Americans, contemptable indeed.

"Friends, you and I are the Republican Party and our party is not in "despicable condition.

Here I will jump in. There is context to the Repya quote that the letter writer conveniently leaves out. Context that I am aware of as I have seen and heard Mr. Repya speak on this before. The context is that the leadership, not the activists, are the ones that have done things that left our party in the lurch. The grass roots did not put the party in this shape - the leadership did!

"The leaders of the Republican Part are not "despicable." the activists of the Republican Party are not "despicable". And frankly I don't believe anyone who wants to lead the Republican Party should call our Party "despicable".

Negativity, pessimism and these blatant violations of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment do not represent the kind of vision and leadership our party needs. "

OK - back to the 11th Commandment thing....I have long had this discussion with my liberal friends...since when is commenting on a leaders record or voting record considered to be "negativity". It is NOT negative to comment on the elected officials record when you disagree with them. It is called laying out the lines of deliniation. Couple this with the the fact that the MNGOP's entire campaign strategy last year was to demonize Mike Hatch and every other liberal candidate on the ballot!

THAT is the thing that struck me (and disappointed me) about this letter. The entire letter is negative and it is the one thing that the letter writer harps on (vis a vis the Repya campaign) is negativity. That and violating Reagan's 11th Commandment - which the letter writer also does...

Everything about this letter, when it came, struck me as "low". It came in a plain envelope with no return address or any indication as to what it was and who it was from. It could have been a solicitation for all I knew. It gave us no reason to vote FOR anyone - a hallmark (if you will) of the currently state and national party leadership. Then there is this gem from the final page.

"I'd ask that you keep in mind what has already come out from this campaign, and please take with a grain of salt and a skeptical eye whatever is sent out or worse yet, whatever half-truths or falsehoods are pushed to our "friends" in the media."

So they throw out this attack and then tell everyone who gets it not to take any response seriously? Sheesh - I thought the Republican Party was better than this!

UPDATE AND BUMP! Well that certainly didn't take long. Based on the single comment, the party already has a letter out disputing the Star Tribune's story. All I can say is it is going to be a wild and wooly week.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 01, 2007

Moving Forward

Captain Ed is a rarity. He is an amazingly good, kind man with a delightful sense of humor and a political insight that is borderline prescent. Some days I disagree with him but most days (like today) I not only agree with him, but I want to forward his post on to every single elected official in Washington DC and St. Paul. Today he has the seminal post on what the Republican Party needs to do, both Nationally and in Minnesota, in order to move forward for the 2008 Elections. He starts in a critique of Peggy Noonan's entry in todays Wall Street Journal.

"Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists and always a great read, today turns her substantial rhetorical guns on what she sees as the biggest threat to the Republican Party -- George Bush. Accusing him of following his father in squandering a great political inheritance, Noonan calls for a Republican repudiation of Bush and his family:
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
I'm a little surprised by Noonan with this piece. I see nothing all that unusual with the way the Bush administration has attacked its critics over immigration. If she was to honestly look at the last six years, she will see that this is the normal mode of operation for the White House -- to always stay on the attack. In fact, they've followed the James Carville model from their first days in the White House. "

Ed is right of course. When the Bush White House does stand up for itself, it does so with a vengence. However, Ed does take the opportunity to lay out how the GOP can regain their core voters, the ones who have refused to donate to the RNC because of the Bush Legacy.

"Republicans used to stand for smaller government, federalism, and strong national defense. Not all of that conflicts with the Bush legacy, but enough of it does that we need to start publicly demanding a return to those core concepts. Rather than repudiating Bush over his insulting attacks on the base, the better path is to generate a positive agenda that demonstrates our dissatisfaction with the previous six years -- and give Republicans something to vote for, rather than something to vote against."

Ed is not the only person saying this. This is something that a lot of Minnesota grass roots activists have been telling the State Party. "We need a compelling story....to give voters are reason to vot FOR us". During the 2006 campaign all we got out of party leadership was "well you don't want to see Governor Hatch do you?" or "we can't give the Democrats leadership in the House - they'll try to raise your taxes!" While those statements are basically true, they don't inspire voters or volunteers at all. Give us something to work FOR! It is that basic.

The Republican Base is
upset at the leftward tilt the Republicans in DC has taken and they have begun to fight back. This immigration bill is just the latest front. A smart Republican leader (or candidate) will see this anger for what it is and learn from it. It remains to be seen if the Republican leadership is as smart as Captain Ed.

Labels: , ,