Veto Transportation Bill - Call the Governor!

We all know this. Minnesota's Taxes are outrageously high. We are the 4th most taxed state in the United States, while we should strive to at least be Number 26 or Number 50... but the Transportation Bill that has reticently passed in Minnesota house and is going to the desk of the Governor Tim Paqlenty, and I ask, anyone who feels that higher taxes are bad, please contact Governor Tim Paqlenty's office (details listed below), and let them know (as politely as you can) that you don't want higher taxes.

Contact Governor Tim Paqlenty and let him know you want the Transportation tax bill veto'd
(651) 296-3391
(800) 657-3717
E-Mail tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Let Them Know How You Feel on the Smoking Ban

Go HERE and Vote on what you think about the State of Minnesota's proposed Smoking Ban the want to pass, which would keep you from smoking in your own house if you have someone else working there (construction) or in your car if you are transporting you and one other person for work. I don't need to tell you about it, the bill speeks for it self.

Here is the letter that I sent with my vote:

It is not right that you are limiting someone's use of a product that is legally sold in the United States without a prescription.

If it is bad for you, it should be illegal completely or not at all. None of this Half-N-Half junk that allows you to make money on the taxes of the product AND fine people who use it. There are too many taxes on the product in the first place, and I don't even smoke!

Minnesota in general needs to lessen taxes, not raise them. We are the 4th taxed state in the United States, and that’s not a "Top Five" list I want to be on. I have lived in this state all my life, and the continued passage of "user fees" and taxes has been making me think about moving to the Dakotas for a year. $160.00 moving violations, Government making double the profit on Gasoline then "Big Oil," It all adds up. But then you are listening to someone who believes we shouldn't have speed limits on highways either (much like Montana did for a few years with a steep reduction in deaths during that time, and a jump after they put the speed limit back).

Government and Police are seen too much as Tax Collectors as it is. Add in the 4th most taxed state in the US, Government funded private stadiums, mass transit systems that cost billions (see light rail) to transport thousands, your new little rule about forcing energy companies to adopt overpriced enviro-power, and the amendment to the constitution that takes money from people who buy cars and gives it to people who ride trains (even though those train riders purchase things that are transported on the highway system) with no limit of the funds that can be diverted away from my roads… and you have convinced me to start looking else ware to live. Even though I don’t smoke, this is just a nail on the coffin. My wife and I will not be around for the laws that say we can get fined for eating McDonalds. The Government has NO PLACE telling me what I can do in my business or my home. If you really cared, You would make Tobacco Illegal. But then you can't make money on it hand over fist, like you do when you tax me or user-fee me for doing everything else.

My wife and I are both 26 years old, on our second home, own 5 cars and a boat, and it would be a shame to loose us and our taxable income, but we are fed up.

Keep up the good work guys.

Vista Getting Some Un-Due Flack

You know, the more of these articles "critiquing" Windows Vista I read, the more comical they become. Julio Ojeda-Zapata of the Pioneer Press has done a critique that I don't agree with. Much like some of these critiquers, they are comming out and saying "oh, Vista isn't special, its just Mac OSX"

Instead of re-writing a blog post, I will just show you my responce to Julio's article in the paper:

JULIO,

I thought your critique of Vista was a little off. You left out the important part about lack of business functionality with Mac OSX. I don't buy software because its "different," I buy software because it works... and Windows has 95% of the market share, not because they pointed a gun to our heads, but because over the years, their product has been the better product for just about everyone for just about every kind of use... so everyone uses their choice and their money to purchase what works best for them. Does Microsoft charge you 100 bucks per service pack like Apple has done with OSX 10.1 10.2 10.3 (service pack 1, 2 and 3?) No they do not.

So, in respect to "Ripping the other guy off" I would argue that every time Apple tries to increase their market share or cater to businesses or gamers, or anyone besides the Photoshop user, they are copying what Microsoft has already done. But let me ask you this. What would you rather have: An Operating system that you can use with a wider variety of software, and you can install on any computer you wish (including computers you make yourself)? Or an OS that is not only less compatible, but that forcibly restricts their user as to which computer they can put it on?

Also, when you look at safety and security... you have to account for the the users as well. For example:lets pretend you are a very safety orientated person. You want the safest car you can get so you can be as safe as possible. So you buy a Volvo. you drive your Volvo like any safety orientated person would... safely. You have the car for 3 years and never get into an accident. What is it, the car or the driver that is safe? I would argue that like a Gun, it’s not the machine that does the killing or the saving, but it is the user of the machine.

Now, enter Mac users. They are arguably cultist. They will admit to this. you would be hard pressed to find as many anti-mac clubs as you would anti-windows clubs. Is this because of their software being a failure? Not with 95% of the market share. People vote with their money remember. The anti-windows clubs exist because there are people who find the need to push and rebel against the system. Any system. If the same base of cultist windows users existed, I would be willing to bet, much like Apple OSX, it would be virus free. What about Right Clicking? For the longest time, Apple users couldn't right click. That was a Windows Only thing. Now you can Right-Click on a Mac. I didn't hear anyone complaining that Apple stole right clicking from Microsoft Windows, do you?

Some Fun Facts and Links about Apple:

Apple 'falsified' share documents
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/appel_share_fakes/

Apple takes $84 million charge
http://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-6146295.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

Apple options review claims Anderson's scalp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/04/apple_stock_options_review/

Apple may need to restate last 15 quarters
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/04/apple_results_restatement_likely/

Apple, CA investigate share option grants
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/30/ca_apple_option_trouble/

Unpatched bug bites Apple Mac OS X
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/22/mac_zero_day_bug/

Month of Apple bugs planned for January
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/month_of_apple_bugs/

Apple to delay quarterly results filing
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/11/apple_to_miss_sec_filing_date/

Apple's Extreme Arrogance:
http://news.com.com/2100-1047-6149285.html?tag=yt

Apple partnering with Microsoft in 97
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY&mode=related&search

in 2006 Net Profit Margins:
Apple Computer: 10.34%
Exxon: 10.15%
ConocoPhillips: 8.10

So Apple has a higher profit margin then “Big Oil.” Where are the calls to look into price gouging? So, perhaps you should compare things like this. Compare who has chosen what OS. When you ask people to make the switch (like I have from Apple to Windows) you should ask them to weigh in more to their decision then how pretty it is... like how they can use it for their business, how it will make them more productive, how they can use it for entertainment (Mac isn't exactly known for their game selection either) or how it has helped the world. Apple us used for movies. Great. Go Arts. Windows is used to run the world economic system. But Apple fanboys will never admit to this. I would expect a "reporter" such as your self, Julio, to be more objective.

Thanks,
Pete

********** Update 1/30/07 4:15pm **********

From Wikipedia.

Apple has also copied certain innovations from other companies: tabbed dialogs on Macintosh appeared after IBM used them in OS/2. Since the original settlement of the lawsuit, many features of the Macintosh and Windows GUIs have been incorporated into the windowing environments of unrelated third-parties, such as OpenWindows, X11, and Solaris.

The Mac OS dock is derived from the NeXTSTEP dock (Mac OS X itself originating from NeXTSTEP). The dock as seen in Mac OS X and NEXTSTEP is very similar to the dock that is a major design feature of RISC OS, which already featured
its so-called iconbar as early as 1987.

Julio's blog can be viewed here. When it comes to a tech blog, it is far from what anyone would call "fair and balanced." I also enjoy how the Comments section of it is broken, thus not allowing users to post information to correct his swill that included a reasonable length. so instead I will e-mail him a link to this blog.

Let he who is without copyness of innovations cast the first raid card.

You Voted For This...

From the same people who brought you zingers like: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and " I support the military" comes a new year for lies... This time, the lie is:

We will restore civility to our debate. As Speaker it will be my solemn duty to serve not just one party, but the whole House of Representatives. To that end, we will restore bipartisanship to the administration of the House, re-establish regular order for considering legislation, and ensure the rights of the minority – whichever party is in the minority. The voice of every American has a right to be heard, and that is what the American people expect and deserve. - Nancy Pelosi

This quote is directly from Nancy Pelosi's House Democratic Leader website, and it hasn't even been 2007 for 9 hours (where I live) before this is already shown to be a lie. To quote the Washington Post:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Folks. I wish I could say I was completely by-partisan... well, not realy. In fact, I believe that most things that is done by the political left is just plain... Stupid. However, I know that without a right wing, and a left wing, our little air plane isn't gunna fly. We need freaks like Nancy Pelosi to use as examples of what liars you don't want your kids to grow up as. And No, I don't agree with President Bush on everything. But the best chance the democrats can use to claim he "lied" (WMDs) was him making a decision based on the intelligence from our own military, as well as the intelligence from MANY other countries and IRAQ Admitting to having WMDs.

Democrats and republicans both lie... they are people. You can find examples from both sides. But I don't know how people can keep voting for the dems. I expected such a move from them... for years they were the minority, and now that they are the majority, they say "now is the time for bipartinship." That line was BS to start with... but that’s how they work. as long as they are in control, its okay to be bipartisan. This is the same group that chastized Nixon but defended Clinton. The same group that believes that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged because they didn't win, and the same group that tries to sue-sue-sue when they don't get the election results they want. Amazing, the apparent "lack" of voter fraud in 06 as apposed to 2000 and 2004, isn't it?

But Nancy and her party shows their stripes, taking away the promise of working with "both sides" in a "restored sence of bipartisanship."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

Which they should have seen a mile away.

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

Yea Right.

********** Update 1/3/07 11:00am **********

Checking on MSNBC's website fore news, something I do often to anger myself, as they do not tend to be... um... "Fair and balanced." I came across this story:

Bush calls on Democrats to work with him.

Now, I have been quoted as pointing out the extension of the olive branch to 'work together':

1/20/06 - "Consider the partisan olive branch extended."

10/19/05 - "Extend the olive branch, only for a dem to hit you with it sort'a thing."

2/3/05 - "this is so aggravating. why can't the democrats just WORK with the republicans? why do they have to be babies about everything!? You don't have to answer this if it pisses you off. I wanted to draw it to everyone's attention that I think it is another pathetic display on how the republicans have that olive branch extended, but the democrats just can't stop hitting them with it."

2/1/05 - "Bush extended the olive branch, the left is beating him with it while hugging the tree."

However, looking at the rating for this story (of which MSNBC's ratings seam to track the leftist opinion of the stories, don't believe me? Try looking under the environMental section for starters) it would seam there are those who don't want the olive branch to be taken. I expressed my doubt that the democrats would hold to their promise of 'working together' yesterday... and the more I look into it, the more it seams Dems don't want to. Mark my words:

1/3/07 - "The only use a democrat has for the olive branch republicans hold out will only be to give them a concussion"

"To You, for the new year, are offered 1(one) Wheet Thin as a peace offering. Lets make this year a good one... Together. Please don't hurt me." - George W Bush Action Figure

Illegal to rent to illegals?

As our general rule goes... If the ACLU is for something, we're against it. If the ACLU is against something, we're for it... and in this case, we're really for it.

To Quote the Associated Press:

Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a suburb's new law that outlaws renting to undocumented illegal immigrants, alleging the ordinance violates federal law and forces landlords to act as immigration officers.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of residents and landlords in Farmers Branch, Texas.

Plaintiffs include two landlords as well as Latino legal permanent residents and U.S. citizen children who fear the ordinance will force them to separate from relatives or leave their homes, the suit said.

The law, along with a measure that made English the official language of the city, was passed in November and is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 12.

Well, these organizations always seam to be confused with the word undocumented "Illegal" so let me help them out:

According to Dictionary.com:

undocumented il•le•gal [i-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
–noun
3. Informal: undocumented illegal alien
1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

Okay. So, the definition of undocumented "Illegal" is something forbidden by law or statute (like my summer driving). That’s pretty easy. So, to use this cool new word we've all learned together, things that are undocumented "illegal" are forbidden.

Then it goes on to define for us undocumented "Illegal Alien" (which is interchangeable with undocumented "Illegal Immigrant," you can look it up if you don't believe me) as a foreigner who enters the country unlawfully or without our (the United States of America's) authorization.

This is fun. In general, Undocumented Illegal Immigrants are not cool. You still with me, ACLU?

Now, thanks to them being undocumented "Illegal" we can do things like tell employers that they can not be hired and deny them things like 'government assistance' for housing. This is where it really gets fun.

HOW THE JUNK ARE YOU GOING TO LEGALLY PAY FOR YOUR APARTMENT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGAL FRACK'IN JOB!?

Seriously! Can anyone at the ACLU answer this one for me? And donations from the Anti-Christian Liberties Union whops... American Communist Liberties Union was that in my outside voice? Ah Hem! Handouts from the American Civial Liberties Union don't count.

So, IF for some reason, an undocumented illegal immigrant could pay for their nice little apartment in Dallas, one of the things you need to show when getting an apartment is a form of ID, and there’s this whole renters credit thing that you get for renting instead of owning, and if you're not supposed-to be here anyway, well, that just fracks that whole thing up. Its a total paperwork mess, not to mention the people trying to get an apartment or whatever are here undocumentedly ILLEGALY! They should be shipped back home, politely asked to remove the Mexican Flag from the back window of their Ford F-150, and to apply for citizenship, in which case, Tony and I will welcome them with open arms, so that they may be assimilated into our culture.

But until that day... Until they have paperwork saying they are here legally, they are not entitled to a place to work, a place to live, or a pot to pee in. They are entitled to Jack.

Iraq Study Report & Troop Reduction Not Recommended

Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/859263.html

Experts advise (President) Bush not to reduce troops despite what the Iraq Study Report says. This story comes out by the Washington Post (And MSNBC also mentions that the ARMY Also wants more troops). This fly’s in the face of the Iraq Study Report, and I doubt you will see this in the Star Tribune. Let me show you why I feel that following the Iraq Study report is... Dumb.

To quote the Associated Press, with a completely non-bias, center leaning, middle of the road, objective article titled "Panel: Bush's Iraq Policies have failed:"

Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great

Wow, this sounds familure. World War II... Lots of US Soldiers died for a war with violence that escalated the further the war went on with no guarantee of success and huge huge consequences of failure. The only thing that’s not the same between the two (the way the Associated Press writer words it) is that Iraq has gotten very unpopular, where World War II was very popular? Oh yea, Never mind that last part, The US Didn't want to get into World War II either.

An intrestering side note that also bothers me: People Anti-War folks try to say "why attack Iraq when they didn't attack us?" Well, in world war II, why attack Germany when they didn't attack us? Wasn't it Japan that attacked us, which pushed us into war on the otherside of the planet with Germany? Iraq is the same. And why do you think terrorists are trying so hard to keep Iraq? Because, oh, I don't know, It must be important to them...

It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. should also begin a "diplomatic offensive" by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said.

Okay, I have a question. What the crap is a "Diplomatic Offensive?" Have the ones we're fighting (terrorists and extremists) ever asked to sit down and talk? Would you believe the word of a group that has said that they want all us "infidels" dead? Do you think a group that has made statements to that effect could be trusted with diplomacy?

"I feel encouraged, and I feel the stay-the-course strategy is officially dead."
— Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Well, I think you, Jane Harman, are an Idiot. To illustrate this point, Let me call upon the views of those who agree with her: ThinkProgress.org. This is quite interesting... watch how I spin this. To Quote Think Progress.org:

A newly translated letter from al-Qaeda’s leadership to their Iraq organization shows the Bush administration’s “stay the course” Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants:

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

This summer, Bush administration officials repeatedly justified their Iraq policy by pointing to al Qaeda propaganda. One example of many:

DAN BARTLETT: So, it doesn’t matter what we say. We should be taking the - the words of the enemy seriously. They think [Iraq is] the fight of the war on terror, so, we must as well. [8/31/06]

Will the White House change its tune now that al Qaeda has endorsed “stay the course”?

For one, this letter is from Al Qaeda is directed to members of Al Qaeda telling them to stay in Iraq, and to fight us, no matter what, or as they say:

even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that.

So, ThinkProgress.org... Al Qaeda didn't say anywhere in there that they want the US to stay in Iraq, but that they want to keep fighting for Iraq. I can't believe that you (ThinkProgress.org) are so willing to put forth your own propaganda as to distort clear facts in that manor.

Secondaly, apparently ThinkProgress.org does not remember in 2004 when Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden him self told us not to vote for President Bush.

We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.

So, with that said, since you (ThinkProgress.org) feel in your own misguided opinion that because Al Qaeda wants us to stay the course (using your own words), that now, thanks to me pointing it out to you again, You feel that Bush is a correct choice because Al Qaeda did not want him as president?

This isn't about partisan politics, people. Its about Logic. Don't let your partisan hatred for President Bush get in the way of the safety of the United States. It is illogical to think that because Al Qaeda wants Iraq, we should let them have it... Because Al Qaeda wants to fight for it, we should back down. So, now that I'm done poking a morinic group with the stick of Justice, back to this "report." (What exactly is "Progressive" about running away, anyway?)

We CAN NOT be diplomatic with Al Qaeda, no matter how much this report wants us to be, or how much the public want us to end a war. To alter the plan to include one of diplomacy with a group that wants to kill us is suscide.

"We will not accomplish victory by setting arbitrary deadlines or negotiating with hostile governments." — Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

And that brings me into the second point about this report. The Withdraw by 2008. If we told Germany in World War II (and by tell Germany, I mean, our media and news papers, because our enemy can read the Star Tribune just as easily as I can) that we are going to take our troops out in 1945, do you think we would have won World War II? No, because the enemy would have just held out until that time, and they would have won. I know war sucks, people, but so does spanking your child. And if you tell your child that you will only spank him 5 times in his life, you may as well tell him you will never punish him.

So, your witty comment to take away from this is:

War is like spanking a child. It sucks, but sometimes you have no choice.

The Iraq Study Report is doing nothing but appealing to what the public wants (thanks to the bombardment of the Media Agenda). This report was nothing but a political gesture to try to tell people that the government is thinking about what people are whining about.

To Quote Chuck Norris:

America: Don't stick your head in the sand!
This is one of my greatest concerns for our newly elected Democratic-majority House and Senate: that they not stick their heads in the sand regarding the war on terror.
With anti-American extremist cells loose and growing in the world, now is not the time to drop our guard and funding on intelligence, national security and the global spread of anti-American sentiment.
Regardless of whether our troops stay or are withdrawn from Iraq, America's enemies will remain relentlessly in pursuit of our downfall and destruction, in and outside our country.
Of course our enemies are not the Japanese or the Germans like they were back then, but a network of nebulous extremists. And our battlefield is not any specific location, but anywhere our adversaries can lie in foxholes of fear.

Make no mistake about it: If we don't fight them abroad, we'll fight them at home.

I will leave you with this. It is pathetic when someone takes a quote that says "there is no guarantee of success" and uses that as their proof that we should leave. There is never a guarantee of success in any situation, but if we used that as a reason not to fight, or push on, or advance ourselves... we would probably still be building premeds out of sand... unless there is no guarantee of succeeding at that either. If we listen to the people who want us out of Iraq, before you know it, Iraqi Ambassador Osama will hang out at the UN Headquarters in New York telling us how unfortunate it was that we forced them to cause 9/11, and we'll be apologizing to him.

********** Update 12/27/06 9:35am **********

See, I'm not crazy. To quote CNN:

Biden said he opposes adding troops in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommended adding troops to the 140,000 U.S. in the country. And there have been signs that the administration favors putting more troops in Baghdad as a way to curb the escalating violence there.

Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.
"We should be drawing down troops gradually, forcing the Iraqis to meet their own
needs to end this civil war by a political agreement," Biden said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose.

Amazing. While I don't agree with the Iraq Study Report saying we need to withdraw by 2008 (that decision should be made based on the assessment of the situation there), which Biden DOES agree with, I do agree with the Iraq Study Report's assessment that more troops would be good (to stomp out the fires), which Biden DOES NOT agree with.

Legislation Gone Wild: Trans Fats Edition

Usually, once every day, something happens to me that I can't believe... I get out of another speeding ticket, I put down the Xbox 360 controler to actually go to work, or make it to Lifetime Fitness to work out instead of driving to McDonalds by mistake, but today, it would fit in the "Stupid Stuff Someone In Government Does" category. A category once reserved for anything John Kerry says, or the idea that Heroin should be made legal.

New York City has passed legislation that by July 2008, will ban outlaw Transative Fats in prepaired (from resteraunts) foods. And its not just Burgers and Fries that are affected. here is a short list of things that I can not live without:

• Cheesecake (yes, famous New York cheesecake)
• Pizza
• Cookies
• doughnuts
• butter (even the "extra light spreads")
• French Freedom Fries
• Ranch, French Salad dressing
• Beef (any kind, because the flavor comes from fat!)
• Sausage
• Any buttered Microwave popcorn
• Milk Freaking Chocolate
• Eggs

Oh, so wait, all we have to do is just use different ingredients, right?

Nope. Think about it. The food sells because people like it. If you change (in most cases) one ingredient, you have to alter the entire recipe to account for the change of taste. Then, you have to alter how it is cooked, and change how that food is supplied to the restraints (as if one city bans something, doesn't mean everyone else is going to be so stupid) so the rest of the nation can go on eating what we want.

And lets not forget the advertising. Much like the automobile manufactures in the 80s did when many of them went to Front Wheel Drive, These food/restaurant companies are going to have to spend millions billions to try to convince that the new way is better, that everything is going to be more tasty then it was, or taste just fine. But look how many manufactures are going back to rear wheel drive (or some who have not changed). The people who pay for stuff know better, or they have a preference for one thing over another. there is no way you can take all the food that’s out now, completely re-make it in less then 18 months, and say that you will like it better now... because if there was a better tasting version, we would be ordering it currently.

And do you think it will be free for the companies to do all this? No. And who do you think Outback Steakhouse or McDonalds will pass the savings expense onto? The people who purchase the stuff in the first place. And you wonder why you can't buy a car for less then 10k. (much like cars with all the government mandated safety systems and computer controlled stuff, inflation does not account for all of the expense increases)


Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Selvester Stalone plays John Sparten, to make a long story short, he is frozen for a while then thawed to fix what the current "administration" can't handle... a big bad ciminal. when he awakes, this conversation takes place:

John Spartan: You, get me a Marlboro.
Alfredo Garcia: Yes, of course....What's a Marlboro?
John Spartan: It's a cigarette. Any cigarette.
Lt. Lenina Huxley: Smoking is not good for you.Anything not good for you is bad... Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine,contact sports, meat--
John Spartan: You have got to be sh**'in me!

As John later figures out, salt is illegal also. New York has taken the second step in becomming a nanny state (the first was outlawing smoking in resteraunts). Sooner or later, it is only logical to outlaw Salt, because salt too, can kill... But then again, so can Water if you have too much of it. What are you going to do about Dihydrogen Monoxide, New york?

So, what, there is no way companies will get rid of Trans Fats unless the Government (with a capital G) steps in and makes them?

The government (small g) is not needed. Wendy's introduced Zero-Trans fat oil in August, and others are working on it, including YUM Brand Inc.'s Taco Bell & KFC. Taco Bell has worked for over two years to find a way to do it, while using blind consumer taste tests and a huge amount of research.

“We conducted a tremendous amount of consumer research to make this the right choice for our customers,” said Emil J. Brolick, Taco Bell’s president.

Companies will do this on their own, because the market will dictate it. People choose with their money. Its a wonderful system we have here (capatalism) and its a shame whenever Government (big G) has a chance to step in and foul it up.

Blog update

Some of you may have noticed a huge lapse in posts here. Well, to be quite honest I have been too busy everywhere else in my life to blog.

Work has been a zoo. The election day preparations took too much of my time before the elections and my analysis of the elections (part of which was posted on this blog) forced me to look at an event that I was already sick of. That was energy zapping.

Projects for the radio show have me bogged down. We are hoping to complete "A Christmas Carol" in time for our Christmas Eve show. It is a tight schedule and I have people coming to my house to record their parts in what seems to be every other day. Finding the needed sounds, music and also adapting the story for radio was a huge task.

ThePete (co-author of this blog) has also been incredibly busy. He has been helping with technical upgrades for the Show's Discussion Board, building his own non-political discussion board, building a car or two, helping with the show's "A Christmas Carol" and who knows what else.

Additionally ThePete and I have been working on what will be the new Race to the Right website. It is not complete but take a peek...http://wiki.racetotheright.com.

So, I love blogging. But it always has been the most expendable thing on my plate. I would suggest, for the next several months at least, reading this blog with an RSS reader or something similar. Posts will be very infrequent at least until some of these projects for the show and some of the projects at home get completed. There are many good syndication feeds...Blog Lines, Google has a pretty good reader for your customizable home page, Pluck is another one...

Use them until we are able to post more regularly again.

Thank you.

Election Analysis--Complete List

I posted here on this blog a portion of my Election 2006 analysis. It was long so I had to break it up into several posts. Here is a listing of them in relatively close order of posting (not in the order of the complete document).

Election Analysis--Preface
Election Analysis--Issues--Iraq
Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 1
Election Analysis--Issues--GOP Strategy part 2
Election Analysis--DEM Strategy--Same Thing, Different Results
Election Analysis--Results--Nationally
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide Intro
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 1
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 2
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 3
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 4
Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 5
Election Analysis--2008 Elections

And a late inclusion to the original document...
You got what you wanted

One tidbit, post-election related, but not in the original document...
Checking the TradeSports predictions

Muslim insensitivity?

At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 6:30pm last night, 6 Muslims were kicked off an American Airlines plane for standing up and praying, and as of yet, American Airlines is not allowing them on another one of their airplanes.

MSNBC Reports

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.

Omar Shahin, one of the 6 men, said

“They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way,”

Ok. Has anyone reading this ever been arrested? Or perhaps thrown in the back of a squad car for anything? Perhaps kicked out of a building for being loud and obnoxious? I have not experienced all three of those, but of the two I have experienced, I would assume being kicked off of an airplane would be close to the same experience, and when you get kicked off or out of something, or locked up, being treated “Respectfully” or in a non “humiliating” manor by The Man is the last thing on his mind. Am I right here or what? The fact that someone would report about someone’s feelings being hurt as their taken away by authorities is bizarre to me… but then again, anything reported that isn’t Christianity seams to be given a little fluffier a treatment.

Also, another problem I have with this. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists have been Muslims. This is where I will support the crap out of “Racial Profiling” or whatever you want to call it. Without naming any races, it's not my fault that 12.8% of the population is responsible for 30.2% of the crime I the United States, but unlike the color of one’s skin, more specifically, the religion one has seams to have a much higher ratio of those who have committed the crime of terrorism. So, because of these blaring facts, (and I am not sorry that the facts are the facts) I would be worried if any Muslims were praying on an airplane… Especially after Sept 11th, the thwarted attempt out of England, and… oh yea, the fact that Muslims Terrorists have mentioned that they will stop at nothing until we are all dead. Perhaps Muslims need to be sensitive to the feelings of those around them and not pull moves that have been witnessed in conjunction with terrorist attacks... like standing and prying in groups on an Airplane.

Where are the news articles about the Muslim insensitivity shown by repeatedly committing acts that scare the US public?

Election Analysis--2008 Elections

Please don't start '08 until '08--Fatigued and will be pissed
I can see already that this request will fall on deaf ears. But I will make it anyway. Please do not start Campaign '08 until, well, 2008. Since 1999 it has been constant discussion about candidates and running for office. It is fatiguing. I am usually interested in this stuff and I am sick of "elections" and "campaigns". On the air I am putting a moratorium on Election 08 discussion until no earlier than November 2007. I have talked to many people who also (foolishly) were hoping that if they vote Democrat (or anti-incumbent) then the campaigning will stop for a few months at least.

People want a break from it. So please, do not campaign for 2008 until, well, 2008. Look at the candidates in 2006 that started their campaigns in 2005. They turned out to be hamstrung and alienating of their base.

Count how many "exploratory committees" started more than 15 months before an election actually saw that person actually be on the ballot for the targeted election.

For that matter, how many election winners were the "leading candidate" more than 12 months before the election.

Starting that early is the kiss of death. And each one that does it for 2008 I hope for an excruciatingly disappointing end for your campaign as well.
Hard Left wing of 'D' won elections for 'D', and control 'D'
The Hard Left wing of the Democrats won the elections for the Democrats this year. They are the vocal and active minority portion of the Democrat party. Yet they have incredible influence within the Party. If most of the media had to decide which wing they would be a part of, the uber-liberal or the moderate to liberal, most of them would choose the uber-liberal. That gives the Hard Left a louder voice and deceptively stronger influence within the Party.

But they do not have the numbers to support their voice. Worse than that, they believe and behave as if they have the numbers within the Party to control the Party.

A clear example of this is the entire Lieberman saga. Voice enough to not endorse Lieberman, but not enough real numbers when it comes time to actually defeat Lieberman. In between the Democrats are torn between catering to what seems to be the strong presence of the Hard Left or catering to the middle Left which could also put them near the moderates.

This dilemma is what will divide the Democrats unity. Unity was easy when simply being the minority party and running obstruction constantly. They never had to resolve the difference to decide what legislation and solutions to pursue.

Now they must author solutions and that will force confrontations within the Party. The 'scorched Earth' mentality in each aspect of discourse from the Hard Left does not leave room for expectations that these confrontations can be done without damaging the Democrats' majorities.

Compounding this coming division is the ideological position of the country. It is not close to the Hard Left and a habit of spinning facts beyond being factual so they can claim to be representative of the mainstream has fooled them into actually believing that. The newly acquired majorities will slap the Hard Left, put the moderate Left in a difficult position and open the door for a quick snapback to Republican majorities in 2008.

That is unless the GOP continues their own incompetence or takes on the Democrats as minority failure seize opportunities
Pawlenty in the White House
The whispers have been going for a long time and they began to pick up momentum again after Election 2006. Tim Pawlenty in the White House…it is possible. Frankly I believe trying to assess the possibility of someone's viability as a Vice Presidential candidate are as solid as assessing the exact score of next year's Super Bowl. But Pawlenty's prospects as a Presidential candidate are worth some light examination.

I believe the chances of Pawlenty's ability to win the nomination for President are dependent on one last thing: his performance during the 2007 session. He has two general options. Go-along to get-along, which would require him to continue his sprint away from the Right, past the middle and into the Left. The other general option is to become the hard conservative.
Go Along to Get Along
In examining this position one must understand the risks of this course of policy and the possibility of Pawlenty taking this course.

Possible...blamed last 2 yrs on slim majority
Is it possible for Pawlenty to run to the Left? Certainly. He started his first term at far Right and by his third year moved to the center. By his fourth year in office Pawlenty was pushing Moderate Left in his fiscal policies. From his comments in the first few days after the election it is clear that Pawlenty's sprint towards the left is not near completion.

Pawlenty blamed his sudden shift on the slim Republican majority in the House coupled with the Democrat majority in the Senate. Essentially Pawlenty was unable to find his bully pulpit, his veto pen or his realm of influence. That was with a divided legislature.

Now that he has to face nearly veto proof Democrat majorities in the Legislature it is hard to believe Pawlenty is capable of finding the will to fight his opposition party at all.

All things considered this option is the most realistic expectation. Pawlenty will yield to the Democrats and spin it as "bi-partisanship". Come early 2008 he will use it as proof that he can "work across the aisle" though the reality will be he is unable to fight for his own beliefs, principle or positions.

Evaporate his support further from fiscals
This portion of the analysis is assuming that one of Pawlenty's eyes is focused on the White House. Assessing the risk of this "Go Along to Get Along" philosophy is necessary. Pawlenty's history shows he mistakenly believes he can win the opposition's support by giving in to their demands repeatedly. Unless he finally learned in 2006 that "giving in" does not win support, he is very likely to believe that "working together" in 2007 will be a resume booster for 2008.

The reality is to the contrary.

By giving in further to the opposition Pawlenty will continue alienating the fiscal conservatives and his support from the wary supporters of 2006 will evaporate as well. Lukewarm support from one's base is a recipe for disaster. Should Pawlenty take this road and still win the nomination I would expect a Dole 96 or Bush 92 showing from Pawlenty. Fiscal conservatives around the country will not be enthusiastic and the ripple effect will be destructive.

Could put as "McCain moderate" in White House hopes
The one thing that may weigh in Pawlenty's favor is the degree of party loyalty. We have seen, especially here in Minnesota, in 2006 a willingness without hesitation of the GOP members to set their principles aside for the sake of party victory...regardless of their candidate's record.

A Pawlenty ticket may evoke some of those tendencies. The success of Pawlenty's White House run after a "Go Along" 2007 session depends heavily on the match-ups. My view is there is too much to overcome if Pawlenty fails to use his veto pen often enough.
Stand hard against legislature (more than first 2 years)
The other road for Pawlenty is to veto, veto and some more veto. Grab hold of the fiscal conservative platform that pushed him into office in 2002.

Possible...
It is possible for Pawlenty to return to his 2002 campaign promises. Possible, though, is not probable. He had a great record in his first two years. But the reason for his performance and staying true to his campaign promises to his base is simple. There was no risk for him. The House would pass a fiscally conservative bill. Pawlenty could push for a bill that was not as conservative, but still appear conservative enough. The Senate would pass a bill that was liberal in spending, though not as much as they would have like. The compromises between the House and Senate would be "justifiably moderate" and still conservative enough to please the Right.

He had a GOP controlled House to run his cover through.

Now his decisions will be all his own, there will be no cover for Pawlenty in 2007. No one will be able to be blamed for being too conservative, there is no "happy medium" or middle ground for him to stake out for his compromises.

Historically this means Pawlenty will try land somewhere left of center.

Strengthen/re-strengthen support from fiscals
Should Pawlenty miraculously find his veto pen and start standing up for the principles he gives lip service to presently then Pawlenty could be in position for a huge push towards the White House.

Many of the frontrunners of 06 have been knocked out for one reason or another. Those that are still standing are moderates, or at least viewed that way (as in John McCain's case). That leaves the conservatives looking for someone to get behind.

Should Pawlenty move back to his conservative side it will energize the conservative, both fiscal and social, the moderates an the undecided independents. The fiscals will feel they finally have a voice again be can become a highly energetic voice.

This road I believe would make him a strong bet to win the White House in 2008. I would not bet on Pawlenty taking this course of action, though.
The Dark Horse possibility: Bachmann
It pains me to say this, but I think the dark house or long shot bet is Michele Bachmann. This is a fairly simple concept so it will be brief.

Michele has become the darling of the Right across the country. There is no question about her ability to stand in the face of fire while in Congress (though she avoids tough questioning like the plague). These two traits and the latitude to take strong stands in Congress with little risk of her stands actually seeing a vote gives her the power to mold herself as THE top conservative.

Republicans, nervous still about a run by Hilary would love this.

Bachmann is a political campaign machine. No one campaigns better, distorts facts about their opponent in a convincing fashion better, or has the long term organization. Noone is better at manipulating a system, a group or a person for their own gain than Bachmann. Only Keyser Soze may be better at meticulous planning of manipulation. I would not be surprised to find out that strategizing has already begun...formulating which issues to bring up in Congress and which one to avoid all to position herself better.

If you are looking for the long shot with a real chance then Bachmann may be it.

This concludes the election analysis that I am publishing through the blog. It represents about 2/3 of the writing and may be available eventually through other sources. Again, remember that these are the thoughts based on the outline I drafted the morning after Election Day 2006.

Back off Viking Fans

I was wearing my 49ers jersey this past weekend. As many know, my favorite NFL teams are the 49ers and the Colts. The 49ers have been my #1 team since Los Angeles lost my hometown Rams before the 1995 season and the Colts my #2 team since they drafted Peyton Manning before the 1998 season. I liked the Vikings before I moved to Minnesota...watched Ahmad Rashad's 'Miracle Catch' in 1980. I moved to Minnesota and still like the Vikings...until I witnessed the bandwagon hopping worse than I have seen anywhere else. Since then I have not been a supporter of the purple.

So when Vikings fans start to ride me for wearing my 49ers jersey (like many have this past week) I feel I have more ground to respond.

This Season
The 49ers (5-5) beat their division leading Seahawks (6-4) yesterday. The Vikings (4-6) lost to the Dolphins (4-6). The 49ers are in their longest winning streak (3 games) since weeks 8-10 in 2002. With the win yesterday the 49ers will have their best record since the 2003 season when. If (and this is a big IF) they split their remaining schedule the 49ers will avoid being under .500 for the first time since 2002. Even more importantly for the sake of the franchise, if they can pull off a .500+ record this season they will end the run of 3 consecutive losing seasons...and avoid matching the franchise's longest run of 4 season (which was from 1977-1980).

The 49ers this week are 1 game ahead of the Vikings. Last season the 49ers were a game ahead of the Vikings for only the first two weeks. To go later than week 2 and find the 49ers ahead of the Vikes you have to go back to 2002.

2005...Week 2 (SF 1-1, Min 0-2)
2002...Entire Season (SF 10-6, Min 6-10)

Clearly the 49ers have been on a downtick. But that seems to have turned around when compared to the team of my antagonists (the Vikings). And keep in mind also that the 49ers beat the Vikings this year!!!

Franchise
All I have to say here is
1. San Francisco vs Minnesota all time head-to-head: 20-19-1
2. Championships...San Francisco is 5-0 in the Super Bowl and the Vikings are 0-4.

So, when I wear my jersey...BACK OFF.

:)

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 5

Of the eight Congressional races only two had something that I believes warrants analysis.
No Surprises
In six of the Congressional races there were no surprises. Two of the Republicans won re-election easily. The three Democrat incumbents also won easily. The open Democrat seat was won easily. I am surprised by the large percentages for both Tammy Lee and Alan Fine in the 5th District. All in all of these 6 districts (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th & 8th) there were no surprises whatsoever.
6th Congressional District
Why so many people (including myself) believed for a fraction of a moment that the 6th was "in play" is perplexing me now. It has been a solidly conservative district with a few pockets of strong Democrat support. Wetterling did not do well in the district in 2004 while she had the benefit of being a still grieving mother. In hindsight there was nothing Wetterling could have done to win the race.

The Democrats fell into an emotional trap when they endorsed Wetterling. Elwin Tinklenberg would have pulled moderates, could have pulled the fiscal conservative/socially liberal block and enough of the disaffected Republicans to win the district. The same block that sent Jim Knoblach to the state House or Jungbauer to the state Senate could easily have found enough in Tinklenberg to push him over the top.

While most of 2006 was marked with terribly run Republican campaigns, the 6th was marked by an incompetent Democrat campaign. There were many untrue labels the Wetterling camp could have tried sticking on Michele Bachmann and they could have stuck. A "liberal tax hike lover" was not among those. The person who thought trying to tie Bachmann to the Mark Foley scandal should have their Democrat membership card revoked. It is not a convincing line of argument to say, "Vote for me, vote for change, vote against the same old corruption in Congress" when your opponent is not a current member of Congress. This is before pointing out how misleading the "facts" that were uttered in those ads were.

The sad part is that regardless of who won the race between Bachmann or Wetterling the winner would have been rewarded for brazenly lying constantly about their opponent. Wetterling was also outmatched. Bachmann is the textbook incarnation of a typical politician...in every sense. She is able to get her machine rolling hard and fast. She is the best in the world of politics at lying to someone even though everyone knows she is lying and still making the person feel like they were not lied to. She is a Charismatic (take that as a negative or a positive). Wetterling, even if she had a competent and truthful campaign that showed a glimmer of understanding her positions had no chance of winning.

The only surprise in the 6th was that people thought it might have been close.
1st Congressional District
Tim Walz came out swinging at Gil Gutknecht about Iraq. Walz also came out firing about Gutknecht being to much like Bush. Gutknecht's reaction was what did him in...he ran away from those positions. If someone really wants to understand how Iraq was used in the elections they only need to look at the Minnesota's 1st District.

This was the most effective use of Iraq. Walz immediately pounded this as the main topic. And it scared Gutknecht off of it enough to leave him without anything to campaign on. Of all the candidates I heard interviewed Walz was the only one to tie every statement and position and response to Iraq. Not Bush, not Bush's policies and not the War on Terror...Iraq. Walz' theme was Iraq.

While other candidates used Iraq as one of many issues they still had other issues. "Change", "Social Programs", "Iraq"...those were from the other candidates. Walz' message was basically "Iraq needs to be changed. Social Programs cannot be addressed until Iraq is changed. Crime cannot be solved until Iraq is changed." Obviously this is exaggerating to demonstrate quickly how different the theme from Walz was compared to other Democrats. But the difference was Walz' campaign was about Iraq.

Gutknecht's efforts to distance himself from Iraq left the voters to wonder, "Hmm, if he is not for it now then it must be wrong. He helped start it so I will have to vote for the other guy." Simplistic, yes, but that is the effect running from one's record has.

I did not think Walz' strategy was going to work and so I was caught off guard by the results.

Coming Next: 2008 Elections

Election Analysis--Results--Statewide part 4

Attorney General
While looking at this race keep a few things in mind. Jeff Johnson is a very nice person...maybe to a fault. When I first talked to him as Attorney General candidate I wondered if maybe he was too nice to convince the average person he was capable of "going after" the people and companies that needed to be pursued. This fear of the unfortunate "flip side" of a candidate's image I could not get away from.

Understand also that people in this country think that everyone should be sued when one does not get their way in any fashion. If you have access to a law database go through and look at some of the complaints filed (and thrown out) throughout the country. We sue, and sue, and sue and sue. We like to punish if there is a hint of MABYE something that possibly could be perceived as interpreted as wrong.

So when the opponents of current Attorney General spend eight years complaining that he is sue-happy it rings to people. On the surface people hate that but they will remember one of those times they thought "yeah, they needed to be sued" and will find little reason to change the status quo.

The way I see it the complaint of a sue-happy or anti-business Attorney General is an all-or-nothing charge. And there is no way to tell beforehand if the message will be a winning theme or a losing theme.

Some people still try hanging the tobacco lawsuits around the DFL's neck (in a kind of 'guilt by association' line of attack). This is a perfect example of the double edge sword of a "sue happy" or "anti-business" charge. While sometimes people may think the tobacco lawsuits were a horrible precedent there are times when people (many of the same people) will secretly thank the Minnesota Attorney General for beating 'big tobacco'.

Enter Lori Swanson. A strategy from her based on "I can continue Mike Hatch's work" would be risky on so many fronts. Who sees his work being continued as a good thing? Risky toss-up. Who would support a candidate basically running to be their predecessor part II? Not many.

And Jeff Johnson's supporters (myself included) saw Swanson's ties to Hatch as a big negative, an indicator that more of the same anti-business practices would be in place and the continuation of using the Courts to create policy they could not get through the Legislature. To us the harms of Swanson's connection seem to be a truism. And we said so.

That logic we thought was irrefutably sound actually to the average person was not logical. In the end, we are sue happy and the charge that Swanson comes from a sue happy office could be a positive. Worse, by coming from opponents of Swanson it seems to be a personal attack--punishing her for doing her job.

I believe deeply this is what happened. By September I began to realize witness this effect when I talked to people and so I stopped using that line of support for Johnson. That left very little to offer the average person on Johnson's behalf. Johnson need more visibility.

Unfortunately Johnson's campaign was one of the most i