Westover must read

As I mentioned earlier I am busy and thus blogging rates will be down this week. However I do want to thank all of the new readers who are visiting through the new KNSI website. In fact, Race to the Right has a new/another Show Prep page found here.

Anyway, I have been trying to keep the radar on around the blogosphere and found a must read posting by Craig Westover. The beginning of it:

Michael B. Brodkorb, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, has sent a letter to Republicans detailing his opposition to Sue Jeffers seeking the gubernatorial endorsement of the Republican Party because she is also endorsed by the Libertarian Party and declared herself a Libertarian. Part of his opposition is based on differences between selected positions of the Libertarian Party and the Republican Platform.

Indeed these differences may present delegates with a reason why Jeffers should not be the endorsed Republican candidate. That is a delegate decision. However, rather than treat the differences as little more than a label to denigrate a political opponent, they better serve as a departure point for examining both Libertarian and Republican Party principles and how those principles manifest themselves in policy.

At least SOMEONE is taking a thoughtful approach in examining Sue Jeffers run for Governor. The opposition should really think about the meaning behind the words in the article.

I am on Media Matters...kind of

Media Matters is a liberal media watchdog that tries finds reasons every conservative on the air should be removed. Well, Glenn Beck is no different. However, I ended up on there because of a call I made to Glenn Beck.

They were talking about the Moussaoui verdict. Callers were supposed to advocate for or against the death penalty (since Glenn is on the fence). Considering that I go back and forth I figured I would be the first to justify the on the fence position.

Check out the transcript and/or the audio here.

It all comes together here

Remember the story of the teacher that had sex with a minor student but was not given prison time because she was too pretty? Ah, yes, finding reasons to ignore the relevant facts of a crime with regard to sentencing. (The other side of this coin, btw, is having family members testify at sentencing hearings. But that is a debate for another time.)

Now there is this story from Nebraska.

A judge's decision to sentence a 5-foot-1 man to probation instead of prison for sexually assaulting a child has angered crime victim advocates who say the punishment sends the wrong message.

But supporters of short people say it's about time someone recognizes the unique challenges they face.

Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava issued the sentence Tuesday. She told Richard W. Thompson that his crimes deserved a long prison sentence but that he was too small to survive in a state prison.

Though he could have been sentenced to 10 years behind bars, he ended up with 10 years of probation instead.

Just to give you an idea of how this is crossing the line of too many extra rights and protections being created check this out.

The judge's reasoning confounded Amy Miller, legal director for the Nebraska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I have never heard of anything like this before," she said.

No one has ever come to the ACLU to complain of height discrimination, she said. And using Thompson's height as a reason to avoid sending him to prison is surprising, because neither the U.S. nor state constitution provides protections based on physical stature, she said.

Hmm, even the ACLU says this is not a protection to be assumed from the Constitution. And seriously, how would this guys life in prison be?

A spokesman for the prison system said Thompson's height would not put him at risk among the state's 4,400 inmates. There are protections available in prison to help inmates who feel threatened, prison spokesman Steve King said, but to his knowledge, no one has ever taken advantage of them based on fears related to their height.

"He's not the shortest guy we have in prison," King said. "We've got some short guys that are as tough as nails. We've got people from all ages, physical stature of all sizes, in general population."

Hmm, so the judge is looking to protect the safety of short people. Why did he ignore the shorter of the people involved in the case...THE 12-YEAR OLD GIRL that was molested?

I guess I have to admit that I was partially wrong with the Debra Lafave case. I thought it could only happen becase she was a woman. Well, I have to clarify that now. Insane judgements being used to keep child molesters out of prison are not confined to women-on-boys but also extend to men-on-girls. What still would only happen to a woman-on-boy situation is the "too pretty for prison" arguement and the amount of support (nearly split) for the 'adult'.

Now, I heard a connection on the radio that I want to expand on. Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty and face over a hundred years in jail. Too harsh? I don't think so. But why are these guys facing these terms while the short child rapers could have been in prison for only 10 years maximum? I think it is due in large part to the over-vilification of Lay & Skilling by the public, the over-reporting of Enron by the media, the invalid efforts to use Enron against Bush, AND the under-reporting, under-vilification, over-rationalizing of child molesters. Worse was the Debra Lafave fascination...the support that she was getting...that further diminishes the ability of the courts to judge strictly on the facts of the case. Criminal courts should not worry itself with societal effects of a sentence on someone.

********** UPDATE **********
Called the aforementioned radio show (Glenn Beck) with these points. After quizzing me a bit Glenn stated that I must be the only sane person in Minnesota. Thanks, Glenn...can I fill-in for you sometime while you are on vacation?

Tough road coming for MN GOP

There has been a lot floating around the blogs in Minnesota about the number of legislators retiring.

First the skinny. The House will have at least 17 open seats. 11 formerly belonging to Republicans and six Democrats. Considering there was only a 2 vote (1 seat) lead for the GOP this is not good news. Plenty of resources will have to be used by the GOP just to defend their open seats. Though, with as many seats as they usually concede anyway perhaps this won't be so bad (typically there are about 20 races where the GOP loses by 40%-50% and so they use none of their resources so they lose big so they use no resources...you get the idea, chicken and the egg, but the point is they don't use their resources there).

The Senate is losing 8 members, six Democrats and 2 Republicans. Somehow I doubt these 6 DFL races will be contested much.

The good news is that there are 25 fewer incumbents!

The bad news is the issue-challenged GOP will use this to bolster their platform of threats. 'Uh oh, better vote for any Republican or else the state will go to hell.' They are right on one thing: the state in the hands of the DFL will be a horrid state. Anti-business in so many ways, anti-person responsibility, anti-small government. But then look at what the GOP is offering as an alternative. Anti-democracy (stadium), anti-business (how permanent are the tax cuts this year?), anti-small government (the budget grew how much above inflation? the government grew at all).

2006 is shaping up to be a platform ruled by fear. From which party? Both. Not much new there. The difference is that it will be the main theme for both parties.

So, what to do, what to do. Stay home. Let the bases decide the election this year. Why? Because the base for the Democrats and their candidates seem far out of touch with the mainstream and the base for the Republicans have been ignored by their incumbents and are lining up saying, "Thank you, sir, can I have another." They each get what they deserve and the state will not get what it deserves out of this election either way.

If there is a candidate locally that you are excited about go support them. Vote for them. The bigger races are loaded with disingenuous people who really do not deserve much support. For me it is people whose platforms I do not support pitted against people I have met personally and do not support the person. Yuck. Pure negativity. More about the other guys being bad and less of why they are good. (Sorry, KvM, you are the example I'm picking on right now because there is not a decently organized similar site even worth reading on the other side of the aisle.) As of this moment on Kennedy v Machine, for example, their last 10 posts have 6 stories about Amy Klobuchar, 1 about Mark Kennedy, 1 about Democrats and 1 about Lloyd Bentsen's passing. In the meantime there is an icon that they display (as do quite a few others around the Minnesota Republican blogs) that says:

Sick of Porktacular Republican Spending? Tired of nothing getting done on the border? Plan on sitting on your hands in Nov. 2006? I have 2 words that may make you think twice. Speaker Pelosi.

The entire election strategy in general is going to be both parties saying, "we are bad but they are worse."

Which brings us to whose responsibility is the November outcome? It is the fault/responsibility of the partisans in the two parties, not the voters of the general election. The partisans forwarded on people that made them feel good about their partisanship. Not their platforms or their principles, but their partisanships. "This candidate is good because they are a better [insert party membership]." Leaving the general voting public with a choice between garbage and sewer sludge means you cannot blame the general voting public for making a bad choice. Considering there has been and likely will be very little said by the campaigns and parties about themselves and more they will say about their opposition it will be hard not to believe the choices are anything but that bad.

Why is it a tougher road for the GOP? Because they are the ones in power. Statewide they have the Executive and the House. What have they done this year that is considered an accomplishment? Well, their base should not allow them to hoist any fiscally positive claims. There is little fiscally speaking that is positive this session for the GOP to claim. They have, well, the Twins stadium which actually was an afront on small government by usurping the ability to have a referrendum in Hennepin County. What can they run on? Very little.

The other side of the aisle likely does not have much of their own plans on fixing problems so they have little to say about themselves as well. They are great at pointing out the problems (whether real or not) but very light on the details to fix those problems.

So if the [insert party name] win, well, we are screwed one way or another.

Jason Lewis is returning

In case you have not heard the news:

Jason Lewis, the conservative's conservative who has wagged an untamed tongue at taxes and urban planning since 2003, is pulling the plug on his WBT-AM show.

Lewis, 50, is returning to Minneapolis with a five-year contract at a new talk radio station in the Twin Cities.

"It had nothing to do with me being unhappy here or WBT getting pressure," Lewis said Tuesday. He said he and his wife, who is from Minnesota, wanted to return to the North.

"It's a personal decision. WBT made a very generous offer. Everybody has home. It's time for me to go home and raise a family there."

Lewis' three-year contract with WBT (1110 AM) expires in October. WTLK-FM, owned by Clear Channel Radio, was launching a talk radio format and was interested in a local host who was knowledgeable about issues and known to Twin Cities listeners. Lewis fit the bill.

Lewis says he will keep doing his afternoon drive show on WBT until his contract expires or a replacement is named.

What I found the most interesting was the philosophy of WBT in replacing Lewis.

WBT does not have a new host in mind, but will probably select one with similar views and values, said Rick Jackson, general manager. "I think we'd be fools to move in another direction," he said.

Jackson said the station will be trying out other hosts on the air in coming months to see how they sound. He said he hoped to have a decision on a replacement before the end of the summer.

You think that maybe, just maybe, KSTP made a mistake in trying to change directions completely?

60,000 hits

It has been a pleasure writing this blog. It has been exactly what I hoped it would be...a chance to vet thoughts out for the show. It is my sandbox before I go to build something on the air.

It is still developing into an information resource as well. It is fun to do...I wish I had more time for the blog.

Thank you to Mitch for sending them (216-243-165-96.dialup.iphouse.net, IPhouse in Hopkins) here to be the 60,000th.

NBA Playoffs 2006--Conference Finals

Here we are...the NBA's second season. The first round has already started but as typical each year the first game of each series is barely a surprise.
YES, I know the 2nd Round already started. I have been sick and busy. The status of the series as they are right now does not change what I predict and my predictions are not terribly out of line with the conventional wisdom.

Eastern Conference
vs
#2 vs #1
Years ago I was in a debate that lasted years. Was Pat Riley, then the coach of the Lakers, a great coach or just the guy at the helm of a team with great players? I have to wonder the same now about Flip Saunders...how could a team as talented as the Pistons, as dominating as the Pistons have so much trouble with a team 14 games worse than them? Well, the two coaches face off in this series. The Heat are the better coached team, maybe, and the Pistons are the more talented team, maybe. One other factor is the Heat have been resting for a full week while the Pistons just finished a 7-game battle on Sunday. In the end I think the Pistons' talent will take care of the Heat and overcome the fatigue advantage the Heat will have.

Pistons in 6.

Western Conference
vs
#4 vs #2
Sadly the Mavericks just came out of the Western Conference's premiere matchup. They did it in 7 games with the 7th game going into overtime. Now they play the Suns. The Suns also went 7 games in the 2nd round. The difference here is that Dallas was evenly matched with the best in the West...possibly the best in the NBA. The Suns are not at that level. It should be an interesting series but the Mavericks should be on their way to their first Conference Title.

Mavericks in 6.

Barry Bonds hits HR 616

What to do with Barry Bonds? Take the scientific approach to Barry's home runs. In fact, just ride the work already done by ESPN and Patrick Hruby.

You say Bonds actually has 714 career home runs?

Er, no. Good one. But no. Sure, if you want to get all technical, there's no arguing that Bonds has forcefully redirected 714 pitches into home run territory over his 21 major-league seasons. Yet according to the ziggurat of evidence complied in the book "Game of Shadows," Bonds also ingested a Mexican farmacia's worth of performance-enhancing drugs during his peak slugging period, making some of those dingers less authentic than country crooner Kenny Rogers' reconstructed face.

Question is, how many? How many of Bonds' home runs are honest? And how many came courtesy of his reported juicing?

This article takes a scientific look at the factors that steroids helps someone's performance: Strength, Stamina, Longevity and Confidence. Then they take away homers based on this anaylsis. Want the list? Here it is. How did they justify this? Read on.

WARNING: This is a long post with lots of technical backup. So to save some of you the hassle of reading the justifications here is the Syllabus.

The extra strength accounted for about an extra 9 feet of flyball distance. Based on charts of Bonds' home runs and ball park dimensions where they were hit a total of 66 home runs were taken away. The extra stamina prevented a performance drop off during the "Dog Days of Summer". For this another 9 feet was deducted from homers in August, September and October. Thus another 17 dingers were deducted. Then (unscientifically, though semi-justifiably) 15 more were deducted because of increased reaction times and a psychological increase in confidence. That brings the total of tainted homeruns to 98.

Strength
Steroids increased Bonds' strength. That side effect is not a doubted one. Weight (and consequently strength) increases bat speed. An increase in bat speed results in an increase in flyball distance. There is a very specific formula that helps with this information.

Robert Adair wrote the book on baseball physics. Literally. His "The Physics of Baseball" has enjoyed multiple editions and is considered the classic text in its field.

On page 139, Adair provides an equation relating bat speed (that is, the speed of the bat's sweet spot at the moment it makes contact with the ball) to player weight:

V = k sqrt(M/(m+M/81))

(Note: V is the velocity of the bat in miles per hour, m is the bat weight in pounds, M is the player's weight in pounds, sqrt means square root and k is a constant, 10, in mph. Phew!)

According to Adair's formula -- and don't worry, we asked him to double-check the calculations, since our last math class came in high school -- the 206-pound Bonds generates a bat speed of 67.34 mph, while the 228-pound Bonds swings the same 32-ounce bat at 68.81 mph, an increase of 1.48 mph.

And before we go any further...No, Barry did not change his batting mechanics.

Jack Mankin is an electrical engineer. He also is a youth baseball coach and something of a baseball swing junkie.

Way back in 1986, Mankin bought a VCR that featured frame-by-frame replay, a rare and exotic luxury at the time. He taped about 100 major league games, then set out to chart the swing mechanics that separated great hitters from average ones.

Mankin taped plastic strips to his television screen. He used a grease pencil to trace body movement. He plugged his findings into computer spreadsheets. He's still at it today.

Recently, Mankin looked over clips of Bonds, from 1988 and the present. Conclusion?

"There's absolutely no change," said Mankin, who runs a Web site devoted to bat speed. "The only difference is that back then, most of his home runs were just enough to clear a 360-foot fence. Now, he's up to 400-some with the same dang swing."

The same dang swing. Only faster. In an excellent 2005 San Diego Union-Tribune article detailing the effects of steroid use on power hitting, major league scouts claim Bonds' bat speed not only stopped declining but also increased during the time he worked with Anderson -- an observation consistent with Adair's weight-to-bat speed formula.

So, how does that bat speed help?

Mont Hubbard, a mechanical and aeronautical engineering professor at the University of California-Davis, co-authored a 2003 American Journal of Physics article examining home run ball flight. An accompanying graph plots bat speed against flyball distance -- and like a rising homer, the curve sloped upward, almost in a straight line.

The faster the swing, the longer the long ball.

So, Bonds increased his bat speed by about 1.5 MPH. Big deal, right?

Alan Nathan, a baseball physics buff and nuclear physics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, estimates every one mph of extra bat speed translates into roughly six feet of added flyball flight distance. Back to Bonds. By bulking up and increasing his bat speed, he added about nine feet to his average flyball distance -- the difference between the warning track and the outfield seats.

Ah, so that means we should deduct about 9 feet from each homer. Fortunately the guys at ESPN did the work already (lucky guys, seriously, that would have been fun).

The entry for each home run lists the ballpark where it was hit, the estimated distance it traveled and the approximate area where the ball cleared the field of play. Comparing each homer to the ballpark dimension diagrams found at andrewclem.com, we sought to answer a single question:

If you take away the extra nine feet of flyball distance Bonds generated by putting on 20 pounds, how many of his home runs fall short?

Here's how the answer breaks down:

• 1999: four home runs out of 34.
• 2000: nine out of 49.
• 2001: 18 out of 73.
• 2002: 11 out of 46.
• 2003: 10 out of 45.
• 2004: 13 out of 45.
• 2005: one out of five.
• 2006: zero out of five.

In total, Page 2 estimates that 66 Bonds home runs would have landed inside the fence sans his alleged steroids use. Again, this is an approximation. But is our guess wholly unreasonable?

That drops Bonds to 648 career blasts.
Stamina
Oh, yes, stamina is very important.

Perhaps you've heard the term: The dog days of summer. Temperatures rise. Injuries nag. Fatigue sets in, mental and physical. The season seems endless. Older players feel the grind most acutely.

Some switch to lighter bats. Others skip batting practice. Anything to conserve precious energy.

Enter steroids. In "Juiced," Jose Canseco writes that performance-enhancing drugs kept him feeling fresh, as if the last day of the season was the first day of spring training. "Game of Shadows" reports that using human growth hormone helped Bonds retain his buffed-up body without rigorous training.

Certainly an athlete in his late 30's would suffer from this.

Without steroids, how much would Bonds have sagged in the stretch? We don't really know. But we can make another reasonable guess. Assume that instead of gaining 1.8 mph in bat speed, an aging Bonds would have lost that amount by the end of July.

Subtract nine more feet from Bonds' charted home runs from August through October, and here's how many die on the warning track:

• 1999: six home runs.
• 2000: three home runs.
• 2001: five home runs.
• 2002: zero home runs.
• 2003: one home run.
• 2004: one home run.
• 2005: one home run.

I think they are being kind in only taking away 1.8 mph on bat speed, but hey, it's their work. They set the rules.
Longevity
ESPN decides that they will double check their deductions by comparing the effects of aging in other power hitters with the performance of Bonds.

At age 39 in 2004, Bonds hit a home run every 8.3 at bats -- the second-best rate of his career, and far superior to Babe Ruth (16.6), Willie Mays (17.1) and Ted Williams (15.8) at the same age.

Is Bonds simply a marvelous athlete, benefiting from advances in training and nutrition unavailable to the sluggers of yore? Perhaps. Or perhaps Bonds has access to better chemicals.
...
Now consider: At ages 31-33, the top 10 home run hitters not named Barry Bonds (and not including contemporaries Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Ken Griffey Jr.) collectively averaged a dinger every 13.8 at-bats. From age 34 through 39, however, that average fell to one home run per 15.6 at bats, a drop-off of 1.8.

Similarly, Bonds at ages 31-33 averaged a home run every 13.5 at bats. But from age 34 onward -- when he allegedly started using performance-enhancing drugs -- Bonds has averaged one home run per 8.5 at bats, an unprecedented surge.

Everyone else loses productivity in their rates by 1.8 homers/at bats, Bonds at the same age increases production by 5.0. That is a swing of 6.8 homers/at bat. That difference equates to 130 homeruns that should be deducted. Maybe a bit harsh. ESPN gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt and instead compares him to Hank Aaron's production in the 34-39 age range.

At ages 34-39, Aaron enjoyed a rare rise in his home run rate, from 15.4 to 13.0 (explained, in part, by a move from Milwaukee's County Stadium to more homer-friendly Atlanta Fulton County Stadium). Assign the same moderate 2.4 boost to Bonds. Then divide his at-bats accordingly.

Bonds ends up with 223 homers, much closer to his real-life total of 292. And the difference between the two -- 69 fewer home runs...

At this point ESPN is resolved to take away 83 homeruns which falls in line with the decrease in production angle (between 69 and 130).
Confidence
Well, I admit this part is a little more subjective than the rest of the article. I am more comfortable taking away 130 homeruns (as described above) than taking these extra 15 under the category of confidence.

"Look, steroids make you better," says the major league scout, a former player himself. "But the other factor is confidence. You can't measure that. But there is a value there, and athletes all thrive on it. They need to know that they can perform."

Call God. Spoken like a man who knows he can perform. Bolstered by steroids, would a supremely self-assured Bonds swing for the fences more often? Seems likely. From 1987 to 1998, Bonds' average ground ball to flyball ratio was 0.81; between 1999 and last season, it was 0.62 -- an increase of about 19 extra flyballs for every 300 balls put into play. Maybe a pumped-up Bonds was trying harder to go deep. Maybe he belted additional home runs as a result.

And then there is confidence combined with quicker reflexes.

"Game of Shadows" reports that performance enhancers improved Bonds' eyesight, helping him track pitches. Coincidence? Not necessarily. Extra bat speed means extra time to differentiate between a fastball and a slider.

Moreover, a 2002 University of California San Francisco study found that older men with higher testosterone levels performed better on cognition tests than men with lower levels. Two years later, Harvard researchers discovered that men with higher testosterone levels are quicker to solve spatial-relationship problems.

Really, what is spotting and crushing a major league fastball if not a spatial-relationship problem ... played out at warp speed?

"People talk about bat speed, but nobody talks about [Bonds'] eyesight," said the major league scout. "He sees a pitch so quick, so early. He can see it and relay that information to his muscles faster than anyone else. That's what all good hitters do. They know what the ball is when it has been out of the pitcher's hand for just 10, 15 feet. Only special people do this."

How many home runs are quicker reactions and a juice-boosted feeling of invincibility worth? Could be five. Could be 25. Could be more, if fearful opposing pitchers lack confidence and fail to summon their best stuff.

That makes sense. Question is how to quantify that. Here is where ESPN has a small issue.

What seems clear is this: Confidence helps, same as muscle. Let's say increased self-assurance allowed Bonds to belt 15 more home runs -- about three per season. That brings our grand total of tainted dingers to 98, a number that corresponds nicely with 1998 -- Bonds' last clean year, if "Game of Shadows" has it right. And even if the book is wrong, the photographs don't lie: Bonds today is a swollen sponge, a hulking parody of his lithe former self. Of course he bashed like never before. The laws of physics demand nothing less.

Yeah, I know, it is folly to engage in this practice. Selig will not have the resolve to do anything about the records or Bonds and Bonds' totals will stand. So why engage in this exercise? It feels good to remove the taint from the game. It is too bad Barry took the juiced road. As ESPN puts it:

Six-hundred sixteen home runs. Our best guess. A long way from 715, but still an incredible number. Such is the shame in having to wonder: Without steroids, Bonds was a damn good player. With steroids, he's a good player damned.

I agree. For Bonds' juicing he deserves the second guessing to dog him for decades upon decades.

Tea leaves from New Orleans

OK, so Mayor Ray Nagin won his bid for re-election. He defeated Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu 59,460 votes (52 percent) to 54,131 (48 percent). This was about 38% voter turnout. Ray Nagin endorsed previously in the Governor's race the Republican candidate (Rep. Bobby Jindal) back in 2004...so is a conservative? (I ask that based on the standards that Republicans have set forth in Minnesota...you must back the party people or your philosophies are labeled differently.) Nagin received an important endorsement from conservative Republican businessman Robert Couhig in this election. And according to a Drudge Report flash story the DNC was working against Nagin.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the decision himself to back mayoral candidate and sitting Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA), sources reveal.

Dean came to the decision to back the white challenger, over the African-American incumbent Nagin, despite concerns amongst senior black officials in the Party that the DNC should stay neutral.

The DNC teams actively worked to defeat Nagin under the auspice of the committee's voting rights program.

Take that for what it is worth, however there could be some interesting tealeaf reading from this seemingly distant election.

The DNC, if Drudge is right, lost in its effort to defeat what should have been a very vulnerable Mayor. Does this mean the Democrats are not exactly primed for a huge takeover this November?

It could be. A very compelling opinion piece by Dustin Hawkins concludes with:

The campaign themes laid out by the Democrats are less of the Contract with America variety and more of the wild-conspiracy and threat-of-impeachment variety, delivering a message that does not resonate with middle America. The result is that Americans may want change, but are incapable of relating with the alternative choice.

Republicans have no business walking out of November with control of the government, but Democrats seem all too willing to take themselves out of the game.

His premise is that the GOP may be REALLY down, but they are not out. The GOP is shunning its fiscal conservative base, its anti-illegal immigration base (at least the Senate GOP is), its small government base and so on. But he writes that even with the GOP being on the ropes (and deservedly so in many cases) the Democrats seem to be poised to NOT deliever a knock out punch but continue resting on their own ropes.

I think this may actually be the case with 2006. The GOP deserves to lose for 'dissing' its base on so many fronts, but the DNC deserves to lose for distancing themselves from the all-to-important middle of the political spectrum.

New Orleans' mayoral election seems to support this. Here was a vulnerable mayor running for re-election. The candidate was more weigthed with the GOP and conservatives with regard to endorsements. The candidate was also targeted by the DNC (if Drudge is correct). This seems to support the idea that while neither party deserves to be in power the GOP will retain it by default.

But then again Nagin was one of the Republican punching bags of the Katrina aftermath. Was this a sympathy vote? Was it a backlash? This election is too hard to read. But it may be the beginning of the tea leaves for this year's elections only 6 months away...which is an eternity in the course of politics.

Mexico's solution to non-citizens

The "Immigration" Issue in the United States is actually about how we should deal with illegal immigrants.

What I find incredible is we are not supposed to battle illegal immigration while other countries are given a pass to battle immigration.

Many of the illegal aliens come from Mexico. Mexico has even had the audacity to enter itself into our domestic policy debate...saying we should keep the borders open. But then we need to keep something else in mind as the Left bashes the anti-illegal immigration people as "racist" and "xenophobic". We at least allow legal aliens, naturalized citizens and of couse citizens to hold jobs.

That is unlike the laws of Mexico.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.

Mexico's Interior Department -- which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials -- could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.

Hmm, not only do they not allow ILLEGAL aliens to work in their country but they don't want LEGAL aliens or even natualized CITIZENS to hold jobs in Mexico.

I say...we follow their lead slightly. We make it illegal for illegals to hold a job and make it illegal to employ illegals.

And let's talk about the openness of borders in a comparitive manner.

The foreign-born make up just 0.5 percent of Mexico's 105 million people, compared with about 13 percent in the United States, which has a total population of 299 million. Mexico grants citizenship to about 3,000 people a year, compared to the U.S. average of almost a half million.

Yep, we have less than 3x the population but more than 166 times the natualization of citizens.

Unlike Mexico, we are an open country. We just should be cracking down on the ILLEGAL side of immigration.

Sounds like corruption is a bi-partisan thing

Remember how the media portrayed the Abramoff scandal as a Republican problem? Remember how the Democrats portrayed the "corruption" as a Republican problem?

It seems that BOTH parties have issues with corruption.

A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.

As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" according to the affidavit.

Jefferson, who represents New Orleans, has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing.

As for the $100,000, the government says Jefferson got the money in a leather briefcase last July 30 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington. The plan was for the lawmaker to use the cash to bribe a high-ranking Nigerian official _ the name is blacked out in the court document _ to ensure the success of a business deal in that country, the affidavit said.

Some things I am going to predict...the Democrats will circle the wagons around Jefferson and use some of the same language or themes the Republicans used while circling their wagons in recent scandals. Both sides will engage in relative morality...there are a number of reasons why it is OK to brand the other party as deep in corruption while their own party is just a victim of isolated incidents.

Neither of those are going out on a limb, I admit. But the partisans on both sides will be busy doing everything they can to make certain the rest of the world forgets those two realities (which I am calling predictions).

The truth is corruption in politics is a bi-partisan issue. More correctly it is a non-term limits issue. But since neither party can see beyond their own party for the good of the nation this will not be solved without a complete overhaul in membership of the Senate and Congress.

Oh, one final reality/prediction: the media will not run with this story for weeks like they do with the Republican scandals of recent months.

More on immigration

You know, it is not only the United States that is dealing with illegal immigration. I had a friend of mine tell me several weeks ago to watch the Canary Islands. Sure enough this pops up.

Spain has put the last touches to initiatives, including a strengthened presence in Africa, to try to stem the swelling tide of immigrants from the continent heading for its shores.

The government's plan was agreed as it was announced that a total of 656 African illegal immigrants had arrived in Spain's Canary Islands in the space of 24 hours.

In Madrid Deputy Prime Minister Maria-Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said after a cabinet meeting she would be going to Brussels next week to discuss the issue with, among others, European Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.

She said that "more Europe" had to be one of the weapons in the battle against would-be illegal immigration.

Battle? That is, well, war-talk, isn't it? So other countries are in a battle while the United States is, uh, racist in fighting illegal immigration?

In the meantime our shortsighted politicians (and their supporters) continue pandering to non-citizens, to illegals at the expense of citizens.

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
...
The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

"We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

"The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our community," he said. "If this amendment were enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families."

The NEST EGG? C'mon. Let them come here LEGALLY and we can talk about their benefits. So long as they are here illegally they should be denied all benefits...especially retirement supplemental income. So long as anyone uses forged documents to enter a program or a job they should not be allowed to retain the benefits of those programs or jobs. That includes illegal aliens.

Worse than that is the idea that English as the official language of the United States is "racist".

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor yesterday.

"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.

Shut up. It is simply saying that we do not want to be another Canada. We need a common language so that our forms do not have to be in multiple versions.

Said it before, will say it again...LEGAL immigration is what this country is about. We cannot allow any incentives for illegal immigration to continue. Illegal immigration is a problem...and a security risk. We cannot continue to coddle the illegal immigrants and the sympathizers of these criminals.

NHL Playoffs 2006--Round 2

Round Two finished last night and here are the results:

#4 vs #1
Buffalo beat Ottawa in 5 games. This was an incredible series and was much closer than the 4 games-to-1 would otherwise indicate. Three of the games went into overtime and ALL of the games were decided by 1 goal.

#3 vs #2
I do not have much to say about this except the Hurricanes won in 5 games. Blowout in Game 1 and the rest of the games were relatively close. Carolina will face Buffalo in the Conference Finals.

#8 vs #5
I don't know much about the NHL, but I don't think a #8 seed being in the Conference Finals is normal. The Oilers dropped the first two games in this series and took the next four. The Oilers will take on the Ducks in the Conference finals.

#7 vs #6
So, the #6 and #7 teams playing each other. The Ducks made sure that the closest Colorado would be to Anaheim in this series was the seed number. The Ducks swept Colorado and 3 of the games were not even close. Game 1, 5-0. Game 2, 3-0 and Game 4, 4-1. The only close game was the overtime Game 3.

Robertson predicts storms

Boy, oh, boy...this is like the gypsy fortune teller at the Ren Fest or reading the horoscope page in the newspaper for guidance on the day.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. Wednesday, he added, "there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

REALLY? OH NO...some storms will hit the coasts of America. Thunderstorms? Is this natural or is it some attack from another country?

Seriously, Pat, don't go too far out on the limb. Storms will hit the coasts. Thanks for the prediction. Pat, by the way, did God tell you if there was going to be a tornado in the Midwest this summer?

A tsunami in the Pacific Northwest, huh. I admit this one is a little bit more on the limb. But there is a reason that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a West Coast & Alaska Tsunami Warning Center.

In other news today I found out that for me it will be a 'distant' day:

Oh dear, a negative aspect from the moon in Aquarius is likely to put you in a rather distant mood today. And because it will move into your third (communication) house you should avoid intense chats and heart to hearts today; you just won’t be up to them.

Pat, thanks for playing "predictor". I hardly believe that God would give predictions on the depth level of a gypsy tarot card reader.

Sex Survey in School

Continuing on the "schools suck" theme...

I keep posting examples of how the education system and those running it have been engaged in bad judgement, poor service and a host of other issues. The responses tend to claim that each example is an isolated incident and not indicitive of the broken education system (protected by the teacher's union).

Here is another example.

"What do you think caused your heterosexuality?"

"If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"

Questions from an underground sex survey from the 1950s? Try from last month. School administrators at Port Washington High School in Port Washington, Wisconsin, have promised to take action after angry parents complained about a "Heterosexual Questionnaire" that was approved by two teachers and distributed to hundreds of students in an attempt to give them a sense of how gay/lesbian students feel, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

About 400 of the school's 930 students received the survey on April 25, the day before the national Day of Silence, an annual event co-sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (see "Day Of Silence Staged To Combat Gay-Student Discrimination"). They were told to submit written answers to the survey and discuss it in class.

The 10-question survey included queries such as "Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to come on to me, but why do so many heterosexuals try to seduce others to their orientation?," "Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?," and "Considering the battering, abuse and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that kind of relationship?" It was distributed by a student organization and was used in a full-class-period discussion, according to the paper, which said the school's principal, Duane Woelfel, did not approve its distribution.

I understand what the purpose of the survey was. It was to substitute "heterosexual" with "homosexual" in some (insipid) questions. The lesson, I'm certain, was to demonstrate how stupid the questions are.

The problem is not the hetero vs homo. The problem is that this survey (regardless of "heterosexual" or "homosexual" being used) is not appropriate in the high school. The teachers that approved this should be reprimanded.

Now, with that said I think the point of the questions is unnecessary. Why? Because the questions are not offensive (regardless of "hetero-" or "homo-"). The point of the questionnaire was to reverse the 'oppressive nature' of these questions. But they are not offensive. There is nothing hateful about these questions. They are not bigotted. So the need to reverse them is not there.

The questions are not offensive, but they are inappropriate to in the schools. Those teachers need to be disciplined.

Identity theft's top states

The article itself was not terribly interesting. It is about identity theft and calling it the modern day bank robbery.

Sophisticated and ingenious techniques have allowed these modern-day crooks to use thousands of stolen identities to drain billions from banks and other financial institutions. Meanwhile, the average stickup guy gets about $7,200 in a bank heist, according to the FBI, and is more likely to get caught.

"Not only dollar for dollar, they get more money this way, but it's [also] safer," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Hileman of Houston, who prosecuted many of the 30 conspirators in the Bank One fraud case.

Identity theft has become the most common way to steal from a bank.
...
A 2003 Federal Trade Commission report estimated identity theft losses to financial institutions at $47 billion, roughly the combined gross domestic products of Afghanistan, Madagascar and Jamaica.

In comparison, there are about 7,600 bank robberies a year, amounting to roughly $77 million in losses to the institutions, according to the FBI.

What was interesting was the graphic CNN provided.

I am well aware of the fallacies regarding correlational theories, but I still find it interesting that 3 of the top 4 states for rates of identity theft occur in border states (Arizona, California and Texas). Yes, two of those states have very big population centers...but Arizona doesn't, at least not enough to explain their residing in the top 4 of highest rates of identity fraud.

I am certain there a ton of explanations why these are NOT tied in any manner to illegal immigration. I happen to believe a large factor of the distribution of identity fraud state-by-state is explained with illegal immigration.

Just some thoughts to chew on.

Starship Website

This is a very cool website. It is called Starship Dimensions. What is it?

This site is intended to allow science fiction fans to get an impression of the true scale of their favorite science fiction spacecraft by being able to compare ships across genres, as well as being able to compare them with contemporary objects with which they are probably familiar.

If you use Internet Explorer you can drag & drop the ships so you can better compare them.

Armegeddon the reality

Sometimes Hollywood actually comes close to getting it right, I guess.

We remember the two movies, Armegeddon and Deep Impact, about an asteroid and a comet colliding with the Earth. Those were 8 years ago. Were you scared enough then?

An article from last year (link no longer available) which I had in my e-mail mentioned an asteroid that was threatening to hit the Earth.

A giant asteroid the size of three football pitches will make the
closest flyby of Earth in recorded history for an object of its size,
scientists said yesterday.

It will pass between the Earth and the Moon and will even come closer
than the orbit of many telecommunications satellites, although
astronomers insisted that there was little chance of a collision with
the massive rock.

Anxious Earthlings need not worry too much for another 24 years,
however, because asteroid 2004 MN4 is not due to make its closest
approach to Earth until about 10pm London time on Friday 13 April
2029.

The latest calculations of the rock's orbit suggest that it will come
so close that it will probably be visible to the naked eye from
Britain. It will shine in the sky as a dim, fast-moving star - the
first asteroid in modern times to be clearly visible from Earth
without the aid of a telescope or binoculars.

So what are the grim chances?

The asteroid was first discovered in June 2004 and calculations of its
orbit made by astronomers last Christmas Eve suggested that there was
a one in 60 chance of it colliding with the Earth. However, within a
week this was revised down to virtually zero probability of a
collision.

Now before we move on I want to point out that the scientists thought as of 12/24/04 there was an 1 in 60 chance of a collision and then as of the date of the article (2/15/05) they said the chance of collision was "virtually zero".

I decided to follow up on the story and found this one from 5/6/06...just a few days ago. The asteroid has been renamed to Apophis and the chances for impact went from "virtually zero" over a year ago to this:

Currently, the risk of impact is set at 1 out of 6,250, but observations scheduled this weekend could take some of the uncertainty out of the orbital predictions.

Nervous yet?

Not me. I say it's time to take up seriously heavy cigar smoking so we can die before that even becomes a worry.

The best part of the article is the comments about the United Nations.

Schweickart told the audience here that a third leg of the triad for protecting Earth from NEO impacts is probably the most challenging, albeit subtle.

“It is complicated by two related facts,” he said. NEO impacts are a global threat, not a national one, and the only decision-making body representing, essentially, the whole planet is the United Nations — a body not known for timely, crisp decision making, he added.

Apophis. Wonder where they got THAT name from. Ah, here we go. "Apep--Other Names: Apophis, the Destroyer. Patron of: evil and darkness." Interesting.

Just some food for thought.

White race reawakening by AG

Remember when Bush gave a speech at a college deemed to be racist? The simple act of giving a speech was said to be showing support.

Well, check this out.

A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

Wonder if the same outrage will come from the Democrats or if the same dismissals will come from the Republicans. Somehow I am betting neither of the parties meant what they were saying back in 2000 on this issue.

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to ty phus.

Historians say about 6 mil lion Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak today near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

Now, right or wrong, offensive or not, this guy should be allowed to speak his mind and believe what he wants. You read what he thinks and you can make your own conclusions on his sanity. So don't think there should be a call for banning the speech or forcing an apology from him. The world is better off knowing what he believes and then making decisions based on the knowledge.

What I am pointing out is simply how both parties will "flip-flop" on their positions in similar situations.

Still a good idea even as a political stunt

I saw this story and thought, "What a great idea! I wish it would become a law." In fact, I think it is such a great idea that I added points to the candidate's score (+1...would have been more except I think it is just a campaign tactic).

U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy announced Friday he would not accept his congressional pay on days that he's forced to miss votes in Washington, D.C., because of his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

"I think it is only appropriate that if I'm not in Washington for a vote due to a campaign commitment, I will not accept pay for that day," Kennedy, the Republican candidate, said in a press release.

Kennedy was one of only nine members of the House of Representatives to not miss any congressional votes in 2005. But he said the demands of the Senate race could force a few missed votes this year.

Rank and file members of the U.S. House and Senate currently earn $165,000 a year, which would work out to roughly $450 for a day of missed pay.

OK, so it is a token $450, but if enough votes are missed because of heavy campaigning it might add up to, well, still a token. I think the BEST solution is on days of a campaign appearance Congressmen and Senators would sacrifice their pay...or for attending partisan events (i.e. rallies, fundraisers, conventions, etc) because those are not about being in Congress but about being in their party.

Regardless, while it is a token pay cut (I would put the over/under at about 10 days of actual votes being missed) it is a good idea that may hopefully catch wind and become a law! (Hoping, hoping, hoping...)

The only part of reality that I did not like was that, at least through the way the article was written, this was more of a campaign stunt than much else.

Kennedy challenged his most likely Democratic opponent, Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar, to do the same and return her salary on days when she's on the campaign trail instead of at the Hennepin County Government Center.

Klobuchar's campaign manager, Ben Goldfarb, criticized Kennedy's move as a "phony gimmick," and said the campaign wouldn't respond further. He did say Klobuchar continues to draw her full salary.

Kennedy and Klobuchar are both vying for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Mark Dayton. Klobuchar is facing a challenge for the endorsement from Ford Bell, a veterinarian who does not currently draw a government paycheck.

This 'challenge' is setting up an unfair comparison. For Kennedy he would miss pay for missing votes...not for days when he's on the campaign trail instead of at the US Capitol. For it to be a genuine challenge it would have to be that he gets docked for days not in the Capitol OR she gets docked for actual court dates missed.

The other issue I have with this is a similar stance was not taken in previous elections...which again provides a little insight into this being more a campaign tactic than actual fiscal concern.

Nonetheless, it is an idea that I hope gets codified sometime.

Will someone ask Mark Kennedy if he will propose something similar and substantial in Congress BEFORE the election.