Minimum Wage again

I am tired of an issue that will continue to rear its head so long as people in this country believe things are owed to people just for existing. I am tired of an issue that will continue to rear its head so long as people in this country fail in their understanding of a real supply/demand with regards to labor.

Minimum wage.

The Senate killed a bill to raise the minimum wage by 40% (from 5.15 up by 2.10 to 7.25). Now what irks me about the people who advocate for this is the justification for it. At the current minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, a full-time worker would earn $10,712 a year, which is below the federal poverty line for a family of three. Uh, so what?

I'm not going to go through the macro economics part of why minimum wage hikes are not worth pursuing. Many others will do that. I'm not going to get into the micro economics either...many others will do that as well. I'm exploring on the individual basis the actual need (or lack thereof) for raising the minimum wage.

According to the 2004 Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers there were 2 million people who earn minimum wage or less. Slightly disturbing until you realize that 1.183 (59%) work in the food service industry. Remember that servers get paid at this rate because they also earn tips. Once you factor in the people in sales who work for commission (hence they work at or below minimum wage) you realize that only 1/3 of those at minimum wage are in other industries. So, why is this an issue? Of those 1/3 how many are part-time and/or youth?

Beyond that, there are a number things that should be answered prior to engaging in a push for raising minimum wage.

1) How many people in their field for over a year are earning miniumum wage?
2) How many people in their present job for over a year are earning minimum wage?
3) Of those how many have had fewer than 2 jobs in the past 24 months.
4) How many Head of Households earn minimum wage?

So many other questions that are actually relevant to this issue, but I will stop there.

What jobs are earning minimum wage as a starting point? Clerk at Blockbuster? Fry guy at McDonald's? Electrical engineer at, well, whereever? What jobs earn that little? Of those jobs how many are filled by people without a high school diploma? Quite frankly I have very little sympathy for people whose earning power is close to nil if they did not get a diploma. The standards for getting one are so low that there is no excuse for not getting one. I have even less drive to help someone who dropped out of high school and their earning power hovers around minimum wage. Seriously there is not a reason in the world to have dropped out and not gained some marketable skills in the meantime. Those who fall into this category, frankly, are sleeping in the bed they made. It is THEIR responsibility, not businesses through mandated wage increases, to get on track. But I still am wondering how large of a group this is.

How many people are in their jobs over a year and still are earning minimum wage? I have two words for these people: Change Jobs. If a person is really so dense that they are staying in a job where minimum wage is being paid AFTER their probationary period expires they deserve the wage they receive. Typically the scales of wage hikes at that lower level of pay is quite fast FOR THE VERY REASON I JUST STATED. 99% of the people in a job where the minimum wage is paid after probation would leave that job. Businesses know that and if they figure they cannot afford the constant retraining they will not let that happen. The flip side, of course, is that if a business figures the constant retraining is cheaper than paying above minimum wage then the position is not one where anyone should seek a career. Those skills are obviously not marketable. Therefore staying in such a job is, well, a conscious choice and I see no compelling reasons for raising minimum wage for the benefit of these people.

One thing the drives down a person's "marketability" is their penchant for job-hopping. If someone is bouncing from KFC to Burger King to Wendy's to Pizza Hut all within a couple of years that says something for the inability to...well, a whole lot of inability to be honest. So if someone is job hopping and they are only able to pull down minimum wage that is their own fault. Stay in a job for a while and I have a hunch the wage will increase. The view of the employer upon hiring the hopper is, "Well, why waste time traning him with much when he is just going to leave soon anyway." In fact, after a while the hopper will find it more difficult to even find a job, much less one the pays only minimum wage. At that point he should count his blessings for being able to earn minimum wage.

The real key is of all the people who earn minimum wage I think you should eliminate from consideration those who are able to be claimed as a dependent by someone else. Typically this is a high school or college kid earning extra money. There is no reason in the world the minimum wage should be raised for these people. Of the remaining people earning minimum wage most fit in the categories described by my previous questions. I cannot find the numbers but all indications from other characteristics lead to the conclusion that very, very, very, very few people are the head of household AND earning minimum wage. Why does that matter. Because this tells us that the minimum wage earner is NOT the main income of the household. That means this issue is even LESS important.

Yes, the labor unions will/are pushing this. The race baiters will too as will every other "oppressed" group out there. While they cannot provide actual hard reasons why this is a worthy topic it does play into their "man is holding us down" drivel. But the truth of the matter is there is very little reason to take this issue up...ever.

If you are earning minimum wage and do not like it then change your job. Not that easy? That is just laziness talking. Work hard even within most companies where they pay ENTRY level minimum wage and eventually (with several months) you will be earning well beyond that. The only time that is not going to be true is if your own self-maintained circumstances are holding you down. There is nothing systemic holding people down. I know that from personal experience being homeless and working minimum wage jobs.

So can we please stop having this topic come up (in election years only, it seems). It is a pointless discussion for no real purpose and no real gains.

World Cup 2006 Quarter Finals

Beginning a few minutes ago was the first of the Quarterfinal matches. Here are the matchups and my non-soccer-following predictions.

vs
It is not outside the realm of possibility that the winner of this match will win the World Cup. Many people are giving Germany the "home pitch" boost in their predictions. My drive to support the underdog is leading me to pick Argentina here.

vs
Two decently strong teams...however I believe it is all in vain. The winner of this plays the winner of the Germany-Argentina match and I don't believe either of these teams will stand much of a chance. My pick here, nonetheless, is Italy


vs
England or Portugal? Hmmm, I'm going with England if for no other reason than the fact that their fans have already had rioting. That was because of Germany's performance earlier (don't ask, I don't understand that fact) and it would be fun to see England's fans in the same stadium for the finals as the German fans. My pick: England.

vs
Easily this game is Brazil's. I have read in a number of places that France was among the bottom feeders of this tournament...and somehow they made it to the quarterfinals. That alone is impressive. However, the three favorites to win the whole tournament are Germany, Argentina and Brazil. Brazil has some of the most exciting players to watch. Edge is big for Brazil and they are my pick.

Exhausting Week and home is dissolving

You may have noticed an abscence by me. I have been incredibly busy again. And I am exhausted. I did go to all three Dodgers-Twins games this week which resulted in very little sleep and tons of driving. The Dodgers (best hitting team in the NL going into this series) got destroyed. I still had fun and the people around me in each of the games were fun. There was one Dodger Stadium tradition that poked its head during the Tuesday night game: Beach Ball Bashes. There were at least 5 beach balls bouncing around the Metrodome crowds and one that fell into the field of play. The tired wave made its way around the stadium a few times on Tuesday night.

However, the reason I am taking a break from hell week part 30 is a story that I found out about this morning. Announced last week is this disturbing story.

Six Flags Inc. is seeking buyers for six of its 30 properties, including Los Angeles' Magic Mountain and a park in Concord, the company said Friday.

Profits are down for Six Flags, along with attendance numbers, and the parks it is looking to sell are the less-profitable parks. Those include parks in Los Angeles; Concord; Seattle; Denver; Houston; and Buffalo, N.Y., the company said.

Magic Mountain is one of the premier Scream Parks with state of the art rollercoasters. I grew up with Magic Mountain before it was purchased by Six Flags (the park is actually 6 months younger than I am).

Why would Six Flags close the park with more rollercoasters than any other in the world?

Executives said that Magic Mountain may get as much as $300 million just for its land, according to news reports.
...
The company said it's close to violating terms of $1.04 billion of its loans and is negotiating amendments with its banks. It will boost spending this year by $15 million on top of a $45 million increase already planned to hire staff and lure back customers. The company has about $2.1 billion in debt, owns 3,500 acres of excess land that it's looking to sell, and is hoping to drop debt down to $1.6 billion. Shapiro also told media that the company probably won't meet its earlier forecast of $340 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization this year.

Yep, that and attendance is down system wide.

Visitor counts dropped by as much as 1.3 million through June 18 at parks owned by the second-largest U.S. theme-park operator, a 13 percent decline from last year, the company said. Ticket sales suffered as Six Flags tried to keep rowdy teenagers out of its parks, executives told media, but the visitors who do come to the parks are spending an average of $4.12 more at the parks this year than last.

Visitors are paying more because the park raised their admission AND their parking by a total of about $15.

Theme Park Insider's Blog Flume reports some of the irony in this announcement.

A comment I've made in a couple TV interviews since the story broke: It'd be ironic if Magic Mountain were sold off for real estate development, given that real estate development is the reason the park was built in the first place.

Magic Mountain was not always a Six Flags park. Its builder and original owner was the Newhall Land Company, the developer that built many of the communities around the park. Newhall Land thought it needed a big attraction to lure families over the pass from the San Fernando Valley into the Santa Clarita. So it contracted SeaWorld's designers and built Magic Mountain.

How ironic, now, that the park might fall victim to the success of the real estate market it was built to inspire.

Well, maybe we can pool our money together and buy the park. C'mon...free admission for the owners!!

NBA Finals winner

Belated (because I've been busy, not because I dislike Shaq and can't stand the team) congratulations to the Miami Heat who made an incredible come back to win the series. They were down by 2 games...half way to defeat. Then they ran off four games in a row to win their first championship in team history.

Congratulations.

BTW, I still think Pat Riley is overrated!

World Cup Round of 16

I forgot to actually publish this orignial post so I added the updates of results.

The World Cup Round of 16 is here. Some surprises...South Korea is not in. Some non-surprises...the United States came nowhere close.

The matchups for the Round of 16 are as follows:
vs ...Germany is one of the favorites to win the whole thing and so I am picking them over Sweden.

vs ...Sorry, Mexico may not be as strong as Argentina but my roots are from Mexico and so I am pulling for them. Argentina is among the favorites to win the whole tournament, though.

Update: Germany won 2:0 (2:0) and will play Argentina who won 2:1 a.e.t. 1:1 (1:1).

vs ...Italy is a perrenial powerhouse and so I will pick them to win. No matter who comes out of this round they will have a tough road from here on out.

vs ...Tough call. I would not bet on either of these teams getting past the winner of Italy-Australia, much less beyond that. I'm picking Ukraine...for no particular reason.

vs ...Is there any question? England will win.

vs ...Tough choice again but I'm going with the Netherlands. Doesn't matter because they will have to get past England which is not a result that smart money is on.

Update: England won 1:0 (0:0) and will play the Netherlands who won 1:0 (1:0).

vs ...Brazil will win, unless they are stricken with the bird flu before the game. They are my pick to win the World Cup, btw.

vs ...First, of all of the teams in this round France is the least deserving. They were listed as one of the worst teams after their first two Group matches. An unlikely tie with South Korea was the key that got them in. That said, I think this is a gimmie (as much as a gimmie in a 1-0 or 2-1 game can be) for Spain.

Have you witnessed climate change? How?

There are three modes of media bias. First is the selection of stories...what a news reporter or columnist chooses to relay. Second is the content of stories...what the article actually says, is it editorialized when it claims to be news? Is it reporting one side of the issue and not the other while claiming to be representative? Third is the collection of the stories...'got story? please send' is very suspect.

So it is very troubling that ABC News is calling for stories about Climate Change.

Witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?

ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

Does this sound familiar? If you have ever watched daytime network television (the tabloid shows) it should sound familiar.

"Does your mom sleep with your boyfriend and your best friend as part of a satanic ritual while you are attending church? Call Jerry now."

Why is this likely a great example of media bias? Because it is seeking one side of an issue and working on the assumption that the one side is a truism.

Now, the definition of climate is generally accepted to represent a span of 30-35 years. It says to me that in order for people to be able to share their direct observations of climate changes they would need at least TWO periods to compare. So, anyone under the age of 70 should be excluded from this story by ABC News for not having a large enough sample basis.

Next is the issue of calling the current "climate" era representative of "global warming". Notice how Global Warming chicken-littles use the 100-year temperaturs and something like the 4000-year temperatures? Why not the 1000-year temperatures? According to the SEPP:

The global climate has warmed over the last 100 years, but not appreciably over the last 50 years. And it is colder now than it was 1000 years ago.

Hmm, what would explain that? Certainly there is something worth examining there BEFORE claiming that humans are the cause of global warming.

A great article in the Canadian Free Press helps with some refutation. I have been saying for years that when global warming theologians claim such high numbers of scientists they leave out the nasty details about what fields those scientists are from. More importantly they fail to narrow down the list of scientists to those whose fields are meteorology or climatology. Why would that be. Often you can look and realize that most of the scientists that buy into the "global warming" ravings are social "scientists". Political science, sociology, psychology...and why we should pay attention to them in the discussion of weather and climate I have never heard explained. Yet they are included among the group of "experts".

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Imagine that...misrepresenting the facts of the issue...from Al Gore. This can't be. From the Global Warming zealots. Say it ain't so.

"But our CO2 levels have to be devastating to the world...they simply are not natural at the levels we are making."

Wro-o-o-o-ong!

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Hmm, difficult to see the global warming future is. Clouded are the opinions of global warming zealots by facts.

"But the ice is breaking off in Antarctica! That's because the global temperatures are melting the ice shelf making them weaker...falling off."

Wro-o-o-o-ong.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

Whoopsie. Damn those facts.

"But the ice is getting thinner. Al Gore said so and even quoted a study proving that."

[sigh] Useful idiots.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn.

"There are cities around the world everyday that set record high temperatures."

Yeah, and do you notice that there are cities every day that have record lows, record low-highs, blah, blah, blah. The world would be a perfect place if these people would switch two of their main philosophies. They think the global temps are static and the US Constitution is 'living'. The reality should be an understanding of 'living' global temps and a static Constitution.

Back to the cities setting record highs...

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Hmm, so what is the global temperature trending like then?

Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Now you can start to understand why ABC News calling for ONE side of the issue constitutes media bias on the matter.

With all that said, I am interested in actual studies (other than from the idiots at the IPCC) on either side of the issue.

When news is news

(H/T: Pete's dose of Wisdom...new blog from a staunch conservative and car freak)
As of the time of this posting the story about WMD being found in Iraq was on certain news sites and not others. Pete did a check and compared his results to the level of conservative/liberal rating from a Media Bias study.

Fox (14.4% right of center)
http://www.foxnews.com

Drudge Report (5.3% left of center)
http://www.drudgereport.com/

The story seams to be absent from:

New York Times (17.6% Left of Center)http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

ABC (8.7% Left of Center)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/

LA Times (16.4% Left of Center)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/?track=leftnav-politics

USA Today (11.7% Left of Center)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/front.htm

MSNBC (8.7% Left of Center)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/

CBS (20% Left of Center)
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml

Bear in mind that the percentages range from 0% - 50% left of center and 0% - 50% right of center.

You make your own conclusions.

WMD...that can't be

ONE of the many reasons for us to be in Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were many other reasons but that is the only one the Left seems to remember from the numerous speeches on the matter. As a result the Left has created the notion that Bush should be impeached since there were no WMD found. I have a feeling that the next several days there will be Lefties in overdrive finding every reason, every conspiracy, every fabrication to deny this story.

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Now for a long time I have been saying that WMD were not the highest priority for entering Iraq. I also did not rule out Saddam shipping the WMD to Syria (or in those 3 freighters we heard about leaving Iraqi ports days before we went in but have heard nothing about since). Hell, we gave him enough warning since we wasted so much time with the incompetent and purchased-by-Iraqi-bribes United Nations.

So, to ME this is not a big story beyond vindicated on yet on more front our presence in Iraq.

Stanley Cup 2006

Congratulations to the Carolina Hurricanes who won the Stanley Cup in a thrilling 7 game series over the Edmonton Oilers.

Maybe a little credit is due to Bush

Remember the "sky is falling" rhetoric when Bush vocalized the truth about three nations. There were the Axis of Evil...North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Well, some people deny the evils that were in the borders of Iraq prior to the USA liberating that country. There is not a doubt there was evil running that country, and evil acts being perpetrated in that country.

But those same people complained that we were being unfair to Iran & North Korea. I mean, can't we all get along?

It is well documented over recent months that Iran is legitimately considered evil. Their stated goals are to eliminate from existance Israel. They are developing nuclear weapons...on and on. And do not think that we can come to negotiations with them either. They will develop their weapons in secret!

North Korea is another one where their path of evil is documented. Their latest is threats of testing/launching long range missiles which could reach the United States. Rightly so, the USA has warned that would be considered 'provacative'. Unfortunately there are word games being played in the middle of this.

The United States warned that a North Korean launch of a long-range missile would be a "provocative act" and began intensive diplomatic consultations on a response.

"There are reports they may be preparing for a long-range missile launch," said Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman.

"The United States government as a whole has been consulting with allies in the region and has made clear than a North Korean missile launch would be a provocative act," he said.

Whitman noted that the United States has limited missile defenses but would not say whether it intends to use them against a North Korean missile launch.

However, he pointedly used the term "launch" rather than "test" to describe the North Korean preparations and said Pyongyang's intentions were not clear.

"A test would imply that you would know the intentions," he said. "We don't know the intentions."

Just say, "a 'test' will be considered a 'launch' if it goes further than North Korea's borders."

And, I'm glad Bolton is our UN ambassador. If he really is the bulldog the Democrats feared then we have a better hope things will get done.

At the United Nations, US Ambassador John Bolton said he was consulting members of the Security Council "on what steps might be taken because it would obviously be very serious."

"Obviously the first preference is that the North Koreans not light the missile off. We've made that clear to them," he added.

In 1998, North Korea fired a two-stage Taepodong 1 missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean, causing an international furore.

It declared a moratorium on flight tests of long range missiles in 1999 but said in 2005 that it would no longer keep to it.

So, what is the deal with two-stage tests versus now? The difference is they are working on a 3-staged missile delivery vehicle.

A two-stage Taepodong-2 missile could hit parts of the United States, while a three-stage Taepodong-2 could range all of North America, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency told the US Senate in February 2005.

Previous unclassified Defense Department estimates date back to 1997, when a report put the Taepodong-2 missile's range at between 4,000 and 6,000 kilometers (2,500-3,750 miles) , and the Taepodong-1 at 1,500 km (940 miles).

Remember Star Wars? Remember how the Democrats wanted to kill it because, well, who really knows why. The result is that they did kill it and we now have no defense. Even in the post-Cold War era Star Wars is needed. Shame one the Dems for killing it. Shame on the GOP for not getting through Congress in 10 years of power or in the 6 years of having the House, Senate and the White House. Sorry for the tangent, but it needs to be clear that both parties failed the country in this regard.

The United States has been working feverishly, with mixed success, to field missile defenses capable of countering a limited missile attack by North Korea.

A North Korean launch would mark the first real test of the US system, which currently consists of an array of tracking and targeting radars and at least 11 interceptor missiles in silos in Alaska and California.

US Aegis warships have been modified for missile defense missions. Several are stationed in the western Pacific.

Their Spy-1 radars are capable of tracking missile launches. The US Missile Defense Agency also has been testing capabilities of warships to shoot down short and medium range missiles with interceptor missiles.

Last November, a US Navy cruiser intercepted a mock warhead after it separated from a medium-range missile in a test pover the Pacific.

Star Wars is needed because the current "defense" requires ships being deployed in the exact right range. Star Wars would have allowed our ships to be elsewhere around the globe.

Bush did campaign in 2000 as being pro Star Wars. Moreover, he and his administration deserve credit for calling out the Axis of Evil long ago. Now can they do what they need to do to solve the problem?

Seeing Bias Where it doesn't Exist--Part 2

Generally I think that a blogger should be left to defend themselves on their own blog. Once in a while the attacks on a blogger are able to demonstrate a larger point or issue. This is the case with a recent exchange on Marty's blog.

Marty posts frequently a feature called "Random Link 'o the Day". Literally it is just a link of interest. Once in a while there might be an explanation but usually not. Last Wednesday he posted Tim Pawlenty's campaign link. The next day it was Sue Jeffer's campaign link.

First response came from a blind loyalist looking creating a case of bias anywhere they can.

Drinking the "Tony Garcia" Kool-Aid, eh?

Guess having the most conservative, electable governor is recent history just isn't good enough.

Somewhat unrelated, any surprise about how her campaign site does not say whether she is pro-life or have her position on gay marriage? Hmmm...noticably absent. Or is that just because the losertarian crew believes killing babies is our constitutional right?

Now, first thing these people will tell you is that the GOP candidates whom they defend are not going to agree with 100% of the supporters or the platform. That is a necessary compromise in order to win (party over principles, in my view). So notice that this response is attacking Jeffers (and indirectly Marty) for positions that are not there...because they really are unable to address the positions that are there. Basically, Jeffers is running on a fiscal conservative platform...which is exactly the group most disappointed with Pawlenty.

Before you say that this person really supports the "life platform" and wants it in every candidate you need to understand more about this person. As Marty points out over two comments:

[Y]ou would have me support Jim Ramstad who scores between 30%-60% (depending on the year) with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and who supported funding "planned parenthood" abroad; who also scores an "F" with the NRA because of his support for gun control.
...
[He] has no right to lecture me on social conservatism since I remember him defending Jim Ramstad.

Ah, yes, Marty is pointing out the ol' double standard that his detractor holds in the name of carrying the flag for "party". THIS is why I classify this bunch as "Party over Principles". The most important thing to them is the Party...more than even the principles they claim to hold dear to.

Race to the Right friend Psycmeister throws in what actually is the real attitude of the GOP.

Though not perfect in the purist sense by any stretch of the imagination, T-Paw is the best we got--and a helluva lot better than our last "republican" governor, Arne Carlson.

Let's understand this. First, this is an example of how the loyalists have been actually admitting in a number of blogs that they are settling on Pawlenty. That is a disasterous thing because without the excitement for a candidate there is not much of a way to raise support from other people. "Settling" does not breed excitement...and excitement is what builds the electorate on your side.

Second, the GOP has been in a terrible habit lately of running races that they are not in. Kennedy refused (and the GOP aided) to run the race within the GOP instead acting as if it did not exist. Now the Pawlenty supporters are refusing the discussion about Jeffers v Pawlenty. Instead they pick every other matchup. In this case it is 'vote Pawlenty--he's better than Arne Carlson.'

The next comment that deserves a little examination is this one:

You know, once upon a time the Grand ol' Party was a unified body full of starry-eyed idealists who's sense of common unity greatly outweighed it's points of division.

Yes, it was unified because everyone had a voice regardless of their viewpoint. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers were allowed a place in the party, as a delegate, as a candidate...they generally accepted that they agreed on most of the platform in other places. The Big Tent was not "membership numbers" but in ideas. Hearing more ideas, differing ideas and debating them within the party kept the unity because it was easy to accept being in the minority on certain views but at least being heard.

Now the party is about unity in message. No, not unity. They are about staying in line. Follow this theme, this candidate, these few positions. Anything else means you are not a good conservative, not a good GOP member and thus are the enemy.

The comment continues on with more truth than it realizes:

Now it kind of feels like disgruntled siblings clamoring over who gets what in Daddy's will-ashamed to admit they are in the same family with each other, but not dareing to disown themselves becuse it would cost them a shot at being the favorite son.

And many are even afraid to speak up for fear of being attacked...not attacked on their positions, but attacked personally.

For years the GOP complained about the Democrats attacking the person instead of the issue. The GOP loyalists now mimics that. Just in the comments quoted here you can see that. Want a refresher:

Drinking the "Tony Garcia" Kool-Aid, eh?

Guess having the most conservative, electable governor is recent history just isn't good enough.

Somewhat unrelated, any surprise about how her campaign site does not say whether she is pro-life or have her position on gay marriage? Hmmm...noticably absent. Or is that just because the losertarian crew believes killing babies is our constitutional right?

Yep, those bold face comments are personal attacks that do not (and have not) addressed issues or topics. DING! Double Standard #2. The Democrats suck because they attack Republicans instead of debating Republican ideas/issues...yet the Republicans are doing the same thing. (Go read Pair O' Dice or Residual Forces for regular examples of this.)

Next is this comment:

I guess I'll join Dan on the Tony Garcia enemies list for my ethanol support and Pawlenty support.

I'm not certain anyone can make a determination on my response to anyone based on the ethanol issue...I do not have enough information to feel comfortable advocating a position on this topic. Yet the effort to put words in the mouth of others continues rather than having an intellectual debate. I am increasingly moving to the conclusion that many of these people are unable to have any intellectual discussion, let alone one with someone they disagree. But let's examine the end of that comment:

Face the facts, as gas prices rise, ethanol becomes more viable. California, Ohio, Georgia, etc are all raising their ethanol quotas for regular gas. Increased demand for ethanol. At the same time, government needs stay away from corn price involvement.

DING! Double standard #3...or to use the overplayed vernacular of partisans: Flip Flop. What is the principle in this comment? "I support Pawlenty, trust him on ethanol. Look at the facts, ethanol is becoming more viable and quotas are good. Long live government involvement...except in corn pricing." Hardly a small government sentiment...so I have to conclude this person is actually a big government type. His enduring support for Pawlenty while offering big government justifications should give one pause about Pawlenty's balance of big government vs small government. A legitimate issue...which will not be discussed at all by the commenter, I guarantee.

"Finding bias where it doesn't exist, part 2"
Marty truly has not decided who to support. He has been fair...I mean, he had mentioned Jeffers & Pawlenty equally in his "random links posts" and suddenly because he gave a non-GOP incumbent the time of day he gets barraged by moronic statements. Well, Marty, it is only on ONE issue which you are bucking the GOP machine so you will not feel the full force of their hateful attacks. But, welcome to the island of misfit toys.

What is 2006 about for conservatives? The choice for conservatives is similar to their choice in 1992 for Pres. The choice: Incumbents who spat upon the base OR 3rd party/nothing/Democrats/anyone else for candidate. In 1992 the choice of enough "unloyal" conservatives did something that is needed in the GOP now. It sacrificed 2 years for a demand of refocusing. It led to the 1994 revolution because the GOP had to refocus on what it took for granted (though little changes have actually been made as promised by that class). Similar to what happened in Minnesota in 1998...disgusted with the politics-as-usual and the candidates perpetrating that there were enough people who went to Ventura. In 2002 the GOP got refocused and selected a candidate some believed was conservative. A sacrifice of another couple of years is needed to get the GOP focused on the base that got them elected in 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004. The sacrifices might not be so frequent if the incumbents would stop abandoning their base...and the loyalists would open their eyes to their principles once in a while instead of strictly the needs of their party.

Until then...just consider that a good chuck of conservatives will likely sit out or back other candidates. And the more dissent within the party is blocked or shouted down then the better bet that the exodus out of the GOP will continue...maybe even become more public in the numbers of people wanting out.

I'm reading the "respones" of the GOP loyalists (more like wagon circling attacks on any disagreement) and realizing that the GOP is internally in worse shape now than in 1992.

Finally, the flavor of the Tony Garcia Kool-Aid: Objectivity, Logic and Reason...with a splash of Angst and Venom. People who drink it don't like to admit it but they are better for drinking it and they know it.

Scientology sponsoring NASCAR

(H/T: American Princess)
I find this disturbing.

The Church of Scientology is spreading its gospel to NASCAR, starting in Irwindale.

The religion that counts actor Tom Cruise and other Hollywood luminaries among its followers now backs a La Verne stock car driver, Kenton Gray, who competes in one of NASCAR's developmental series at the Irwindale Speedway.

Gray, 35, hopes to qualify for his next race June 24 in the super-late-model class in a car sponsored by Bridge Publications, which publishes the best-selling book, "Dianetics," by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

The hood of Gray's No. 27 Ford Taurus is similar to the book's cover, with "Dianetics" emblazoned across an erupting volcano, and his new team is called the "Ignite Your Potential" Dianetics Racing Team.

The end of the world MUST be near.

Investors opinions on Kennedy and Pawlenty

This post is an update on what the people who are putting the money where their objective beliefs are on various races. These charts come from TradeSports. Each contract will cash out at $10 if the event does occur, $0 if the event does not. The price before that represents what the market feels is the % chance of the event happening.

This is an experiment because I want to find out if these are automatically updating charts.

This is the Minnesota Governor's Race. The Chance of Pawlenty winning is trading at 70% and is trending upward. If you are convinced Pawlenty will win then buy some contracts at $7.00 each. If he wins you will be cashed out at $10.00 per contract.




This is the Minneosta Senate Race. The Chance of Kennedy winning is trading at 38.5% and is trending downward. If you are convinced Kennedy will win then register and buy these contracts. It will cost you $3.85 per contract...and if he wins you will make 159% profit!!




Yeah, I know, your money can also go into the campaigns to help them. But think of it this way. If for every $50 you give to the Kennedy campaign you also invested in the Kennedy contracts (at current price comes to 12 contracts) you would gain $73.80 when Kennedy wins.

Ah, I love capitalism!

********** UPDATE **********
The charts do not update...so they will not be going into the side columns.