April 1-2, 2008
Apr 01 03:45 I'm Shocked...Shocked I Tell You Apr 01 04:31 I’m Shocked…Shocked I Tell You (Part II) Apr 02 06:05 What Would the NLRB Think of This? Apr 02 10:14 Swanson Welcomes Inquiry? Apr 02 15:28 Strib Exercises Their Editorial Discretion Apr 02 15:39 The DFL's Hubris
I'm Shocked...Shocked I Tell You
My hometown newspaper is running another anti-Bachmann editorial today, this one expressing outrage at Rep. Bachmann's introducing the Light Bulb Freedom Of Choice Act. Here's the heart of the editorial :
Those of us who feel misrepresented in the 6th congressional District have yet another embarrassment to endure.This is just another in a long line of clueless Bachmann haters. It hasn't dawned on the editorialist that there might be a legitimate reason for banning flourescent light bulbs. With about 8 seconds of 'Google research', I was able to find this information , which I thought was worthwhile for an informed debate:
We have our representative featured on the front page of the state's biggest paper with her latest endeavor: "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, who ignores freedom of choice for women, denies health care for children, embraces Bush's curtailment of civil rights, and calls human involvement in global warming "voodoo", takes up a crusade for the lowly incandescent light bulb!
Fact Sheet: Disposal of Spent Fluorescent Light Tubes and Mercury Vapor LampsI'm confident that the last thing this editorialist wants is an informed debate. I'm confident that the editorialist is only interested in whining about Rep. Bachmann in hopes of diminishing her re-election chances.
Department of Public Works
City of Los Angeles
Fact Sheet
Energy efficient fluorescent lamps have gained widespread usage over the years compared to incandescent ones, fluorescent lamps are three to four times more efficient in converting electricity to visible light. This increasing use of mercury contained fluorescent lamps have led to growing concerns over its proper disposal. This fact sheet provides information on government regulations and guidelines on the proper disposal of spent fluorescent tubes and mercury vapor lamps.
Fluorescent lamps contain small quantities of mercury, cadmium and antimony. It has been estimated that between 450 and 500 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in the United States each year, dumping over 30,000 metric tons of mercury contaminated waste into the nation's landfills'. Through improper disposal methods, mercury can travel from the soil to various water sources. Lakes have been found to be polluted with mercury, rendering fishes unsafe to eat. Concentration of mercury in fish at one Minnesota lake have increased 5 percent a year since 1970 according to a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study. As mercury moves up the food chain, it becomes more concentrated. In concentrated foam, it is poisonous to the human nervous system."Industry estimates show that between 450 and 500 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in the United States each year, dumping over 30,000 metric tons of mercury contaminated waste into the nation's landfills"
The good news for conservatives is that it'll take alot more than this type of whiny editorial to defeat Rep. Bachmann.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2008 3:46 AM
Comment 1 by Ron at 01-Apr-08 11:47 AM
Thanks for providing some support to Michele Bachman ; it occurs to me that too many people are being cowed into remaining silent ; at some peril! It isn't outrageous for Bachman, or anyone, to suggest we ought to have a choice on light bulbs. There seems to be no limit to what our citizens are willing to thoughtlessly turnover to the nanny-state to decide for us.
This isn't the Soviet Union, and I am no fan of Trotsky, Lenin and the central planning system of government that moved itself onto the ash-pile of history over 15 years ago (as Reagan predicted). The new bulb is neither a solution nor the messiah, it carries a lot of toxic baggage with it ; and it isn't really a great light bulb. So I don't want to deal with it's toxic effects and I don't want it prescribed to me either! Again, on this one, thank you for giving some needed props to Congresswoman Michele Bachman.
Comment 2 by Concerned at 01-Apr-08 02:12 PM
A bit of April lightheartedness for all you out there.
This is what I downloaded from the Light Bulb ERA website championed by Ms. Bachmann. I wish her well in her endeavor and hope you, like me, will help her in passage of this most important piece of legislation.
Of course I would hope you would also support passage in our State as a whole.
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of type of light bulb.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Comment 3 by Concerned at 01-Apr-08 08:10 PM
Gary, as a side commentary, dont you think some things might have changed since the site you used was last updated in 1995?
Comment 4 by alec at 04-Apr-08 09:00 AM
Way to go!!! Some people think that unaffordable heatlh care or a plummeting economy are really important, but you truly have the priorities of your constituents in order.
When you are done crusading for our freedom to choose light bulbs, could you also help us to be able to choose our own paint. The government should not be able to tell us we cannot have lead paint. Then could you fight for our right to choose our own insecticide? Who is the government to tell us we cannot use DDT?
Thanks for your diligence to these important issues.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 04-Apr-08 09:13 AM
Way to go!!! Some people think that unaffordable heatlh care or a plummeting economy are really important, but you truly have the priorities of your constituents in order.
When you are done crusading for our freedom to choose light bulbs, could you also help us to be able to choose our own paint. The government should not be able to tell us we cannot have lead paint. Then could you fight for our right to choose our own insecticide? Who is the government to tell us we cannot use DDT?
Thanks for your diligence to these important issues.
Comment by alec
What a smart alec. Obviously, alec didn't learn that it's possible to do more than one thing at a time.
I’m Shocked…Shocked I Tell You (Part II)
I just couldn't leave well enough alone. There were just too many red flags going off when I read Joyce LeClaire's editorial. I had to investigate further. Here's what I found :
Sherburne (excludes SD15)This is data contained on a document titled Minnesota DFL Local Party Units. Isn't it interesting to find out that the editorialist that wrote the blistering attack on Rep. Bachmann chairs the DFL BPOU in Sherburne County.
Joyce Leclaire
7632637740
JLECLAIRE@CHARTER.NET
The next question I have is whether Ms. LeClaire submitted this editorial based on information she got from Mr. Tinklenberg or Mr. Olson. I don't know that either gentleman supplied her with this information but it's something that's worth thinking about.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2008 4:31 AM
No comments.
What Would the NLRB Think of This?
The bottom two thirds of the ballot box consisted mostly of votes from attorneys who were forced to attend captive audience meetings with Attorney General Swanson immediately prior to voting, and here many more people checked that the union did not speak for them. The judges noted this, and made multiple comments about how groups had voted together. Judge Lebedoff commented that he thought that the union issue should be mediated. Judge Lebedoff stated that he hoped that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would be able to see the comments that the people had written on the ballots. Judge Lord, though, proffered the most important question of the day when he asked "I wonder what the NLRB would think of this."Perhaps someone should ask them. I can't imagine that the NLRB would approve of the types of intimidation outlined in this section of Ms. Lawler's letter.
Ms. Lawler thinks that there's proof that the AG's presence swayed a number of votes in this flawed process. I'm inclined to agree. Here's what convinced me of that:
You then visited the conference rooms on a few more floors, where managers were pulling together impromptu groups to vote before suggesting that the 9:30 quality circle group could vote together. This proceeded just as the 8:30 quality circle had.It's difficult to argue that having Lori Swanson watching didn't make a significant difference in the voting outcome. It's difficult for me to think that the different voting outcome was purely coincidence.
After you suggested that the 10:30 quality circle could vote after their group finished, Judge Lebedoff suggested that this was an inefficient use of time, and suggested that the 10:30 quality circle group be allowed to vote before meeting with the attorney general. This appeared to affect the outcome of the vote. The members of the third quality circle group listened intently to Daniel Goldberg's disclaimer that the union organizers did not endorse the voting process, and as we later learned during the voting process, this group voted differently as well.
What's clear to me is that Ms. Swanson intended to influence the outcome of this vote. What isn't clear to me is why she wanted to influence the voting, though I suspect that she wanted to head off a union so that she could continue bullying the attorneys in the AGO.
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2008 6:05 AM
No comments.
Swanson Welcomes Inquiry?
In what must be described as pure spin, Lori Swanson says that she welcomes Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles' investigation . Here's what she said:
"I also welcome review of the matter by the Legislative Auditor, which will hopefully shed light on these murky allegations," Swanson said in a news release. "I take great pride in the legal reputation of this office. My team and I work very hard for the people of Minnesota, and we thoroughly research and investigate all cases and legal work. It is easy in today's world for anonymous people to throw mud and hope it sticks."If she takes "great pride in the legal reputation of this office", then why has she tried intimidating her attorneys into filing lawsuits that didn't have the proper foundation? I suspect that Ms. Swanson welcomes Jim Nobles' investigation with the same enthusiams that an arsonist welcomes an investigation into a fire.
Nobles said his inquiry won't delve into the union organizing dispute or other employee management issues in Swanson's office. He said he won't hesitate to use his power to subpoena information, protect the identity of people who come forward voluntarily or compel testimony under oath.Obviously, I'd love it if Mr. Nobles looked into the union organizing activities but I suspect that he'll find alot of unsavory stuff during this investigation.
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:14 AM
No comments.
Strib Exercises Their Editorial Discretion
On March 25, I submitted a counterpoint editorial to the Star Tribune rebutting the flimsy arguments made in Silvestre Reyes' op-ed on the FISA reform legislation launguishing in the House of Representatives. This afternoon, the Strib's Tim O'Brien returned my phone message. Here's the content of Mr. O'Brien's email:
Gary,It's certainly the Strib's right to not run editorials. Not running this counterpoint didn't make sense to me so I sent him this email:
I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. We aren't going to be able to use your submission.
Tim O'Brien
Tim, That's your decision. What I'm wondering is why you won't "be able to use" my counterpoint.I'll update this post if Mr. O'Brien replies to my email. Let me set up why I submitted this counterpoint. It all started with this March 14 op-ed by my representative, Michele Bachmann. A week later, the Strib ran this op-ed submitted by Silvestre Reyes , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Gary
I decided to submit a counterpoint editorial after I read Chairman Rep. Reyes' demagogic reply. Here's the counterpoint editorial that the Strib chose not to run:
Silvestre Reyes should be ashamed of the spin and misinformation he put into his March 20 op-ed about the lapsing of the Protect America Act. The PAA was a reform of the FISA laws. Here's the most egregious example of his misinformation:My question for Chairman Reyes remains the same: Why does he insinuate that FISA has anything to do with wiretapping Americans? It's disgusting that he'd play that game. Let's take a step back and refresh our memories on what FISA means. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I can't wait to hear Chairman Reyes' explanation as to how wiretapping Americans, whether it's warrantless or with a warrant, fits into foreign intelligence surveillance. He won't answer that question becauase he knows that they don't have anything in common.As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.This has been the Democrats' line of attack since the bill was introduced. It was bogus then. It's bogus now.
The question I have when I read the part about them being dedicated to preventing "this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans" is this: Why does Chairman Reyes think that this is about "warrantless spying on Americans"? FISA isn't used to conduct warrantless spying on Americans. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Reyes knows that FISA only applies to foreign communications.
Chairman Reyes also omits, intentionally I believe, the fact that this bill was needed after a FISA Appeals Court judge ruled that communications from a foreign country to another foreign country that passed through an American switch was an American communication.
Because of that judge's ruling, Director Mike McConnell's staff were writing out warrant applications for communications involving known terrorists.
Here's another disingenuous comment Chairman Reyes made:"The expiration of the so-called "Protect America Act" (PAA) has not degraded our nation's intelligence collection capability."That doesn't square with Director McConnell's sworn testimony and it doesn't square with a Washington Post op-ed by Sen. Kit Bond and Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Lamar Smith. Here's the money portion of their op-ed:It has already happened, briefly. *[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress* failure to act,* Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.It's time for Chairman Reyes to stop spinning this issue. It's long past time for them to pass the Senate version of this bill, which passed by a 68-29 margin.
The only key difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that the Senate bill grants retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits against the telecommunication companies that assisted the NSA immediately following 9/11.
The House had six months to put together a permanent reform bill. They failed their responsibility. In fact, Speaker Pelosi won't let the Senate bill come up for a vote because it would pass, dealing her a significant political setback.
It's time that the House Democrats finished the job. Anything less is irresponsible.
UPDATE: Tim O'Brien returned my email. Here's his reply:
The Reyes piece was already a countpoint to a Bachmann commentary.Here's my response to his reply:
It wasn't a counterpoint. It was pure spin. It certainly wasn't accurate. I fisked it in less than half an hour.I'll let my fisking speak for itself. If I was Chairman Reyes, I'd be embarrassed that a lowly pajama-wearing blogger hacking away at his keyboard could fisk his spin op-ed that effortlessly.
Gary
As for the Strib, it would've been nice to see them use this but the bottom line is that they don't have the final say in whether it gets published. They don't control the narrative anymore.
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:32 PM
No comments.
The DFL's Hubris
This YouTube video speaks for itself:
If you looked up the word arrogance in the dictionary, you'd find it by looking for Larry Pogemiller's picture.
Technnorati: YouTube , Liberalism , Larry Pogemiller , Hubris
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2008 3:39 PM
No comments.
