December 11-23, 2008
Dec 11 11:30 The Democratic Culture of Corruption Dec 12 09:23 Judge Magnuson Rules In Favor of Williams Wall Dec 12 10:50 Pray For Ronda Williams Dec 17 11:35 Are We Watching The Political Pendulum Switch? Dec 17 13:02 NEA's Fearmongers Attack Academic Bill of Rights Dec 17 17:04 Clear Thinking on Recounts Dec 19 04:53 Proof Positive: Global Warming Ruining Planet Earth Dec 23 11:11 The Start of the EFCA Campaign
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
The Democratic Culture of Corruption
In 2006, one of the Democrats' main campaign themes was the "Republican culture of corruption." Upon winning back the House, Speaker Pelosi said that she'd run the "most honest, most ethical Congress in history ." They're well on their way of totally obliterating that claim, thanks in no small part to Charlie Rangel's ethical lapses :
The House ethics committee is expanding an investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The ethics panel issued a statement Tuesday saying it had voted to expand an already far-ranging probe into the New York Democrat to examine whether he protected an oil drilling company from a big tax bill when the head of that company pledged a $1 million donation to a college center named after the congressman.It isn't hyperbole to say that corruption is rampant within the Democratic Party. I've said in the past that John Murtha's office should be officially converted into the Corporate Welfare HQ when he retires because that's what it unofficially is under his 'leadership'.
The move means the Rangel inquiry will likely stretch well past early January, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had previously said she expected the matter to be resolved.
Republicans have called for Rangel to step down from his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means panel during the investigation. The expanding investigation means the ethics cloud hanging over Rangel is likely to follow him and Democratic leaders into the next Congress as they seek to pass major stimulus legislation and buoy the sinking economy.
The committee will now investigate contributions or pledges of money made to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, particularly one made by Eugene M. Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries, Ltd.
The news this week that Gov. Blagojevich tried selling President-Elect Obama's Senate seat is only surprising in that someone actually got arrested for that type of Illinois corruption.
John Fund's WSJ column outlines the tip of the iceberg of Chicago politics. It's also a fine indictment of the media's disinterest in anything that might tarnight their latest Golden Boy's image:
What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media's "almost willful" fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago's political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama's Chicago connections.It's too late to prevent Obama from becoming the 44th President but it'd be nice to see reporters doing their job. Unfortunately, I'm not certain it isn't too late for modern journalism. If traditional journalism wasn't dead this year, then it was in a deep coma this year. Mr. Kass is right. They spent more infinitely more time investigating Gov. Palin than they spent investigating then-Sen. Obama. That's because traditional journalists didn't investigate then-Sen. Obama.
The only journalists who investigated then-Sen. Obama. were David Freddoso and Stanley Kurtz. Their reporting was found on the NY Post's website and on NRO.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention William Jefferson's defeat in LA-2, in which the people of LA-2 removed him from the U.S. House of Representatives. That's before I mention Paul Kanjorski's ethical dilemma .
Posted Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Dec-08 10:51 AM
Corruption in either party should be a concern of both parties, but primarily faced quickly and decisively by the party with the problem, be it Rod B., Stevens, Coleman's ties to Kazeminy, whatever.
I think it would be really interesting if Kazeminy intended the money to reach the Colemans, and it never reached the Colemans actually or constructively by other payments from Hays Companies.
That would have the insurance company in the middle, getting the cash, and somehow not disbursing it. That would be an interesting outcome - if only all these folks would open their books.
Kazeminy is the only one w/o books to open, the lawsuits opened his firms' records, via attachment to complaints. Hays and Coleman are the ones stonewalling, and the Colemans say they have no records to release - or imply that.
That is kind of pointing a finger at Hays Companies, saying, "Where did the $75,000 end up, and why?"
Back to Gary's points, the story breaking only AFTER the election is as much a bother as the Watergate thing years ago not being made an issue until after that election.
In both instances voters deserved a better shot at being informed.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 12-Dec-08 11:03 AM
One thing, where does Rezko fit into all this? Gary, have you seen much or anything linking him and Ms. B's real estate dealings, and her father's political ties and actions?
I have only read or seen allusions, not reporting. The GOP ticket tried to wave Rezko's name around pre-election, but it did not grow legs.
Is he a focal point of anything? I have not read the full criminal complaint, but I opened it just now, and did a search "Rezko" and his name is all over the allegations.
Gary, or any readers, have there been efforts to ferret out the Rezko stuff, and whether it touches Obama? Any links to offer?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf
It's 78 pages long.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-08 01:46 PM
Eric, I haven't read any reporting on this but speculation I've seen says that Rezko is telling them where the proverbial bodies are laid.
This speculation insists that it isn't coincidence that it's happening prior to his sentencing. While that isn't reporting, it makes alot of sense, which is why I'm not dismissing it.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 15-Dec-08 11:46 AM
Eric:
Here's the problem. The Democrats complain about Republican corruption and what Republicans did wrong. Yet not a single Democrats has tried to get rid of Charlie Rangel.
Jefferson was allowed to keep his congressional seat.
They allowed President Clinton to remain President.
They didn't even do a real investigation into the Clinton campaign finance mess, Fannie Mae,
The difference is this. When a democrat commits corruption you don't care. At least Republicans care. We did try to challenge both Young and Stevens
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Judge Magnuson Rules In Favor of Williams Wall
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled that Pat and Kevin Williams won't be suspended this season . Here's the most significant news from the article:
Ginsberg refused to comment on if he had been in talks with the NFL about a settlement. The judge said the players union had shown it likely will succeed on its claims that NFL breached its duty to the players by failing to share what it knew about StarCaps.The NFL didn't claim that they'd supplied this critical information. Instead, they hid behind the claim that the CBA says that players are ultimately responsible for what they put in their bodies. Judge Magnuson just disagreed with the NFL in the strongest terms possible.
Saying that the "NFL breached its duty to the players by failing to share what it knew about StarCaps" says that the league has an affirmative responsibility to the NFLPA and to its players. PERIOD. Saying that the players would likely win their lawsuit put the NFL on its heels. The NFL's response seems to indicate that they knew they'd lose:
Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations, called Magnuson's ruling, "consistent with the approach the judge has taken in giving careful consideration to these issues, which we fully respect."If the NFL thought they'd been wronged by this ruling, they would've appealed the ruling. That they didn't is telling. I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like Judge Magnuson wants the NFL and the NFLPA to work out some sort of agreement on this issue:
Magnuson urged both parties to reach a solution. If that does not happen, the judge will preserve the status quo until he can hold a full evidentiary hearing on the case. He gave both sides until Dec. 22 to try to negotiate a proposed schedule for filing papers ahead of that hearing. He will determine the schedule himself if that fails to occur but he did not set a hearing date.I think this is a positive step forward because it's telling the NFL and the NFLPA that neither side might like the remedy he fashions for this lawsuit. One thing that is certain is that he's upset with the NFL:
Because there are substantial questions about the process used to suspend the players, Magnuson said, they would suffer irreparable harm by being suspended. And if the suspensions are improper, he said, allowing them to go forward would violate the public interest.Peter Ginsberg, the New York-based lawyer for the Williamses, isn't letting the NFL off the hook easy either:
"It is disturbing that NFL officials thought so little about the health and safety of the players, deciding to attempt to punish the players, who were deceived by NFL officials, rather than to review the league's shortcomings and failings," Ginsberg said.The NFL didn't want to admitt that they screwed up by not sharing the information about StarCaps with the NFLPA. Whether they admit it now, it's painfully obvious that that's what they did. Their claims that player safety is first and foremost ring a little hollow. Here's what MayoClinic.com says about diuretics:
Diuretics, sometimes called water pills, help rid your body of sodium and water. They work by making your kidneys excrete more sodium in urine. The sodium, in turn, takes water with it from your blood. That decreases the amount of fluid flowing through your blood vessels, which reduces pressure on the walls of your arteries.I can't help but think that artificially removing large amounts of water from a body is anything but harmful. The NFL have physicians on retainer just like they have lawyers on retainer. I'd doubt that those physicians didn't tell them that diuretics weren't potentially harmful. Here in Vikingland, we remember the tragic death of Korey Stringer. Officially, Stringer had taken ephedrine, which likely contributed to his death via heatstroke and finally heart failure. Here's what Dr. Phil Kaplan wrote about ephedrine:
Ephedrine also has a diuretic effect and it alters neurotransmission to minimize appetite. The end result is often less food intake and a body that is cranking up in high gear. Calorie deprivation is NOT an effective way to boost metabolism, yet many who depend on these ephedrine based supplements for weight loss wind up using it as an aid in simply minimizing caloric intake. Residual water loss contributes to the illusion that it is really having a very significant effect on fat loss.In other words, the NFL and NFLPA have long known that diuretics can cause serious harm, even death.
It's incumbent on both the NFL and NFLPA to reach an agreement on the future handling of situations like this. It isn't unreasonable to think that Pat and Kevin Williams and the New Orleans Saints players that the NFL tried to suspend should be punished for their taking StarCaps. It's just that this punishment shouldn't be a suspension for a first time offense. A fine would 'fit the crime' better. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail in the next couple of months.
Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 10:20 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Dec-08 10:43 AM
The Strib online article had the following link to the Magnuson order, so you can download the pdf copy and read exactly what he said:
http://www.crowell.com/PDF/NFL_v_Kevin-Williams-and-Pat-Williams_Order.pdf
If that link does not work for a LFR reader, try linking off the Strib's "Williams Wall" article.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-08 10:54 AM
Thanks Eric. The version of the article I read didn't have this link.
Pray For Ronda Williams
Please keep Ronda Williams, the wife of columnist JB Williams in your prayers. She's undergoing testing for some serious health issues.
JB Williams is one of the best conservative columnists in the nation. You can find his work by following this link .
Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 10:50 AM
No comments.
Are We Watching The Political Pendulum Switch?
There's no denying that the political pendulum has swung in the Democrats' direction the last 2 election cycles. This article in Politico.com suggests that, at minimum, Democrats will have more seats to defend in 2010. Couple that with Saxby Chambliss' win in the Georgia runoff and the GOP's John Fleming holding onto Bill McCreery's seat in Louisiana and Joseph Cao defeating William Jeffferson in LA-02 and a case can be made that the Democrats' momentum has ebbed somewhat. By no means should we accept as fact that the pendulum has shifted back in the GOP's direction.
"The fact that there's not an incumbent running for election, and having an appointed incumbent instead, helps us a lot," Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams said. For those reasons, Wadhams said he was surprised that Salazar decided to accept Obama's offer.The rumor that I'm hearing is that NFL legend John Elway is thinking about running as a Republican. If that happens, the Democrats will have a real fight on their hands. Elway wasn't just a great quarterback. He's a charismatic figure, too. It's still too early to tell what type of candidate Elway would be but their's no disputing that he'd have substantial fundraising prowess and significantly above average name recognition, two things that most candidates would die for. Here's what CQ Politics wrote about Elway's candidacy against Sen. Salazar:
Assuming that Salazar is confirmed, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) will appoint a replacement to join the newly elected Mark Udall. A flurry of Democratic names are being floated, including Reps. Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and outgoing state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
Two-time Super Bowl winner John Elway's name has been bandied about as a challenger for the Colorado Senate seat held by first-term Democrat Ken Salazar in 2010, but as of now, the former Denver Bronco quarterback, who campaigned in the state for John McCain during this year's presidential race, trails 49 percent to 38 percent with 13 percent undecided in a Research 2000 poll conducted Dec. 2-4. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, who dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination before the first caucus or primary vote was cast, fares worse with Salazar leading 51 percent to 37 percent and 12 percent undecided.That poll is now worthless now that Sen. Salazar isn't in the picture anymore. Nonetheless, the Colorado GOP has alot of rebuilding to do. Still, having a charismatic person like John Elway at the top of the 2010 'ticket' is bound to energize the GOP faithful and attract unafilliated people to the party, which is a great starting place.
Here's more on why 2010 will present some challenges for the DSCC:
The departure of the popular incumbent from Colorado, along with Sen. Hillary Rodham's Clinton's move to secretary of state and Sen. Joe Biden's ascension to the vice presidency, has suddenly given the GOP hope of contesting three more Democratic seats in 2010. With two special elections in Delaware and New York, there are now 19 GOP seats and 17 Democratic seats in contention next cycle, including that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the biggest Republican target.John Cornyn will soon assume control of the NRSC, something that should put a smile on Republicans' faces. Cornyn is in touch with the blogosphere. He's a rock-solid conservative who preaches the gospel of energy independence through drilling on the OCS and in ANWR. Most importantly, he's a very smart, disciplined politician who consistently makes the best arguments for conservative causes.
In New York, Rep. Peter King (R) is weighing a 2010 challenge against whoever is picked to replace Clinton, and Republican Rep. Mike Castle, who has served as Delaware's lone House member for eight terms, has not ruled out a run in 2010 against whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee, which could be Biden's son Beau, the state's attorney general.
Sen. Cornyn should be pleased that Peter King is thinking about running for Hillary's seat. This article should put a smile on his face, too:
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said Thursday that he is "looking very hard" at running for Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat and urged the political leadership in Illinois to hold a special election to fill the vacancy rather than allow a gubernatorial appointment.If Kirk runs, especially in this environment, he'd cause Illinois Democrats serious trouble. Kirk is a polished politician with solid support from independents and conservatives alike. The fact that he's maintained a squeaky clean image while practicing politics in Chicago won't be ignored, either. I'd suspect that that'll be one of Rep. Kirk's main campaign themes.
In an interview with Politico, Kirk said he was concerned that the state Legislature was moving away from its original plan to pass legislation calling for a special election.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who would succeed Gov. Rod Blagojevich if he resigned, said Thursday that, if he becomes governor, he'd rather appoint Obama's replacement than wait for a special election.
Kirk said he would not be satisfied if Quinn filled the vacancy.
"At this point, everyone is tainted. In order to restore the trust of the people of Illinois in their representatives, this decision should not be made by people connected to a corrupt government," said Kirk.
"We should return this seat to the people who own it, not the corrupt government. In this state, trust has been broken between the state of Illinois and its people."
Kirk would be a strong contender and is giving national Republicans hope they have a shot at picking up a seat that was certain to remain in Democratic hands. A naval officer, Kirk has a clean image with no ties to Springfield or the Chicago political machine. And he has prevailed in two tough campaigns in his suburban Chicago district, giving him invaluable name identification for a statewide campaign.
Things aren't looking nearly as gloomy for the GOP as they did in 2006. Still, there's alot of rebuilding to do. Still, we now have a blueprint for 2010 and beyond thanks to the work of Redstate's Erick Erickson and TheNextRight's Patrick Ruffini and many others. It'll still take alot of work. The good news is that Sen. Cornyn's leadership, coupled with this new blueprint, represents a smarter leadership that identifies with the Heartland's priorities instead of Washington's priorities.
That's a new direction I can get behind.
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 18-Dec-08 10:42 AM
Elway, as Jack Kemp redux?
Cookie Gilchrist allegedly would not block for Kemp, because of what he thought of him. The old AFL days in Buffalo were interesting.
Elway and Largent, what do you think of that, when it comes to talent? Those guys became millionaires via the locker room, and none of the ex-jock crowd seem to go political except via the GOP.
Any idea why?
Finally, I shall check the links about the GOP reorientation, as I think it is going to happen and it will be a very major thing.
I wonder where Huckabee fits into the GOP future. He and Ron Paul, opposites in many ways, seemed the most impressive figures with McCain tired and old and Palin young and stupid.
It will be interesting to see if it comes out like hash, all the leftovers thrown into the new meal, etc.
Also, how will the bailout, coming from within a GOP administration after two GOP terms without anybody watching Wall Street, be worked into a GOP position? I see that as a currently major question, but one that, like the jacked-up pump prices, could fade quickly. Ultimately, will it be a pragmatic adjustment or an ideologically infused event?
NEA's Fearmongers Attack Academic Bill of Rights
This morning, I was alerted to the NEA's attack on the Academic Bill of Rights as it pertains to DuPage Community College in Illinois . Here's a portion of David Horowitz's official statement:
As background I should remind you of our nationwide campaign to get universities around the country to adopt our Academic Bill of Rights. I wrote this document to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as the objective and truthful pursuit of knowledge. The key provision was the one demanding that faculty not use their courses for political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.Here's the NEA's reaction to the Board of Trustees' saying that they might adopt this proposal:
You can imagine the reaction of the faculty association at DuPage last month, therefore, when the school's Board of Trustees proposed adopting the Academic Bill of Rights as part of the school's basic philosophy and governance. "I and the other trustees thought it was important to provide for the academic freedom of students as well as faculty members," Kory Atkinson, a trustee at DuPage and the principal author of the new policy manual which contains the Academic Bill of Rights, explained to the Freedom Center. "We've had some anecdotal evidence from students about faculty at DuPage providing lower scores [for ideological reasons] and even in some written reports for classes where professors made comments about sources being 'right-wing' rather than rejecting them for scholarly reasons, mainly in the social sciences where sources tend to be more subjective."
In an 11-page letter to the Board of Trustees, the NEA chapter claims that the Bill has "political connotations." The letter goes on to state, "ABOR supporters apparently hope that the bill will give elected officials the power to dictate, for example, whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution in college biology."This NEA chapter must have some Olympic-class athletes because it's quite the leap to say that this is a backdoor attempt to get creationism taught. Saying that issues shouldn't be decided by political philosophy but rather by scholarly reasons is the Religious Right's way of getting creationism into schools is paranoid fearmongering. It isn't rooted in anything resembling proof or thought.
I also find it laughable that the NEA thinks that dumping runaway political correctness has "political connotations." It isn't like their agenda doesn't have "political connotations", too. In fact, the NEA occupies its own wing of the Democratic Party. Here's Horowitz's response to the NEA's overreaction:
Neither the DuPage bill nor the original Academic Bill of Rights proposes that politicians be given the power to decide what goes on in the classroom. And alleging that the bill would require the teaching of creationism is an example of the dishonest tactics of the opposition. The proposed new policy at DuPage states that "Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty." Creationism is not a scholarly viewpoint and we have never suggested that it be taught in science classes.Why the NEA would react like this is predictable. They don't like being challenged. Being challenged grates on them like fingernails across a blackboard. It bothers them because they think that they're intellectually superior to conservatives. That's the personification of chutzpah and it shouldn't be tolerated.
The Academic Bill of Rights is explicitly drawn from the statements of the American Association of University Professors which urge professors not to "take unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity to fairly examine other opinions." This is a sound educational principle, not a political statement. In objecting to it and fighting the DuPage trustees's attempts to give students the academic freedom rights the faculty is struggling to retain what it regards as its own right to use the school's classrooms as indoctrination chambers.
Kory Atkinson sums it up nicely:
"[Right now] the only thing that a student can challenge under the current policy is a grade," trustee Kory Atkinson told the Freedom Center covering the DuPage controversy. "Creating a specific right for a student to challenge ideological discrimination really worries them [the faculty]. They will have to be accountable for what they're doing in the classroom and they really don't like that."If anyone has firsthand knowledge of Minnesota college faculty who are using their classrooms as an indoctrination center, please contact me by leaving a comment. Also, anyone who has firsthand knowledge of professors using intimidation tactics on students should contact me by leaving a comment. Only I can see your email address.
I'd be stunned if indoctrination and intimidation aren't commonplace on university campuses. It's time we started pushing back.
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment 1 by Steve at 17-Dec-08 04:51 PM
Great post!!
Would you like a Link Exchange with out new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Comment 2 by eric z. at 18-Dec-08 10:25 AM
I have seen this Horowitz thing before. Others may not have. You might in a comment provide a link or links to what the "Academic Bill of Rights" says, its history, any court review, etc.
Without that, the debate sits largely in darkness.
Name-calling in such a situation is all too easy.
When I was a young child, I was told the Russians were encouraging children to rat out on their parents, etc., and this Horowitz thing has an allied flavor - and recall how Bachmann, a Horowitz supporter I believe, got heat for wanting neo-McCarthyism.
That's not any part of your wanting names and allegations, is it? Witch hunting?
McCarthyism was bad for the nation.
Eisenhower and the propaganda machinery, primarily the TV press, were correct in destroying it but they failed to act soon enough. They paid out too much rope. Too many people were unjustifiably harmed. Careers were ruined.
Clear Thinking on Recounts
Joe Quinn's op-ed in today's Strib is a perfect illustration of what happens when people think things through thoroughly. Here's what Mr. quinn wrote that caught my attention:
I also was called upon in 2004 to rule on missing ballots. In fact, in my case, the issue may have been more clear-cut. We knew that 17 ballots had been destroyed by fire. In Minneapolis, an exhaustive search failed to produce any evidence that the missing ballots ever existed. The Minneapolis issue is a conflict between the count on the precinct's voting machines and the hard evidence of ballots.This opinion wouldn't sit well with teh Franken campaign but that's something that they'll have to deal with. Of course, a painstaking search must be done to see if ballots got misplaced. If, after that painstaking search, there's still a discrepancy between the number of physical ballots and the statistics on the machine's tape, then it must be resolved on the basis of physical ballots because a machine's tape can't be verified.
In the Mower County case, I ruled that if a ballot doesn't exist, the vote doesn't count. My decision did not set a binding legal precedent. The standards of law, though, dictate that a body overruling my decision must provide an explanation. Without imposing my judgment on anyone, it might be helpful for those now considering what to do with missing ballots if I share the two critical factors in my decision.
The first and more important point goes to the heart of a recount. A recount is conducted so that every ballot can be examined and an accurate total tallied from hard evidence. Vote totals should not be imputed from mechanical or mathematical probabilities; they should be based exclusively on ballots .
It's possible that the ballots were actually cast. It's also quite possible that the ballots didn't and that the scanning machine simply made a mistake. Without physical proof, we can only theorize. When criminal cases are decided, they're theoretically decided on the basis of whether there's reasonable doubt. When civil cases are decided, they're decided on the basis of a preponderance of evidence.
Without proof of the ballots' existence, there's only reasonable doubt, which means that there isn't a preponderance of evidence.
The second principle I followed is that recounts should minimize the risk of political mischief, not provide it a safe harbor. The Senate recount to date has demonstrated the integrity of Minnesota's elections. After counting 2.9 million ballots, we are left with little more than a handful of question marks. The best and only reliable evidence of a person's vote is the ballot itself.What's most interesting to me is that Judge Quinn isn't a partisan GOP jurist. He's a former DFL legislator. I point this out to highlight the fact that irrefutable logic is irrefutable logic wherever it's found.
Judge Quinn used simple logic that ballots are the only physical proof that votes were cast. Without the physical ballots, you're dealing with phantoms. That isn't acceptable.
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 18-Dec-08 10:15 AM
This reminds me of the question of statistically adjusting census data to make the final result more reliable, with some opposed to the idea. Ludditeism, perhaps.
Comment 2 by Freealonzo at 18-Dec-08 12:26 PM
Judge Quinn does make some good points, hard to argue against his thinking.
I just want to point out however, that there is almost no doubt that those 133 votes in Dinkytown were cast and then lost.
The ballots in that precinct were put into 5 separate envelopes each identified as 1 of 5, 2 of 5, etc.
Envelope 3 of 5 (I think it was 3) is nowhere to be found.
One can make a strong argument that since those votes can't be found they can't be recounted. However one cannot argue that those 133 votes were never cast. Small distinction I know but an important one.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-08 01:27 AM
Those vote might've been cast but we don't have PROOF that they were cast. Without irrefutable physical proof, I don't trust anything.
Proof Positive: Global Warming Ruining Planet Earth
If ever we needed proof that manmade global warming was real, one need only look at these pictures:
Check out this headline for proof that MMGW is the real thing:
Frigid Storm Closes California Freeways, Drops Snow in MalibuIf that isn't proof enough, then check out the information from this article :
It is being called the snowiest December that Las Vegas has ever seen. Officially, 3.6 inches of snow were recorded making it the biggest snowstorm to hit Las Vegas since 1979.Schools are shut in downtown Vegas after 3.6" of snow fell? What a bunch of wimps. Sen. Coleman would get a hearty laugh from that. One of his standard lines during his stump speech was that when the temp hits freezing, the standard reaction of most Minnesota men would be to finally button the top button on their flannel shirts.
The snow did cause some major problems around the valley bringing traffic to a standstill and causing numerous flight cancellations stranding hundreds of air passengers. Flights resumed Thursday morning. can check with Flight Tracker for the latest information on flights in and out of McCarran International Airport.
The heavy snow also caused some damage around the valley by snapping trees and collapsing carports. For the first time since the 1979 storm, The Clark County School District closed all of its schools and Nye County followed suit. Dozens of private schools were also closed.
Posted Friday, December 19, 2008 4:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Dec-08 12:45 PM
Anecdotal, hardly good evidence, but interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/11/snow-in-new-orleans-rare-_n_150282.html
Comment 2 by Steve at 21-Dec-08 04:07 PM
Great post here!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day?? Check it out please...
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Comment 3 by Tard at 22-Dec-08 11:26 AM
A snowstorm? That's your proof?
Lame.
The Start of the EFCA Campaign
This morning's St. Cloud Times editorial page has the first post-election editorial touting the virtues of EFCA . It's the same tired collection of misinformation and unproven facts that the DFL used during the campaign. Here's one of their 'golden oldies':
Major corporations pay their CEOs millions of dollars, and pad their salaries with millions of dollars in bonuses, but actively work against workers' basic benefits. In fact, working Americans who try to organize and bargain collectively are often coerced, harassed, intimidated or fired for their efforts.The editorialist didn't provide proof that "working Americans" had been "coerced, harassed, intimidated or fired" for trying to organize a union. Similarly, the editorialist didn't provide proof that CEOs "actively work against workers' basic benefits."
In other words, this editorial is long on allegations and short on proof. A brief history lesson is in order. I'll start with this YouTube video of El Tinklenberg's saying that he supports EFCA:
I'll finish the 'history lesson' with George McGovern's op-ed in the WSJ :
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.Through the years, Sen. McGovern was as staunch a supporter of unions as Ted Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey. This isn't someone who didn't know or didn't like the union movement. He fought for increased unionization. Sen. McGovern's opposition of EFCA is the equivalent or the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Foundation supporting the building of nuclear power plants.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act , and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak .
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder , free from fear of reprisal.
Posted Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:11 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 24-Dec-08 11:37 AM
What's your point? You give no proof this measure would be bad for the nation. You only give McGovern's opinion, presumably because part of it fits your own opinion.
Why criticize an editorial that offers as much proof as you do?
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Dec-08 10:01 AM
I forgot to say - Tinklenberg, this is HIS version of McCarthyism.
Really.
Not Joe.
Not Gene.
Bill.
http://www.minneapolisunions.org/2007-11-29_tinklenberg.php
No biting the hand ---
Comment 3 by eric z at 29-Dec-08 10:27 AM
Gary - if you know, please post, this effort at making it easier to get bargaining unit approvals and hence dues-paying union members, is it involving any push to unionize the European and Japanese auto assembly plants in the rural south?
Is that an objective?
It seems that union leadership, if concerned for the existing bargaining units and labor-management relative options, other than viewing memberships as dues cash flow sources, those in the union driving seats would be more focused on changing existing labor law under the Dems - for stronger powers via secondary boycott rights, for stronger curbs on scab strike breakers being employed, and for stronger provisions against the runaway plants - NAFTA-Mexico, as well as to the rural southern US, and against outsourcing of the parts and products streams - e.g., the Boeing machinists and Seattle plant workers are aware of things that this cards-vs-election issue might assist them on - easier organization of firms for which the parent venture outsources to cheaper labor separate entities.
Do you know if any such effort is in parallel to this cards-vs-election issue?
Second thought -- Two more Tink - McCarthyism links:
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_3391
http://www.minneapolisunions.org/cluc_about.php
Plus this one, contrasting Tink and Wetterling labor support going into 2006 precinct caucus:
http://www.erstarnews.com/2006/May/9sixth.html
I find that last item, and its view on a split of union support interesting, since Tink lined up every union person early for 2008 (despite that smoke he blew in Aug. 2007 about the bridge falling being his incentive to run but before that he was just simple Tink, the consultant).
He'd union folks at that August announcement, so you tell me, was he pre-annointed, or not?
Comment 4 by sethstorm at 02-Jan-09 04:22 AM
When Reagan decided to give unionbusting the green light via PATCO, this is what you get in return.
Interesting that folks like Rick Berman are protesting against the same tactics they use against labor unions. They have eviscerated the "secret ballot" without removing it in the very same manner.
This is what happens when you try to go Pinkerton on your nation and its citizens.
