Judge rules money unfair for blind people

See the ruling here.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson said keeping all U.S. currency the same size and texture violates the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs. "Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations...More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."

Gee, I am sure this is what Congress intended when they passed the Rehabilitation Act... It sounds like a good idea - that is to make money more accessible to the Blind, but why let a Court do it. How gross.

UPDATE: No surprise that Robertson was appointed by Clinton in 1994.

A stunt

It is pretty clear now that the kicking off of 6 muslim imams from a US Air flight in Minneapolis was a stunt executed by the 6 Imams who conspired to bring attention to themselves and to possibly extort money from the airline.

Because this conspiracy resulted in economic damages for the airline, it seems only just that the airline sue the 6 imams for damages. Perhaps it would be difficult to sue the lone wacko for a mistake, but the conspiracy makes it much easier to prove. The airline should go for punitive damages too. Wouldn't it be great to see a jury award US Airways $1 billion... and if they did it in the name of their mosque, maybe they can sue the mosques too... just like the Catholic Church paid up for its abuse.

At some point, companies need to take a stand against the rampant extortion brought on by these so called victims in our society. We all pay for this BS with higher consumer prices. What a joke.

Also, why is it that the Washington Times scooped the local Minneapolis Star Tribune on this story?

City Pages -- Is it legal?

I had to google City Pages as I have not seen the story referenced below. I wouldn't even know where or how to get an actual copy of City Pages. Is it like knowing how to buy pot? I wouldn't have a clue how to do that either.

So I found City Pages online. No kegger story. I think there was a story on how I could buy pot. And the lovely Live Nude Weblog was available. Next to the City Pages Personals. Hmmmm. City Pages Personals. Next to the events column featuring persons of heavily metalled membranes and random hair chunks. I didn't go there. The City Pages Personals gentlemen (may I call them gentlemen?) probably enjoy a slightly different culture (the kind in a petri dish). I imagine they make use of [street terms] as does City Pages itself.

Perhaps Courier A and Retorte would care to slog through City Pages online to find the kegger story for our reading pleasure. We'd also like to know exactly what you were doing to cause a paper copy of City Pages to find its way into your hands.

Shaken, Not Stirred

Last night, while cooking apple pie and stuffing for today, I tried out the martini recipe from Ian Fleming's Casino Royale.

3 parts gin.
1 part vodka.
1/2 part vermouth (this is controversial. He asked for a brand of French apertif, Kina Lillet, that is supposedly not actually a vermouth, but he also called his drink a martini, which suggests vermouth for this part.)
A large thin slice of lemon peel.

Shaken with ice until it is very cold and strained into a glass.

It is VERY good.

Hayek and Hayek

I was looking up some images of Fredrich Hayek for my wall of fame. I googled "Hayek" in google images and I came upon a whole page of images interlaced between Selma and Friedrich Hayek. It was a strange visual experience. Try it yourself....

Here is an example...











UPDATE: Someone mentioned that the prior pics of the Hayeks I put up were a bit too much. I tried to tone it down a little....

The Iraq war and the Nativists

We all know that most of the paleocons are against the Iraq war and also against large immigration. However, it is possible the experience of the Iraq war may aid the nativists in their immigration goals, at least as far as muslim immigration. One of the problems with Europe is they feel sorry for the plights of various muslim peoples such as the Palestinians, etc.. Consequently, they have imported millions of them and urged the muslims to retain their own identity. This is and wll be a disaster for Europe, the consequences of which are not yet known.

In contrast, the Iraq war may permanetly scar Americans with the sentiment that muslims, when handed a gift of opportunity in Iraq, chose to be anti-american suicide bombing terrorists instead. This could be enough even for the multi cultural liberals to put the squash on large future muslim immigration, thus sparing us from the intifada now brewing in europe.

Maybe....it's just speculation. I will send my theory to Keith Ellison.

Spawn of McClung

Anyone concerned over the future of the Republican Party (and as much as I hate to admit it, we need to be because it remains the only viable way of electing any conservatives) should get a copy of the Nov. 15 City Pages cover. That drunken reveler is the type of person who has been recruited to form the ranks of Young Republicans today.

Dude, Republicans have just suffered significant losses in Congress and in both branches of the MN legislature, pretty much ensuring that no conservative policies will be advanced for at least the next two years. And if the election would have been held just before the Hatch-Dutcher campaign self-destructed, the DFL would have won the governorship in MN in addition to all the other statewide contests they won. As it was, the incumbent Republican won only by a narrow plurality in a contest against two other liberals. Wiping the sweat from one's forehead or commiserating with others about how fortunate they were to still have some impact in MN government would make sense, but mugging for the camera and gloating with a full drink in hand? A little humility is in order, dude.

Pawlenty's base of support came from three distinct groups: social conservatives with low expectations content to merely elect someone who was one of them, established corporate figures scared that a Hatch administration would bring negative attention to their business at some point, and drunken frat-boy bandwagon hoppers who look like the guy on the City Pages cover. The first two groups were naturally drawn to Pawlenty, but the governor and his sidekick McClung had to work hard to put out an image that would attract the drunken frat-boy group.

Frat-boy bandwagon hoppers are obviously followers, not leaders, but they will only follow someone who's seen as a winner and who has a cool image. They are obnoxious and not prone to ever engaging in deep thought, and tend to repel anyone different from them. They make up the bulk of the entry-level marketing associates in most mid-to-large-sized corporations. Pawlenty spoke against things it was safe for them to personally be against--tax increases, illiegal immigrants, and violent criminals. At the same time, he reassured them he was not against more spending, he just wanted to focus it on a few priorities (schools, transportation, and big-city entertainment). Meanwhile, he incorporated enough pop-culture lingo to build his "hipster" credibility.

Politics for frat-boy bandwagon hoppers is like fantasy sports. They want to draft someone who can win and deliver goodies: subsidies targeted to their interests. They even gave their favorite candidate for governor a moniker, "T-Paw", to make him sound cooler and enhance his marketability.

So what are the implications of this phenomenon on the future of the Republicanism and/or conservatism in Minnesota? When Hatch fades from the spotlight, the always-tenuous connection that big corporate figures have to Republicans will diminish. Social conservatives don't update their tactics enough to ever build much momentum and get on the offensive. Which means the party's future prospects are now linked to the frat boys. There are no bold principles that guide their politics, they don't want fewer services from government, they don't have much in common with social conservatives, and they don't appeal to intelligent men or women with decent self-esteem.

And they don't have enough basic common sense to know that election night this year was not a time for raucously celebrating.

I laughed my ass of

....when I found out that Barack Obama's full name is "Barack Hussein Obama, jr."

How ridiculous. Imagine if FDR's opponent in 1944 was Thomas Tojo Hipler.

Is he kidding himself?

What Republicans Should Do

One of the benefits of being a conservative in politics is that more often than not, it is beneficial when government does less. Therefore, despite the U.S. Senate being in the minority, we hope that it will use its power of obstruction to get the things that conservatives really want.

For example, the minimum wage. As Pencil discussed in a prior post, the minimum wage, at $7.00 per hour is pretty meaningless. Therefore, at the very least, the Republicans in the Senate should get some of the previously filibustered judges through as a compromise for not filibustering the minimum wage. After all, Bush won re-election in 2004 with a mandate that the people wanted his judges... just as the democrats won in 2006 with a mandate to.... well at the very least to raise the minimum wage.

Death of a Giant

Most of the readers of this blog know Milton Friedman as a political intellectual. I know him (not personally) for his achievements as an academic economist and as the professor of several of my professors. He won the Nobel prize for economics in (I think) 1976 for his achievements as an academic economist, not for anything most of the public has ever heard of him for. Further, there are Nobel winners and then there are Nobel winners. We all take the list of economics winners and divide them into categories of "well, I guess you could make a case for that guy" and "of course." Friedman is hailed by all to be the latter. In fact, Friedman is even bigger than that. He is fairly considered to be among economists to be one of the, say, five most important economists of the 20th century. As public intellectuals go, that makes the guy a colossus, straddling real academic achievement and the public square. In fact, I can't think of any public intellectual who had the stature among his peers that Friedman did. (A colleague just pointed out to me that Noam Chomsky probably qualifies.)

What Friedman actually did was lay the foundation for the complete destruction of Keynesianism as a scientific theory (as opposed to a set of policies). His first major work
was known simply as the theory of consumption. A big part of Keynesianism was the idea that households have a "marginal propensity to consume" of about .8 (due to the fact that on average households tend to consume 80% of the income and save 20%.) An incorrect inference from this was that if you give households some extra money, they will save 20% of it and spend 80% leading to what Keynesians called the multiplier. (You give people money, they spend 80% of it, that money is income to someone else, they spend 80% of it, and so on). To correct this, Friedman had to develop an entire theory of how households choose how much to save and how much to consume today, and from this came the idea that the answer depends crucially on whether you expect the money to continue (if you think the extra money is one time you will save more of it than if you think it will keep coming). The upshot was that the "marginal propensity to consume" simply didn't exist. Keynesianism was simply not coherent as a scientific theory. His other major contribution, on the relationship between unemployment and inflation, was similar: it cut out another leg from the table that was Keynesianism. All of this incorporated into our thinking that what people expect to happen in the future is key to determining what will happen today. Keynesianism allowed for none of this and for this reason it died a well deserved death. Friedman's work foreshadowed how academic economics would be conducted for (at least) the next fifty years.

Milton Friedman R.I.P.

It is a sad day for free-marketeers, but we should celebrate, not mourn, the life and tremendous contributions of the Nobel Prize winning economist. Thank God we had Milton Friedman when we did. FoxNews story here, or a better story at Forbes.

(Forbes states, ". . . died Thursday in San Francisco at age 94. The cause wasn't immediately known." Hello. He was 94.)

The Chicago Tribune has a good, in depth article about Friedman, his ideas, and contributions:

Taxes, he said, should be cut and simplified. Society benefits when personal choice reigns supreme.

In the 1960s, he argued that personal retirement accounts made more sense than a mandatory system of Social Security . . .

and

Similarly, he contended that parents should be allowed to choose what schools their children attend . . .

"Why do America's universities have a greater reputation around the world than its public schools?" he once asked aloud. 'You have choice. That makes all the difference in the world.

and

In particular, he was moved by an economics professor named Friedrich Hayek, whose intellectual attacks on socialism galvanized a small group of true-believers under the banner of "liberalism."

At the time, mainstream Democrats and Republicans assumed the federal government would retain a huge, ambitious role throughout society, serving as an equalizer for the disadvantaged and softening the sharp edges of a Darwinian marketplace.

It is unfortunate that, for all the knowledge Friedman bestowed upon us, very little has changed politically.

Zinni's a neo-con!

I thought it was interesting that General Zinni, a hero of Federal Farmers because he is a critic of the Iraq war is against withdrawing American troops from Iraq, and is actually advocating sending more troops!

Poor Farmer. There is still Jim Webb!

Webb Reveals Himself

Jim Webb just revealed his true insidious liberalism in this Op-ed piece. Too bad Allen didn't know the truth otherwise he could have campaigned on real issues rather than defending Macaca.

America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes....

But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs....

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

What is Webb talking about? Maybe people don't send their kids to public schools because the public schools in many places suck. In South Minneapolis, Washburn High School used to be considered decent. Today it is a cestpool.

What does Webb mean by this: "They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people.." Is he referring back to the golden era where working people owned stocks? When was that? How ridiculous. In fact today the stock market is more spread out among the population then at any time in history, up to more than 40% from 20% in 1980.

It is true that the gap between the super wealthly and average Americans has widened recently, but it is also true that we went through a massive period of economic growth where billionares like Bill Gates grew out of nothing. At the same time, these new companies like Microsoft created a lot of wealth among a lot of people not just the super rich.

What does Webb mean by the tax code protecting the Super Rich. The last stat I saw showed that the top 1% paid 35% of all the taxes (yet according to Webb they only earn 16% of the national income). In 1980, the top 1% only paid 20% of income taxes.

In the end Webb is another equality over freedom politician. The last thing we need are socialists like Webb trying to make everyone equal. That will surely lead to ruin for us all.

And regarding who fights our wars, I am not sure what he means - does he think we should have a draft?

Property Tax Bill

I just got my property tax bill for 2007. It went up 8.1%. A little ridiculous considering there have been 5 houses for sale in the neighborhood for over 5 months.

And they say they need to raise taxes.

Yikes...

Giuliani or Not

Now that Giuliani has officially formed his "exploratory committee." It's time to consider whether he has a chance. Many people I have talked to say that he does not have the social conservative background for him to be able to win the nomination. I don't know much about Giuliani's conservatism except that he believes in law and order and lacks political correctness.
Lets, for the moment, assume that Giuliani is conservative in all other respects but social issues.

Can Giuliani win the nomination. Maybe, but he will have to make a pact with social conservatives. In the 2000 campaign, Bush essentially promised "pro-choice" republicans that he would not press the issue of banning abortion from the federal level, but will appoint judges in the image of Scalia and Thomas. He has more or less kept this promise.

Perhaps Giuliani can make a similar promise to social conservatives, Guiliani could promise that he will not press to add federal laws/rules to protect abortion (leave that to the states), and will appoint judges in the same league as Roberts and Alito.

In reality, the fight over abortion and other social issues such as gay marriage will be from the judiciary and the state level and not the federal level from the President. Thus, I think Giuliani will be acceptable if he makes promises to appoint conservative judges. (I won't be surprised if the democratic candidate promises to appoint judges like Sandra Day O Conner).

German Prosecutors

Drudge is reporting that Germany intends to issue criminal indictments against Rumsfeld, George Tenant, and Gonzalez, for the goings on at Abu Garib and Guantanamo Bay.

This is serious stuff. If it is true, we should pull our ambassador out of Germany and ask the Congress to block all trade with Germany. We should also pull all our troops out. We should not let leftist leaders in other countries intimidate our leaders. Germany should pay until they put a stop to it.

What will the Dems do in the next few years

GW Bush in his first term was able to pass a series of bills through a narrowly held Republican House and Senate. These included his tax cuts which came with a sunset clause in order to get 60 Senate votes; The no child left behind act that Kennedy voted for, and a series of anti-terror legisation that democrats generally supported.
GW was also able to pass the heavy spending Prescription Drug bill on razor thin margins in the House (with Democratic support).

The largest legislative failure came with Social Security Reform, something the republican congress refused to ever really support (they were scared of losing control)... ha ha ha.

Knowing these successes and failures, what then will the Democratic House be able to enact....Minimum wage will get by, possibly with some small business tax relief in the senate. Bush will sign it.

Immigration Reform. I believe that this will ultimately die in the House. It would be death for most of the new democrats to come out swinging for illegal aliens. If anything comes out it will be little stuff and not major reform.

Stem Cells. The democratic Congress will pass stem cell funding, which Bush will veto. It will fall short of an override.

I think that is it. Dems may try to monkey around with the war funding - make threats etc..., however, they will ultimately fund the war.

The democrats will ultimately be compared to the 104th Congress. And the comparison will be ugly for the democrats because Bush is not up for reelection and thus doesn't have to sign any democratic bills.

IN 1995-7, the new 104th Republican Congress rammed through a series of legislation (the contract with America), much of it becoming law from a frightened President Clinton:

This included a Balanced Budget Amendment, a large crime bill, welfare reform, the $500 child tax credit, tort reform (which was vetoed), and many government reform measures. The 104th congress also shaved off a full percent to GDP of spending or about $80 billion at the time from 21.75% to 20.75%. The Republican congress also enacted House reform, such as limiting committee chair terms to encourage fresh blood. It doesn't appear that the dems will learn from this as I have heard that Dingle age 81 will chair E&C, Charlie Rangel age 76 will chair Ways and Means, and Conyers age 77 will chair Judiciary. How wrong is this? Why would the Dems just revert back to 1993?

These comparisons will come out as the year goes on and people will soon realize that the Democratic congress has little power and little mandate to do anything but investigate Bush over Iraq. People will also be reminded how great 1994 was and will yearn for its return.

Republicans would be smart to come up with a new contract, with new leaders for 2008. The new contract should be domestic reform and should include legislation that has a chance to be passed. It should include reform to social security, health care reform, etc... In the meantime, 2006-2008 should be spent showing how hapless the Democrats really are.

Furious at Rumsfeld

Some in the GOP are furious at Bush's timing for firing Rumsfeld.

Donald Rumsfeld's abrupt resignation from the Pentagon the day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress has infuriated some GOP officials on and off Capitol Hill. Members and staff still reeling from Tuesday's rout are furious about the administration's decision to dump the controversial defense secretary one day after their historic loss, they said in a series of interviews about the election results.

I am crying too. Maybe if the GOP would have cut spending in their last 6 years, they would have had something to talk about during the election.

Here is my favorite whiner from the Corner:

I wanted him replaced two years ago, and said so. (I wanted Condi replaced too, for that matter). I thought he was a bad manager, and a poor judge of people (some of his top aides don't belong there).

And while I thought he should be replaced, I found the manner and the moment of his purge utterly disgusting. What was the rush? It was one of the worst moments of W's presidency. It was a double surrender by the president, throwing a severed head to the Democrats and to the terrorists. You can be quite sure that the terror masters saw the election as a great victory, and Rumsfeld's ritual sacrifice as a moment of glory. It will encourage them to redouble their efforts, both in Iraq/Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They believe they have Bush's number, that they have broken him, and all they must do now is keep the blood flowing to accelerate our retreat. My heart breaks for the Iraqis.

I think this is a stretch. Yeah the terrorists might find it a victory, however, they also might get really frustrated when nothing changes for them. They probably think Bush is done, only to still see him in charge... "

Wait, you mean you can lose an election in the U.S. and still be in charge? THEY LIE! Ahmed says....

Imagine the looks on the terrorist's faces when they find out they have been hoodwinked by American politicans.

The democrats said they were going to pull out.... but they are still here, states Rashid. That Keith Oberman was not telling the truth!

I recall reading about Hitler's elation when Roosevelt died. It lasted about 15 minutes. Hitler shot himself a few weeks later.

The whole changing course and firing or Rumsfeld is a charade by the Democrats and Bush to continue the status quo. The Dems want to satisfy their supporters that they are "changing course" except the course is not going to be changed and we will end up sticking to the current plan which is to stick it out until the Iraqis can take over. Sure, they may change tactics, as they are alwasy changing tactics, but the strategic goal will remain the same. Eventually the Iraqis will take over - it could be next year, it could be in 5 years. Pelosi wants to stay in power and this is her plan to do so - she wants to share in the victory.

The charade will work because the Dems and the media won't critise it (they will be in on it). I support the charade because I support sticking it out until we win. However, its still something to be laughed at.

Don't Hang Saddam

So says a fellow dictator Hosni Mubarak.

"Carrying out this verdict will explode violence like waterfalls in Iraq," Mubarak was quoted as saying by state-run Egyptian newspapers. Hanging Saddam "will transform (Iraq) into blood pools and lead to a deepening of the sectarian and ethnic conflicts."

Hmmm.., I wonder if Mubarak is really worried about his own neck.

I remember voices in the "International Committee" saying that Saddam should be tried in The Hague. What a joke that would have been. We would still be on the opening statement.

It was a great move to let the Iraqis try their own guy. Now he will hang.

Index the Minimum Wage

It turns out that in Missouri and Montana that state referenda on minimum wages just killed us. They passed overwhelmingly and like gay marriage amendments in reverse, brought those most disinclined to vote Republican to the polls. It's time to end this by giving in.

Every time the minimum wage is on the ballot or part of a campaign, we lose. Further, while they are bad economics, relatively low minimum wages are not THAT bad. So conservatives need to push for simply getting this issue settled so it doesn't keep coming up. We should agree to a $7.50 minimum wage that automatically goes up with the CPI just like Social Security payments, or perhaps instead indexed to average wage growth. This would be like liberals agreeing to constitutional amendments against gay marriage just to keep from getting hit every time. The difference is that they really really care about eventually getting gay marriage, so they would never do this. We, on the other hand, don't (or shouldn't) care about permanently being stuck with a relatively low minimum wage. Like I said, it's bad policy, but it's not that bad.

"They got way too arrogant"

I was talking this morning to a friend of mine who has done quite well for himself. I asked him how much he thought the outcome of the election was going to cost him in tax increases. He told me that he didn't really care - he voted straight Democrat up and down the line. He's never been a straight party line voter, but in the past 20 or so years I've know him, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of his votes were for Republicans.

He continued: "I couldn't be happier with what happened. I've got enough money that it doesn't really matter what they do to the tax structure [this is a HUGE change from the past for him, which probably indicates how really angry he is on the other stuff], but I'm so pissed off at the Republicans. They got way too arrogant and there are more important things that they should be dealing with."

Hopefully the "now in the minority" Republicans will get this kind of message and listen to it.

Lecture and Debate Tonight

Professor Dale Carpenter, U of M Law School, will be giving a Society Lecture on Conservatisms tonight at the University Club at 7:00 PM.

Following at 7:30 will be the regular debate caucus to discuss,

Resolved: George Bush is a Conservative

Coming soon....

You will start to hear stats like this very soon:

The Republican Congress came in January 1995 when federal spending was near an all time high of 21.75% GDP. When Republicans left, federal spending was 20.5% GDP... a reduction in government spending of $175 billion per year. What will (or have) democrats done....

The reason why you haven't heard this stat lately is because Federal spending was down at 19% in 1998. Republicans have been on a spending binge since then and everyone in the Republican party knows it. However, overall, the Republican Congress cut federal spending during their 12 years - facts don't lie. As time goes on we will forget about emotionalism tied to the spending binge and be left with the basic facts.

Democrats will not look back on this victory fondly

Ok, so the sleep deprevation has been finally overcome by coffee (I woke up early this morning some time, which is rare, and flipped on the TV just in time to catch T-Paw's victory speech live, and couldn't go back to sleep much after that), and I've had time to think about this.

Two things you should read - go ahead, I'll wait. Thing 1 and Thing 2.

I think that this will be the wake up call that has been so badly needed by the Republicans. There will be a lot of soul searching, some needed leadership change, but when all is said and done, I think that the Democrats will not see this election as the sweeping mandate for change that they undoubtedly think it is. Now that the electorate has gotten this temper tantrum out of their system, I suspect they will come to their senses in 2008 return the power to where it belongs - a conservative Republican party.

I'm not just rationalizing when I say that I think we should consider this a victory for Conservatives and hopefully a final nail in the coffin of "compassionate conservativism", whatever that silly philosophy is.

The Silver Lining

There is a very big silver lining from this election. It occurred in Michigan:

Proposed amendment to Michigan Constitution would "prohibit the University of Michigan and other state universities, the state, and all other state entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." On June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, ruled in favor of affirmative action in the University of Michigan's admissions policies. The Bush administration opposed the university's pro-affirmative action admission policies.

Here is a link to the text.

The measure passed 59-41 in a BLUE state.

This Amendment could be a huge victory for conservatism. Look for it to start appearing in other states.

Could it have been different?

So it's basically a worst case scenario. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.

Could it have been different?

Certainly, when House candidates' best arguments are "My mistress is lying when she said I strangled her" and "I'm an alcoholic who was abused by a priest" those particular races are trouble, but this election was worse than this or that race. It was a blowout.

H.L. Mencken said something to the effect of "In a democracy, you get the government you deserve, usually good and hard." In economics (and formal, or theoretical, political science) there is the "median voter theorem." That is, the median voter is the voter in which half the voters are to his left and half to his right, and almost every quasi democratic election system has the preferences of this voter ruling.

So in this election, a lot of our losers were chumps that deserved to lose (and a lot weren't). But a lot of their winners are complete idiots who deserved to lose as well, but they won. The people chose their idiots over our idiots, and in many cases, their idiots over our good candidates. So I'm not at all sure that if we simply reform and put up better candidates, we will do dramatically better.

The Northeast has become more liberal. Minnesota has become more liberal. Iowa has moved left. Ohio, Missouri and Virginia have moved left. Overall, I'm not seeing a lot of silver linings, only the need to move the median voter back to the right, as opposed to trying this or that tactic.

The Polls Always Favor the Democrats

except when they don't.

Elections and a Question

The election results look grim - Pawlenty and Bachmann are bright spots.

Okay, here is a question:

Will the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and leader of the Democrats sour America on strong liberal women leading the country (i.e. Hillary Clinton)?

Predictions Update

I am reposting my predictions since no one else will post predictions:

I still predict that the Dems will gain 19 seats in the House. However, everyone is now predicting 19, so I am changing my prediction to 18 1/2.

In the Senate I am still predicting +3 for Dems (Steele wins, Burns wins, Talent wins, Corker wins, Chaffee Loses, Allen loses, Santorum loses, Dewine loses, Kean loses,).

I predict the Dems will take Delays seat, Republicans will keep Foley's seat. (Punching Foley for Negron sounds like too much fun to pass up).

IN MN

I predict Pawlenty by 4, Klobachar by 4, Bachmann by 13.

Pat Awada Wins; Kiffmeyer wins; Jeff Johnson wins.

Voting

I voted this morning. The poll worker said it was busy, but not as busy as 2004.

It will be interesting to see how the polls mirror the actual election results this evening. As I said in some prior posts, there is a possibility that technology has caught up to phone pollers, causing a skew in their results. This skew should show up in every poll. How much of a skew there is remains to be seen.

It will also be fun to see how far off the Star Tribune poll is.

There are a lot of Democtratic pundits trying to lower expectations or others saying that a narrow majority in the House will not be a victory. I think a take over of the House by Democrats should be a victory for them. However, just because Democrats control the House doesn't mean its a victory for liberalism... they take over will be largley attributed to conservative democrats winning in conservative districts.

Three Candidates Offer No Choice

The Star Tribune reports the goals for each of the three top candidates for governor, from last night's debate,

Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson said, "I'd like to dedicate the first four years and maybe even the second four years to health care."

GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would focus on education accountability, improvement and reform. "We need to get our schools more money," he said.

DFL Attorney General Mike Hatch said he wants to try to "maintain some semblance of a middle class" by attacking health-care costs, lowering college tuition and improving K-12 education.

Where, praytell, is a conservative supposed to go in this election? Hint: rhymes with "praytell."

What Year Is It?

Q: What do all these election years have in common? (None of them have been in my kitchen.) No really.


1996

2002

2004

2006

A: All of them I can distinctly remember being told Republicans were going to lose badly, but at the last moment things started to trend Republican. My worry? In 1996 all the good late news was just kidding ourselves. Dole really was about to get shellacked. In 2002 and 2004, things turned out better.

So I'm hoping that the polls are wrong, and there are some good reasons to think that they might be, but they might also be right.

The GOP GOTV machine

I was part of our local GOTV (Get Out The Vote - when I first heard the acronym as a political newbie, I thought "WOW - we have our own TV channel?") over the weekend, pulling a 3 hour shift each of Sat and Sun. We got a ton of voice mail boxes, as you might expect, but of the people I talked to, I'd say full 90% were enthusiastic. I got one "Die Republican Scum", one "oh, sonny, I'm a Democrat, so I'm really sorry, but I can't vote for those guys" and one really nice "I think you've got me on the wrong list - I work for DFL house candidates". Of the other lukewarm responses, the most common were "I'm not decided yet" and "I'm voting for some of them, but not all".

I also read this on Hugh Hewitt's site this morning, and his words "powered by polite volunteers who understand the need to persuade not merely berate" got me thinking about something one of our volunteers said. He's a fellow who always comes out to help, but really hates doing the calling. This year, as he was leaving, he commented "Next year I think I'll hire some one and pay them $10/hr to take my place. That way, I'm helping, but don't have to actually do the work".

My response was "Interesting idea, but it makes it far less effective. One of the reasons that I believe the Republicans GOTV effort is so much better than that of the Democrats is that we concentrate on volunteers, and much of the Democrat effort is concentrated on paid phone banking. If I get a caller who needs a little persuasion, I'm in a position to do that. A paid caller who doesn't believe in the message and only has a script can't do that."

Yesterday, I got one lady who, after I asked if we could count on her support for Kennedy, Pawlenty (ug!), Ramstad (UG!!) and our local legislative candidates, she said "I just don't think I can vote for Pawlenty. That stadium, doncha know." I replied "yes, ma'am, I'm very frustrated by it too. But I'm going to hold my nose and punch Pawlenty. He's with us 70% of the time and I suspect a Gov. Hatch will only make me happy 20% of the time. Which do you prefer?" After a pause, she replied "yes, I guess you're right. Thanks for the call".

Every one counts. That's just one story out of the hundreds of thousands, and why the GOTV effort is probably underestimated by the polsters and the Democrats. I am not feeling really optimistic about tomorrow, but I am not feeling as bad as the polls and major media might wish me to believe.

Oh, I'm still staying home tomorrow.

Predictions for 2006

Here are my predictions for the Elections.

Minnesota Governor: Pawlenty wins by 4 points - this despite the scribbler staying at home. I think Pawlenty has always been ahead.

Mn-6: Bachmann by 13 pts. Wetterling gets crushed. People are motivated to vote for Bachmann more than Kennedy and Pawlenty.

Senate: Unfortuantley, I have to predict a Klobachar victory by 4 points. Minnesota is still a blue state. The victory margin will be small because noone is very enthusiastic about voting for Hatch or Klobachar. Kennedy would have won in any other year.

United States House:

I think Democrats will win 19 seats. Enough to take control barely. However, many of the seats will be won by conservative democrats or very weak democrats who will either vote mostly with the Republicans or be defeated in 2008. Pelosi will have trouble being elected speaker... and eventually her bid fails because of new members being worried already about 2008 (they don't want to have voted for Pelosi).

I think republicans win one of either Delay's or Foley's seat.

Because everyone will know that the Dems grip on the House will be coming to an end in 2008, it will accomplish nothing. Dems will have one legislative success - the minimum wage, which will also include a compromise on the estate tax on the same bill.

Republicans will re-elect Boehner as minority leader. The rest of the leadership will go to reformers.

U.S. Senate - I predict the Republicans lose a net 3 seats:

Burns wins in Montana. He has the late election momentum in a Red State.

Michael Steele wins in Maryland in a squeaker and gets a suprising 33% of the black vote; Cardin just doesn't motivate people enough.

Webb beats Allen in Virgina. Except that Webb becomes the Democrat's Lincoln Chafee.

Talent wins in Missouri after a recount and various legal challenges.

Corker wins by 8 pts in Tenn.

Menendez wins in New Jersey by 6 pts on low turnout. Menendez is a crappy candidate, but so is Kean. No one is motivated to to vote for Kean.

Chaffee loses.

Dewine loses in Ohio.

Santorum loses, but by only a few.

Lieberman wins.

People forget that Bush is president on Nov 8, 2006. The 2008 elections become all about tax cuts. Too many democrats are on record saying they want to "roll back the Bush tax cuts." When people find out this includes the $1000 per child tax credit, people get pissed.

NOTE: The above predictions are based on what I have seen in public polls. I have a gut feeling, however, that the polls this year are junk because of the maturity of caller ID and cell phones among certain segments of voters (i.e. younger-middle aged married people with kids screen all their calls and therefore a least likely to be in a poll).

That's it! I'm staying home on Tuesday.

I've finally had enough. Now that Rev. Ted Haggard has admitted to buying meth and getting a 'massage' (well, we don't yet know what the good Rev.'s definition is, now do we) from a 49-year old gay prostitute with the nice average name of Mike Jones, I just don't know what to do.

• I could shake my head sadly in shame over the hypocracy of our moral leaders.
• I could try and find humor in the whole situation, and think about what the late night talk shows are going to say
• I could try and consider if it's truly hypocritical to preach against certain sins while committing those sins, or if I instead think that one who sins might actually be in a better position to espouse on the wrongness of those actions
• I could wonder what induces a man in his position to take actions that surely will do nothing but cause him severe anguish when discovered, as they surely would be

However, as interesting as these positions are, I've instead chosen the best path: I intend to stay home on Tuesday rather than voting as I usually do for Republican candidates.

I know, this may seem odd to some of you, but rest assured that I have not arrived at this decision lightly. I know that by not voting, I will help assure victory by candidates that I completely disagree with, and whose election will, I believe, cause great harm to our state and our nation.

I realize that Democratic candidates in control of the Senate will virtually ensure that quality Federal Judicial candidates will not have a prayer of getting confirmed.

I realize that Democrats in control of the House will sentence me to seeing much more of Nancy Pelosi.

I realize that Democrats in control of the House will put a bunch of nuts in charge of powerful committees, which will almost certainly raise my taxes and do other great harm.

I realized that Democrats in control of Congress will add additional pressure to the White House to abandon our war on terror, which up until this time, has prevented another 9/11 attack on our soil.

There are numerous other fears I have, but the logic is the same. None of these things matter one whit in comparision with my burning desire to punish Rev. Haggard for his actions. And nothing will make my point more than simply staying at home on Tuesday. I urge all real conservatives to do the same

So THERE!!!! Take that, Rev. Haggard.

(As an aside, I would like to ask Lt. Gov. candidate Dutcher what her position is on using E85 as a lubricant when one is receiving a massage from a 49 year old gay prostitude. Enquiring minds want to know....)

Bomb making plans on the Internet

The New York Times reports that the government posted some of Iraqs highly sensitive nuclear program on the internet which may have provided helpful information to countries such as Iran.

A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”

This is basically a hit piece against Republicans. Iran already knows how to build a bomb. They got everything they need from AQ Kahn, who successfully built a bomb for the Pakistanis. In fact they still get info from AQ Kahn. Why would the Iranians want info from an Iraq program that never completed the bomb?

Funny about the Times... they were forced to admit that Iraq actually had a nuke program and that the program was serious.

Update: Jim Geraghty has a more in depth discussion.

Ideology is Genetic

So claims this article:

So far, the political connection has relied on studies by Lindon Eaves, professor of human genetics and psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University. About 8,000 sets of identical and fraternal twins answered a series of questions on topics such as school prayer, nuclear power, women’s liberation and the death penalty. Identical twins, who share their entire genetic code, answered more similarly than fraternal twins, who are no more similar than non-twin siblings.

I totally believe this to be true. Except that it probably has more to do with intelligence rather than some other trait. Liberals generally have stupid ideas, therefore it doesn't surprise me that more stupid people are liberals.

AARP Encourages Voter Fraud

I listened to the MN Senate Debate this evening, and heard an ad sponsored by the AARP encouraging people to vote. During this ad, the announcer says "so this Tuesday, visit your nearest polling place and spend 10 minutes voting" or something similar. The key words are "your nearest polling place".

Unfortunately, the AARP misunderstands basic voting. People cannot simply visit "their nearest polling place" and cast their vote. They have to go to their specific polling place for their precinct and cast their vote there.

I'm really amazed that such a basic error got into this commercial. I don't actually go so far as to believe that they are encouraging voter fraud, notwithstanding the title of this post, one has to wonder how they could make so basic an error.

My take on Kerry's latest

When I first heard Sen. Kerry's comments, I went through a quick range of emotion. Shock and surprise was first, followed immediately by gleeful thoughts similar to those I felt when I first heard the now infamous "$87 billion" comment. I mean, it's election season after all.

Then I started thinking about it, and watched it (over and over, courtesy of all my cable news channels). Here's my take.

Those comments are offensive. Really offensive. Yet, I really don't think he meant to demean the troops. He's stupid, but he's not that stupid, nor are his advisors. Come on - in the final days of an election that's this close to actually PLAN to come out and offend a huge chunk of America and potentially swing the middle? No way, no how. I actually DO buy his "flubbed joke" excuse. Even executed better, I'm not sure that I understand his joke nor do I think it would have been very funny if he'd have actually made the Bush tie-in, but I just can't believe that this was a planned "dis" of the troops.

Be that as it may, the fact still remains that:

• Kerry has done stuff like this before (most notably his 1971 comments), which makes this all that more believable.
• He IS a patrician and about as much of an elitist as there is
• Most impotantly, I believe he actually DOES look down upon our military and those who serve in it. I don't think he even realizes that he does, because it's just so ingrained in his psyche. In his mind, they are the little people who didn't have the smarts, connections or cash to go to an Ivy League college, marry money (twice!) and become a liberal Senator from Massachusetts and a failed Presidential candidate.

It is for that latter reason that I think he flubbed the joke. People tend to make extemporaneous verbal mistakes in favor of positions they already hold. True feelings usually come out. And his really lame attempt to fight through this one is exactly the opposite of what he needed to do.

Imagine if he'd come out immediately and said "I am so sorry. I was trying to make a joke about the President's intelligence, but I flubbed it, and after watching my poor attempt at comedy, it's clear to me that my comments can easily (and probably should) be taken as offensive to our men and women in the military. I meant no such insult, and I am deeply sorry". Poof! Problem solved in a day or so, and he looks so much better. At this point, the "I apologize to no one" line makes it virtually impossible for him to apologize, or if he does, for it to be taken seriously by anyone.

John Kerry. Patrician. Brahmin. Elistist. And fortunately for Republicans, a man with perhaps the worst political instincts of all time.

Kerry's Flub

Kerry's freudian slip may energize previously discontented conservatives.

I often end up listening to radio shows such as Michael Savage or Jerry Doyle (I ahve time then0, both of whom have been blasting Bush and Republicans in general for the past year. Although I find Savage's show entertaining, I tend to disagree with his approach to conservatism and his opposition to the Republicans on everything. However, tonight Savage said the Kerry comment pissed him off so much that he was now ready to go vote for all Republicans. This was a shocker especially considering Savage's constant diatribes against Congressional Republicans. Maybe it's telling for the election to come, maybe it is not.

Kerry's comments should be a reminder of what the modern Democratic party is all about. It is about disdain for traditional America. The American soldier is part of this tradition and thus is disparaged by Kerry and his ilk. Sure you can come out against the Iraq policy - there have been opponents to every war. But, the goal of the Iraq policy is to conserve traditional America by going on the offensive. An America on the defensive with baggage checkers on every bus ride and cops on every corner to maintain security would not be traditional.

Why would you elect a party who has a different goal - a new America. I don't want a new America. I like the existing one.