The Walking Dread

The Minnesota Republicans in charge of the State House are talking about implementing a new tax.  That's right, the party which claims to be anti-tax has seemingly reversed course and is discussing a brand new, never before seen tax on Minnesotans, but it's what they are willing to tax which is even more outrageous.  The Minnesota GOP wants to tax walking.

First, let's address the myth that modern Republicans are against taxes and are for responsible economics.  Quite the contrary, the modern Republican politician invokes the most reckless and foolish economic policies this country has ever seen.  They're for government spending at unsafe levels, and insist it's okay we don't actually pay our bills.  Some examples: they used a credit card model on the national level, making the bills for two wars, Medicare Part D and the W. Bush era tax cuts due in early 2009, after W.'s term, and they did an insanely dangerous shift of an entire segment of the Minnesota state budget into a future fiscal cycle, when Pawlenty used slight of hand on education spending. They then argue, with a straight face, they're somehow not the fox in the hen house.  It's what I expect from people who allowed the Minnesota State Chair, Tony Sutton, to bankrupt them to the point of near eviction.

The modern GOP'er is working an economic strategy which is best described as a horribly mutated version of trickle down economics, a flawed plan initiated by Reagan.  The proven false theory is to give the wealthiest people their tax dollars back, and they in turn spend it, trickling down to the rest of us heathens, who easily confuse sewer run off for a fresh Spring rain.  The problems with trickle down, as documented, fall into three categories:  1) wealthy people are not going to buy 6 more gallons of milk or 5 more loaves of bread every week, so day to day spending remains stagnant, 2) when they do buy high end items such as yachts, planes and 4th vacation homes, they buy them in foreign markets, immediately nullifying any benefit to the US economy, and 3) since there were no rules or incentives to spend, all this really did was pour money into long term investments, ensuring the grandkids of the wealthiest are never for want, but with the updated version of trickle down, the modern GOP is trying to ensure Millionaire and Billionaire's great, great, great, great grandkids never have to work a day in their lives.

The Republican slight of hand begins, without any consideration for the consequences, by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals (people who make a million or more a year) and corporate welfare to the largest of corporations (no mom and pop operations allowed, unless their last names are Walton or Koch).  They give away a third of their income at the very beginning, insisting it's some sort of prerequisite before they can start addressing the budget.  It's not, it's creating a no win scenario which impacts every other aspect of the budget.  The Republicans are so committed to this first step, they treat it as an untouchable reality.  It's exactly what they have done in Kansas, and even though that state is looking at draconian budget cuts, most Republicans act as if the tax cuts for the wealthiest and corporate welfare they implemented are off the table, un-revisable in any way.

This 'guaranteed to fail' budget system is responsible for most of the political conflict of today.  Roads verses mass transportation, education funding verses vouchers, initiatives for public safety verses budgetary limitations.  Almost all of our political divisiveness stems from the flawed idea of first giving the wealthiest of wealthy all of their money back, and then some, and then never asking "why did we do something so fiscally irresponsible?"

Here's the ugliest part of this flawed economic policy, the GOP knows it doesn't work.  They know, even with deficits, they still need to bring in enough money to continue their high spending agenda.  The question Republicans have tried to answer is "how do we continue to outrageously spend money when the income in our budget model is fatally chocked off?  They've come up with two options.  First, don't help people who don't usually vote Republican.  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, GOP stalwarts, got the money and resources they needed fast, getting their clean up taken care of quickly.  Not the case for mainly African American, Democratic leaning New Orleans, which still has segments of that town showing the effects of a Federal government who said F-You.  How about the north Minneapolis tornado from a few years back?  Minnesota Republicans couldn't find enough reasons to say we can't help, but when tornadoes hit Hugo and Rogers, they couldn't get the aid to those commutes fast enough.  For Republicans, it's no longer about stopping the funding for education, the environment and the arts.  Now they need to rip away funding from Democrats at the base level, emergency relief.  And a reminder, they call themselves Christians.

The other path is to implement taxes they're okay with, taxes they deem to mostly burden non-Republican voters.  They'll go after electric cars, wind power and other sectors they think will impact the left more, which gets us back to the Minnesota GOP's Walking Tax.  The GOP led house is discussing imposing a fee on people who walk and bike on state trails.  Representative Tony Cornish insists this new tax is justified because we charge snowmobilers extra to maintain the trails, so it's only fair.

Ignoring the reality that state tax dollars are already used in the creation, maintenance and promotion of the state trails, let's just focus on the obvious.  One snowmobile can do far more damage to a trail than 20,000 walkers or 5000 bikers.  This new GOP walking tax comes from the right wing ideology that wealthier people are more likely to have snowmobiles or ATV's, and liberal hippies are more likely to walk or bike.  Cornish even refers to the people being on their bikes in "leotards," an ill-informed, unintelligent, and slightly homophobic, swipe at people who bike.  In Republican minds, if the net outcome is a tax which hurts Democrats and their voters more, the GOP will give their hearty stamp of approval.

Quick side note to any Republican who says, "Matt, that is a fee, not a tax.  Label it correctly!"  First, the rightos are the ones who insist any fee collected by the government is an unfair tax, and secondly, the GOP tries to hide their new taxes by calling them everything but; fees, levees, bounties, penalties, charges.  It's a new fine Minnesotans will have to pay to get access to something they have already paid for.  It's a tax.

If you really are an anti-tax advocate, or if you have Libertarian leanings, this proposed Walking Tax should make you livid.  If you are for fiscal responsibility, ask your politicians why do we give the wealthiest of wealthy their money first and make the rest of us pay for it.  If your against wasteful spending, ask why Wall Street, the millionaire farmer, or the extremely profitable oil executive are getting money for just being themselves, paid for by us, with interest.  And then ask your GOP representation why the first tax cut proposed every year isn't one for all incomes under $100K a year.

Or you can say nothing, as you either don't want to disparage the GOP, or, down deep inside, you like penalizing people who politically disagree with you.  I'll be waiting for your outrage, but I won't hold my breath.  If the Minnesota Republican Party is willing to try to tax walking, I can't wait to see what other day to day bodily functions they will try to tax next.

The Friday Link for 2/6/15

"Yes, it's all coming back to me now."  "Murder?"  "You!"  "Not anymore." "Superintendent!"

It's Friday.  I need a good pick me up.  And so here is possibly the funniest 8 minutes of all time in film, courtesy of Inspector Clouseau.

It just keeps getting funnier and funnier.  Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBEXmAxdKoQ

Gun Crazy!

Chris in Blaine this morning decided to imply no one ever insisted that Carry and Conceal would lessen or eliminate crime when they were debating the law.  I have spent my day going back in time to find some true jewels from the discussion about Carry and Conceal in 2003 and 2005, plus a few other gems too.

Rep. Linda Boudreau, R-Faribault and Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington co-sponsored the Carry and Conceal Bill, aka The Minnesota Personal Protection Act , Originally, in 2003, Senate File 842 and House File 261, in 2005, Senate file 2259.

She counted thousands of violent crimes in the 20 Minnesota counties where handgun permits have been most restricted and added: "It's time that we allow people to prevent the violence on themselves." "O.J. Simpson was not seeking a permit, But maybe his wife needed one." - Sen. Pat Pariseau of Farmington

Star Tribune

April 29, 2003 http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/concealcarry.htm

Sen. Pat Pariseau defends the new conceal-carry law because it imposes sanctions on those who misuse weapons - REBECCA THOMAN Pioneer Press Editorial 5/17/2004  It doesn’t in any way.

Rep. Lynda Boudreau, R-Faribault was the co-sponsor of the bill and while she never directly quoted crime rates herself, her committee hearings made it clear that the intent of the bill was to stop crime: Eight citizens testified before the committee and complained the current conceal-carry law allows sheriffs and police chiefs to deny permits unjustifiably. Theresa Schieffelbein said in a shaky voice that she wouldn't tell legislators how she planned to assure her personal safety. "That sheriff made sure that I was absolutely defenseless." http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-11176.html

Rep. Lynda Boudreau, R-Faribault says the state would be safer because citizens would be able to defend themselves. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/02/11_scheckt_concealedcarry/

“I think there is some assumption...that people feel they need more protection.”  She predicted that anti-gun and pro-gun groups will quickly learn which business allow guns and which will not, and will make their shopping decisions accordingly - State Rep. Lynda Boudreau (R-Faribault)

http://www.southernminn.com/faribault_daily_news/archives/article_63f0b8a9-f7a4-508c-8807-6b79327e3e2c.html

"…firearms are not being lost and found by children." Rep. Lynda Boudreau Op Ed May 25 2003 http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=62034  She was WAY off base on this one.

"I'll tell you, this legislation undermines local control. The bill would make it very difficult to deny a permit to all but the most severely mentally impaired or chemically dependent person” - Rice County Sheriff Richard Cook, who was absolutely correct, but was then dismissed dismissed by Rep. Bordreau http://www.southernminn.com/northfield_news/archives/article_758ca113-f069-5afb-ab58-673d19f0a380.html,

Other politicians and advocates who weighed in on the Carry and Conceal law

WCCO-AM radio show, Governor Tim Pawlenty said other states have not experienced more gunplay after making concealed weapons permits easier to get. "The 38 other states that have the (`concealed carry`) law, on a per capita or pro rata basis, are not experiencing any worse incidences of violent crime or gun violence than Minnesota…people will be safer and crime will be deterred." April 28, 2003

“Gov. Pawlenty deserves appreciation for immediately signing this bill…to make Minnesotans safer from crime.” Alan Gottleib http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=382

"For the person who's carrying legally, that person is trained, who's had background checks, who's got this permit legally and is a law-abiding citizen. As a matter fact, to be frank, the fact that there's a few of those people peppered around is reassuring to me because there's finally some folks that I can depend on that may come to my protection," he said. Rep. Fran Bradley, R-Rochester http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/04/23_scheckt_guns/?refid=0

John Lott was a person who was quoted extensively in the gun debate by both politicians and advocates.  The following quotes are ones which were designed to make it seem like carry and conceal would stop all crime.

“the survey I conducted during the fall of 2002 indicates that simply brandishing a gun stops crimes 95 percent of the time, and other surveys have also found high rates.”

John Lott, The Bias Against Guns, p 24 Regnery, March 2003.

The claim that there was something “funny” regarding the slightly different survey estimates is also false. I cited that 95 percent of defensive gun uses involving simple brandishing rather than 98 percent because a new survey was conducted almost six years after the first one.

John R. Lott Jr., Letter, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Aug 13 2003

Guns clearly deter criminals, with Americans using guns defensively over 2 million times each year—4.5 times more frequently than the 500,000 times guns were used to commit crimes in 2001. Over 90 percent of the time simply brandishing the weapon stops an attack.

John R. Lott Jr., Bound to Misfire,Tech Central Station, Nov 7 2003

"The only thing that's going to stop the threat is another armed threat." Rep. Tony Cornish, a Republican from Good Thunder  http://archive.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=508161

I feel better knowing that criminals may think I may be "packing heat." Richard Dischinger, http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3909201.html

  I wouldn't worry about honest people next to me in church carrying guns," said Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. "But I would worry about the criminals." Star Tribune

April 29, 2003 http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/concealcarry.htm

Freedom Wins; Criminals Lose I don't know that I have a huge problem with this - although you can bet when the next church massacre happens, it'll be at a posted (no guns) church. http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/005702.html

The House vote (2005) comes one day after all House members received an e-mail threatening them if they don't vote in favor of the legislation.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/05/18_scheckt_guns/

Referring to attempts to amend the Carry and Conceal bill, referring to alternatives being put out by the Democrats – “And the saddest part is, none of this is going to have any effect on violent crime” - John Caile, who represents the interest group Concealed-Carry Reform Now - May 2003

Let's get this very successful, now documented successful law back on the books where it belongs” John Caile, with the gun rights group, Conceal Carry Reform Now! Talking about passing the law in 2005 after struck down in 2003

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/04/27_scheckt_guns/  What’s funny about this quote is there was no documentation at all when he said this. 

But backers say the law actually makes the state a safer place by raising the minimum age of gun owners from 18 to 21, and by making all applicants go through the safety training. By Patrick Condon, Associated Press Writer http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409748/posts  This never was true, just make believe like a lot of the GOP/pro gun guy promises.

"Women want to be more self-reliant; they want to protect their homes and children on their own," Russ Thurman http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/3911277.html

Something against the carry and conceal aw that was dismissed, but absolutely correct:  Also, the dozen states with the highest rates of firearm deaths all have the system Minnesota is adopting. - http://www.spectatornews.com/opinion/2003/05/01/spectator-staff-editorial-guns-galore/#sthash.rw4fQWZV.dpuf

David Gadberry wrote:

>  If you are in a situation where deadly force might be required to

>  protect yourself or a loved one do you actually think that

>  the police will be around to deal with the situation??? 

>  Of course not - the police can't (and shouldn't) be everywhere. Michael Atherton

Prospect Park https://www.mail-archive.com/mpls@mnforum.org/msg36851.html

Right-to-Carry States
Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by 70-75 million, the number of right-to-carry states has increased from 15 to 40, and violent crime has decreased 38%. Violent Crime
Three out of four violent crimes committed in the U.S. do not involve firearms. Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by 70-75 million, and the nation's murder rate has decreased 43%. (BATFE and FBI)  NRA website

In regards to the first case of a Conceal and Carry permit holder shooting another individual "The guy decided to be a murderer. His permit had nothing to do with it” Joe Olson, president of Concealed Carry Reform Now http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/05/18_scheckt_guns/

“The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down.” -Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), on “Fox News Sunday,” Dec. 16, 2012

Then there is this, a look at part of the real motivation of the pro gun crowd:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/09/15/782376/-Violent-criminal-brings-guns-to-Obama-rally

How, a lot of those are directly on point too!  

So now, a intellectual coward like Chris will say, "that doesn't matter!  It's all about personal safety!"  Are you implying, that ever since the law was finally passed in 2005, not one Carry and Conceal person has been around a crime as it's happened?  If it's about personal safety, and they had the chance to use the weapon, why didn't they?  We can deduce then either the gun was useless because the person realized they were in over their head, or they were too afraid to use it.  Regardless, crime has happened, people with guns have been around those crimes, and they have done nothing to make themselves, or the people around them, safer, outside of not using the weapon.  

Keep your weapons at home.  Know your arguments about Carry and Conceal have been exposed as the lies they are.

Anti-Vaxxers and Universal Dangers

It finally happened.  Something many in the medical industry knew was coming down the line has materialized in a fantastically terrifying fashion.  A disease, we as a society had mostly conquered, has been rejuvenated by the actions of people who are convinced they know better than the undeniable proof in front of them.  Anti-vaccine advocates (anti-vaxxers), most of whom are relying on laughably bad science and math, refuse to acknowledge the reality around them, inoculations work, and the proof they insist is "flimsy at best," is the longevity of the undeniably healthier lives nearly all Americans enjoy due to vaccines.

A person who A) wasn't vaccinated against major, lethal, dangerous, contagious diseases, and B) knew they were sick with something serious, decided to visit the Disneyland Theme Park.  Why would they jeopardize so many people?  By the sounds of it, selfishness.  They wanted to go on a vacation, and didn't care about the consequences.  Regardless, they endangered many Americans with the measles virus and has created a real health crisis, far more serious than the made up Ebola hysterics from last Fall.  As of me writing this, 84 people have been infected in 14 states and it's expected to get far worse, especially in communities with high concentrations of anti-vaxxers.  Measles are extremely contagious.

The anti-vaxxers movement was started in earnest by Andrew Wakefield, a discredited British doctor who fraudulently put forward the idea of a smoking gun for parents desperately wanting one: Autism was caused by vaccinations.  This was a made up lie, a lie which has been researched over and over again, wasting valuable research dollars, to try to convince people who are un-convinceable of the truth, their smoking gun isn't real.  For them to continue to believe this lie, they've ignored the obvious proof in front of them, the surging life expectancy rates of Americans ever since the vaccines started to be widely used and the near extinction of diseases which used to annihilate families and communities.  Doctors warned if people started to opt out of taking vaccines, this exact scenario would eventually come to light.  Researchers also hammered on anti-vaxxers about their own math:  you're insisting on not taking vaccines because of a statistically slight risk of autism, and in turn giving yourself and children a far more likely chance of suffering from, and dying from, many other diseases.  It doesn't matter.  Anti-vaxxers think they know better than everyone else, that the American medical and scientific research community is lying, and if you're an American who has gotten inoculated and has not gotten a serious disease, you are part of the conspiracy.  

Melinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates, and a major advocate for vaccines, said it perfectly when asked about the current crisis, "[Americans have] forgotten what measles death looks like."  We have.  We've left in our past the days when a family would have ten children and six would not make it to 12, many because of diseases we readily inoculate for today.  It's the same reason we don't realize the warning signs of our current Conservative economic policies; the inevitable outcome of rewarding the 1% at the expense of the 99% is something we've seen before in the horrors of the Great Depression.  We insulate ourselves from the lessons of our past, and doom ourselves to repeat the mistakes.  Because we haven't seen widespread suffering and death at the hands of preventable diseases, not only have the anti-vaxxers downplayed the seriousness of the threat, they have taken the vaccines and turned them into "the real problem."  To help them get past the science they can't refute, they insist it's all about the profit margins for vaccination makers.  

There is also another bit of science the anti-vaxxers conveniently ignore.  We've had a few decades of this anti-vaxxer movement, and the stories you hear from children of the anti-vaxxers is heartbreaking.  Many of the anti-vaxxer kids spent long stretches of their youth in beds and in hospitals, suffering from serious health issues, which in turn have scarred them for life, even damaging their bodies.  These kids tell of how their inoculated friends never had the same problems they did, and ask the questions, "why did I have to suffer for my parents beliefs? Why did I have to be my parent's self righteous experiment?"  Not all anti-vaxxers get sick, but under their argument, they should all be far healthier than the rest of us, and that's just not true.

We all want answers to why autism rates have increased, but the obvious place to begin to try to find the answers is in the modern world in which we reside; the chemicals in our lives, the food we eat, cosmetics we use, clothes we wear, plastics and chemicals we surround ourselves with, and the workplace environments we commute too.  I guarantee none of these daily use products have been tested effectively in regards to what they really do to our health, and I know there has been extremely limited research in what these compounds do when they are combined with other compounds in other products.  It's much like the science of why the bees are dying off.  There is no one thing responsible, but rather a cocktail of chemicals from modern life which seem to be the culprit.  This modern life paradox would be the starting point of my research, unless you are looking for a quick, not necessarily correct, smoking gun.

At the end of the day, if a parent decides to not vaccinate their kid, I might laugh at them, but they have the right to be ignorant.  What they don't have the right to do is to spread their ignorance to others with glee and determination.  You want to not vaccinate your kid?  Fine.  You're not allowed to then ignore the dangers of taking that kid out into the world for them to potentially infect the rest of us.  If you feel your cause is so noble, then this should be a minor sacrifice, an inconvenience worth bearing.  What will stop this anti-vaxxer movement will be the inevitable lawsuit of a grieving family who lost their child to a disease contracted from the kid of an anti-vaxxer, an anti-vaxxer who knew the risks, and decided to be selfish instead of steadfast.  

What a wealthy world we live in when we can have a group of people make up their own science and math to validate what they want to believe, a belief which in turn jeopardizes the populace.  We've seen it play out over and over again.  Here is the link for the sensational Penn and Teller video about anti-vaccination.  It's worth viewing, but it does contain some swear words.  Viewer be advised:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

As I wrote that warning about the Penn and Teller video, and viewed a discarded candy wrapper, something crossed my mind.  My kid's school has far more warnings and rules about peanut butter, than it does about people potentially exposing the school's population to serious deadly diseases.  That about sums up the world we live in today.

The Friday Link for 1/30/15

Before I begin, I'd like to do a quick follow up to the Super Bowl post I made yesterday.  The NFL has made a HUGE admission in regards to deflate-gate.  They admitted they never logged the official air pressure of the balls when they inspected them prior to the AFC Championship game.  This means there is no record of what the air pressure was before the game, hence, they can't say for sure if the balls were inflated correctly (they likely were, but this is a pretty big loophole).  Basically, they NFL has admitted they don't have official proof the balls weren't deflated before the game.  Here's the link to the NBC Sports story:  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/nfl-didnt-log-the-psi-of-each-patriots-football/

Even more amazing was how this story disappeared this morning.  When I got up for the show, I started going over the morning news at 4:30 AM and this story was everywhere, on pretty much every major news outlet I could find.  By the time I got to the station and tried to pull the story up at 5:45 AM, the story had been scrubbed from most news pages.  The link above is one of the few remaining ones left.  The story had been replaced with an NFL fluff piece which insists the AFC Championship referees had conducted an appropriate inspection of the balls before the game, but never mentions anything about whether the air pressure was checked or logged.  The NFL has a shocking amount of control over the media in this country.  Read the story before it disappears.

With the Super Bowl, I will post two links for you, both running themes from the last month.  First is Stephen Colbert's hilarious take on how to get around using the term "Super Bowl" from last years big game:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qs3r6w/logo-restrictions-for-the-super-bowl

The second link for tonight is one of the better Super Bowl ads from this year and it features one of my favorite funny people around today, Aubrey Plaza.  She's usually seen on the TV show Parks and Recreation (can you believe the star power of that show?  Unbelievable!).  I think she is wonderfully hilarious and just plain fun.  This ad is gutsy because it rips on the concept of wasting a ton of money on a Super Bowl ad, while making a memorable Super Bowl ad for Newcastle Brown Ale.  Tricky, but I like it.  Okay fine I like Aubrey Plaza, but you will too.  Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rLILU3B5LY&list=PLjncHZSg0GNGY2CCdHIJWYXSn0fMwts_Z&x-yt-cl=85114404&x-yt-ts=1422579428

The Deflating NFL

With the Super Bowl coming up, let me write something about the National Football League.  I really don't like it as much as I used to.

It started to change with me when the NFL got really full of themselves and insisted no one could use the name of the title game, the Super Bowl.  If you are making any money off of anything, you can't use the term.  You have to pay an obscene amount of money just to say Super Bowl, or you have to refer to "The Big Game," something the NFL will likely try to trademark as well before too long.  What an arrogant bunch of twits.  Colbert mocked them best when he referred to the Superb Owl.

Then came the cracking down on non-profits and church groups who would get a big TV and have a community watching party for the Super Bowl, raising funds for their organization at the same time.  The NFL wants people at sports bars, not in community centers.  Lame.

The whole fight for a new stadium and a Super Bowl in Minneapolis really drove me away from the sport.  With roads crumbling in the state, with schools having to tighten budgets, with infrastructure in desperate need of repair, and with hunger, insufficient medical care, homelessness and addiction issues all being un-adressed, we're going to spend billions of tax payer dollars building a arena for a sports team to play 10 games a year in, a team whose owner could build one themselves, and most likely would if they made any profit.  NFL stadiums are the biggest taxpayer boondoggle in the United States today.

I'm preparing for the mandate of first born children to be delivered to the NFL as a first payment to the NFL executives and team owners for the "privilege" of hosting the Super Bowl in a few years.  Nice to know our tax dollars are going to be wasted on some billionaire's kid guzzling down the mini bar in their Presidential Suite.  I just hope when the citizens of the Twin Cities are called to lie down on the roadways to prevent the NFL big wig's cars from getting mud on them, I'm not required to be where they park.

This years Super Bowl has been abuzz with talk of Deflate-Gate, the discovery that the New England Patriots were using incorrectly inflated balls in their beat down of Indianapolis in the AFC Championship Game.  I think the Patriots did deflate the balls, and that's coming from a Patriots fan, but the NFL would never punish a team appropriately for such a flagrant violation.  What they should do is strip a team caught doing something so outrageous of the ability to play any home playoff games for five years, regardless of what their record is.  I guarantee a punishment like that would make it unlikely something so egregious and petty would happen again.

Here's one thing I don't understand about the under inflated balls.  Of course the Patriots are being accused of never having won any games with properly inflated footballs, but if that was the case, how could no one else never have noticed?  When the Indianapolis Colt player intercepted the ball, he immediately knew there was something wrong with the football and took it to his equipment manager.  Not one referee, an individual who will touch the footballs a hundred times in a game, noticed the infraction?  No other player from the other team noticed it when they picked up a dropped ball?  No one else, when the Patriots were intercepted and fumbled in the past, ever picked up the ball  and noticed it wasn't right?  Something doesn't add up in the argument of this being a long term problem, rather than a one time advantage.

As far as Sunday's game, Seattle 21 New England 20.  I'll watch the Puppy Bowl and some of the commercials, eat a reuben and some nachos and be glad when I don't have every sport person in the country, all of whom have been clearly bought and paid for by the NFL, tell me why something so unimportant as a football game is the most important thing, EVER!!!  

Quick Hits - 1/26/15

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Friday Link for 1/23/15

Television Commercials - once the curse of our existence, now mostly relegated to annoying us when we want to watch something on Hulu.  Most of the commercials today stink.  They are just trying to sell you something, not really trying to entertain you.  Put the biggest face in advertising today, probably Flo from the Progressive commercials, up against any of the regular commercial stars of old.  I'll take a Mr. Whipple any day, a character so damn good, people actually used to stop in grocery stores and squeeze the freaking toilet paper.  That's advertising!

Many of the best commercials today are ones with stunning visuals and kick butt music.  The unfortunate part is sometimes you miss the mark with a good artist.  I remember hearing Charlie XCX for the first time on a electronics commercial.  Can't remember the product, but I have all of her music now.  Thanks!

Comedy in a commercial is usually one joke, a weak one, stretched thin over the length of :30 seconds.  The "ha" factor is pretty low.  Some are okay, usually ones geared for the Super Bowl, but even they have become extremely weak, usually playing themselves down to the lowest common denominator of a viewer.  Yawn...  Sometimes I wonder if the commercial is actually a heck of a lot funnier than I initially thought, like the current IHOP commercials.  Are they actually mocking the hipster culture of the day?  If so, sweet Jesus that's hilarious.  Likely, they are not, just doing a milquetoast version of a hipster.  Lame!

Infomercials are a sweet guilty pleasure for me.  I love the cooking ones, because no matter what the product, they will always find a way to get chicken wings, something gooey and cheesy and freaking lobster and/or crab legs in the ad.  Even if it is for a measuring cup, they will feature lobster.  I love that.  "Just buy this potato peeler and you too can have...(wait for it)...LOBSTER!"

So, like many things, to find the better quality product, we have to go overseas.  I might have found the best commercial ever made.  It's for Carlton Draught and it takes it's cue from 80's cop movies.  The music makes this outrageously good, and frankly this is a better safe drinking ad than the confusing "great responsibility" line beer companies have fallen back to so show with minimal effort, "they care."  Enjoy this commercial!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnNX8SsKF18

In the Crosshairs

I will not go see American Sniper.  I like Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven is one of my all time favorite movies) and I like Bradley Cooper too, but Chris Kyle, God bless his soul, was more than a little off.  His repeated lies about his life after Iraq clearly call into question his honor and reputation, and one specific one has me scratching my head in regards to why anyone would be looking at this guy as a hero.

First things first, I might not respect Kyle the person, but, as much as this might upset some, I do respect the combat role he fulfilled.  Snipers are not a pretty job, but when was war ever supposed to be pretty?  Do our enemies use snipers on us? Yes (all due respect to Michael Moore's uncle who died at the hands of one in combat, but I do, begrudgingly, have to disagree with his bashing of the military tactic).  Snipers have been a infantry basic since guns were invented and someone realized that guy was better at shooting one than that guy.  In American history, snipers have been the difference makers in major battles from the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan.  Our enemies will use them, and so should we.

The modern GOP so wants to go back and make the Iraq War justified and a major success.  It was neither.  It was a made up war, an informercial designed to get the American people to buy the White House's nefarious agenda.  Saddam was a bad guy, but Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, and when that lie came crumbling down, it became a war to stop mythical chemical weapons and nuclear bombs.  Yes, Dems voted for it, but only because the White House was controlling all of the intelligence and lying their asses off.  Regardless, the modern Republican seems to be far angrier at the Dems for voting along with the Republicans.  For the record, 82 Dems voted with the 215 Republicans for war in the House, but the GOP could have passed it without a single Dem.  In the Senate, 29 Dems joined the 48 Republicans who voted for it.  Far more Republicans voted for war than Dems, and a reminder, this was all done at the behest of Bush and Cheney, who had demanded it be done, or else!  Conservatives love American Sniper because it tries to re-write history, implying Iraq was behind 9/11.  They weren't, and rightos need to stop being delusional fools and start blaming the right people for an unjustified war.

But getting back to Kyle, this guy was a liar, and that's no longer just an opinion.  A court in Minnesota has ruled he lied about his confrontation with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, rewarding Jesse millions in damages (for any lawyer, the closing arguments by Ventura's team are a textbook example of how you completely dismantle a weak defense).  Kyle was getting egged on by the right wing media in this country to smear Ventura and he got caught up in the accolades without realizing his liability.  But this is only one lie he's told.

First there is the lie about killing two men who tried to carjack him.  If someone did try to steal his car, he'd have been justified in using force in his defense, but when journalists have tried to validate this story, they come up empty.  Two dead bodies don't just disappear.  There should be a record of it somewhere, but that pales in comparison to the disturbing whopper he told about Katrina.

Chris Kyle claimed he went into the chaos that was post-Katrina New Orleans and killed 30 people who were looting and doing other bad things.  Let's break this down from the top:

• You manage to get into a devastated New Orleans, but you don't try to help the thousands of desperate people all around you, maybe even taking some of them out the way you got in, and instead decide to start shooting them?
• This wasn't a military combat mission, this was supposedly Kyle and a buddy setting themselves up on top of the SuperDome and firing off shots, as regular citizens.
• Your tolerance for people who are in a devastated urban area, who are not receiving any help from the federal government because they are black and vote Democrat, people who are starving and dying of thirst, while their dead family members float by, is so minuscule you feel the best way to deal with them is to shoot them?
• Kyle, from his vantage point on top of the Dome, insisted he could determine who was and who wasn't a bad guy in the unfolding chaos.
• Even if these people were breaking the laws and looting, when did we start implementing an instantaneous death penalty, administered by regular citizens, for the theft of a $100 stereo?
• Kyle, as a regular citizen, decided he was going to be police, judge, prosecutor, jury and executioner and administered immediate justice, gunning down at lest 30 people in the streets of an American city.

If this is true, he should have been arrested and charged with one of the largest mass shootings in the history of this country.  He lied before, and we know he lied on this one too.

But Republicans love to fall in love with an image.  They not only love Kyle because he was unapologetic and expressed a distorted patriotism, and because he was a fervent supporter of the 2nd Amendment, they love him because what he did, shoot Iraqis with glee.  He fulfills the Cheney mantra of all of "those people" being our enemy.  You can't ignore the fact Kyle bragged about shooting Iraqis and African Americans.  This should call into question the true feelings and rationale of any American who calls him their "hero."

Chris Kyle lied.  When did he start?  My experience with liars, especially ones who lie about such ostentatious things, are they have been lying their entire life.

GOP fun!

The best thing about the GOP majority is watching them have to vote.  They have too.  They can no longer hide behind the Democratic majority and just say what they won't do.  It's the cat who stalks the bird from the bush, only to have the bush all of the sudden vanish.

They initially were called out about climate change.  The Senate, realizing there were cameras involved and this was going to constitute an official stance, voted 99 - 1 to say, "sure, climate change is happening."  Most of the Republicans who voted for this have insisted climate change was a myth in the past, but there is a difference between tea party fund raiser and the floor of the Congress.  They can't afford to have official votes geared toward appealing to their fervent base haunt them when it comes to a general election.

Then came abortion.  This was a little tricker, as I can't quite figure out who pulled the bill before the vote.  The bill would have been a ban on all abortions after 20 weeks unless pregnancy was due to a rape, but only rapes that were officially reported to the police.  Female Republicans, wanting to avoid another fiasco where Republican men got in front of cameras and insisted on defining what is and what is not rape, usually insulting and re-victimizing rape victims when they did so, just wanted the language changed to allow abortions in all cases of rape.  The GOP men refused and so the bill was pulled for a different abortion bill, a far toned down bill.  Mind you, with young voters, going after abortions is very unpopular, so that could have weighed on their decision as well.

Going on the record is a worst case scenario for the GOP.  They really had it nice in the past, getting all of the benefit of the doubt.  Now, they can't hide anymore and they'll either tone down legislation, pull bills from the voting calendar, or go completely against what they have stood for publicly for years, hoping they'll be forgiven by their tea party followers to avoid being labeled as far right loons, which they are.

Unleash the Bonoff!

I've mostly had positive responses to my post about how angry I am with Democratic Senator Terri Bonoff's proposal to remove teacher seniority as the primary consideration during layoffs.  To make sure I have the full picture, can I ask a question or two? Are we planning on laying off teachers en masse soon?  If so, why?  If not, then why are we wasting time on this?

I have met Senator Bonoff twice.  Both times it was very cordial.  I have no problem with a moderate Democrat, as half the time, I agree with them.  I love Congressman Tim Walz, and I understand Democrats who represent districts with a Republican lean need to be more on the moderate side, but starting to go after the teachers union isn't a moderate stance, it's a far right Republican stance.  I will not sit on the sidelines and say, "different strokes!"

I've had four people complain about my protest, and I can't tell if they're Bonoff apologists or anti-teacher zealots.  They all pretty much ran the same script, one I rebuffed easily, and now I'll share my counterpoints, so you can play at home!

Complaint #1 - I'm violating Senator Bonoff's freedom of speech!  Wha...?  No, her freedom of speech is fully intact, as is mine, which allows me to criticize her proposal.

Complaint #2 - I'm guilty of running moderates out of the party!  No, I have no problem with moderate Democrats, but what's moderate about what Senator Bonoff is suggesting?  Removing teacher seniority rules is the first step in dismantling the teachers union and statewide public education as a whole. You get rid of teacher seniority, and then someone proposes a new "test" to become the true standard of what is, and what is not, a bad teacher.  The test is not geared towards educating kids, or even fairly evaluating educators.  It's about punishing teachers, especially experienced ones, and blacklisting schools.  Then someone suggests getting rid of collective bargaining and mandatory union dues, while insisting it would be better if we allowed teachers to have a certificate instead of a degree, eventually neutering the biggest defender and advocate for quality education.  When statewide public schools are a mess, the GOP then starts to divert tax dollars to private schools in the form of vouchers, and to charter schools, which, according to the recent academic testing in the state, scored lower than public schools, and are run by private corporations/individuals.  Think I'm exaggerating?  It's only happened repeatedly in other states in this country, over and over and over again.  There is nothing moderate about what she is suggesting.

Complaint #3 - You're punishing good, young teachers by keeping all of the older, bad teachers on staff!  First, I'm calling you on the Loch Ness Monster/Sasquatch/Bad Teacher story.  These stories reek of lies, like a Canadian girlfriend.  The allegation:  A teacher is horrific (drunk, abusive, surfing the Internet all day) and the school has no recourse to get rid of them.  Trust me, they have methods to get bad teachers fired.  For goodness sake, one substitute teacher was just convicted in court of showing her students a horror movie instead of teaching them.  She was fired.  This conservative, made up story, a bad teacher who can never be fired, has to be created to justify the first step in dismantling the union.  It's a lie!

But I'll play your game, what percentage of teachers do the anti-seniority advocates think are "bad?"  Twenty percent, 30%?  You're a fool if you think so.  In my kid's elementary and junior high, I have yet to meet a bad teacher.  It's like the people who are for voter ID's, who insist there is far more voter fraud than there really is.  Truthfully, there are a few bad teachers, sure, but only a very small percentage, and no where near enough to validate the stripping of seniority from layoff considerations.

When seniority is disregarded in employment negotiations, you open the door to something really scary.  A school district might make the decision to get rid of 30 teachers, each with 20 plus years teaching experience, and replace them with fresh from school, new teachers, at a cost savings to the district.  This scenario has also happened, repeatedly.  It makes our schools worse when we take our most seasoned professionals and replace them with the cheapest.

And here is the best counterpoint to the young verses old misnomer; there is no guarantee you're replacing an experienced teacher with a better teacher, just a younger, far less experienced one.  They can't say one way or another if that new teacher will be better than the one they replace.

Complaint #4 - I think we should get rid of the seniority rules because I only care about the kids.  Oh, please.  I have three of them.  You think I don't care about what's best for kids?  When you pull out the "Kids" argument, you're no better than people who accuse anyone they disagree with as not caring for the troops, or for supporting the terrorists.  I'm for the kids too, including mine.  That's why I want the best, most experienced teachers teaching them.

What these made up problems really hide is the tremendous effort many teachers put forward to help students.  Considering the extreme dynamics which make up the standard public school classroom's student body, teachers do a incredibly hard job, sometimes with near zero parental support, many times spending their own money, and investing an obscene amount of time, while constantly being accused of failing.  The last thing teachers need is a hostile political environment.  Instead of asking what we can take away from the teachers, we need to be asking them, and the school districts, what do you need?

My stance is about keeping education in Minnesota strong.  We shouldn't buy into a political ulterior motive hidden behind the "bad teacher" lie. With all due respect to Senator Bonoff, I will not sit idly by why you propose the first step in destroying our public schools, with a smile on your face.

The Friday Link for 1/16/15

Everyone knows I love MST3K, so this link tonight shouldn't be too much of a leap.

I stumbled upon the Cinema Sins guys one day and have been addicted ever since.  Their series "Everything Wrong With..." is hilarious.  They watch a movie, then piece together the egregious errors from the movie, such as movie cliches, continuity problems, and feasibility scenarios.  They inter cut it with humor.  The end result is a too funny (and actually very educational in regards to making movies).

Warnings - first these guys do use a lot of salty language.  They bleep the real bad words, but viewer be warned.

Second, they are going to show you a lot of the movie they are dissecting.  When they put the "spoilers (duh)" warning up, they mean it.  If you want to watch the movie, or at least watch the movie without knowing all of the gapping holes in it, wait until after you do so before watching the Cinema Sins guys.

Trust me, the '2012' and "Batman and Robin' breakdowns are amazing, but work your way up to them with National Treasure.  Nike Cage is always a safe bet!  Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ul-_ZWvXTs

Ignoring the Lessons Learned

Minnesota Senator Terri Bonoff greatly disappointed me with her bill to strip seniority from the teacher's ranks.  It's mind boggling a Democrat would author a bill like this.  Senator, you do know that there are already methods in place to remove bad teachers, don't you?

I know Senator, "I'm not saying we throw out all experienced teachers."  In turn, yes you are.  We have already seen an education system ripped apart by the mythical weeding out of "bad teachers," but in state after state where they have gotten rid of seniority protections, the quality of education has fallen dramatically.  Why?  Because conservatives then introduce a test structure which actually hurts experienced teachers and rewards inexperienced teachers.  Then the good teachers are thrown under the bus, accused of being a bad teacher even though they had a 99% graduation rate before the new testing structure.  They are labeled as a bad teacher even though they had all passing grades on their tests but the overall scores weren't as high as a brand new teacher who only taught the test for an entire year.

What other industry is it good to throw out all of your most experienced professionals? Tell me.  Who would hire an architect or law firm, or a medical group who routinely threw out a third of their most experienced professionals just because they didn't preform well enough on an arbitrary test?  Maybe if the House and Senate got rid of their seniority rules and got rid of their bad legislators first, then maybe you could lead by example, giving your argument more validity.  And trust me, there are a lot of bad legislators, Senator Bonoff.

The tests used to get rid of teachers with seniority are not designed to educate kids, but to punish experienced teachers, validating the erosion of our education system under this modern red herring.  Then there is the desire to label our schools as under performing and insufficient so private businesses can get their hand on the money pile which is tax dollars set aside for public education.  You do know this, don't you Senator?

Senator Bonoff, this bill has to be about one of three things, 1) killing the teacher's union, 2) pandering to the charter school crowd (many of whom also hate the teacher's union), or 3) a misguided attempt at cutting costs (even though the tests in effect today point to properly funded schools preforming far better than under funded schools).  Regardless, it's disturbing.  Maybe you introduced this bill early in this session because you hope the Democrats will forget about your true feelings when primary season comes up.  Good luck with that.

Third World USA - Addendum

It has been pointed out to me how much the sulfur mine to extract copper and nickel from the ground around Ely, Minnesota falls into this Third World USA mold.  The mining companies who are the real puppet masters behind this mine are based in Canada, Brazil, Europe and China.  They have created a fake dummy Minnesota company to make it look like an American operation.

Sulfur mining is astounding in its environmental danger.  There is a mine in Montana from the 1800's where the pit of sulfur is still sitting there, threatening to overflow it's retaining walls.  That mine will not be safe for another 400 years.  In the history of sulfur mining, there has never, NEVER, been a clean, environmentally safe operation, something the pro mining people are insisting will be the case this time, but they also insist no rules or laws be enacted to ensure the international mining conglomerate is held accountable if an environmental clean up needs to happen.

The checks to political campaigns, ensuring this mine goes through with zero concern for the citizens of the state, are being written fast and furious, buying off the decision makers to do harm to the rest.  Union heads are screaming for approval even though the mining company has only implied it will use union workers.  No guarantees.  I would bet the same mining people are negotiating with federal regulators to allow them to ship cheap, temporary non-union workers from Oklahoma and Alabama up here to circumvent union hiring rules.

When the truth comes out years from now, long after the foreign companies have pocketed the money from Minnesota's ground and left a scarred earth behind, some Droopy of a mining executive will say "oops," followed by "we're bankrupt."  Then some Droopy politicians will get in front of some cameras and say "oops, I guess we shouldn't have trusted them."

If this sounds familiar, it's exactly what has been done in African, Asian, Central and South American countries.  In many of those places, if the locals dare protest the toxification of their land or the low sub-human wages, they get shot in the streets, or they just disappear.

Third World USA

Last weekend I realized we're in big trouble in America.  Projects like the Keystone pipeline prove America is becoming more of a third world country for the rest of the developed world, and it's happening in large part because of the complete lack of accountability Republican voters have for their elected officials.

The Keystone pipeline will not make American businesses any money and the oil from it will not help our oil needs, instead it's already committed to foreign countries.  This pipeline will surely leak, and will only create 40 permanent jobs.  This isn't the latest example of greedy, corporate America abusing US citizens.  It's Canadians doing it.  It's Canadian oil companies who could create a far shorter pipeline to take the oil across Alberta and British Columbia to the Canadian Pacific Coast, so ask yourself, why would they build an much longer pipeline to come south instead of going west?  Let's look at the USA route:

1) Port Arthur, Texas is a foreign-trade zone, where goods come into America, but are treated like they haven't entered the country yet.  Port Arthur has something more.  It has refineries, a lot of them, and the oil would come across the US, get refined at the port and then loaded onto ships to sail away without a US tax or charge on it.  Even though it is traveling across the heart of America, the oil will not be taxed unless the product is refined and then 'taken back' into the USA (this happening in a country which proudly states "America First").  We regulate train lines more than pipelines, that's why the Keystone push.  Canada doesn't have a tax free zone on their Pacific Coast, let alone one with refineries to process the tar sands oil, and will likely tax the oil as it leaves Canada.  Factoring it all in, it's more profitable for the Canadian oil company to go with the far longer pipeline.

2) Labor costs are cheap in the United States.  Conservative policies have whittled away at workers pay and benefits, to where wages for most of the country have actually gone down in the last 50 years (factoring in inflation).  Even good union jobs are a hollow shell of their former selves.  A large portion of the country doesn't even receive a living wage.  This new American work reality has been created by Republicans.

3) Product and Safety standards are almost non-existent in the modern Conservative America.  We used to demand products were made with quality raw materials, with highly trained labor, and controlled testing.  Decades of lobbying have changed the system, to dirt cheap, unsafe raw materials, unskilled hourly workers and lax testing.  It's created a system where the question isn't if the pipeline will leak, but how bad.  It also makes it far cheaper to do a pipeline in the United States verses Canada, which still maintains rigorous quality standards.

4) Because it will done on the cheap, the pipeline is expected to leak an estimated 91 times in 50 years.  How bad remains to be seen, but we can expect a few of those leaks to be major.  If the Keystone pipeline was going to go through Canada, the company would have far more rules and regulations to follow, and if the pipeline leaked, the oil companies would have to clean it up.  Not in the USA!  They can hook up a sprinkler to the pipeline, spray unrefined oil all over the land for days and Republicans will ensure the company is not only blameless, they'll find them a tax break too.

(On a side note, the fact the union heads are fighting so hard to get this pipeline approved tells me how bad things have gotten for organized labor.  There was a time when the unions would have been the biggest voice against a boondoggle like Keystone.)

If this business model sounds familiar, it's because it is starting to look like the one US businesses adopted in the 1970's.  They realized they could ship the raw materials to a foreign country, buy off the local government, get slave labor to make their products, and then ship them back to the United States.  In the years that followed, the American manufacturing base was nearly wiped out.  If international business could lower the costs of raw materials, manufacture here, and in turn save on the shipping costs to and fro, the businesses might be able to find a low salary for the American worker just high enough for them to buy the products produced.  They've been trying to find that mythical price point for years, and are very close.

What is happening is so anti-American, you'd think the modern "America First" Republican voter would be out in the street demanding it stops, but the modern right doesn't care about what's best for Americans any more.  Their entire mantra is based around hating what the Democrats are for.  Their blind allegiance creates an accountability vacuum.  Since Republican voters are only concerned about what the Democrats are doing, they pay zero attention to the politicians they've elected.  The only time the GOP voter does seem to care is when the harsh reality of the polices they've endorsed comes to light, but even then, regardless of how little say the left has in their system, they can always find a Democrat to blame first.

From the foreign companies point of view, they don't have to rely on slave labor and inhuman conditions, common in many third world countries, hence their conscious is cleaner (heck, they can do an entire marketing campaign about how they love 'Merica!), and when you look at the bottom line, it is far more expensive to pay a military despot or evil dictator millions of dollars than it is to scratch out a $20,000 campaign check to get your own Republican lap dog who will sell their soul and the souls of their constituents, with a smile on their face.  It's a bargain to pay off Republicans to treat the American population horribly!

Keystone is just the beginning.  Look for many foreign economic powerhouses to start eyeing the United States as the place for their low wage, unsafe jobs.  As long as Republicans ensure salaries are low, regulations are unenforced, quality control is a low priority and safety is never a concern, and as long as the modern Republican voter doesn't notice what the people they've elected into office are doing, the USA will continue it's regression from the ranks of the developed nations to the under-developed.

The Friday Link for 1/9/15

Game shows aren't usually funny.  You can have classic funny moments, like the one The Newlywed Game had many years ago (YouTube it), and of course you can have charismatic game show hosts, but really the shows aren't, for the most part, funny.

I think the gold standard for comedy in game shows was Match Game. Gene Rayburn was such a hilarious host, playing the straight man most of the time, corralling half drunk celebrities, and occasionally running with the punchline when he knew his was best.  The celebrities were off the cuff and uproarious at times, but the concept of the Match Game is one of the best, a simple game of Mad Libs where the contestant had to match the celebrities.  Loved that show.

The Family Feud was actually a "spin-off" from Match Game, but not like AfterMASH.  Match Game was such a popular daytime game show, they asked the creators of the Match Game, the very recognizable Mark Goodson and Bill Todman, to create another game show, which became The Family Feud.  They plucked Richard Dawson from Match Game to be the new host, and he played it up perfectly, mugging for the camera, flirting with the ladies and using the right amount humor.  The Feud was soon the number one game show on television and stayed that way through the early 80's.

When Dawson left, the show had numerous hosts, including Ray Combs (whose fall was tragic), Minnesota's Louie Anderson, Home Improvements Richard Karn and Dancing with the stars/Seinfeld's John O'Hurley, but none of them were anything special.  The show seemed destined for "remember when" specials.  Then came Steve Harvey.

Steve Harvey is the funniest host of the Family Feud since Dawson himself.  He is perfect for the show.  He has great reactions to jaw dropping answers, relates to the families and audience brilliantly and seems to be having a great time.  The show has also opened up the answers, so you can get more adult responses.  This also plays to Harvey's comedic abilities.  I can say for the first time since I was 12, I will stop and watch Family Feud whenever I find it on.

Jeopardy is my favorite game show, Match Game made me laugh, and I think the Pyramid had the best final round period, but Steve Harvey on the Feud, in my opinion, is hilarious.  Tonight, enjoy some of the funniest moments from his tenure (NAKED GRANDMA!) but there is an adult theme to some of it, so be advised.  It's your Friday link!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXK2de97Xo

Third Party Candidates

I wanted to take some time to clarify some comments I made about third party candidates.  The discussion started on Tuesday when Diane in St. Louis Park (a listener who doesn't care for the two party system and is a big supporter of ranked choice voting) commented that the incoming Speaker of the Minnesota House not showing up to the swearing in ceremony of the Governor is more indicative of the failure of the two party system, ignoring the real problem, petty partisanship which is the mantra of the GOP today.  She then used her distorted deduction to call for an abandoning of the two party system and expressed frustration that more people were not willing to throw their long voting allegiances to the side, for third party candidates.

A third, fourth and fifth party can exist, and they can be successful, but they're hard to start, and require a massive amount of effort, time, supporters, and financial backers to bankroll them.

But, let me start by acknowledging the reality we live in, stating the obvious: You are doing the GOP puppet masters bidding when you throw your hands in the air and insist their is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  That is exactly what the right wants you to think.

Being angry and dissatisfied with the Democrats is a hobby for some on the left.  They can always find something the President and Democratic leaders are failing on; Keystone, Guantanamo, Net Neutrality.  Don't get me wrong, Obama's support of the TPP, oil drilling and his close allegiances to Wall Street are very disappointing, Democrats need to grow a spine more often and I think Harry Reid is a waste of skin, but the President and the Democrats have managed to do a lot of good considering the forces they have had to contend with.  The two party system is what we currently have, and if you protest not getting exactly what you want from one party by not participating in the elections, you're helping the other party by default.  That's a fact made clear by the results of 2014.

Let me challenge the flawed accusation that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans another way.  The GOP's main goal is to end the basic social safety nets and social rights we have in this country.  Public education?  Whittled down to 'pay for education,' and if you can't afford it, no school for you.  Transportation?  No mass transportation, more toll roads, and no basic repairs, with the exception being the roads in wealthy neighborhoods and around corporations.   Workers rights?  No unions, no pay, no benefits and your only recourse is to quit.  Health care?  "Let 'em die!"  Tax policy?  Wealthy people and corporations not only don't pay any, they actually get massive rebates, all paid for by the middle and lower class, just because they are wealthy (Kansas and Wisconsin are prime examples of this principle in its early stages).  I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats stances on all issues, but don't tell me their isn't a difference between the two parties.  I imagine the families of tens of thousand of dead and permanently injured soldiers from Iraq would whole hardily agree there is a difference.

Money in elections is a legit problem, but that too can be addressed.  Prohibition wasn't a national issue until politicians who believed in enacting a Constitutional Amendment started to get elected to the US House and Senate beginning, in earnest, in the 1910 election.  After 1912, 1914, and 1916, enough politicians had been elected to office to start those wheels into motion.  Granted Prohibition was a misguided endeavor, but the point remains, if we held our politicians to one standard over all, the first act of their first day would be to introduce "a Constitutional Amendment limiting the amount of spending in elections by political candidates, and 'money isn't speech,' and we limit the amount of outside money spent on an election, and none of it anonymously," we could start to change the tide of this issue, and eventually get to a point where real change can happen.  It just will take many years, and a heck of a lot of hard work.

How about the third party's themselves?  The feeling many have is you can't run a third party candidate today and win.  I don't disagree with that sentiment.  If I was to start the Matt Party, I wouldn't get invited to the debates, I wouldn't get the press coverage, and I wouldn't get the money of the major parties.  It's foolish to think the major parties have to recognize you, just because your political party exists.  I don't agree with opening up the debates to everyone and anyone.  If your political point of view garners interest in less than 2% of the population, I don't think you should be part of the debate (currently, Minnesota demands 5%.  I think that's too high.).  I don't want to see our elections become like the California recall election where for every legit candidate, 6 others who were jokes got the same stage.  That's how you get buffoons elected.  Starting an effective third party is not a sprint, it's a marathon, but a marathon you can lose if you don't stay focused on the finish line.

Let's look at two examples.  First, I'm no fan of Ron Paul, or of the Tea Party, but they've given a textbook example of how you start a political party or highly influence a major party.  By taking advantage of the system that was in place, individual Republican state primaries and caucuses, the far right pseudo-libertarians started getting more and more say in the Republican national agenda.  Today, they have a majority control of the Republican party, a party that is terrified of them breaking off and beginning their own political party, something they could easily do.  Their demented rise started only six years ago, a tiny blip on the timeline of politics.  It can be done.

The Independence Party in Minnesota isn't dead, but it's on life support and needs a major re-boot to become relevant again.  They mismanaged their nomination process and ended up with a non-Independent, Tea Party Senate candidate.  They screwed up, but instead of ignoring that race and focusing on the Governor's race, many of the party jumped ship and endorsed the Republican.  By changing affiliation as quickly as they did, they doomed the IP to failure this last election.

What both of these cases point out is your political movement is only as powerful as the amount of people who are willing to endorse it.  The Tea Party, shockingly, strengthens because the people involved don't want to be just far right Republicans, and the Independence Party falters as the members of their congregation look to return to their old church.

Which brings up another question people who desire third party's don't want to ask.  Is the foundation for your third party an issue that is primarily important to only you and a handful of your friends?  Is it really that popular?  This is a hard question to answer.  We all become convinced something that means a lot to us individually is important to everyone, but is it really enough to start a successful political party?  Most of the times no.  Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for what's important to you, but if I'm for taco Tuesday really becoming a mandatory "taco Tuesday," can I convince enough people to abandon their established political ties to jump on board a new political party centered around that principle?  When worse comes to worse, can I still count on all of those followers to stay on board the taco Tuesday bandwagon, or will they run back to a political party that is more relevant?  It breaks my heart to see people passionate about something fail because they never realized what they believe in is not something many others do.  Remember, it has to become a rallying cry for your new party, not just something turned down by your old political party and you're determined to prove them wrong.

And what happens when you do find an issue that does get many people motivated?  Let's look at the Green Party.  They live on because their tent pole issue fires up fervent loyalty, but the Green Party wised up years ago and started developing a complete political platform, giving their party substance and sustainability.  Their political stances have some similarities too other parties, but they are unique to the Green Party.  You can't just be the one issue and then the Democrats for everything else.  It has to be a complete foundation for a political party/movement to thrive.

If someone on the left was smart, they would start to cultivate the feelings of the Occupy Movement. There was a political issue which had massive appeal.  A political party based on defending the rights of the citizens against Wall Street and Corporate America would garner ground support quickly.

I know this article might come across harsh, but I really am for more than two major political parties.  I think the best governments function when they have three to five major political parties represented, but at the end of the day, I do prefer quality over quantity.

Quick Hits - 1/4/15

Here are some quickies before we get back at it tomorrow:

1 - House Majority Whip Steve Scalise from Louisiana is not only a lying, racist pig, but he's a fool that just exposed how warped many people who vote Republican really are.  In another misguided effort to defend his speaking to, and buddying up to, white supremacist groups in the not too distant past, he has tried to rationalize his bleach white speaking tour by comparing the white supremacists, Nazi's, Klan, and other racist groups to the League of Women Voters.  The idiotic argument goes - All that pro white and pro white male organizations do is advocate for white people rights, just like the LWV advocates for women's rights.

Setting aside the fact white men still pretty much dominate most power structures in the USA (this is white guys giving up 5 cents of the dollar, and insisting the conversation needs to revolve around the real victims, the white guys who are persecuted because all they have left is 95 cents), and moving around, not ignoring, the valid point that pro white groups are generally for persecuting anyone who is not white, male and Christian, I found the choice of the League of Women Voters interesting.

The reason the slime ball Scalise picked them is because it was probably one of the few non-racist groups he spoke in front of back then.  He is trying to paint them as some liberal, 'women only vote' organization to offset his embracing the racists.  The League of Women Voters, from their website:

...is dedicated to ensuring that all eligible voters – particularly those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including first-time voters, non-college youth, new citizens, minorities, the elderly and low-income Americans – have the opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. 

The LWV isn't a liberal group, and not a women first group, but a very noble and legitimate pro-information, pro-voting group,  But that didn't stop Scalise from trying to paint them as liberal, anti-man hippies.  Why? Because most people who vote Republican might not be racists (a shocking large percentage of them are), but they view being a Democrat/Liberal as a bigger sin than preaching white power.  That's scary.

2 - It is hilarious to watch Kansas, a state run completely by the modern Conservative political ideology, fall into the 7th circle of hell.  On Tuesday of last week, the jobs report showed job growth in Kansas was almost non-existent, and the promise of jobs running out of Missouri into Kansas has not materialized.  Missouri is hiring at four times the rate of Kansas.  Then, later on Tuesday, a state judicial panel ruled that regardless of Republican, anti-education, self gratification fantasies, the state of Kansas has to fund it's education system for an additional $500 million, money the state gave to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest residents, people who have no intent to give back to the state.  They have great, great, great, great, great grandkids private schooling to pay for!  This is on top of a 1.1 billion dollar hole the state is already in.  And then on Wednesday, they heard they were another $15 million short on tax collections.  And the hits just keep on coming.  Early reports are Kansas Republicans are hiding how truly horrible the tax numbers are, because they would rather watch every public sector in the state crumble than admit throwing tax dollars at wealthy people is not a sane economic policy.

To the Tea Party idiots in the state of Kansas who never even thought of voting for the other candidates on your ballot, even though you knew the Republicans had failed miserably, I'm really enjoying watching you reap what you sowed.  Have fun!

3 - Louis Gohmert is going to challenge John Boehner for Speaker of the House.  I am on my knees praying he wins.

4 - The University of Minnesota Gopher Football team lost in the Citrus Bowl because of multiple reasons.  The defense got run down and tired, unable to wrap up Missouri's running game, our QB is good enough to get to a bowl game, but he's not bowl game winning caliber (yet), and the referees clearly missed enough big drive calls that would have changed a lot of the game's dynamic (face mask, holding, offensive pass interference), and in turn gave Missouri an advantage, but lets not look past the biggest problem.  The coaches for the Gophers mis-managed that game horribly.  They looked like they were the epitome of "just happy to be there."

5 - Minnesota kicks caboose!  I've lived in towns where showing up on one of those "best of" lists was the selling point of their town for the next three years.  Ben Johnson from City Pages has a great story about how many times Minneapolis/St. Paul and Minnesota showed up on these positive lists in 2014.  So far for 2015, we showed as the 9th safest state to live in and the Twin Cities has the best drivers in the nation.  Go Team, GO!

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/12/the_top_10_top_10_lists_minnesota_landed_on_in_2014.php

The Friday Link for 1/2/15

So now that I mailed it in for the last two weeks, paying tribute to Stephen Colbert, the question needs to be answered, "since we are saying goodbye to the best political humorist in the country, who will take his place?"

My answer is not Jon Stewart, but Stewart does own the fake news category.  He does it so well, the Saturday Night Live fake news cast is horribly unfunny now, in comparison.  Colbert understood he couldn't just be a The Daily Show 2, and that's why he excelled.  To find the next big political humorist, we must now look to another former Daily Show correspondent, John Oliver.

Oliver was exceptional when he filled in for Stewart while he made the movie Rosewater, and it was a matter of time before one of the other networks plucked him away.  He was smart enough to go with HBO and the freedom cable television brings.

John Oliver not only skewers the big stories brilliantly, he does not shy away from a treasure trove for comedy, international news.  Some of the comedy bits he does are the first time I am even aware of a political or social event overseas.  He also does something which makes him my pick to rule the political humor category, he does investigative journalism.

Investigative journalism used to be a tent pole of every major news outlet, but with the streamlining of news and budget cutting, those departments, and many great journalists, are no longer around.  Oliver and his crew must have realized this window was there.  In the first season he has been on, his show Last Week Tonight has done amazingly work exposing the real story behind predatory lending, the sugar lobby, civil forfeiture and the Ms. America pageant.  It's important work which elevates his comedy to a different level.  He is a fine choice to take over Colbert's throne.

The link tonight is his hilarious look at State Legislatures. Warning - Adult content and language!!! Enjoy!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8