Your turn: Local legislators support district's levy
By Sen. Tarryl Clark and Reps. Steve Gottwalt, Larry Hosch and Larry Haws

Published: October 31. 2007 12:30AM

We stand together to support our local levy, and we hope you will, too!

It has been said that a society's soul can be measured by the beliefs and practices of its citizens. A community whose citizens value each other regardless of differing economic, social and ethnic backgrounds is also a community whose schools grasp every opportunity to produce educated, confident students.

Since the days of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the role of public education has evolved to ensure universal access, equity and opportunity for all students. While the next years will certainly focus on proficiency and accountability within our schools, we cannot lose sight of our fundamental goal to work alongside parents and guardians educating the whole child to produce healthy, capable and participating citizens.

Ninety percent of Minnesota children attend public schools and collectively, our most challenging goal is to teach all students effectively. Our need for additional public funding affects gifted and talented students as much as those at-risk children who face complex problems beyond the educational setting.

The St. Cloud school district's funding dilemma is not much different from its neighbors, who also seek local levy funding on Election Day.

The levy asks for dollars to cover basic costs of hiring additional teachers, providing a half-day option for kindergarten, ensuring athletics and extra-curricular activities, providing transportation to students who live between 1-2 miles from their school, achieving greater fiscal efficiencies and adding improvements in technology.

A $15 annual school tax increase added to current property taxes on a $150,000 home will continue those services the next four years. A "no" vote will require $6 million in cuts starting in 2008.

We seek your help in supporting this local property tax levy as we vow to work hard on public education funding. We pledge continued collaboration and renewed effort as we address funding, achievement and district inequities.

We know that there are higher costs to educate students who are challenged with English proficiency, low socioeconomic status, disabilities, access to technology, regional economic disparities, mobility and other differences.

We are acutely aware of the increasing costs to provide the best education. ... We are also aware that this must be done in close collaboration with parents and guardians as we work toward the ultimate goal of success and achievement for our children in an increasingly competitive global market.

Our local schools need our help and a "yes" vote for the district's operating referendum on Tuesday. We need your support and input as we work to address funding issues of equity, achievement and accountability for all our children.

It is our desire to work toward a long-term funding solution characterized by flexibility, innovation and transparency. Everyone understands our children need to be well educated, but getting there requires working together.

... Join us in voting "yes" for the St. Cloud school district operations referendum!

Sen. Tarryl Clark represents District 15 and is assistant majority leader. Rep. Steve Gottwalt represents District 15A. Rep. Larry Hosch is from District 14B and Rep. Larry Haws is from District 15B.

SEC. 104. PRIORITY FOR SEVERELY DISABLED VETERANS.

In developing regulations to implement section 101, the Administrator shall give a priority to those certified service-disabled veterans that are severely disabled.

Four Practical Steps Toward Health Care For All

Joe Biden’s highest priorities – along with ending the war in Iraq – are universal health care and education. He will convene a national gathering of key health care stakeholders from labor, business, health care and government within the first 90 days of his administration to seize the historic opportunity created by the recognition from organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies, the Business Roundtable and the AMA to the labor movement that the time has come for universal, affordable health care.

Joe Biden’s CARE plan proposes four essential steps toward universal health care:

1. Cover all Children
2. Access for Adults
3. Reinsurance For Catastrophic Cases
4. Encouraging Prevention and Modernization

110th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 3224

---

AN ACT

To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to establish a program to provide grant assistance to States for the rehabilitation and repair of deficient dams.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REHABILITATION AND REPAIR OF DEFICIENT DAMS.

(a) Definitions- Section 2 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13) as paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (13), (14), and (15), respectively;

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

`(3) DEFICIENT DAM- The term `deficient dam' means a dam that the State within the boundaries of which the dam is located determines--

`(A) fails to meet minimum dam safety standards of the State; and

`(B) poses an unacceptable risk to the public.'; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following:

`(11) REHABILITATION- The term `rehabilitation' means the repair, replacement, reconstruction, or removal of a dam that is carried out to meet applicable State dam safety and security standards.'.

(b) Program for Rehabilitation and Repair of Deficient Dams- The National Dam Safety Program Act is amended by inserting after section 8 (33 U.S.C. 467f) the following:

`SEC. 8A. REHABILITATION AND REPAIR OF DEFICIENT DAMS.

`(a) Establishment of Program- The Director shall establish, within FEMA, a program to provide grant assistance to States for use in rehabilitation of publicly-owned deficient dams.

`(b) Award of Grants-

`(1) APPLICATION- A State interested in receiving a grant under this section may submit to the Director an application for such grant. Applications submitted to the Director under this section shall be submitted at such times, be in such form, and contain such information, as the Director may prescribe by regulation.

`(2) IN GENERAL- Subject to the provisions of this section, the Director may make a grant for rehabilitation of a deficient dam to a State that submits an application for the grant in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Director. The Director shall enter into a project grant agreement with the State to establish the terms of the grant and the project, including the amount of the grant.

`(3) APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS- The Director shall require States that apply for grants under this section to comply with the standards of section 611(j)(9) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196(j)(9)), as in effect on the date of enactment of this section, with respect to projects assisted under this section in the same manner as recipients are required to comply in order to receive financial contributions from the Director for emergency preparedness purposes.

`(c) Priority System- The Director, in consultation with the Board, shall develop a risk-based priority system for use in identifying deficient dams for which grants may be made under this section.

`(d) Allocation of Funds- The total amount of funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (f)(1) for a fiscal year shall be allocated for making grants under this section to States applying for such grants for that fiscal year as follows:

`(1) One-third divided equally among applying States.

`(2) Two-thirds among applying States based on the ratio that--

`(A) the number of non-Federal publicly-owned dams that the Secretary of the Army identifies in the national inventory of dams maintained under section 6 as constituting a danger to human health and that are located within the boundaries of the State; bears to

`(B) the number of non-Federal publicly-owned dams that are so identified and that are located within the boundaries of all applying States.

`(e) Cost Sharing- The Federal share of the cost of rehabilitation of a deficient dam for which a grant is made under this section may not exceed 65 percent of the cost of such rehabilitation.

`(f) Authorization of Appropriations-

`(1) IN GENERAL- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--

`(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

`(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;

`(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;

`(D) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and

`(E) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.

`(2) STAFF- There are authorized to be appropriated to provide for the employment of such additional staff of FEMA as are necessary to carry out this section $400,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

`(3) PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY- Sums appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available until expended.'.

SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.

(a) Proposed Rulemaking- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the amendments made by section 2 to the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467 et seq.).

(b) Final Rule- Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall issue a final rule regarding such amendments.

Passed the House of Representatives October 29, 2007.

Cognitive Science and FactCheck.org, or Why We (Still) Do What We Do

October 17, 2007

by Joe Miller

Have you heard about how Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet? What about how Iraq was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center? Or maybe the one about how George W. Bush has the lowest IQ of any U.S. president ever? Chances are pretty good that you might even believe one (or more) of these claims. And yet all three are false. At FactCheck.org our stock in trade is debunking these sorts of false or misleading political claims, so when the Washington Post told us that we might just be making things worse, it really made us stop and think.

A Sept. 4 article in the Post discussed several recent studies that all seemed to point to the same conclusion: Debunking myths can backfire because people tend to remember the myth but forget what the debunker said about it. As Hebrew University psychologist Ruth Mayo explained to the Post, “If you think 9/11 and Iraq, this is your association, this is what comes in your mind. Even if you say it is not true, you will eventually have this connection with Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” That leaves myth busters like us with a quandary: Could we, by exposing political malarkey, just be cementing it in voters’ minds? Are we contributing to the problem we hope to solve?

Possibly. Yet we think that what we do is still necessary. And we think the facts back us up.

The Post story wasn’t all that surprising to those who follow the findings of cognitive science research, which tells us much of our thinking happens just below the level of consciousness. The more times we hear two particular bits of information associated, for example, the more likely it is that we’ll recall those bits of information. This is how we learn multiplication tables – and why we still know the Big Mac jingle.

Our brains also take some surprising shortcuts. In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Virginia Tech psychologist Kimberlee Weaver shows that the more easily we recall something the more likely we are to think of it as being true. It’s a useful shortcut since, typically, easily recalled information really is true. But combine this rule with the brain’s tendency to better remember bits of information that are repeated frequently, and we can run into trouble: We’re likely to believe anything we hear repeated frequently enough. At FactCheck.org we’ve noted how political spin-masters exploit this tendency ruthlessly, repeating dubious or false claims endlessly until, in the minds of many voters, they become true. Making matters worse, a study by Hebrew University's Mayo shows that people often forget “denial tags.” Thus many people who hear the phrase “Iraq does not possess WMDs” will remember “Iraq” and “possess WMDs” while forgetting the “does not” part.

The counter to this requires an understanding of how it is that the brain forms beliefs.

In 1641, French philosopher René Descartes suggested that the act of understanding an idea comes first; we accept the idea only after evaluating whether or not it rings true. Thirty-six years later, the Dutch philosopher Baruch de Spinoza offered a very different account of belief formation. Spinoza proposed that understanding and believing happen simultaneously. We might come to reject something we held to be true after considering it more carefully, but belief happens prior to the examination. On Spinoza’s model, the brain forms beliefs automatically. Rejecting a belief requires a conscious act.

Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to examine the ideas they encounter. On the Cartesian model, that failure results in neither belief nor disbelief. But on the Spinozan model we end up with a lot of unexamined (and often false) convictions.

One might rightly wonder how a 17th-century philosophical dispute could possibly be relevant to modern myth-busting. Interestingly, though, Harvard psychologist Daniel T. Gilbert designed a series of experiments aimed specifically at determining whether Descartes or Spinoza got it right. Gilbert’s verdict: Spinoza is the winner. People who fail to carry through the evaluation process are likely to believe whatever statements they read. Gilbert concludes that “[p]eople do have the power to assent, to reject, and to suspend their judgment, but only after they have believed the information to which they have been exposed.”

Gilbert’s studies show that, initially at least, we do believe everything we hear. But it’s equally obvious that we reject many of those beliefs, sometimes very quickly and other times only after considerable work. We may not be skeptical by nature, but we can nonetheless learn to be skeptical. Iowa State’s Gary Wells has shown that social interaction with those who have correct information is often sufficient to counter false views. Indeed, a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology by the University of Southern California’s Peter Kim shows that meeting a charge (regardless of its truth or falsity) with silence increases the chances that others will believe the claim. Giving false claims a free pass, in other words, is more likely to result in false beliefs (a notion with which 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, who didn’t immediately respond to accusations by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about his Vietnam record, is all too familiar).

So, yes, a big ad budget often trumps the truth, but that doesn’t mean we should go slumping off in existential despair. You see, the Spinozan model shows that we will believe whatever we hear only if the process of evaluating those beliefs is somehow short-circuited. Humans are not helpless automatons in the face of massive propaganda. We may initially believe whatever we hear, but we are fully capable of evaluating and rejecting beliefs that turn out not to be accurate. Our brains don’t do this naturally; maintaining a healthy skeptical attitude requires some conscious effort on our part. It also requires a basic understanding of logic – and it requires accurate information. That’s where this Web site comes in.

If busting myths has some bad consequences, allowing false information to flow unchecked is far worse. Facts are essential if we are to overcome our brain’s tendency to believe everything it hears. As a species, we’re still pretty new to that whole process. Aristotle invented logic just 2,500 years ago – a mere blink of the eye when compared with the 200,000 years we Homo sapiens relied on our brain’s reflex responses to avoid being eaten by lions. We still have a long way to go. Throw in a tsunami of ads and Internet bluster and the path gets even harder, which is why we’re delighted to find new allies at PolitiFact.com and the Washington Post’s FactChecker. We’ll continue to bring you the facts. And you can continue to use them wisely.

Sources:
Descartes, Rene. Principles of Philosophy. Tr. John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985 [1644].

Gilbert, Daniel T., Romin W. Tafarodi and and Patrick S. Malone. "You Can't Not Believe Everything Your Read." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65.2 (1993): 221-233.

Kim, Peter H., et al. "Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence in Comparison to Apology and Denial for Responding to Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92.4 (2007): 893-908.

Mayo, Ruth, Yaacov Schul and Eugene Burnstein. "'I Am Not Guilty' vs. 'I Am Innocent': Successful Negation May Depend on the Schema Used for its Encoding." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40.4 (2004): 433-449.

Spinoza, Baruch de. Ethics. Tr. Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994 [1677].

Weaver, Kimberlee, et al. "Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion from its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92.5 (2007): 821-833.

Wright, E.F. and Gary L. Wells. "Does Group Discussion Attenuate the Dispositional Bias?" Journal of Applied Psychology 15 (1985): 531-546.

Olson: Bachmann Turns Back on Working Families

• Press releases

ANOKA – Bob Olson, a DFL candidate in the 6th Congressional District, released the following statement following Michele Bachmann's vote to uphold the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program funding bill:

"Working families were counting on Mrs. Bachmann and today she turned her back on them."

By voting to sustain the president's veto of the S-CHIP funding bill, Mrs. Bachmann made it painfully clear that when she talks about family values that doesn't mean providing health care for low-income kids."

"With 9 million uninsured children nationwide, including 85,000 here in Minnesota, we need leaders whose actions match their rhetoric."

"I'm proud of the local people who took time to let the congresswoman know what an important issue this is. While it appears we lost this round we must never give up the fight until every child in America has access to the health care they deserve."

S-CHIP currently provides insurance coverage for 6.6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicare and not enough to afford private insurance coverage.

The bill passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress last month, opposed by Bachmann and vetoed by President Bush, would have renewed S-CHIP funding and extended coverage to another 3.8 million uninsured children.

More information is available at www.bobolson.org.

Dear **********,

Thank you for contacting me about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, Congress is engaged in a debate about the future of healthcare in America and what should have been a proposal to extend affordable coverage for low-income children.

SCHIP is set to expire soon. This decade-old program offers states federal funding to provide health insurance for children in households that do not qualify for Medicaid, but cannot afford private coverage.

Unfortunately, the program has become politicized, and Congress recently passed legislation to expand SCHIP coverage beyond children, beyond U.S. citizens, and beyond those who are truly in need, and that is where the problem lies.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, several million SCHIP-eligible children are still uninsured. Surely, children in need should have the health insurance promised to them before expanding SCHIP further up the income ladder or using more of the program's limited resources for adults.

Here's my idea. Let's cover the kids first. Let's focus on children in need without access to health insurance, and fund SCHIP as it was meant to be. I've publicly supported legislation that would accomplish these goals and keep SCHIP moving forward to help those it was intended to help.

But some want to move SCHIP in the wrong direction. Under the bill passed by Congress and vetoed by the President, SCHIP dollars could be used to cover childless adults and more affluent families - in some cases, households earning up to $83,000 per year. It also changes current law to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get SCHIP funds.

Rather than focusing on low-income, uninsured children, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study shows that more than 77 percent of children affected by this expansion already have personal, private health insurance. In other words, the bill creates an incentive that pushes kids out of private insurance into a government-run program.

Worse, this legislation makes SCHIP financially unstable. In order to appear fiscally sound, it gives children health insurance for 5 years, and then it cuts SCHIP funding by nearly 80 percent - a classic bait and switch that will cause millions of American children to lose their health coverage.

According to the CBO, the bill will lead to only 800,000 currently eligible-but-unenrolled children being enrolled in SCHIP by 2012. The sad fact is that it would be cheaper to give each of these kids $72,000 than it would be to enact this bill, and it would probably show healthier results.

Rather than playing politics with children's healthcare or scoring political points with radio and TV ads, I believe Congress should show the American people that we are here to solve problems, and I will continue encouraging House leaders to do the right thing by bringing up an SCHIP bill we can all support.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann
Member of Congress

Your turn: Bachmann is on wrong track
By Mike Sullivan St. Cloud

Published: October 15. 2007 12:30AM

I am so pleased the Times on Oct. 3 printed U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's letter to her Central Minnesota constituents on federal budget and tax policy issues.

I feel like Paul Harvey. There is a "rest of the story" that needs to be told.

Congresswoman, you state that the majority (Democrats) have passed a budget calling for the single-largest tax increase in our nation's history, a tax increase that could cost the average American family $3,000 per year.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has an answer to your emphatic and unsupported statement. He says, "There is no tax increase assumed or required in the FY 2008 budget. PERIOD."

I believe constituents need some proof. ... You also know that budgets don't spend a dime or raise a dime in taxes, they're simply guidelines.

Isn't it a little premature to alarm your constituents about a pending $3,000 tax increase?

The numbers

You also tell your constituents that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax relief measures will save the average tax payer $2,216 this year. In August 2004, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the average middle-income household (about $46,000 in taxable income) would receive a tax reduction of $1,090. Households in the top 1 percent of income earners would receive a tax cut of $78,460.

How can we reconcile this? Here's how. Forty percent, or about 60 million separate taxpayers, earn less than middle-income households and received almost no tax reduction from the 2000/2003 Bush tax plan.

For example, let's consider a $100,000 total tax relief. The first taxpayer receives a tax cut of $78,460.

The next 44 taxpayers receive $489.50 each. This tax plan just achieved a $2,216 average reduction. Averages don't mean much to most of us.

Let's look at the facts. The Tax Policy Center shows that in 2006, the 20 percent of taxpayers with incomes of more than $84,000 (about 30 million separate filers) receive 68.8 percent of the total tax relief under the Bush II plan, while 90 million filers with incomes less than $46,000 received just 15 percent of the tax relief.

The top 1 percent, or 1.5 million taxpayers, received more than 30 percent of the all tax reductions.

You also tell your constituents that CBO forecasts the budget deficit to be down a third year in a row, 36 percent below just last year.

When you tell us what appears to be good news, you should put this in context so we really understand your earlier quote from the Government Accountability Office, which says that "the long-term deficit is unsustainable on our current fiscal track."

Your constituents should be told that the 2003, 2004 and 2005 budget deficits were the three largest budget deficits in the 225-year history of our country.

They should also be told that the President Bush budget deficits from 2002 through 2006 total not billions, but $1.512 trillion.

They should probably also know that during the last three years of the Clinton administration, there was $430 billion in budget surpluses.

If these budget deficits are not bad enough in themselves, your constituents should also know that each year during the Bush II administration, the president raided the Social Security Trust Fund.

In 2001, it was a mere $34.7 billion, but that's equal to the entire state of Minnesota's two-year budget.

In the following years Social Security raids were significantly worse, $159 billion, $155 billion, $155 billion, $150 billion, $173 billion, $185 billion and $191 billion in FY 2007, which ended Sept. 30.

The CBO also estimates that the FY '07 cost of the Bush tax cuts is $258 billion. The budget deficit of $161 billion plus the Social Security Trust Fund raid of $191 billion totals red ink of $352 billion.

Soaring debt

The conclusion is inescapable; 100 percent of the Bush tax cuts is funded by national debt, a debt that becomes the burden of young families and our children.

You also tell us that "to steer Congress in the right direction" you joined 145 other members assuring the president that you would vote to sustain any of his vetoes on spending bills. You must understand that "the unsustainable fiscal track" that you quote from GAO is the fiscal track of 2001-07 directed by the president and supported by the GOP Congress.

With both GAO and CBO warning of the fiscal train wreck, why do you board that train? Shouldn't you be challenging it to protect your 6th District constituents and the rest of the country?

This is the opinion of Mike Sullivan, a resident of St. Cloud, but not a local attorney.

But what the other formula (the Bush tax cuts) for success has brought about, Mr. Speaker, is prosperity. Prosperity not just for those who are the high income earners, not even just the middle income earners. We have seen tremendous levels of prosperity, even for those who we would consider the poor among us, who government considers the poor among us, and if there is anyone who deserves help up, a hand up, it is the poorest among us.

The median household income, more good news is that adjusted for inflation, the median household income today has risen in 2006 to over $48,451 nationwide, and in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, median household income today is at a robust $62,223. This is great news. We should be talking about this great news. And how did we get to this level of prosperity? It is because of the tax cuts that came in 2001 and 2003, and that great investment is now paying off.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.

The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000.

The IRS data, based on a large sample of tax returns, are for "adjusted gross income," which is income after some deductions, such as for alimony and contributions to individual retirement accounts. While dated, many scholars prefer it to timelier data from other agencies because it provides details of the very richest -- for example, the top 0.1% and the top 1%, not just the top 10% -- and includes capital gains, an important, though volatile, source of income for the affluent.

MN OB IN '08

Written by Chad The Elder
Monday, 15 October 2007 13:55

For a while now I've been holding my tongue as I continue to read and hear talk about how Minnesota is "in play" in the 2008 presidential election. However, it's time to stop being polite...and start getting real.

Republicans in this state and elsewhere need to wake up and smell the roses (Moses). Not only is Minnesota not "in play" in '08 as far as the presidency goes, it's possible--although probably not likely--that we could have an all-Democratic slate representing us in Washington after the 2008 elections.

You think an all-blue delegation is impossible? If you don't believe that Coleman is vulnerable, you just aren't paying attention. And if you don't think the Dems are going to throw everything they can at Michele Bachmann in the Sixth, you're dreaming. With Ramstad's retirement and John Kline apparently having to face a real candidate for a change (how real is still TBD), it's not outside the realm of possibility to imagine that the MN GOP could lose Coleman's Senate seat and all three House races.

Again, I don't think it's likely that Kline will be knocked out, but the Third District is very much up in the air and Bachmann is going to have to weather a ferocious media and money onslaught to hold on to her seat. Meanwhile, the prospects of picking off any of the current Democratic holds does not look good. Earlier, I would have thought that Tim Walz might be vulnerable, but unless something changes dramatically, he looks like he'll be returning to Washington.

The reality is that 2008 is going to be another tough year for Republicans in Minnesota. And it's going to be even worse at the top of the ticket.

In 2004, John Kerry beat George Bush by just over three percentage points in Minnesota. Heading into that election, there were high hopes among the GOP faithful that it would be the year when Minnesota could finally be counted in the Republican electoral college tally. Looking back now, 2004 looks like the high water mark for the GOP tide. 2006 showed the tenuous nature of whatever inroads Republicans had made with Minnesota voters and I believe we'll see the trend toward blue continue in 2008.

So far, I've come across three arguments on why Minnesota could or should be in play in '08.

1. Pawlenty on the ticket as VP. While Governor Pawlenty is enjoying high approval ratings at the moment, I don't believe that his presence on the ticket would have enough impact to make the difference. No matter what the names are on either side on the presidential slate, I'd guess the Democratic candidate would start out enjoying at least an 8-10% lead in Minnesota. Having Pawlenty as VP could maybe shave four to five points off, but that's it. And the notion that Pawlenty could help bring Iowa and Wisconsin into the bag as well is baseless wishful thinking.

2. The 2008 GOP convention is in the Twin Cities. Again, the gap is far too large for whatever small boost hosting the convention would bring to make any real difference. A non-factor.

3. A Romney candidacy could put Minnesota in play. Done laughing yet? I had to throw that one in to lighten the mood.

The bottom line is that doesn't matter whether Pawlenty is on the ticket as VP, the convention is in the Twin Cities, or Romney is the candidate (hee, hee): Minnesota is going blue in aught eight and nothing the GOP can do is going to change that fact. The eventual Republican candidate would do well to avoid wasting precious time and resources here. Minnesota Republicans should focus their efforts on trying to save Norm Coleman, hold their three House seats, and maybe chip away at the DFL stranglehold in the State House of Representatives. Those are the boundaries that they should be playing within. Anything else should be considered out of bounds.

(Cross-posted at Fraters Libertas )

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Michele Bachmann Stages Another Self-Serving Photo-Op

This time she goes to the Sherburne Wildlife Refuge and gets some puff piece coverage plus some photos (no longer available from the front page of the site).

Two of the visitors to the event carry a certain amount of political power in Washington, as both Sen. Norm Coleman and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann made their way about the crowds.

Sittauer said getting visitors with such high political clout to support the refuge and the proposed visitor’s center has been a major victory.

Oddly enough on June 27, Bachmann voted AGAINST HR 2643, "Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008." The bill passed 272-155. It would be worth finding out what Bachmann has actually done to obtain federal funding for the proposed visitor's center. Norm Coleman has a record of actually getting something done of this sort. Michele Bachmann only has a record of claiming credit for things she hasn't done.

Bachmann hauled in $32,816 from the Safari Club International in 2006. This is a group that promotes Big Game hunting - and is certainly not wildlife conservation.

Posted by lloydletta at 1:10 PM

Eva,

Hunters do more to protect wildlife and their habitat than any other group. Many on the left would like to abolish hunting which would ruin a great American tradition.
dare2sayit.com | Homepage | 10.14.07 - 4:03 pm |

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Why I'm not a multiculturalist, but I enjoy learning about other cultures!

Attack of the Multiculturalists! It could be the title of a new book! It would be a horror novel, or better yet a mystery! It's a mystery to me what multiculturalists hope to accomplish with their strange and destructive agenda. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me clarify what I mean when I'm talking about multiculturalism.

On the surface, the word multi-cultural sounds very good. Multiple cultures. The melting pot. That's what America is all about. Many of us trace our roots back to the Germans, Italians, Irish, English, etc... And there's nothing wrong with celebrating the good parts of your heritage and your culture! (No one with a right mind celebrates the ugly parts, for instance when German-Americans celebrate their heritage they don't celebrate the Nazis.)

(Now I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that one of the sad parts about our American heritage is the reprehensible practice of slavery which existed for years in our nation and around the world. This tragedy has prevented many African-Americans from being able to trace back their roots to various countries in Africa. As disgusting as slavery was, I hope we can take some pride in the fact that we as Americans are one of the first cultures to eliminate slavery and to promote equality of all races.)

Many of us celebrate parts of our heritage going back generations, and we all celebrate our heritage as Americans. It's also neat to see newer immigrants in America celebrating their heritage! Be it Mexicans, Pakistanis, Nigerians, South Koreans, and so on and so forth. I have friends from countries all over the world. I've been blessed with the opportunity in the past to meet international students who come to America to learn English and learn about our culture, and in turn I get to learn about their culture, it's an educational experience and it can be a lot of fun. This is not what multiculturalists are interested in though.

Multiculturalism is biased against Western culture, and more specifically American culture. The ardent multiculturalist also recognizes and praises all aspects of non-Western culture and puts it on a pedestal. To say it another way: the multiculturalist is anti-American and pro-everything else as a matter of principle. I have a huge problem with this and so do many Americans for a couple of reasons.

First, the celebration of all aspects of these cultures without question is dangerous. How does one celebrate cannibalism? How does one celebrate human sacrifices? How does one celebrate other cultural practices that go against universal human values and American values? Polygamy, incest, self-mutilation, are examples that come to mind. Unfortunately multiculturalists have no problem promoting these things. Instead of this celebration without question we should be learning about the good and bad of various cultures. The problem is that multiculturalists are also relativists. They don't believe in good or bad, but believe anything and everything is basically good. Except for America that is, which brings me to my second point.

Along with the praise for all aspects of foreign cultures, there is a concerted effort to downplay the importance of the values that America was founded upon. Rather than praising the principles that have made us the greatest nation in all the land, a country of freedom and a shining city on a hill, the multiculturalist prefers to rag on America as an evil empire.

Now I'm not naive, we have a list of negatives from our past including racism, a lack of women's rights, and our treatment of Native Americans. Despite this we have a lot to be proud of here in America when compared with the other cultures that have ever existed on this planet. Put another way: you can criticize some aspects of our nations history without trashing the principles we were founded on. You can denounce the behavior by some without ripping apart our constitution.

So the complete and utter trashing of America boggles my mind. How many history teachers in our schools are trashing America? I know I heard my share of anti-American rhetoric in college and a lot my classmates were really buying into it. There are other more subtle examples though. How many schools are dropping the celebration of traditional American holidays while adding holidays from foreign cultures. I'm not saying that learning about other holidays is inherently bad, it's just very strange that at the same time they would eliminate American ones. Does this bother you as much as it does me? Suddenly Ramadan is popping up on the school Calendar, but Christmas Break has long since been replaced by "Winter Break".

What worries me is this anti-American behavior is spreading. One of the great lines of defense that will be used by a multiculturalist is that "you can't call me anti-American for questioning things". This goes back to the fundamental belief in right or wrong. I believe the ideals America were founded upon are right. If you want to question that, go right ahead, but if you come to the conclusion that America is wrong for you, please do us all a favor and pack up your bags, purchase a plane ticket and don't let the door hit you on the keister on the way out!

In the meantime, those of us who are proud of America and the ideals on which it was founded need to step up to the plate. Speak up at school board meetings, speak up at city council meetings, write letters to your legislators and congressmen. Speak with your actions such as the way you spend money, the people you vote for, the way you teach your children, and the way in which you interact with co-workers and friends.

America is a good country, may God bless the USA.