Speed Gibson

A somewhat despondent Elder at Fraters Libertas urged that we cry havoc and "Starve the Beast" meaning the MSM.

In order to fight media bias, we must stop feeding the fire. The multi-headed media beast must be starved. I urge you to step back and take an inventory of your media lifestyle. It's time to make some changes.

By feeding the fire, he means subscribing or supporting their advertisers. His heart is in the right place. Even I never thought the MSM could be this openly dishonest. The Swift Vets are ignored, while Michael Moore and John Kerry get the biggest free passes to date.

Now as regards national network news (including PBS), I agree. I don't watch any of them, and neither would Edward R. Murrow. They're just not credible, and they're anachronisms given CNN & Fox News. We don't need them anymore. The same goes for 60 minutes, Dateline, and 20/20. Even Meet the Press et al should find a home on cable or die. The Today Show and Good Morning America never were serious news programs, and maybe they should just stick to pop culture.

Local TV news' problem is rather different: excessive fluff. It's more like People Magazine than real news. Again, who needs "Dimension" features on seat belt design?

But newspapers? If you have a choice between The Washington Post and The Washington Times, obviously there's no need for the Post in your life. But unless the Pioneer Press raises its standards, and there have been a couple of hopeful signs, we're stuck with the Star Tribune this side of the Mississippi.

I submit it is better to have read and laughed than not to have read at all. We know what to expect. We know to read the last couple of paragraphs first. We know when they're publishing false information, especially when they're lying. Nick Coleman isn't fooling us! But there is also a great deal of useful, accurate information as well, and we'd be foolish to spitefully ignore it.

But I would recommend this: buy your paper at your coffee place, the gas station, wherever. What newspapers really want is your name on the subscription rolls to impress advertisers, not your anonymous change in SuperAmerica's till. Or find a way to share the paper with your neighbor, and save a tree a year.

Phil Krinkie again avoided the endorsement of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Good for him!

Krinkie, 54, has been on the wrong side of light-rail and commuter-rail transit, professional sports facilities improvements, upgrades to the Minnesota Zoo and more. He uses criticism of the way state school and highway funds are distributed to justify resistance to increasing those funds. Now a senior member in his seventh term, he has become a major impediment to this state's progress.

It's not enough that he challenges these initiatives. He's on the wrong side! He demands proof that these projects will truly improve life in Minnesota. The DFL cannot provide any, and there are all those annoying studies that support Rep. Krinke.

Fortunately, District 53A voters this year have a more-than-credible alternative. Gardner, 36, has shown an ability to get things done at the Capitol as executive director of the Recycling Association of Minnesota. It's an enterprise that works closely with industry, giving Gardner solid business perspective.

What does "more than credible" mean? You're either credible or you're not. I'm guessing that "more than" means you are on the "right side" of the above issues. As for his opponent Paul Gardner, working for a non-profit might give you some insight from your business patrons, but a solid business perspective? No; it's a different skill set.

We share Gardner's view that Krinkie-style parsimony is "starting to unravel things that made Minnesota great. We may need new systems; we may need to reinvest in old systems. But we shouldn't simply do nothing." We hope Gardner's hard-working campaign has District 53A voters rethinking their legislative voting habit.

There's parsimony - extreme stinginess - and apparently there is also Krinkie-style parsimony. It must be like conservative and ultra-conservative.

We are not doing nothing in Minnesota. The state budget continues to rise well above inflation year after year, doubling in just the last 12 years or so. Current spending is at record levels, so just what is it that is left undone?

If there were no restraint at all, the budget would be much larger yet the same arguments would be made that we're not spending enough. There is no amount of money the DFL cannot spend. Phil Krinkie provides needed balance and insight to help make every tax dollar count, keeping Minnesota more competitive.

Barb Sykora, assistant majority leader in the Minnesota House fires back at John Gunyou today, again on the Commentary page. She notes that when he was Finance Commissioner under Gov. Arne Carlson, they raised taxes but gave no increases to education. She also notes that he failed to mention the declining enrollments that explain some of the recent reductions in education spending.

I consider this more evidence, if any is needed, that Mr. Gunyou, who fancies himself a moderate, is a liberal. As Minnetonka's City Manager, he also has a conflict of interest in recommending further increases in state taxes and spending.

Continuing my prior post, let's consider John Gunyou's contribution to the intellectually empty Commentary Page in Friday's Commentary page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Mr. Gunyou is City Manager of Minnetonka and formerly Finance Commissioner under Gov. Arne Carlson.

I'll give him this: he's at least proud of the "moderate" label, unlike most liberals. But is he a moderate? Let's use his own answers to his twelve question "are you a moderate" test.

1. The most important issue is ... the Minnesota we're leaving for our children. [It's for the children.]

2. The greatest threat to our state is ... the Taxpayers League. [We're among the top five states in terms of taxes. Just how much more do you want? Besides, Education Minnesota has done far more harm to Minnesota.]

3. The ballooning $7 trillion federal debt can be slowed by ... not spending more than we take in. [You mean David Strom might be right after all? Come now, a conservative gets here a lot faster than a moderate.]

4. The public investment with the highest rate of return is ... Head Start. [But Head Start doesn't work. Per the Washington Post: "Study after study has shown that by third grade, any early benefit a Head Start preschool program has provided — the schooling, the health care, the family counseling, the home visits — is gone. The participants score about the same on tests as poor children who never attended preschool. They are just as far behind their middle-class peers." Surely a moderate would concede that Head Start can hardly have the highest return on investment. ]

5. A true fiscal conservative would pledge ... honestly to balance the budget and invest in our future. [We do so pledge. It's those moderates and liberals that mess it up.]

6. The most trustworthy source of real news is ... truly independent media. [Such as? Anybody know what he's talking about?]

7. Balancing the state budget without raising taxes ... really involves balancing ongoing revenue with ongoing spending. [Score another for David Strom? But I believe David would point out that its not a balancing act. It's getting the spending right, then collecting just that much and no more.]

8. We should fund our schools by ... rejecting the no-tax pledge and honestly paying for student growth and inflation. [The no-tax pledge comment is an obvious non-sequitur. And over time, the schools have received tremendous increases over inflation and enrollment.]

9. Taxes are ... simply the price of public services like police and fire protection, schools and colleges, roads and parks. [And welfare, light rail, and sports arenas, and convention centers in Fergus Falls, and all of it much too inefficient.]

10. We can control runaway human services costs by ... reforming the real cost-drivers, like long-term care. [How? Ask the Governor he says.]

11. Our transportation backbone should be funded by ... raising a gas tax that hasn't been increased for 16 years. [Raise a tax just because we haven't for a while?]

12. You love your country if you ... care more about the long-term public good than you do about your own immediate interests. [But it's okay to pick your neighbor's pocket to help with your own immediate interests.]

Sure sounds like a liberal to me. But if you're not quite convinced, on question 9, he adds:

The truth is, the state's official Price of Government has declined over the past decade. That means government is taking a smaller share of money out of our pockets. We can afford to pay for essential public services if we simply freeze the price at its current level instead of driving it lower. [Or, we could discontinue non-essential public services like light rail.]

This is pure liberal thought. While it may be true that State spending hasn't increased quite as much as personal income [David Strom strikes again!], this "official Price of Government" measure is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial as Perry Mason would say.

Suppose you got a big raise at work, but then all your expenses flexed up at the same rate, which Gunyou seems to think it proper. You're no better off! Why bother to work hard?
Inflation is what counts, and State spending has definitely grown more than inflation.

John Gunyou, you are a liberal. Your article is a signed confession.

El Rushbo is fond of the "zip, zero, nada" phrase, and I think it succintly describes the Commentary page (A23) in the today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. There were three articles, about moderates, the draft, and outsourcing - zip, zero, and nada, respectively.

I'll save John Gunyou's silly article "Who's a moderate? It's as easy as (a), (b), (c)" for my next post; it merits a full fisking.

"Trust that Bush won't bring back the draft? Bad idea" says Tom Maertens, who fancies himself a local terror expert. Judging by his web site, he's more of a cut and run expert, one who takes Richard Clarke seriously. Frank Gaffney he ain't. This article is just another Bush bash, of course, since only Democrats talk about bringing back the draft.

Finally, we have Patty Wetterling's "Repeal the laws that reward companies outsourcing jobs" article. It's too politically smooth to entirely her work, given this is her first campaign, and clearly in over her head. Don't forget that she bailed out of scheduled debates with her opponent, Rep. Mark Kennedy.

She starts a grim scenario of lost and soon-to-be-lost jobs that "could mean hardship for you and your family." Of course, the even greater number of jobs insourced don't count. But then the standard DFL boilerplate begins. Socially irresponsible corporations, "fair" trade not free trade, labor unions, the environment, federal spending cuts, unfair tax policy, they're all there. So's education, at the end, still underfunded I guess.

Finally, we must invest in a first-class education system that is affordable to working families. Investing in our human capital is the best way to make sure that we stay competitive in the global marketplace.

There is no free lunch; you cannot get a return without making an investment. We must invest in our industry, our entrepreneurs, and a good education system to train tomorrow's workers. We must create a global economy that works for our communities. It is the job of Congress to make sure that we create the conditions for jobs to grow in our economy.

This is just stump speech material, not serious thought. If the differences in labor and other costs are dramatic, and the job can be moved, it often will be. The real question is whether some of the jobs go, or the whole company.

Remember those plant closing laws that required several months notice, severance, etc? It forced some struggling companies decide to fold prematurely, uncertain if sales would pick up in time. It also prevented new plants from opening by in effect adding these costs to the start of the project, increasing its risk and reducing that return on investment she claims to value.

Her proposed restraint of free trade will have similar effects.

I just finished watching the Sinclair "broadcast" of Stolen Honor. They blinked. They used less than five minutes of it, less than three minutes if you exclude the well-known 1971 Senate testimony reminiscent of Genghis Khan. There were no paid ads, just program promos.

I can't say I was crazy about the idea to begin with. Sinclair is a holding company, not a news organization. Indeed, there were a number of factual errors on both sides.

I think those opposed had a point in asking why Sinclair was going out of its way to air this. But with Democrats, especially those having to look at widening polls, the response was to sue. Sinclair at least made this point fairly well, but this Caspar Milquetoast of a program isn't otherwise worth any further discussion.

Jo's Attic prompted this post: see I am a Speciesist where she takes on those animal activists that think eating meat is murder. Some of these people even attend church, despite the clear Biblical teachings going back to Adam and Eve.

I think there's a clear distinction between man and animals. Consider our sun, which has burned for several billion years and has enough fuel to go several more billions of years. But near the end, the sun will expand greatly in size and output. The earth's oceans will boil away as temperatures approach 1,000 degrees and lead melts. Even the cockroaches won't survive this one. But man might.

Indeed, only man has the ability to escape Earth's gravity and the pending doom. All the other species will die as their habitat is destroyed. Only if man brings some of them along in his space arks will they continue to exist. Clearly man is very unique, very special, very above the animal kingdom. I would add this is further evidence of the Creator's hand.

Animal species consume other species, sometimes even their own, occasionally us. Whether we are "superior" or not, there is no moral conflict as we consume them.

I'm worried. Not a lot, but enough to wonder if all the voter fraud we're already starting to see will be significant enough to give Kerry the win. New voting machinery, new rules, ever looser registration also play to Kerry. Absentee ballots are everywhere and now we have "early voting" in Florida and Texas. Here in Minnesota, Secretary of State Kiffmeyer is being set up like Florida's Kathryn Harris just in case it's close. And our Supreme Court has fallen from grace more than once of late.

Remember Ohio in 2000, supposedly a double digit slam dunk for Bush that proved much closer? I look at these poll numbers and it looks far short of the Hewitt "If it ain't close" standard.

Once this election is over, maybe we have to make some noise about voter reform in Minnesota. Motor voter (auto frauder) should be repealed. Absentee ballots should be much harder to get, and a percentage audited to see if the reason given is actually true, with a stiff penalty if not. Let's insist on paper ballots to avoid the electronic fraud that will almost certainly happen. And we don't need lawyers and goons loitering near the polling places.

After all, we have 30+ Democrats in the Minnesota Senate who need to be turned out in 2006, and we don't need any "undocumented voters" skewing the results.

We all knew it was coming. Senator Kerry is the Democratic candidate. Our largest paper always endorses the Democratic candidates for major office. After all, they even endorsed Democrat Dee Long even after she lied about attending a conference and tried to cover up the phone card scandal.

Yes, the Minneapolis Star Tribune today endorsed John Kerry for President, again, to no one's surprise. But the choice of words suggests that these unsigned contributors know they are playing a weak hand.

Political passions are burning white hot as Nov. 2 nears. Americans realize what is at stake: the United States' ability to lead in the world, protect its citizens at home, preserve its treasured liberties, and leave a legacy of hope and opportunity. George W. Bush's presidency has put all that at risk. Sen. John Kerry proposes a sharp course change.

Where's the "Kerry will fix this" platitude? All we get is a course change? To where?

Long steeped in U.S. foreign policy, Kerry understands ...

Steeped" is passive, merely meaning knowledgeable. The ability to act wisely is what counts.

Kerry recognizes that to prevail in the struggle against terrorism, America must return to the moral high ground rather than unilaterally pursue a perverted, narrow vision of its national interest.

"Pervert" as as noun refers to sexual deviates, clearly not the context here. As a verb, it means change, but connotation of "perversion" has made good writers prefer other, less loaded terms. The StarTribune apparently couldn't pass on the chance to call the President a pervert while hiding behind the dictionary.

At home Kerry would roll back Bush's tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, now the chief cause of massive federal deficits [FALSE!], and work to shore up the middle class. He has presented a sound plan for affordable health care [FALSE!], while shunning GOP efforts to privatize pieces of Medicare and Social Security. He would reverse Bush's devious dismantling of environmental protections, and he would preserve the safety net that protects America's most vulnerable citizens.

Spending is what's causing the deficit to grow, admittedly much of it by Bush. Kerry has presented no meaningful specifics beyond "I have a plan" for health care, including how to pay for it. "Devious" is another cute term, meaning "indirect" but with that delightful air of the rogue about it.

Great presidential leadership harnesses keen policy insight, brilliant use of executive skills and the ability to inspire American citizens -- appealing to their highest aspirations and uniting them in pursuit of the nation's noblest values.

While they later charge that Bush lacks these qualities, notice that they do not say that Kerry does. And how could they? Senator Kerry has yet to show any executive ability of any kind, not now, not in the Senate, not even in Vietnam as the Swift Vets have conclusively shown. He, like candidate Gore in 2000, cannot even manage his campaign office, which has undergone several shakeups. No, they leave it to you to infer that Kerry has these qualities.

While seeking office in 2000, Bush defined himself as "a uniter, not a divider." He has proved to be the most divisive, insular and partisan president since Richard Nixon.

The passive voice is used again, that Bush has proved to be divisive, not that Bush did the dividing. This avoids having to consider the more credible explanation that the Democrats are in fact the ones doing the dividing.

Nothing in President Bush's performance has been more damaging to U.S. strength and security than his wholesale redefinition of America's relationship with other nations. [It's apparently 9/10/2001 at the Star Tribune] Disdainful of policy nuances, Bush relied on a small group of advisers to craft a dangerous departure from consultative foreign policy.

A "nuance" by dictionary definition is a very slight difference, something you can worry about once the big decisions are made. But "nuance" is also a liberal code word used to suggest your opponent is not a deep thinker or well-read, for those who lack the courage to say so directly.

Bush has governed with mendacity and secrecy at home as well, undermining the democratic imperatives of accountability, transparency and openness.

Here again, the passive voice and an obscure word are used to call the President a liar. (Mendacity is the act of not telling the truth.) They can't call him a liar to his face of course, because then they'd have to get into specifics, which in turn would expose many of the false statements in this editorial.

Contrary to Bush's portrait of him as a "flip-flopper" on Iraq,

This is clever scope limitation. First Kerry's reputation as a flip-flopper did not begin with President Bush. His Democratic rivals in the Primaries noticed this a year ago. Second, he has flip-flopped on many issues, not just Iraq. All of this is well-documented.

Kerry's approach demonstrates maturity, nuance and thoughtfulness. Those qualities don't always play well in campaign sound bites. But they will serve America exceedingly well in the Oval Office.

There's that word nuance again! But why the word "approach" here? How about his "record" instead, which is replete with churlish rhetoric, contradictions, a very poor choice for Vice President, and thoughtless gaffes like mentioning Mary Cheney in the last debate?

Earlier, the editorial states "The decision for war came first; the way to justify it came second..." So it is with this editorial. The decision is made first (based on party affliation), then find some other reasons to support it. Shore up the weak points with false information, embellish with the Star Tribune's "mature, nuanced, thoughtful" style, and go to press.

I think way too much is being made of Senators Kerry and Edwards' references to Mary Cheney, gay daughter of the Vice President. It's T.M.O. - too much outrage.

By overplaying this gaffe and/or miscalculation, we make it seem an aberration. A toned down response suggests, quite correctly, that such lapses in propriety are to be expected from them. Liberals think in terms of groups, not individuals. It is "naturally" more important to the Democratic candidates that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, less important that she is someone's daughter.

That John Kerry doesn't understand why Dick and Lynn Cheney are indignant is further evidence of how distant he is from those of us not sitting down to diver sea scallops for dinner. And that's a point best made subtly - often, but subtly.

I am astounded listening to Laura Ingraham this morning. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is saying in the calmest of tones how the Bush campaign is stretching the truth significantly more than the Kerry campaign. Laura said Howard Fineman of Newsweek agrees, and of course, we know how Mark Halperin feels, given his leaked memo.

I won't claim to know these three or their work very well, but I've no reason to think any of them is irrational or as severely partisan as they would appear. Yet, there it is, three respected MSM voices saying it is President Bush that is kissing the Blarney Stone.

The first possibility is that I have it wrong and they are right. But who spouts all the false information in the recent debates? John Kerry. Even within the same debate, John Kerry contradicts himself as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat, and no, none of this was out of context. The blogosphere has detailed dozens of examples. The dark side (the left) has managed little more than finding Cheney with Edwards at a prayer breakfast. And who tacitly approves all the slander in Fahrenheit 911? The MSM. Who ignores the Swift Vets, falsely claiming they've been discredited? The MSM. No, we have it right.

So, are they merely ignorant or oblivious? The MSM has long held that examining your opponent's voting record is a personal attack, for example. And when a candidate has an extensive and consistent voting record, it's a really nasty personal attack. We have to get beyond this, have a civil debate on the future they say. A man repeatedly votes to cut intelligence spending and raise taxes over 20 years, but I'm to believe that man will now act differently because he says so?

So, are they lying? Whether they actually are or not, what they're saying is provably false about Bush being more deceptive than Kerry. The hard proof is everywhere to the opposite conclusion, massive and irrefutable. Now, can someone in the news business claim ignorance as a defense? I don't think so. We can hold the news media to higher standard because they claim as their craft that they have such powers of discernment. They know stuff.

I suspect these people spend most of their time in their liberal enclaves, cut off from the feedback that otherwise enlighten them. Why else would they so publicly expose their "ignorance" or worse?

Senator John Kerry says "we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The word nuisance has drawn considerable attention, but let's give Kerry a break here. In other remarks, many taken out of proper context, Kerry is making the point, however badly, that terrorism will never truly end, and he's right. Where he's wrong is in thinking we can go back to September 10 or earlier, depending on how you define nuisance.

This is so telling about Mr. Kerry. When he says "we have to get back ..." I fear that he's talking about his world, not our world. Terrorism is both a personal inconvenience as in travel, and a career spoiler. Dealing with terrorism is real work and long hours, not the pomp and circumstance he envisions.

Kerry's world is a gated community. There is to be no real debate, no nukes, no Wendy's chili, no criticism, no unnecessary contact with the rabble, and no personal concerns for money. His vision of the Presidency is one of meetings, summits, state dinners, ceremony, and luxurious world travel, all covered by a friendly, undemanding press. The only possible defect in all this is Teresa, as in "Harcourt! Harcourt Fenton Mudd, you've been ...!"

John Kerry would be President of KerryWorld, not President of the United States of America.

Twice during debate #2, President George W. Bush noted Senator Kerry's ranking by the National Journal as the Senate's #1 liberal, i.e., had the most liberal voting record. Twice, Kerry huffed and scolded us that "labels don't mean anything." Senator Edward Kennedy said the same recently. Even the affable Senator Paul Wellstone bristled at being called an ultra-liberal. It's a common refrain among, um, well, liberals. But they have no trouble labeling most Republicans as conservatives, about 85% being ultra-conservative. I guess there are only conservatives and "normal" people, "progressives" if you will.

Labels DO mean things. Ann Coulter put it well in her book Slander by noting the terms "dog" and "cat" are very useful even though they are so generic. The very fact that liberals decry the liberal label indicates they do have a meaning, a very useful meaning. In the courts, for example, liberal and conservative generally equate to activist and constructionist. In the legislature, liberals generally do not fear big government as most conservatives do. In the executive branch, liberals press for more regulations, conservatives less.

Why can most conservatives admit, even proudly proclaim their identity, while liberals fidget and deny theirs? I'm reminded of the Richfield mayor who was part of the "urban renewal" that took land from one private party, Walser, and gave it to another, Best Buy. In an interview she said "it was really a tough decision..." I recall saying out loud, "It's tough because you're doing something wrong! You should feel guilty!"

Liberals are human. They have a conscience. And they're smart. They know where all that money came from. They know light rail won't relieve congestion. They personally know many of the smokers whose character and intelligence they impugn. They know the Public School concept is slowly but surely crumbling by following their recommendations. But they can't bring themselves to admit any of this.

Accountability would appear to be generally a conservative trait.

If I've learned anything from the debates, it's that Senators Kerry and Edwards have a plan. For everything. The people airing all those infomercials will have to find honest work, because John Kerry has an equivalent plan and it's free. They said the details are on their web site, so I decided it's time to take a look.

Let's start with National Security, where according to www.johnkerry.com we read:

Today, we face three great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq. [Sounds like the Bush Plan to me!] To meet these challenges, John Kerry's national security policy will be guided by four imperatives:

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances

The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies. [What 'available resources' have we not already availed ourselves of? France and Germany have already refused whoever wins the election.]

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats

John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. [With a long history of opposing weapons and intelligence spending, including just recently the nuclear bunker-busters, this just isn't credible. Also, when Secretary Rumsfeld announced plans to draw down our "cold war" forces for the same reason, Kerry went ballistic.]

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal

The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging. [Which of these is President Bush not using today? Again, this sure sounds like the Bush Plan!]

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil

To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment. [How about tapping our American oil reserves, in Alaska and elsewhere? We have the technology to do this with minimal risk to the environment. How about resuming nuclear power generation, like Europe? And we've been down this "alternative fuels" road before, under Jimmy Carter.]

And that's it. No specifics. Not one. In fact, to a Ralph Nader supporter, this could pass for a Republican press release.

Let's continue with the Kerry-Edwards plan for Energy Independence:

Explore And Develop New Energy Sources

Tomorrow's energy economy will be fueled by new energy sources. The Kerry-Edwards plan will invest in the research and exploration needed to turn ideas into fuel and develop renewable energy sources.

Develop Tomorrow's Technology Today

Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, America will take the lead in developing the new technology and production methods needed to ensure that resources such as coal and natural gas are used more efficiently and cleanly, and fully integrated into the New Energy Economy.

Make America Energy Independent Of Middle East Oil
Our security in the war on terror demands an end to our dependence on Middle East oil. Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, we will strengthen our national security while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

Pure rhetoric, usable by any political party in America. No specifics of any kind.

One more? Here's Homeland Security:

Track And Stop Terrorists

Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm. [Which problems? How will you address them? At what cost? How soon? By whom?]

Protect our Borders And Shores

Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. [which is?] John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties. [Specifics?]

Harden Vulnerable Targets

Chemical industry lobbying has kept the Bush administration from strengthening security at chemical plants, where an attack could edanger 1 million Americans. [Common sense says that these owners would not oppose reasonable precautions, many of which they likely initiated themselves to protect these expensive assets. So what's left undone?] John Kerry and John Edwards will always put Americans' safety ahead of big business interests and take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack. [Again, it is assumed that business and personal safety are natural enemies, which they are not. Anyway, what strong measures?]

Improve Domestic Readiness

Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and hroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities. [This is not a Federal responsibility. More likely, this is more Federal aid to over-spending cities, like the Clinton Crime Bill.]

Guard Liberty.

We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security. [Name one candidate of any party that disagrees with this!]

I could go on, but trust me, the rest of the Kerry-Edwards "Plans for America" are just as vague. Other than raising taxes and nationalizing health care, almost any candidate could run on these platitudes.

Dennis Prager made this observation on his program last Wednesday.

The fact that John Kerry voted against the first Gulf war is enough not have him as President. You don't have to know anything else about the man. Nothing else matters in my opinion.

There we had an international coalition. There we had the UN backing. There was an invasion by Saddam Hussein of another country which he obliterated from the map and he still opposed it. Everything he claims today to be for he opposed. He's unworthy of the Presidency, but it doesn't matter.

If you hate George Bush, if the thought of having a born-again Christian who believes Jesus is his source of values, who believes that the New Testament is a better place to find values than the New York Times' editorial page, it doesn't matter. You will vote for anyone rather than him, and that is what it amounts to in large measure.

It reminded me of an interview of Senator Paul Wellstone from the same period. Wellstone solemnly presented two or three reasons why he was voting no, but (for once!) the reporter pressed the point, asking if these objections could be resolved, would he then favor the war? Wellstone was clearly caught off-guard, and quietly said well, no, there are other problems, too... Saddam Hussein could have invaded Israel, and Wellstone would have voted no. Nothing short of a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 justifies a war to the 60's leftists, which also includes Senator Kerry.

So Kerry is correct when he says he has always opposed the war in Iraq, He just quit saying that for a while to navigate the Primaries and win the nomination, telling each specific audience what they wanted to hear. We also know how Kerry deals with such situations, given Vietnam: cut and run. The latter won't be pretty so some significant scapegoating will also be ordered as a diversion and excuse.

Jo's Attic discussed the carping of the left regarding stem cell research. As Jo notes,

All of the advances that have been made with stem cells have been made with adult stem cells, not some...all. The investors into this research (either adults, or embryonic) saw that the great strides were coming from the work with adult stem cells. What does that mean? That means the funding for those working with embryonic cells started to dry up. So, they run to newspapers and celebrities to tell the average man how all of their research is going down the tubes because it's not being funded and babies will die and the sky is falling...blah....blah...blah.

Allow me to add the recent carping of candidates Kerry and Edwards regarding the No Child Left Behind, which they initially supported. I have seen this phenomenon over and over in life. You have nothing to address a need, and you get some grumbling. But once do buy or build something to fill that need, then the real carping begins.

Example 1: I was the first among my friends to buy a home computer, a Radio Shack TRS-80. I was repeatedly told how Apple or Imsai were better choices. They, of course, had not bought anything yet, but I had clearly bought the wrong machine in their eyes.

Example 2: At a former employer, we had no security system installed on our mainframe computer system. The auditor could write little more than the fact that we needed one, which we did. Well, we bought one. The next audit went several pages, with point after point how our security hierarchy was wrong, procedures lacked proper controls, management didn't read the reports, on and on. You would think we had impaired security by buying a security system.

So here too, where George W. Bush is the first to fund stem cell research of any kind, he now draws a mountain of nuanced criticism that is insignificant compared to having no program at all.
Where George W. Bush greatly expands Federal aid to education, with Senator Kennedy's direction and blessing, he now draws many more times the criticism than he would have received had he done nothing. And I wonder now if Bush would not have received far less criticism if he had merely applied sanctions and bombed from 10,000 feet in response to 9/11.

Certainly far less from the Democrats.

"There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one." --Machiavelli, 1513

During the Vice Presidential debate, Senator Edwards said they would give the middle class additional needed tax cuts. But we later heard that much of it was in tax credits, such as up to $4,000 for college tuition. This is a pet peeve of mine, the so-called "targeted tax cuts" offered by Democrats and even a few Republicans.

Work it out. Let's say you get a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit to send your child to a local college at $6,000 per year. Compare this to a subsidy program that pays $4,000 to such colleges for each such student. Let's look at the bank balances - yours, the college's, and the government's.

1. If you decide not to take advantage of the program, you get nothing, the college gets nothing, and the government still has the $4,000.
   
2. If you do send your child to the qualifying school, you might get to look at the $4,000 briefly, but you soon sign it over to the college. You're down $2,000 (the difference), the college has $6,000, and the government is down $4,000.
   
3. If it were a subsidy, the $4,000 would be paid to the college directly and you pay the other $2,000. Again, you're down $2,000, the college has $6,000, and the government is down $4,000.
   

Point one shows that this isn't truly tax relief, which is where you get your own money back. Points two and three show that "targeted tax cut" and "subsidy" produce the same ending bank balances and educational outcome. Therefore, this simply is a spending program. It just happens that the paperwork flows through your house, perhaps to make you feel good about the program.

So remember, tax "cuts" that depend on you spending money in a specified way are not tax cuts. These "targeted tax cuts" are as easily implemented for what they truly are: spending.

When I was in high school, if you asked people to name the top school districts in the Twin Cities, you always got Edina, and nearly as often, District 281, the "Robbinsdale" school district. This district is actually quite large, serving Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, plus portions of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Golden Valley and Plymouth. Total enrollment is about 13,500 students this year.

Robbinsdale is no longer an elite school system in Minnesota. In fact, it is now among the most problematic, compounded by escalating costs and declining enrollment. What happened?

There are all sorts of reasons offered, many valid to a degree, but missing the real point: forty years ago, the parents (our parents) were in charge. Education Minnesota is clearly in charge now. Just ask Cheri Pierson Yecke. Without the old restraints, the public schools, like all hierarchies tend to ultimately support themselves, not their causes, and that is what has happened here, especially the larger districts like 281.

What has happened to Robbinsdale and other large districts like Osseo will happen to the others eventually, for the same reason: lack of parental (customer) control. It happened first to the larger districts because they could afford more experts to accelerate the decline. One of the reasons for Wal-Mart's success was that its founder Sam Walton was ever wary of adding "experts" to the corporate staff. He wanted decisions made at the lower levels by those affected by them, not experts at headquarters with one-size-fits-all solutions.

The best thing Robbinsdale could do now is to break itself up into two or three smaller districts, to get closer to its customers. Close and sell the Administration building and release all of its employees.