Speed Gibson

I was returning from Iowa Sunday. I hadn't really planned on listening to "The Next Big Thing" as I doubtful that it would be a live program. But at 2:06, I could get KSTP-AM 1500 in Owatonna to find out it was one Bill Bunde (sic?). As is so appropriate for Memorial Day weekend, Bill paid tribute to a number of veterans.

He said at the outset that it was good to be on the radio again. And I had heard his first story before, about the trained bird that served with his relative in the military. That and a clearly experienced delivery force me to declare him a professional, and therefoer subject to pass/fail grading. He gets a P.

A special weekend like this really can't take the measure of a propective host. You're limited if you focus on our fallen veterans, as you should. Conversely, you sound impertinent if you discuss, oh, Hillary Clinton or the Special Session.

So, I think Joe O'Brien should consider giving Bill a second, unconstrained shot. But let's see who else is ready to take a chance first.

With the passing of my mother earlier this year, my siblings and I decided to attend my late father's class reunion in her stead. This is held in a church basement for a town no longer on most maps of southern Iowa.

What a treat it was to spend time with 50 or so members of what Tom Brokaw so rightly called America's Greatest Generation. It was as close to time travel as I've experienced. Their town casts a tiny shadow now, but with just a pinch of imagination, standing there in the twilight, I could visualize much of what my father told me of life there 65 years ago.

On Memorial Day, we honor those who served creating and preserving this country. But the intellect, instinct, commitment and courage required to produce men and women like this flow from places like this.

It's Sunday night, and I'm listening to the replay of NARN since I was out of town Saturday. And I heard the new opening. It's very professional, but has completely lost the edge as well.

Try again, but meanwhile go back to the old one.

Initiative and Referendum was one of the four conditions attached to Governor Pawlenty's proposed tax increase on cigarettes. The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorialized today that it's a bad idea. I agree. I even agree with their overall reasoning.

The question not asked was, why do a sizable number of Minnesotans want it? We're well aware of how I & R has become political sport/theatre in California. Presumably, the requirements would be raised to prevent such frivolous use. After all, we only want it for the big things.

Like school vouchers. Or the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). But even if passed, an activist Court might somehow strike them down. The Left meanwhile might impose a State-wide smoking ban or raise taxes.

It is amusing to note that the boogy-man examples the Strib described would all in fact be good for Minnesota. But alas, the Strib is still correct. It doesn't work well anywhere else and there is no reason to think it will work here. Slick political ads in support of foolish Initiatives can make fools of us all.

Our Legislature entered yet another Special Session. What would actually be Special would be a year without one.

Part of this is problem is our two house structure, especially when controlled by different parties. Many votes are not in earnest, knowing the other body will not agree. Deadlines are the other body's problem. Yes, I would like to see an uni-cameral legislature.

Come to think of it, I'd also like to avoid another drawn-out confirmation debacle like what happened to Ms. Yecki, setting a reasonable time limit.

And the Richfield - Best Buy swindle must mean that the "takings" clause needs more solid constitutional girding even though the existing language is pretty clear.

A while ago, I read through the Minnesota Constitution to see just what it required of us for public education. While our Federal Constitution still reads pretty well, our Minnesota version clearly needs some overall work.

So, around Memorial Day, I'm going to start building an "open source" constitution over the summer, drawing on the many other constitutions across America. I'll post a section at a time, inviting comments and suggested revisions. I doubt that I'd include Initiative and Referendum, for example, but I'm open to arguments for it.

It should be a good balance of relaxation and education.

State Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson beat our "Miss Congeniality" Governor, Tim Pawlenty. That much is sure.

But in the U.S. Senate, did Minority Leader Harry Reid defeat Majority Leader Bill Frist? As I read it, what happened wasn't according to Mr. Frist's script. Frist had his finger on the button, but our friend and his, Senator John McCain and friends appear to have cut their own deal behind Frist's back.

This prompted Hugh Hewitt and even Dennis Prager to ask the good people of Arizona to find someone else next time.

But the Left isn't dancing in the streets, either. Nan Aron is unhappy as Hugh Hewitt notes. Morning Sedition on Air America was a bit gloomy, in fact, with their slighty harsh words all aimed at the Democats. Many articles appear here and there wondering what's next like we do.

The Democrats could have averted this if need be by making the cloture votes pass. If Frist truly was set to "change" the Senate rules to explicity state what had been implicitly understood befoer, Reid had little choice but to punt.

Maybe that's as it should be, to have the big showdown occur on a Supreme Court appointment. The Republicans can use that time to hold court on John McCain and especially Lindsay Graham.

I have my reality show weaknesses, and Desperate Housewives. But The Contender hadn't been among them. I did watch the final match tonight, however.

I'm no expert, but it was enjoyable even if it wasn't great boxing. And the camera work was awkward. But I still enjoyed it because there was only one minute between rounds, like the fifties when the Gillette parrot would ask, "Hey mac, how are you fixed for blades?"

This week's entry on KSTP-AM's "The Next Big Thing" was all about Star Trek. Only it's not going to be. Except when it is, but that's not now. Fascinating.

The "Star Ship Seeker" set sail with its Captain Ed Beal (or Thiel? Enunciate please!) and First Mate Jason. He came armed with a few Mr. Spock quotes that sounded like they were recorded from across the room, and full phasors of course.

He weaved in and around a number of topics. As he also found out, a little show prep can go a long way. He found it difficult to stay with any one topic.

So while it wasn't unpleasant, it really didn't score any good points either. So this week's grade is a C.

But as always, we appreciate the effort. Live long and prosper!

When I hear a call for bi-partisanship at the Legislature:

1. Why is it always the DFL or their media friends asking?
   
2. Why do their offers require near total GOP capitulation?
   
3. Why do I get a dull ache near my wallet?
   

Lori Sturdevant writes the same basic column we see several times by many authors when the Legislative deadline looms. "Excessive partisanship" is the enemy of all the good these 201 people would otherwise get done, and on time.

"Why aren't they getting their work done?" asked her teenager.

"Because the way they set the state budget is so partisan."

"So? Everything is."

Mother Strudevant agrees, yet doesn't realize that her daughter might understand this better than she does. Of course it's partisan. That's our system. We don't have a parliamentary form of government where you deal to make coalitions among many parties. We have a two-party system where we go head-to-head. We need decisions, not agreement.

In business, we know that compromise is usually bad. No one is truly accountable for the result, and the staff is not always clear on what's to be done.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48 I believe. But whether 52 or 92, the decision was made, and Justice Thomas rules with the same authority. The Republicans took full responsibility for his selection and performance, just as the Democrats took full responsibility for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But in either case, suppose we had in the spirit of bi-partisanship picked a mushy moderate, oh, like Arlen Specter to serve. Trying to please both sides, he invokes "Scottish Law" and both sides complain, even the winner because the decision looks silly and establishes no meaningful precedent. (Can you imagine a court with nine Arlen Specter's on it?)

Getting back to the Strib, Sturdevant offers four suggestions for overcoming the partisanship:

• Committee membership should more accurately reflect the partisan composition of each chamber. The 68 GOP/66 DFL split in the House this year should have meant, for example, that the 38-member Ways and Means Committee had a 20/18 partisan split. Instead, it's 22/16.

How does this help? Narrowing the gap will produce even closer votes, fewer decisions, and even more partisan pressure on both sides. If anything, the split should be widened, assuming that your goal truly is to get the work done.

• No freshmen members, and few sophomores, should serve on the committees that craft the big budget bills. That's an old rule that lapsed for reasons that had nothing to do with governing well. It assured that the legislators who oversee the budget have a measure of political security in their districts, and a better-than-rookie sense of state stewardship.

This is a reasonable point, but again - how does this help? Replacing rookie partisans with veteran partisans doesn't change anything. It also unclear that tenure is a reliable indicator of the ability or willingness to get things done. I submit that rookies of either party are likely to be less partisan than Phyllis Kahn or Larry Pogemiller.

• Committee chairs should be under orders from caucus leaders not to bring to the floor big spending bills that lack minority support within their committees. That rule would have kept off the Senate floor a DFL-backed tax bill that last week could muster only a miserable 12 votes in the House.

Earth to Lori: the DFL caucus leaders wanted that bill on the floor. The committee would have been "re-populated" had it not passed it.

Besides, let's count all the votes, shall we? Suppose a committee's minority happens not to like a bill, but the full body can live with it. Committee chairs should be under orders to craft bills that truly address their stated purpose, explaining their reasoning to the full body if necessary. Let the caucus leaders count the noses. That's their job.

• House leaders should allow amendments to increase the size of spending bills during floor debates. Since the GOP took over in 1999, the House (but not the Senate) has adopted a Washington-style budgeting process that imposes spending ceilings for the big bills before they are assembled. Once the cap is set, amendments to enlarge those bills with general-fund money are ruled out of order, without debate.

I told you to grab your wallet! Look, in every big bill is plenty of inefficiency which can be trimmed to cover any minor increases necessary. Take MnSCU (our state colleges) for example. We could close five of its several dozen campuses with virtually no effect on educational opportunity for our students, but saving significant money and holding down tuition.

Finally, Lori Sturdevant goes after the Governor for being partisan! Incredible! In case you haven't noticed, an increasing segment of the GOP is increasingly unhappy with his many bi-partisan outreaches. He is certainly less partisan than a Governor Roger Moe would have been. But of course, you would have labeled him principled, not partisan.

I have a better proposal, Lori: a unicameral Legislature.

On May 15, Minneapolis Star Tribune featured a couple of articles on the Social Security trust fund. "Social Security: Looking for the trust in trust fund" by Staff Writer Eric Black was a rather droll recitation of the two major points of view on whether it represents a real asset or not. But only one point of view - that it is not an asset - has any basis in fact. To keep this phony debate going serves only those who refuse to act.

A reader's letter printed today offered a succint rebuttal with a new perspective:

"The bonds in [the trust fund] were bought with taxes on everyone's payroll income. The money has been spent by Congress in almost every session. To redeem those bonds (sounds so simple) the money has to be collected a second time by taxes - the second time mostly by income taxes."

There's some serious co-mingling going on here. Some of your FICA taxes are paying for general expenitures, and some of your income taxes will soon be paying for Social Security benefits. This is already happening for Medicare.

Social Security used to have a modicum of fairness about it. You paid your FICA taxes and you received a benefit in proportion to the amount you paid. Since the employer half was shielded from the Income Tax, it was certainly fair that 50% of benefits should be counted toward your taxable income.

But now, benefits are 85% taxable. The "full benefits" retirement age is being raised. And the ratio of taxes to benefits is significant off, which is why we're having to discuss this.

Let's face it: Social Security is welfare. So is Medicare. As such, maybe it's time to stop playing phony trust fund games and adopt a means-tested benefits approach.

Eric Black wrote a companion piece, "Decoding all the banter" that asks and answers the many questions about the trust fund. IMO, his answers are exactly right. Note this one:

[True or false:] The government's options would be no different if the trust fund didn't exist.

True. The options are: raise taxes, cut Social Security benefits, cut other government spending to produce a surplus in the non-Social Security accounts, borrow the money by selling more bonds to the public, or some combination of these. If there had been no Social Security surplus, no trust fund and Social Security's expenses began exceeding payroll tax collections, the government would have the same set of options.

Eric Black's many articles on Social Security have been, as a whole, excellent, even better than some "right-wing" media. Do his editors know he's actually printing the truth?

My personal thanks to King and Mitch for hosting the best Bloggger get together to date. And too bad if you missed it.

The food, beer, and service were great. And, we had room for everyone. Keegan's is a classic pub, but a bit too small for such events.

I heard someone say the next outstate gathering might be in Mankato. Around Labor day would be great.

As we all expected, Kendra won this season's The Apprentice, largely because she worked well with her team on the last task and Tana did the opposite. As such Kendra indeed deserved her win. It also didn't hurt that Kendra's final task was significantly easier than Tana's.

But let me also say this. If I were hiring one of them for a large company, there's no question that I would hire Tana. Why? Because she is a natural in sales, a far more rare commodity than a middle manager like Kendra will now be.

I have no doubt that many employers will be contacting Tana. Like Clay Aiken, Tana may prove more successful than the winner.

This just in: Governor Tim Pawlenty has proposed a 75 cent per pack hike in the cigarette tax. Already suffering from some legitimate criticism that he has indeed raised taxes by way of raising various fees, Mr. "no new taxes" Pawlenty blinked.

In fact, he made a weak statement that his proposal was a "health maintenance fee" but with some of it going to education, that's B as in B, S as in S.

I will be most interested in what David Strom has to say tomorrow.

Maybe you were there, too, at the April 15th rally in the Capitol rotunda. Even though I had already decided not to vote for another Pawlenty term for a number of other reasons, I feel betrayed. To lose to a dishonest lightweight like State Senator Dean Johnson is especially disheartening.

That's what The New York Times' David Brooks said of Mr. Prager, apparently reserving the 1% for Dennis's assertion that some of the rioting and killings in Afghanistan over a false report of defacing a copy of The Koran is indeed Newsweek's fault.

Dennis was among the first to question the infamous Newsweek article when published last week. And I must say that he also had the best commentary afterward, over that of Limbaugh, Ingraham, even Hewitt IMO.

In fact, this whole week has been top shelf. I will later transcribe a remarkable call he took on Wednesday from a liberal caller. The caller was polite, measured, not the least bit arrogant or abusive, but lost point after point to Dennis in rapid succession. Dennis made is seem easy, but I can't think of anyone who could have done it so well, with no chance to prepare.

I highly recommend joining Dennis's premium site, though you'll need broadband to download the high quality MP3's.

Tony at Always Right, Usually Correct has been a faithful reader of my commentary on KSTP's Sunday afternoon "The Next Big Thing" from 2-4pm. We agree that while the concept sounded fun, it seems to be coming up short. Despite a couple of recent "successes", Tony asked a good question: where is this going?

I was tempted to stop after week 10, but I was out walking Sunday afternoon, so I listened live. So now, maybe week 12 will be it. In fact, I think I'll write a note to ask Joe O'Brien where he thinks it's going.

Once again, we are presented with the question: is this week's host an amateur? John Caile is a professional firearms instructor and very involved with the passage of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (MPPA). He obviously has logged considerable time on the stump, no doubt some of it on the radio.

Mr. Caile was very good, very smooth, and only spent maybe half the time on the MPPA. Were he a true amateur, I'd give him a high grade, but the ruling from this chair is otherwise. He's a pro, and therefore gets Pass/Fail grading, earning a magna cum laude "P" for his efforts.

So one more show this weekend, and then maybe a recap post.

I've been so busy that I forgot to update the diet. Since I shifted hosting services, I haven't had time to put the diet tracking in the heading. But I see PinkMonkeyBird has lost 20 as well, so on we both go.

I actually lost pound #20 on May 11. I'm a bit behind my goal of losing 64 pounds in 2005, but I am at least significantly ahead of plan on my walking exercise.

I see it has been several days since my last post. Work and life took most of my time and energy. Oh, I sat at the computer a couple of times, but my forehead kept hitting the keyboard as I nodded off.

Well, I'm back and ready to roll to St. Cloud tomorrow night.

Yes, Rob and Amber didn't win The Amazing Race despite the advantages their celebrity brought them.

And yes, Tom won Survivor handily over Kate in Survivor.

The Left loves nuance. They have it, or more properly, they can see it and react accordingly. We clods on the right, don't.

I remember the one time I chanced to hear Mario Cuomo's Saturday talk show years ago. The former Governor spent an hour talking about the "shades of gray" (i.e., nuance) they saw and dealt with in policy, vs. the "black and white" world of the Conservatives.

But the Liberals have their blind spots, too. There is no nuance on abortion, of course. The rules must be the same right up to within seconds of the baby drawing its first breath.

With judicial nominations, the Left constantly quotes the overall percentage cofirmed, giving equal weight to all levels. The nuance of relative responsibility escapes them, or rather, they hope it escapes us. A prosectutor that won all his misdemeanor cases but lost half of his felony cases and all of his capital cases would soon be out of work despite his 98% conviction rate.

Also, the use of the Abe Fortis "fillibuster" in the sixties requires total suspension of "nuance" as well, since the circumstances were so much different.

Here in Minnesota, that some schools are doing substantially better than others with substantially less funding generates no nuanced insight or even curiousity. The only "solution" allowed on the table is money. More money. Our money. Reformers who look into other factors, like David Jennings and Cheri P. Yecki, are shown the door.

Everyone has some black and white issues, but everyone has any number of "gray" areas where the circumstances matter. In other words, everyone has "nuance" so in and of itself, nuance means absolutely nothing. It is your core beliefs and ability to reason that matter.

Did you notice this so-interesting sentence from my State Senator in the previous post?

As soon as the economy improves and we fix the budget gimmicks, this temporary increase will automatically disappear.

"As soon as the economy improves ..."

To whose standard? To what level? Tax receipts are up big already this year. Aren't we there yet?

Whatever the state of our economy, it will be worse as a result of the "temporary" tax on our "highest income" earners. The money they would have spent and invested in many productive ways will now produce nothing. That's harsh I know, but the record of the last three decades here and across the country is that injecting more money into the public schools produces no corresponding increase in the quality or quantity of education produced. If anything, there is a negative correlation.

"... this temporary tax will automatically disappear."

If it only affects 42,500 taxpayers, what's the hurry? But of course it does affect us all. That room addition gets put off, the new car can wait, and the bank now refuses to help expand that small business because the after-tax return on investment is now too small. Remember the "luxury tax" out east that was hurriedly repealed when many "non-rich" people that depended on the "rich" began losing their jobs?

But how can this "temporary" tax just disappear? What will replace this income? The public schools will not happily agree to even inflation-adjusted increases after this biennium; they never have before.

Obviously, the overall plan is to raise taxes overall. Governor Pawlenty won't bite on this, of course, even if the House would. So for now, use good old class envy to raise money with this tax, calling it temporary to convince the "rich" not to move. Use that money to ratchet up the spending. The "temporary" tax then expires (assuming the economy improves, remember?).

What then, in 2007? Public schools are now spending at record levels and demanding significantly more as usual. With the "budgeting gimmicks" removed, what choice is left but raise taxes on everyone? Like extending the sales tax to clothing as the Minneapolis Star Tribune keeps recommending?

Of course, even this narrow, temporary tax is unlikely to pass this year, leaving the DFL with what they think will be a good campaign issue in 2006 to retake the House and Governor's mansion. If they're correct, then spending explodes in 2007, right on schedule.

It's a great plan, politically. Too bad it does absolutely nothing for our children.

The DFL, once again convinced that our public schools are under-funded, are once again taking their "principled" stands to provide them with "full" and "stable" funding.

My city is served by two Representatives and one Senator, all DFL. All three somehow managed to be heard in our local suburban newspaper this week.

From State Representative Debra Hillstrom (46B):

"We need to stop the teacher layoffs, the rising class sizes, and the rising property taxes that are burdening our communities and weakening our schools," Hilstrom said in a press release. "Parents, students, teachers, and administrators throughout the state have told us that in order to prevent further cuts we need substantially more funds that are included in this bill. As someone who believes in excellence in education, I felt that I had no choice but to vote against this bill."

...

"This is not an honest way to fund our schools," Hilstrom said in a press release. "We need an education bill that invests adequate state money into our schools, not one that passes the buck to local school districts and uses gimmicks to disguise the cuts that it's making. Our students deserve strong schools and honest solutions."

From State Representative Lyndon Carlson (45B):

Minnesota students have been successful, due in large part, to the state's historical commitment to our schools. Our economy, our quality of life – every one of us has benefited from those investments. However, waning state support has put our students at risk of falling behind. We must act now to strengthen our schools and ensure success for all students.

House Democrats listened to Minnesotans concerned with the state of our state's public schools and developed a plan that will invest in our students. Most importantly, our plan is the only current proposal that will stop the cuts to teachers and classrooms.

We provide for strong schools by increasing per pupil funding by 5 percent in each of the next two years. The plan also includes an additional 5 percent for special education in the second year of the biennium, dedicate funding for gifted and talented programs, and funding for voluntary all-day kindergarten.

...

The most important investment we can make for the future of education in the state is the investment in our youngest Minnesotans. In doing so, we save taxpayers in the end by reducing the need for remedial education.

From State Senator Linda Scheid (45):

With a commitment to providing Minnesota’s children the best education possible, holding down property taxes, and focusing on a state budget that provides fiscal responsibility rather than gimmicks, shifts, or hidden fees, the Senate passed three education finance bills all on a bipartisan basis.

The K-12 Education Omnibus Budget Bill passed on a unanimous vote and will increase funding for Minnesota schools for the upcoming two years by $761 million.

This is the first state education funding increase schools have seen in four years. The bill puts the bulk of the money on the per-pupil funding formula and which will increase by 5 percent in 2006 and 4 percent in 2007.

The Higher Education Omnibus Budget Bill totals $41 million in increased revenue and would put an end to double-digit tuition increases seen in recent years.

As Minnesota seeks an educated workforce to compete with other states, the growth of tuition rates is clearly hurting Minnesota students as well as Minnesota businesses. The bill seeks to provide adequate funding to the systems and students, and it fully funds the enrollment growth of both the University of Minnesota system and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system.

The Early Childhood Omnibus Budget Bill focuses on early childhood education and school readiness, child care, and adult basic education, and it appropriates $35 million in increased revenue for those programs. In an effort to strengthen families and invest in Minnesota‚s children, the bill ensures more children will have access to quality early care and education programs and gives parents the resources they need to prepare their children for kindergarten.

To fund the increases in education revenue, the Senate has proposed a Tax Bill, which has yet to be approved by the full Senate. The bill calls for a temporary increase to raise $795 million in the next biennium and will affect only 42,500 of the highest income tax filers. As soon as the economy improves and we fix the budget gimmicks, this temporary increase will automatically disappear. We confront the budget problem directly rather than shift the cost to higher property taxes, higher tuition, new fees, and future budgets, and we adequately fund education, committing to long-term stability that our children deserve.

To sum up, here is what my Legislative delegation promises to do for our public schools:

1. Raise taxes


2. Spend more

Here are the promised benefits:

1. Stop teacher layoffs


2. Reduce class sizes


3. Limit property tax increases


4. Reduce the need for remedial education


5. Reduce growth in post-secondary tuition


6. Provide more non-K12 programs

See anything about lowering the drop-out rate? Raising test scores? Closing the minority achievement gaps? No, these would be definable, measurable goals.

But take heart. The DFL plan will strengthen our (public) schools by giving parents the resources they need to ensure success for all students.

King at SCSU Scholars writes:

I find this a curious notion; we're again finding a Republican administration and the House pushing to manage local school district budgets with a very blunt instrument. I'm hoping someone will explain to me why this is a good idea.

Add to this the idea of the postcard "taxpayer satisfaction" survey and other limits the Pawlenty administration is trying to impose on local units of government.

King is right, this is the proverbial blunt instrument, accusing all units of local government as likely equally wasteful. To be fair, Governor Pawlenty correctly observed that that local government aid (LGA) has reached ridiculous levels in outstate Minnesota. Fine, pull that back some.

But otherwise, leave me out, including the postcards that my heroes Strom and Krinke heartily endorse. Local elections are sufficient control. The Governor should focus instead on state mandates and other needlessly encumbering state regulations. No city willing to ignore "Smart Growth" and "Livable Communities Acts" should be penalized for such decisions. But today they are, and have to spend still more money complying with them. And then there is K-12 education...

Laissez Faire!

If you missed it, Hugh Hewitt had his "smart guys" on for most on Monday's second hour, discussing Janice Rogers Brown. RadioBlogger has a transcript.

I wrote Hugh last year after a similar "debate" asking that he replace Erwin Chemerinsky. He did not then and does not now hold up the high intellectual standard of The Hugh Hewitt Show. I will be writing again, begging or demanding a change.

Erwin C.'s positions are entirely predictable from his politics alone. If there is any basis in law or the Constitution, that's just a plus, but never a reason to differ with the hard left.

The point is, Erwin C isn't teaching us anything by repeating the mantras of Senators Schumer and Reid. I expect the law to be argued, and without the agonized twistings E.C. used against Judge Brown.

Let me put it another way. If I found myself facing a murder one frame-up, I would much rather see Janice R. Brown presiding, for whom the rule of law truly matters.

With Laura Ingraham briefly on the sidelines battling breat cancer, allow me to sound one of her "Elite Alert! Elite Alert! Warning! Warning!" alarms.

In Monday's Minneapolis Star Tribune, author Orson Scott Card berates Gene Roddenberry and the original Star Trek televsion series of the sixties.

The original "Star Trek," created by Gene Roddenberry, was, with a few exceptions, bad in every way that a science-fiction television show could be bad.

He later lists a number of superior Sci-Fi talents, the ones we should have read rather than watch Shatner, Nimoy and the late DeForest Kelly go where no man has gone before. He seems convinced that the world would have been better off without the NCC-1701, that Roddenberry contributed nothing.

We all stand on the shoulders of those who went before us. The iPod didn't just happen. It was built on the technology developed at hundreds of companies. Star Trek made science-fiction legitimate for the first time in literary history.

Those familiar with the long story of how Roddenberry finally got Star Trek on the air know better. Star Trek lifted science fiction from the back row at Shinders to common conversation. Everyone knew who Mr. Spock was. Roddenberry understood what Card apparently does not, that even sci-fi stories have to be about people, not ray blasters.

I remember as a teenager of that day that I turned up my nose at the first season of Star Trek because I found the vast majority of sci-fi stories dull and poorly written. I finally happened to see my first Star Trek episode at the start of season two, and I was hooked. So was my father. It was must-see TV from then on.

Card imagines himself the gatekeeper of what's good and bad in sci-fi. I think we can decide that for ourselves. Gene Roddenberry will be remembered for many years to come. Ask about Orson Scott Card, and the response will be "who?"

The next day after Minneapolis Star Tribune claims it is covering the Twins stadium proposal story "right down the middle" we are treated to yet another 95-5 weighted article.

Actually, it's a puff piece on Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, the "tenacious" negotiator that got everything together despite all odds. There are a couple of problems here.

1. This is premature. The deal isn't done yet. Not until the Legislature OK's it, the Hennepin County Board accepts it, and the Twins write the check for the first $40 million - cash.

2. This was on the front page of the A section. This is exactly the kind of story that should be in the B (Metro) section. It is of very little interest outside Hennepin County, let alone the Twin Cities area.

I for one think Mr. Opat is getting a bit too much credit here. If there's anything innovative here, it's the splendid timing designed to avoid the referendum process that would otherwise sink it. But otherwise the deal's a yawner, and the site is second-rate, right next to a garbage burner. Not much has to go wrong for it to join the list of boondoggles along with the Minnesota Zoo, Interstate 394, the Duluth Aquarium, Ethanol, and the Hiawatha Light Rail Line.

This week's contestant called himself "The Dude" which seemed a bit much for a debut performance. But actually, I heard a very good program that I scored as a solid B. Had he not rambled a bit at the front and back, he might have received the first A.

His choice of topics was good, including two of my favorites - education and ethanol. He spent much of hour two on ethanol and its variations with an engineer/writer I believe the NARN interviewed the day before. If so, The Dude did a better job, drawing out all kinds of facts and persectives. More than once, I backed up the .mp3 recording I had made (Replay Radio) and took notes. He even artfully handled an ethanol bigot caller who insisted that ethanol was a net energy source.

As he freely admitted, he did too much show prep - a little on everything, rather than focus on a few. I think he now knows how fast the clock runs.

I think we have another contender for the second round or whatever Joe O'Brien has planned.

The DFL may find that their advocate on KSTP's At Issue with Tom Hauser was a little too forthcoming. As I posted a while ago, Ember Reichgott Junge strikes me as much too happy about raising taxes.

It used to be that the "wealthy" were only to give up a portion of the tax "windfalls" they received a few years ago. Today, in defending the "profoundly stupid" Senate DFL proposal, she said it was only on those who received all those State and Federal breaks.

She in effect admits that in raising the top marginal rate by several percentage points, the "wealthy" will be net losers over the last ten years for their Minnesota taxes. But that's OK, because they received all those other breaks from President Bush's tax cuts, which they obviously didn't deserve either. If the Congress won't right that wrong, the DFL will.

She also said it was just a temporary tax increase, another strain on her credibility. I can recall only one such measure that actual did go away, a one year income tax surcharge. Even if it does sunset in two years as proposed, the DFL will be back the next time they think the cupboard is bare. And they will feel no more remorse than they do today.

I watch Desperate Housewives. I'm a man and I like it. So shut up out there! (Lynette is my favorite character.)

But two things are certain in prime time. One, if it rains anywhere within 250 miles, a beeping crawl, larger every season appears. Two, that crawl immediately disappears when they go to commercial.

So I had to watch much of D.H. in split screen, with about equal space given to ABC and the Jackson County radar.

And what showed up? Exactly what I thought would happen, looking at the sky at 5pm. A modest thunderstorm.

Once again, they cried wolf. Once again, I fear the casualties when the next truly dangerous storm comes and the weatherweenies have no words left to distinguish it from their past exagerations.

As Fraters noticed also, Reader Representative (Ombudsman was sexist I suppose) Kate Parry verified the obvious bias of the Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding the proposed Twins Stadium. She counted the column inches pro and con, and where they appeared. Here's the management response to the lopsided statistics she compiled:

Editor Anders Gyllenhaal disagrees that opponents were underrepresented in initial coverage. "Opponents are quoted in every single story that's been done," he said, calling the coverage "decidedly balanced," with multiple opponents quoted in each package. "My goal is to provide coverage that's straight down the middle," he said.

"Straight down the middle" as Dan Rather perceived the New York Times? Mr. Gyllenhaal, by calling the coverage decidedly balanced in the face of the hard evidence to the contrary has once again in effect confessed to the very bias he claims not to exist.

Ms. Parry prompts a question that has long puzzled me as a longtime Star Tribune subscriber. Why are some articles of general statewide interest in the Metro section? And why are some minor issues of local interest only in the "A" section? Maybe it's a matter of press deadlines, but I'm going to write to Kate Parry to see if there is some method to this apparently random pattern.

I have no profound wisdom to offer, other than recommend a couple of great movies about motherhood.

• I Remember Mama


• Mrs. Miniver

On one issue - spending - Governor Pawlenty has no equal. True, he has employeed many of the time-honored tricks of budget balancing like raising fees and delaying payments. But he didn't use the time-honored band-aid of raising taxes. He got it done and the sky didn't fall.

But just about everywhere else, Pawlenty's positions and actions defy logic itself, not just the Republican platform.

1. Canadian prescription drug imports


2. Not standing up for C. P. Yecki


3. Extorting the Indian Casinos


4. Supporting 20% ethanol


5. Supporting the minimum wage increase


6. Supporting the Minnesota Twins bail-out without a referendum

Sure, the Governor has done great service holding down spending. But at some point the DFL will win again, and all that work will be lost in an explosion of spending. The other damage is permanent, however.

I therefore will not vote for Tim Pawlenty next time.

I always wonder where articles like Preserve Senate rules, fillibusters and all in the May 5 Minneapolis Star Tribune come from. Did their Editors call them up with this "idea" or did one, presumably former Vice President Walter Mondale, just pick up the phone and call the other, presumably former U.S. Senator from Minnesota David Durenburger? Either way, why did they call on "Republican" Durenburger? Why not Senator Norm Coleman?

For that matter, why did they call on Mondale? Watch his acceptance speech when he ran for President in 1984. On issue after issue - detente, the economy, the environment, tax cuts and more - the succeeding twenty years proved his positions and warnings to be wrong, wrong, and really wrong.

So here we have two political has-beens that will remain so if they can't reason any better than this:

Now, this administration believes it should have a right that no president has ever had in our history, to demand that his judges be confirmed by a strict party-line whip system.

No, we are demanding an up or down vote, not blind confirmation. And every President has had this "right" per the Constitution. It is the Democrats that have engaged in the procedural tricks that are trying to subvert this Constitutional process. Continuing:

The recent attacks on federal judges, many of whom already are conservative Republicans nominated and confirmed during 16 years of Republican presidents and 14 years of Republican Senate majorities, propose a new type of judge, compliant with religious and political tests that would radically undermine America's ideal of an independent judiciary.

I'm not following the sentence structure here, but the attacks are coming from Democrats not Republicans. The concept of an "independent" judiciary is of no account; it's how they rule that counts. What religious tests? Name them! Opposing the legal basis (a right to privacy not found in the Constitution) of Roe v. Wade, something even the New York Times is now reconsidering, is not a religious test. You want a religious test? How about Democratic Senator Charles Schumer's clear admonition that no Catholics need apply?

It's kind of sad, for I think many of us left and right thought much more of these two former Senators years ago. Now they contribute nothing except disinformation.

That's what the Minneapolis Star Tribune called pharmacists that refuse to fill certain prescriptions on "moral" grounds. They say it must be "nipped in the bud" and I agree. It's bad medical practice to allow pharmacists to override doctors, both because of the educational differences and limited patient information available to the pharmacist. It's bad business, too. If I owned a pharmacy, termination would be swift and certain after one warning.

But the Star Tribune obsessed on the fact that it's illegal, citing Chapter 161.05 of the Minnesota statutes, which in turn empowers the Pharmacy Board including its 6800.2250 rules of professional conduct, which refer to Minnesota sections 145.414 and ... Holy Dingle-Norwood Batman!

Gee, the MST had no problem with Police Chiefs that violated the old gun permit laws. Instead of applying discretion as the law provided, many simply said no to virtually all applications. This is what led to the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, the "maverick" sherrifs that refused to comply with the old law.

But if anything, only those in greater Minnesota that approved nearly all applications (and without consequence) drew criticism for not taking advantage of the loosely written law like many of their metro area peers did.

Well, thanks to a judge, that old law is now in effect again. Before you throw the book at the pharmacists MST, how about checking on whether the gun permits are also being processed according to law?

The word leadership has been used many times by propopents of this latest Twins stadium proposal. They praise Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat et al for providing the leadership necessary to overcome those of us opposed to such public financing.

Some aspects of leadership certainly apply to the operation of a successful County Board. But the primary purpose and therefore duty of any of its Commissioners is to represent their constituents. You are elected to speak for us, not to us.

Minnesotans have made it abundantly clear that they oppose public financing of professional sports facilities. The Minnesota Poll today is the latest evidence, where they couldn't even find any major demographic group that favors it. Those familiar with the Minnesota Poll know that if there where anything even close to majority support out there, they would have found it.

To therefore vote for this widely unpopular proposal is, prima facie, a refusal to execute their primary duty, that of representing us.

But getting back to leadership, what's going on here is not leadership. Real political leaders change minds and build the necessary consensus. They don't fear or reject public input. Mr. Opat and friends are skipping these steps as they serve up the largest piece of corporate welfare in the County's history.

Guess who stopped by the radio booth around the third inning of today's Twins game? Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat. Guess what they talked about? The stadium proposal. Guess how it went? Swimmingly.

I wonder what would have happened if Commissioner Linda Koblick, who at a minimum wants a referendum, had stopped by in the fourth inning?

Where's the equal time?

There I was, fighting my way through the May Day blizzard, listening to AM 1500's Next Big Thing as I logged another 5 miles walking.

Today we had "Carl's Corner" - the Karaoke equivalent of Phil Hendrie. Know what I mean, know what I mean? Say no more, say no more? Well, let's just say that playing both the aged Carl and his nephew The Dutchman was obvious from the start. Without redeeming content, it was also annoying from the start.

OK, give him some points for trying something completely different. Give him a few more for even attempting this. But the ensuing content was pointless and clueless. It was so bad that even I didn't find the bathroom humor funny.

"Carl" needed to think more about his audience. Making fun of a pet therapist doesn't work because the concept of a "pet therapist" is already funny to the typical talk radio listener. We've already heard Joe Soucheray and Michael Medved interview the real thing. It's difficult to find another level of absurdity beyond that, and failure is painful.

That's why Laura Ingraham and others simply play Senator Robert Byrd's soliloquies without comment. None is necessary. It's funniest when presented as somber reflection, as Byrd imagines it to be.

I don't think I have much choice here. Even with the best of intentions, when Ron Rosenbaum becomes a preferable alternative, the grade has to be an F. But thanks just the same for trying!