Speed Gibson

Normally, you would expect the Minneapolis Star Tribune to be torn having to pick one of two "moderate" DFL candidates with that "centrist vision" that no Republican ever has. But in the race for Mayor of St. Paul, the endorsement was easily given to challenger Chris Coleman, for the incumbent had committed an unpardonable sin. Randy Kelly had endorsed George W. Bush for President last year.

Personally, I agree that this was politically foolish and overstepped his authority as Mayor, as I wrote then. But what is the basis of the Star Tribune's objection?

"... it made no sense for an urban mayor to support a federal administration that did so little for cities."

Then there was this knee-slapper:

In the interest of full disclosure, Coleman is the brother of Nick Coleman, a Star Tribune metro columnist. As our editorial page nameplate indicates, the editorial department and newsroom are separate operations and do not influence each other's decisions. [Emphasis mine. -SG]

This editorial acknowledges but slights what Kelly has done. Then it gives Coleman full credit to what the more "sensitive" Chris Coleman will do with his consensus-building skills alone. Reality? No problem, just as when they endorsed John Kerry.

Election day is coming up again, but not much is on the ballot. We have Mayoral races for those who live in Minneapolls or St. Paul. The latter seems a lock for the challenger. The Minneapolis race is much closer, but does it matter?

As the NARN pointed out today, Minneapolis is a machine town. The only threat to the DFL monopoly is the Green Party that insists that the Democrats aren't liberal enough. There isn't a Republican in sight, hence there are few differences in any of Minneapolis's races. Peter McLaughlin is likely more capable than incumbent R. T. Rybak, but won't make many changes.

Regardless, given Minneapolis's complex, out-dated form of government, one ideally suited to machine politicians I might add, most real reforms never happen.

Still, it's important to vote, maybe write in David Strom.

Just over a year ago, I posted that Hugh Hewitt was right after all. John Kerry's selection of John Edwards had proven to be a complete bust, generating neither movement in the polls or cash in the campaign chest. Hugh Hewitt was nearly alone in predicting this from the beginning. "The first big decision of his campaign and he fumbles it," said Hugh at the time.

But this time, regarding Miers, he's got it wrong. Margaret at Our House has it about right, IMO. Our beloved Commissioner is having trouble seeing the Conservative forest for the Evangelical trees. And I'm still waiting to hear him admit that here, it was President Bush who fumbled in the red zone.

In the New York Times, Hugh claims that:

But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

How does a nominee without a coherent philosophy of the bench force anyone to articulate a coherent standard? And if anything, life will get much tougher if they have to fend off a McConnell or Brown appointment. A re-energized GOP base could, in fact, carry the day and/or expose the Democrats and their RINO friends for what they are.

But maybe Doug at Bogus Gold will help Hugh get his mojo back. Harriet Miers was indeed the last straw, given Bush's big government spending, signing of McCain-Feingold, and (until recently perhaps) unwillingness to take on illegal immigration. Doug's got the right metaphor - we gotta get the band back together.

I'm staying up late watching the World Series, 14th inning of Game 3. Looks like the Chicago will eke out another, leading 7-5, three outs away.

I didn't watch episode 5 of "Commander in Chief" earlier, but I will confess that I listened to it on my Walkman during a playoff football game. It's still perfectly awful, with President Allen firing her Attorney General for torturing a captured terrorist to avert a 9/11 style mutli-target plot. It's a wonderful Never Never Land for liberals, this show.

A guest on Hugh Hewitt put his finger on the true nature of the Miers debate. It is not pro and con, it is anti- and anti-anti-, the latter attacking the anti-'s rather than try to explain Bush's thinking and Miers qualifications.

Hugh Hewitt, God love him, is continuing his anti-anti- arguments. He has virtually nothing to say on why Bush picked her. After naming many Supreme Court caliber judges for the Court of Appeals, why does he now pick a District Court caliber non-judge for the Supreme Court? He argues profusely on Miers' resume, but basically demands that we prove the negative as to why that's not enough.

This in turn leads to a non-sequitur that failure to support the Miers nomination would be disastrous for the GOP. But what if her hearings prove disastrous, as several pundits fear? No, President George W. Bush got us in this mess, and he (or Miers) will have to get us out.

The Miers nomination isn't quite the Monty Python dead parrot yet, but there's almost no enthusiasm in sight.

You know you're getting old when the figures you grew up with pass on one by one. Saturday, we lost the one and only "Crusher" of the American Wrestling Association.

Born Reggie Lisowski, he was initially a feared "heel" who usually finished off his opponents with the dreaded stomach claw submission hold. As he explained, his fingers would swell up, making it difficult to release the hold until the referee called 3 or 4 on the way to a 5 count disqualification.

Then, he became a good guy. We were suspicious at first, but he soon endeared himself to fans throughout the AWA circuit. I remember being at a match between Vern Gagne and Nick Bockwinkle where Bobby "The Brain" Heenan was introduced as Nick's second, to be seated in his corner. Vern fussed and fumed, then stormed off. We sat bewildered - this was the feature match. I had looked away, then heard a deafening roar. Vern had returned with The Crusher in tow, who was then borrowing from Flip Wilson's "Here Come Da' Judge" bit from Rowan and Martin's Laugh In. Crusher took his place in Vern's corner and the match began. Who won? Who cared? We were watching and laughing as every time Bobby rose up, so did the Crusher, swinging his judge's mallet. Heenan sat down.

What a shame professional wrestling has devolved into a league of boring, chemically-enhanced wife-beaters, never again to present such a magnificent showman.

Following up on the news that Minnesota has "drained the gender bias" out of its payscales so that women make almost the same as men. While the average private sector woman gets 76% of what the average private sector man makes, in our public sector, it's 97%.

How is this achieved? By gender-norming various positions, eliminating actual performance as a significant factor, or both. Did this reduce the pay in the male-dominated professions? Of course not. The private sector would pay better and draw away most applicants.

No, it was by artificially raising the pay of the female-dominated professions. If we assume for lack of data that the public sector is 50-50 male and female, that translates to a nearly 12 percent increase in total payroll. At the state level this is billions of dollars per year. This is more than enough to repeal the "health impact" tax on tobacco, build a new stadium and build a new light rail line - every two years.

"It would just seem fair," said a proponent. Is it fair that our taxes are hundreds of dollars a year higher to achieve this "fairness"?

Here's a gem from the Minneapolis Star Tribune on "Comparable Worth" in action.

There's a place where the wage gap between working men and women has all but disappeared.

While across this country, women still make on average 76 cents to a man's dollar, the ratio in this place of employment is 97 cents to the dollar. That employer is Minnesota state government, and its gap-closing strategy is a controversial concept called "comparable worth."

This was in the Business Section, so the writer H. J. Cummings can presume we know the fundamentals of this issue here. We've all heard that the national average female income is about 76% of the national average male income. But what does that really mean?

Borrowing from Craig Westover who wrote about Simpson's Paradox, every job in America can pay exactly the same to both genders and yet the national average could be skewed. Why? Because one gender may prefer a collectively lower paid set of jobs. That is exactly the case, in fact, for you will be hard-pressed to find an employer who posts different salaries by gender.

Comparable worth is based on the conviction that "equal pay for equal work" can mean everyone in the same job getting the same pay. It also holds that there's a way to figure the value of different jobs, pay accordingly and in the process drain the gender biases that have so long paid school janitors more than school cooks and police officers more than social workers, for example.

There's a little bias creeping in here, but Cummings still turned in a fairly balanced article, particularly by Star Tribune standards. It is not gender bias that pays police officers more than social workers. Social workers seldom face violent people wielding guns and knives. Social workers seldom work third shift. If the jobs pay the same, which would you take if offered both?

Note also the enormous non-sequitur, jumping from "equal pay for equal work" (as in results - output) to "same job getting the same pay" (as in effort - input). Within most professions, there are significant differences in productivity. The range for computer programmers has been estimated by IBM to be 25 to 1. The range for sales positions is many-fold as well; 20% of your sales force typically write 80% of your orders. And we all know the range in public school teachers abilities to teach and inspire students. Companies don't pay for mere effort. They pay for results, even if the result of seemingly little effort. NFL quarterbacks vary widely in ability, and their pay generally reflects that difference.

Minnesota adopted comparable worth -- and soon extended it to its cities, counties and school districts -- after women elsewhere won a few sex-discrimination cases based on it, said Bonnie Watkins, the state's first pay equity coordinator and now executive director of the Minnesota Women's Consortium.

This is how advocates sold it to legislators: Applying the job evaluation system that the state already used for ranking the value and pay of all its jobs, they then grouped jobs into one category of mostly men and another of mostly women. Then they compared mostly-men jobs with mostly-women jobs of equal rankings and found that the women jobs uniformly earned less.

So what? So far, there is all voluntary. Jobs are offered, applicants apply. If and when both parties agree, employment happens. Who is being harmed here if the janitor makes more than the cook?

In this example, the cook was happy with the job - until "she" found out that the "man" mopping the lunchroom floor makes more money. But it could also be that a male cook is equally bothered that a female janitor makes more money. After all, gender isn't supposed to matter. It would appear that "comparable" worth is really about something else.

That job evaluation system is called the Hay Guide, and it's popular in private industry as well, said George Gmach, surveys manager at the Employers Association, a business services group in Plymouth. The guide makes some consistency possible in salaries for jobs that are different but roughly equal in value to the company, Gmach said. The guide, and variations on it, give points to each job based on criteria such as skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. It's particularly helpful at big companies with many employees and many different jobs, he said.

How is this helpful, to publish a guide on what should be equal? The market already does this, evaluating skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, plus dozens more factors like location, hours, travel, dress code, parking costs, bus service, vacation policy, company size, day care, personal safety, fitness center, employee discounts, union dues, and how it fits into your career plan.

"There's a lot of interest in extending this to private companies that contract with the government," she said. "We require them to have affirmative action programs, after all. It would just seem fair."

This is an unfortunate way to end this piece, with two unsupportable conjectures, but it is indicative of the delusion advocates of "comparable" worth share. They always forget that it takes a gun to make it work, pointed at employer and employee alike to make sure they don't "give in" to market forces, the more fair of all.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is moaning again about the need for "leadership" to get these stadium deals done. That the paper would also benefit from this is not noted - again. Also not noted is that the Twins deal really doesn't require Legislative action, just passage of tax increase referendum required by existing State law.

But the Vikings embarrassments near Lakes Minnetonka and Lake Michigan have its owner dropping out this round. The Twins are suing to remind us that they no longer have a contractual obligation to play in the Metrodome next season. The Gophers took themselves out with a completely avoidable loss to Wisconsin. So it's back to the drawing board.

It's time to tap a new revenue source - the players. Like their owners, the players are also in effect getting public money from these deals. For baseball, I'd say 10% of their gross income, including deferments and benefits. For pro-football, maybe a little higher. Even the Gopher players should pay something toward their eventual pro careers if successful, but that's best handled by the NCAA.

The politics is right for this move. Even the Twins whose bats went to sleep in late June aren't the most popular right now. Let those who benefit the most pay most of the tax.

I really had high hopes for this show, that it would be something beyond the obvious. I hoped for something comparable to the movie "Dave" which while liberal as usual, didn't let ideology get in the way with the the plot. There were even some moments of balance.

But that is not what "Commander in Chief" is going to be it seems, not unless they replace their writers like they did their director. Once again, the word "Democrat" goes unspoken. Never is heard a discouraging word regarding whoever it is that opposes these petty, racist, overly-partisan Republicans, who keep misunderestimating newly-ascending "independent" President Allen.

Today's liberal concern is for western journalists jailed in Russia. President Allen, who seems to know more about President John Tyler than President Jimmy Carter, pokes a diplomatic finger in the eye of the visting Russian President by going off the script in a press conference with him. But by the end, the two Presidents are dancing and dealing at Allen's first State Dinner.

This show just doesn't measure up, mostly because it doesn't want to. The dialog is simple and predictable, just like the storyline. The actors are annoyingly young, all a good ten years too young at least, including the President. There's no inter-personal chemistry in sight. Even the sets seem small and unimpressive. They apparently don't want to chase away their liberal audience with the need to think.

Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton was right all along: Mackenzie Allen should have resigned to begin with. I am resigning from the audience now.

In what Minneapolis Star Tribune writer Steve Alexander dubs A Clash of Titans, Sony is once again at odds with competitors, this time over high capacity DVD formats. Current DVD technology uses red lasers, but blue lasers (smaller bandwidth, higher energy) are now ready to boost DVD capacity to at least 30 GB, maybe as much as 100 GB. Current capacities are not enough for HD video movies and their multi-track high quality soundtracks.

Sony has lost two such battles before: Betamax and the current DVD standard. From what I can read, I think Sony may finally win this one, finally understanding its the market that ultimately counts.

Betamax was better technology, producing a slightly better image that VHS. But Sony kept it artificially expensive (like Apple and the Mac), and the market widely prefers moderately priced "pretty good" quality to high-priced perfection. MP3 is the ultimate illustration of this. Yes, true CD-quality is the best, but even 64 kbps MP3 is suprisingly and acceptably close to that CD quality. Hence, Napstar and MP3 disks take immediately hold.

Another more technical example is Ethernet. Fifteen years ago, IBM was obsessed with perfect "Token Ring" network cable, four wire, low resistance, low capacitance, double shielded cable with large dual-mode, gold-plated connectors. Ethernet was cheap, but topped out at 4 mbps, while their "token ring" cable and protocol could easily go 80 mbps. (Remember this is 1990.) But Ethernet was cheap, and cheap routers soon overcame the capacity issue. Token ring, both cable and protocol, is but a memory now.

Toshiba seems to be playing the fool in this duel. No, we will control the video. We will control the audio. If you insist on no copying, no ripping, no PC jukebox/home networking, etc., you do so at your peril. Remember that any video or audio image ultimately has to become analog in nature for our senses, at which point it can be recorded in any format. It won't be perfect quality, but it will do if the price is right.

A number in the Blogosphere have decided to now wait until the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. There's not much more to be said that will change anyone's mind, they say, ironically taking the "shut up and trust me" advice for now. Given that a sudden withdrawal by Miers seems remote, I think that's probably best.

If Miers is going to be rejected, as I think she should, her preformance before the Committee will be the crucible that matters. This problem was created by President Bush. Still, Miers should have known better than to accept. She should answer why she did, placing herself ahead of so many other well-qualified (dare I say better qualified) candidates.

So, I will wait, too, watching and readiing. FYI, while this topic is outside their raison d'être, I think Anti-Strib has done some excellent work on this issue.

The Top Diner in North Minneapolis's Camden neighborhood has closed, another victim of the Smoking Ban. There is no argument on this one.

After moving to a larger, remodeled space last year, they did a nice business as we reguarly patrons observed. With its high ceilings and open arrangement, it handled its smoking trade particularly well, much better than in their old location.

Then came the Smoking Ban. Business immediately dropped by a third per its owners and stayed there until its demise. Before we often had to wait for a table. After, we never waited.

The Top Diner specialized in Costa Rican food, mostly peasant fare. As the Star Tribune recently wrote, it was a bargain, too. I almost always ordered their Pinto Gallo: two eggs, rice, beans, and tortillas. I dare say that's a lot healthier than the omelette, hashbrowns, and sausage plates at Perkins, Denny's, and IHOP.

But no, our lifestyle consultants at Hennepin County couldn't see that larger picture. Remove the insignifcant threat of second-hard smoke, even if it also means removing a demonstrably healthier choice amidst the usual breakfast fare. They probably didn't like the wallpaper, either. It had to go. It did not fit the Hennepin County Experience.

So that makes two of our favorite local "hole in the whole" places to go under. Winter will no doubt finish off a few more.

Hugh Hewitt continues his week-long assault on us knuckleheads with a series of interviews designed to convince us that Harriet Miers is a good person and would be a good Supreme Court Justice. This is a clever tactic, answering only the questions we're not really asking.

Like a Joe Biden, Hugh seems unwilling and unable to address what we are asking:

1. On what basis did Harriet Miers stand out against a field including Brown, Luttig, McConnell, and Jones, to name just a few?


2. What verifyable, competent evidence is there of her philosophy of the bench?

A couple of the guests, notable Mark Levin and John Fund, have raised such questions and Hugh's responses ... well, read them over at RadioBlogger.

I wrote last time that the show was worth one more episode. What I think I meant was one more decent episode, not what aired last night. It was a poorly edited mish-mash of flashbacks, First Kids at school surrounded by the press (and yes, the predictable response by "Mac" the Mom), and another little bit of foreign adventure. Said adventure - a U. S. led coup - comes off perfectly of course.

The political correctness went to Orange, with the word "Democrat" still unspoken in even an obvious situation. Unlike the first two episodes, no jabs were taken at the Left, only the Right. And the kids are reminded how important it it that they go to the public schools, not the private schools all the Congress's kids attend.

We're still wondering where the aloof Chief of Staff's mind is half the time. And then there's the ditsy Press Secretary, a diamond in the rough perhaps, but still ditsy for now. The First Husband, the former First Lady still living in the White House, and a grumpy daughter, well, we've yet to find them out.

At this point, I'm rooting for Nathan Templeton, the evil Republican Speaker of the House. The poor writing can't keep Donald Sutherland's acting skills from stealing a scene or two, even if he does wind up like Wile E. Coyote at the end.

Just one more episode should do it, unless it gets good or so bad it's funny.

You Pawlenty supporters out there may be spared after all. Despite the Governor's many invitations, Representative Erik Paulson (House Majority Leader) and Senator Dick Day (Senate Minority Leader) are both saying no to Pawlenty's latest proposal for a Special Session.

Steve Sviggum, Speaker of the House, would appear to be the one hope of the stadium supporters. In an interview on Taxpayer's League Live, Sviggum obviously was not concerned about public opinion or opposition. But to overrule his Majority Leader could cost him the Speakership. (Hmmm, maybe we should have a Special Session...)

I couldn't believe what I was hearing as I tuned into Hugh Hewitt in the car on the way home.

Listen! Listen, please! You are hurting the Republican Party’s chance of holding the Senate in 2005. You are hurting the Republican Party’s chance of hanging on to the Supreme Court’s gradual shift to the right. You are being completely disingenuous in your arguments and you dress poorly if you do not like Harriet Mier’s nomination.

And then this:

If you’re anti-Miers, you’re anti-the President. If you’re anti-the President, you’re anti-the GOP. If you’re anti-the GOP, you’re pro-Hillary. If you’re pro-Hillary, you might as well just appoint nine Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. That’s where you’re headed. Does that make it simple enough for you? Hmmm? Do you want to give the Senate back?

“Oh, no, we need a big fight! We need to send up Luttig or McConnell!” I wanted Luttig or McConnell. I still want Luttig or McConnell. But let me tell you something. Maybe they they know something you don’t know. Maybe we haven’t got the votes to get McConnell or Luttig through. Huh? Possible? Just maybe? You might not know something the President and Karl Rove and Andy Card knows? Oh, you knuckleheads! That’s what you are, you’re knuckleheads.

“Oh, I’m not going to put up with this! I’m going to walk away! Oh, this is terrible! This is horrible!” [It’s bringing out people] who haven’t even spelled Constitutional Law. You know what it’s really bringing out, it’s already bringing out the people who say the President betrayed us long ago by spending 4.2% of GDP on the deficit. Reagan, of course, did 6%, FDR about 40% during the war.

And it’s bringing out the people who want machine guns at the border. “Oh, he betrayed us! He doesn’t have machine guns at the borders, mowing those people down as they try and come across.” Nonsense. Knuckleheads, all of you, when it comes to politics. You’ll give back everything we’ve won, just to gnaw off your arm when it isn’t even in a trap.

Oh, yeah, you’ve got your voices on the radio. I know. I know who they are. I know who they are. You know who they are, too. Would you leave your children with them overnight? Would you? Ask yourself: would you leave your children with those people overnight? No! Why would you give the Supreme Court, their opinions on that, the time of day?

In other words, there will be no debate, no questioning of judgment, no differing assessments of Senate politics, no concern about Democratic support for Miers, and loyalty to the President and Constitution are the same thing here. Oh, and it's unpatriotic, too, to even ask "why not the best" for the Supreme Court. So shut up. Just shut the hell up before you help destroy the Reagan Revolution. Spoken and articulated like a Democrat. [Dean scream]

After this rant, John Fund came on for the rest of the hour, the opening segment transcribed at RadioBlogger. Hugh Hewitt ducked and dodged every point John Fund made, who uncharacteristically raised his voice at one point in apparent frustration. Laura Ingraham would have given Hugh a whole brood of "Ducks of the Day."

Hugh, please, take that well-earned vacation with the fetching Mrs. Hewitt. Come back refreshed and return once again as the Voice of Reason, not just another shock jock.

Dennis Prager noted the other day that liberals have all but quit calling themselves liberals. Now, they're progressives. It would appear they don't even like calling themselves Democrats as "Commander in Chief" demonstates. The bad guys are Republicans, the heroine an "independent" drawn from academia.

Prager went on to suggest that maybe we on the right should do the same, perhaps using the term "Intelligent" instead. Democrats are the Progressive party, Republicans the Intelligent party. It would be fun to use it in a few lighter settings and watch the Progressives fume.

I couldn't resist the misleading title. More precisely, I have finished walking every street in Maple Grove, a journey of 447 miles.

This was my ninth such city, and completes my goal of walking every city in the Comcast franchise here in the northwest suburbs which are Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Osseo, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Golden Valley, Plymouth, and Maple Grove. Some statistics:

• Total trips: 332


• Total miles: 2,258


• Average miles/trip: 6.8


• Total days: 1,325 (just over 3.6 years)


• Average miles/week: 11.9


• Total area: 131 square miles


• Pairs of walking shoes worn out: 2

My method is to pick a number of "park and walk" sites per city based on area and population (i.e., density of development). I used a total of 30 such sites - typically city parks or large shopping area parking lots. I do not bring maps with me. I study them at home and walk from memory, though I often drive the route first to check for map errors or new construction.

I obtain these maps from City Hall. Most were free, some a few dollars. Golden Valley's map proved to be the most inaccurate, but the biggest problem everywhere was the lack of "Dead End" signs on dead end streets. I'm not talking about the short 300-600 foot cul-de-sacs, but streets whose end is not visible from the entrance due to hills or turns. I would bet there were at least 100 of these across the nine cities. I even saw a couple of posted Dead Ends that were not.

A problem many have asked me about is dogs. I had very little actual trouble, though I have to give the the dubious title of "city of unleashed dogs" to Plymouth. There, I was "greeted" by more dogs coming out to meet me in the street than in the other eight cities combined. I do not exagerate.

I will soon begin "Phase II" starting with St. Louis Park, where I grew up.

Here's Herb Carneal's call of the second inning of Sunday's Game, averaging 100 words per minute to John Gordon's 150 wpm clip. This includes Dan Gladden's comment (red) but not the shamelessly inserted spot (green). Next up will be game five of the 1948 World Series, with Cleveland up 3-1 over the Boston Braves. Alas, the Indians lost this one at home, but did win the next in Boston to take the championship.

Here’s a strike called to Lew Ford leading off the Twins second. Lew hitting .263, 7 home runs, 53 runs batted in. Robertson misses inside, 1-1. Against Robertson, Lew Ford 5 for 18 with a home run. And the pitch. Way outside, 2 balls and 1 strike. Three – nothing, the Twins leading on a three-run homer by Matthew LeCroy. Robertson delivers – low. 3-1 now to Ford. Rivas and Bartlett to follow this, the bottom third of the Twins order. As Robertson’s pitch on the way. Swing, a high hopper to third. Move to his left by Inge, throws to first. Not in time! Lew Ford running hard down the first base line beat it out. Nice play by Inge. Good hustle by Lew Ford.

Inge made that play the other night. He’s good going to his left or his right. Athletic player down there. And just a little bit, that ball tailed just a little bit and the end there and Ford sniffing out that base hit.

Hit number 4 for the Twins. And now here’s Luis, Luis Rivas, hitting at .250 with a home run. He’s 5 for 16 against Robertson and has a home run. Robertson throws to first. Ford gets back. Lew Ford 13 stolen bases in 19 attempts. And the pitch. On the outside corner, strike one. Vance Wilson doing the catching for the Tigers, catching his second game of the series. And the pitch, low, one ball, one strike. Inge playing third, Infante at short, John McDonald at second, Shelton at first, with Granderson, Logan, and Thames in the outfield. And the pitch. Strke at the knees, 1-2 to Rivas. Three – nothing, Twins have the lead, last of the second. And the pitch is swung on, looped out into center field, caught on the run by Logan. Nice running catch by the center fielder, running in and to his left. Logan’s feet kind of bailing him out there to get to that ball.

Hey for exterior renovations to your home like siding, roofing, gutters, windows, and decks, we here would like you to get in touch with the Rum River Lumber Company. They’re located in Coon Rapids. At Rum River Lumber Company, they know homes.

Well one away, here’s Jason Bartlett, batting .244, 3 home runs,.16 runs batted in. Ford gets his lead at first and Robertson’s pitch. Swung on, a ground ball to third, Inge goes to second, one, on to first, got the double play. 5-4-3 double play, and the Tigers’ 170th. They lead the league in double plays.

So after two here at the dome, Twins three, Detroit nothing. You’re listening to Twins Baseball.

As I said, I'm going to stick with this show another episode or two, hoping for the best, as I like the concept of the show. I'll repeat again that I don't see much ground being plowed for Senator Hillary Clinton. Its viewers will identify specifically with Geena Davis as President, not women in general.

Once again, "Mac" Allen is portrayed as tough stuff, not flinching during the rifle volley at the original President's funeral, unlike her Chief of Staff. The theme was picking a new Vice President, which was a moderately successful piece of writing. What didn't work was the First Daughter's lost, "tell all" diary, which turned up in her younger sister's room. The Secret Service isn't that careless.

So far, President Allen appears to be a micro-manager like Jimmy Carter, working long hours "like a man" (stereotype theirs, not mine). I'm still hoping for a good show to evolve, more next week.

My first reaction was "Who?" My second reaction was "Why?" My third reaction was "Wrong!"

Hugh Hewitt is again the GOP waterboy, ostensibly happy with the choice. Laura Ingraham and others clearly are not. Rush Limbaugh took a call from Vice President Cheney. The call was cordial but a bit chilly as Rush thinks this is a weak move.

Doug as Bogus Gold is more direct. As Doug says to the President in a follow-up post, "You owed me more than that." I agree.

Much of the criticism revolves around her experience, even her education. But I think that misses the mark. We have had other "lightweights" successfully serve on this court, and serve it well. The Constitution is plainly written in plain Engish, not legalese. A working knowledge of American history, a competent clerk, and a little common sense will more than suffice. As such, it may well work out that Miers will perform as advertised.

But the truly successful justice must have the consent of the governed, expressed through elections, the Senate confirmation process, and public opinion. The process must provide for that by, yes, selecting people with a substantive, verifiable resume. The President may think the world of her, as may her friends and colleagues, but without independent evidence as to her fitness for duty, the charge of cronyism has merit.

To be fair, Miers resume is impressive, but how that translates to the job of Supreme Court Justice is another matter. "Trust me" is not sufficient. To say that Miers was the clearly outstanding candidate is clearly less than honest amidst a strong field including Luttig, Brown, and McConnell.

Again to be fair, Luttig, Brown, and McConnell may not have been confirmable, given the Democratic Party's current embrace of the hard left, and the gang of 14 in the Senate. But if turning the Supreme Court back toward the Constitution isn't worth the fight, what is?

It's almost funny seeing the Minneapolis Star Tribune demanding the rigorous pursuit of scientific truth regarding evolution, published in a section that has repeatedly refused to consider significant amounts of scientific evidence in so many other areas like pollution, global warming, and the effects of second-hand smoke.

Here is John Gordon's call of the Twins first inning Sunday, close to 150 words per minute, almost 200 per batter.

Jason Tyner will lead off for the Twins in the bottom half of the first inning. First pitch from Nate Robertson, the left-hander, is in for a strike, 0 and 1. Robertson making his 32nd start of the year and he delivers. Tyner swings and laces a base hit down the left field line. Over quickly to play it is left fielder Granderson. He’ll relay it back in and Tyner is on with an early single. The Twins have a runner at first and nobody out and here’s Luis Rodriguez to bat. Rodriguez stepping in with a .257 batting average. Tyner hitting at .308 coming in, no homers, 4 RBI’s.

Well, there are three games of particular interest in Major League Baseball, other than this one here of course. The Philadelphia – Washington game, the Phillies have to win and hope that Houston loses to qualify for a tie and the wild card in the National League. Philadelphia is leading Washington 1-0 with the Nationals batting in the bottom of the first. And the Houston – Cubs game is now underway, and Houston has a run in the bottom of the first and leads Chicago 1-0. Those are the two games in the National League.

And the particular game of importance in the American League, the Chicago White Sox at Cleveland. Cleveland has to win and they have to hope than Boston loses their game to the New York Yankees at Fenway. And the Indians would tie the Red Sox for the wild card and they’d have to have a playoff game tomorrow. Chicago presently leading Cleveland 3-0 in the top half of the fourth inning. The Yankees and the Red Sox are just now underway. Curt Schilling now pitching for Boston.

Here’s the pitch to Rodriguez. It’s in for a strike and no balls and one strike. A couple of pick-off moves by Robertson to first trying to get Tyner. At one time he had Tyner moving the other way towards second, but Robertson didn’t get the throw over in time and Tyner got back. Jason has a good lead, he has one foot on the carpet. Here’s the set now by Robertson and the pitch. And a ground ball base hit to center field. And the Twins start the first with back to back hits. A single by Tyner to left and a single by Rodriguez to center. Two on, and the batter’s going to be Joe Mauer.

Mauer will step in with a .297 batting average, 9 home runs, and 55 RBI’s. Mauer’s going to have to go some to hit .300. He’d have to have a big day here today. Here’s the set now by Robertson and the pitch. Fast ball is inside, one ball. If the Phillies and the Astros end up in a tie for the wild card, they’ll play off tomorrow at Philadelphia. If the Indians and the Red Sox end up in a tie for the wild card, they’ll play tomorrow at Fenway. Ball 2 and a fast ball, two balls and no strikes. Robertson is making his fourth start against the Twins this year, and he is 1 and 2, 2 and 4 lifetime against Minnesota. Last year, Robertson was 12 and 10 with the Tigers. Certainly Detroit was expecting Robertson to have a much better year this year than last and he has not, comes into the game today 7 and 15. Mauer swings and hits a big two-hopper to second. They’re going to get one out at second, relay back to first not in time. Mauer beats the relay throw. It was a big two-hop ground ball to second baseman McDonald. By the time he got the ball over to Infante, Mauer had time to beat the relay throw from second base back to first. [John Madden would be proud. -- SG]

Tyner gained third, the Twins have runners at first and third and here’s Matthew LeCroy to bat. Now Matthew’s had quite a bit of success against Nate Robertson, 12 for 21. Three of his twelve hits have been homers. First and third and the pitch. Strike on the inside corner, no balls and one strike. LeCroy, 16 homers, 47 RBI’s. And the pitch. Inside, almost hit him. One ball and one strike. Two on, one out, the Twins are batting in the bottom of the first inning. Here’s Robertson’s pitch, and a breaking pitch is low, inside, two balls and one strike. If the Red Sox get in today, and Houston gets in today, the Red Sox will open Tuesday against the White Sox at US Cellular. And the Yankees and the Angels, they could possibly end up in a tie. Here’s a drive to left and it’s well-hit, it is … gone! Touch’em all Matthew LeCroy! A line drive home run that makes it to the seats in left field. Tyner and Mauer score in front, and the Twins are off and running with a 3-0 lead on Matthew LeCroy’s 17th home run of the year.

Well, the Twins have hit their 134th home run of the year. The Detroit Tigers have given up a bunch of home runs this year, they lead the American League in home runs allowed. They’ve just given up their 193rd and the 28th given up by Robinson. Three to nothing, Minnesota leading, LeCroy gets RBI number 48, 49 and 50, and his 17th home run.

Cuddyer bats and the pitch is outside, a ball, 1 and 0. Michael hitting at .266, swings through a change up, and 1 ball and 1 strike. No home runs, 42 RBI’s for Michael Cuddyer, bathing in the number five slot in Ron Gardenhire’s batting order. Here is Robertson’s pitch. A ground ball hammered out to third, infield, throws across to his first basemen Pena for the out and there are two away as they bat in the bottom of the first. They have an early 3-0 lead and now Justin Morneau to bat.

Mathey LeCroy with a line drive home run and the three run homer puts the Twins ahead by a 3-0 score. Morneau takes a strike at the letters, no balls and one strke. Robertson ready and here’s the pitch. Swing at a miss at an off-speed delivery and quickly Robertson works ahead of Morneau at no balls and two strikes. Justin hitting at .239, 22 home runs and 79 RBI’s, that’s club leading. And a swing and a foul, still the count at two strikes. Here’s the 0-2 delivery and the pitch, a swing and a miss, the ball gets away from Vance Wilson the catcher, but he quickly retrieves it, fires down to Pena at first. The strikeout the first of the game for Robertson, but the Twins have a big first on a three run homer by Matthey LeCroy and take a 3-0 lead.

You’re listening to Twins Baseball.

Sunday's "OpEx" section in Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune had a theme, an all out assault on "Intelligent Design" vs evolution. The common theme is that science based on observable evidence is preferable to faith and traditions of those who went before us. By "preferable" is meant total exclusion, even though the science may be incomplete.

The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) holds that human life scientifically is a fantastically unlikely product of fantastically unlikely, and seemingly unrelated constructs, like having a planetary magetic field to fend off solar flares into the Van Allen radiation belts. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, meteorology, even mathematics itself show an immense complexity of operation that somehow runs itself.

Lately, ID has been somewhat hijacked to discredit evolution for those who find the latter religiously unacceptable. But they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, evolution itself is another facet of that Intelligent Design in question. But since ID necessarily has a religious component, stipulating that a higher power built this island Earth, this is unacceptable to liberals.

Having been exposed to the almost beautiful symmetry of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, having considered the awesome expanse of the universe, understanding how by sheer numbers atomic-level chaos aggregates into predictable effects at the human level, considering the rich tapestry of just a few dozen elements can create, how can I deny the existence of that higher power? Evolution doesn't explain atomic particles, gravity, or the three basic states of matter. But I want it taught.

The obvious solution is to present the evidence and theoretical basis for evolution such as it is, being careful not to project it as an explanation of creation itself. For I also want students to consider what lies beyond.

A caller to the NARN yesterday had an idea we can't dismiss out of hand. Pay for stadiums by cutting education funding an equal amount. Sounds like a win-win to me, only they won't layoff off the extra aides and bureaucrats, just the teachers, coaches, and bus drivers.

We all make mistakes, especially slips of the tongue. I heard our newly-confirmed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refer to the three branches of government as the Executive, Executive, and Judicial in his acceptance speech. But of course we all knew what he meant, that he obviously meant no slight, and no one voiced umbrage.

But with Bill Bennett, it was different. It always is with conservatives, or more specifically as the Harvard University President Lawrence Summers found out, conservative thought. Even that's not quite it, as Summer's comments on gender differences in the choice of study really had no political content at all. No, what we're talking about is plain old political correctness. Certain tenets of our modern age are simply not open for discussion. Violators find their very ancestry as human beings challenged, not their ideas.

Bennett was hasty in illustratng absurdity to make his larger point, but hey, it's live radio. There is no editor with a blue pencil to write "say better" in the margins and return it to you before publication. Many bloggers have provided good examples of how he could have said it better, but I would argue that like Judge Roberts, an engaged listener already knew what he meant. At most a later clarification is required to add the implied context.

The less-engaged listeners hear "aborting all black babies would lower the crime rate" and immediately run for the microphones. Sadly, this included the White House. That this was intentionally offensive to illustrate his point by absurdity was missed by those bleating outrage. Perhaps this was intentionally missed in some cases.

Remember when Tom Selleck appeared on Rosie O'Donnell's talk show in 1999? Tom tried repeatedly to bring the intellectual level of his argument (regarding guns) down to her level, but it did no good. Whether intentional (for ratings) or not, it all sailed over her head.