And ALEC should never be allowed that close to holding the chief executive position in Minnesota. It would be disaster.
Sorensen with details here. Read it and go figure.
Corporate owned? Anyone embracing ALEC raises that question.
As ALEC goes, so go too many. ALEC goods are damaged goods.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Contrasting views among Republicans of David Fitzsimmons' caucus ouster over whether to keep gay marriage opposition a front-burner GOP election issue, or bailing on it as a loser to run instead on traditional seldom kept GOP tax promises to "the middle class" and on MN Sure bashing.
Gilmore, here, the sky did not fall, despite some belief that way.
Convenience of embracing when in fashion, turning away and compromising as fashion changes [witness the last election ballot question on "marriage"] was not a highlight in Gilmore's view. Gilmore went at it from other angles.
Worth reading, to me, although I see things differently.
Was it a "political lynching?" This link. That view was written online by a Walter Hudson [not by Fitzsimmons]. This somewhat extended mid-item excerpt:
Interestingly, Gilmore's analysis is largely that Fitzsimmons did lie, and the fact that he did is important in caucus consideration of reendorsement.
Let a little reality into things, please.
The guy put his finger to the wind, and saw opposition to gay marriage, as a continued GOP strategy, to be less than powerful in terms of influencing voters and getting his friends elected. The issue was an anchor around some necks, and needed to be defused/dustbinned.
It was a pure tactical/strategic decision of Fitzsimmons to soften on that issue. He did not say there were gay people in the family or in his friendship circle who felt demonized and that tugged at his heartstrings. He jiggered a part of a bill to favor the fundie folks, and traded his vote for that concession from the other side.
In short - He played politics. He's a politician, not much else, and to me, this is detracting from any respect he might be given, (from Hudson's item):
Emmer is a jackass, but the Republicans' jackass, hence fine with Fitzsimmons as the party loyalist he is (above much else apparently). Viewing Emmer as I do, it sits less fine with me.
You support Emmer, I have to have my doubts about your judgment. Fitzsimmons is/was/will be an Emmer person, so no tears from me over how idiots treated him. Moreover, reports of his political death are premature. There will be more kick coming than from a corpse.
___________UPDATE__________
No view at all: Arguably of general interest, within my two GOP barometer blogs, Residual Forces and Let Freedom Ring Blog, by Andy Aplikowski and and Gary Gross respectively, (each in Minnesota's CD6), there was zero mention of Fitzsimmons/Lucero much less any handwringing and keening either way. The situation was either viewed as unimportant and no watershed event; or there was issue ducking, with my guess being the latter.
Political expediency would be to abandon losing issues and favor ones hoped to be winning issues; and it appears both blogs are giving hints of what GOP politicians may be expected to be running on this fall, to the extent issues matter at all [per contra there IS Mike McFadden, happy being a hollow issue challenged scarecrow of a candidate, so far].
McFadden has his tons of cash to later buy advertising and propagandize, but in hiding entirely, so far.
What will we see when that egg hatches, chicken or reptile?
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Has anyone else noticed, Bachmann's being silent about "the gay agenda" and other such horseshit she's embraced as doctrine in the past. Always with a finger to the wind, there is the Bachmann barometer, of what she can huckster to the believers who send her money; and this no longer is in fashion, for publicly proselytizing, with Michele.
It is "Obamacare" with her, these days. And in the most recent past.
[And, per earlier UPDATE, my guess is reptile]
Convenience of embracing when in fashion, turning away and compromising as fashion changes [witness the last election ballot question on "marriage"] was not a highlight in Gilmore's view. Gilmore went at it from other angles.
Worth reading, to me, although I see things differently.
Was it a "political lynching?" This link. That view was written online by a Walter Hudson [not by Fitzsimmons]. This somewhat extended mid-item excerpt:
Fitzsimmons opposes gay marriage. He has not moved from that position. When he saw the bill which would recognize same-sex unions as marriage in Minnesota placed on the 2013 legislative calendar, he realized the Democrats in complete control of state government had the votes they needed to pass it. At that point, he perceived a choice. He could keep his head down and vote no on final passage, performing as expected and winning accolades for conservative resilience while accomplishing precisely nothing. Or, he could act to protect religious liberty to the extent possible under the law. He chose the latter.
In consultation with Republican legal experts, Fitzsimmons crafted an amendment which limited the state’s domain to civil marriage and protected religious institutions and clergy from being forced to perform same-sex weddings or recognize same-sex unions as sacred. Democrats consented to the amendment. However, Fitzsimmons knew that his amendment could be stripped out of the final bill unless he sat on the conference committee which would reconcile the House and Senate versions. To ensure his place on that committee, he would have to vote for final passage.
Surely, he understood the political fallout which would occur in Wright County – likely the most conservative political district in the state – if he voted yes on final passage. He also understood that voting yes was the only way to ensure some protection of his constituents’ religious liberty.
As the vote for final passage took place, Fitzsimmons watched the vote totals to make sure his would not decide the question. Only once it was certain that the bill would pass did Fitzsimmons cast his vote for final passage, securing his place on the conference committee to preserve his amendment.
Since then, the foremost challenger seeking to wrest the GOP endorsement from Fitzsimmons – Eric Lucero – has engaged in a scorched earth campaign to drag Fitzsimmons’ name through the mud. Speaking to caucus attendees earlier this month, Lucero implied that Fitzsimmons lied about his position on gay marriage and worked covertly to ensure its passage. Parroting rhetoric from policy organizations which cling to fleeting relevance after losing two back-to-back campaigns on the marriage issue, Lucero has claimed that Fitzsimmons’ amendment “provided cover for conservative Democrats,” as if there were not otherwise enough votes to pass the bill.
To believe that, we must believe that the Democrats would place a landmark piece of legislation on the House calendar without knowing they could pass it. [...]
Interestingly, Gilmore's analysis is largely that Fitzsimmons did lie, and the fact that he did is important in caucus consideration of reendorsement.
Let a little reality into things, please.
The guy put his finger to the wind, and saw opposition to gay marriage, as a continued GOP strategy, to be less than powerful in terms of influencing voters and getting his friends elected. The issue was an anchor around some necks, and needed to be defused/dustbinned.
It was a pure tactical/strategic decision of Fitzsimmons to soften on that issue. He did not say there were gay people in the family or in his friendship circle who felt demonized and that tugged at his heartstrings. He jiggered a part of a bill to favor the fundie folks, and traded his vote for that concession from the other side.
In short - He played politics. He's a politician, not much else, and to me, this is detracting from any respect he might be given, (from Hudson's item):
Yet Lucero retains the audacity to suggest that Fitzsimmons has “demoralized” Republicans. Lucero claims that Fitzsimmons’ vote will keep Republicans home if he remains on the ballot in November. Home seems to be where Lucero has been while Fitzsimmons has been working to elect Tom Emmer to Congress, mentor activists throughout the party, and fund campaigns in swing districts. Indeed, Lucero has only ever been seen by the Republican Party of Wright County committee on which I sit while campaigning on his own behalf against Fitzsimmons, not attending fundraisers, not marching in parades, and not contributing dollars or time to other campaigns.
Emmer is a jackass, but the Republicans' jackass, hence fine with Fitzsimmons as the party loyalist he is (above much else apparently). Viewing Emmer as I do, it sits less fine with me.
You support Emmer, I have to have my doubts about your judgment. Fitzsimmons is/was/will be an Emmer person, so no tears from me over how idiots treated him. Moreover, reports of his political death are premature. There will be more kick coming than from a corpse.
___________UPDATE__________
No view at all: Arguably of general interest, within my two GOP barometer blogs, Residual Forces and Let Freedom Ring Blog, by Andy Aplikowski and and Gary Gross respectively, (each in Minnesota's CD6), there was zero mention of Fitzsimmons/Lucero much less any handwringing and keening either way. The situation was either viewed as unimportant and no watershed event; or there was issue ducking, with my guess being the latter.
Political expediency would be to abandon losing issues and favor ones hoped to be winning issues; and it appears both blogs are giving hints of what GOP politicians may be expected to be running on this fall, to the extent issues matter at all [per contra there IS Mike McFadden, happy being a hollow issue challenged scarecrow of a candidate, so far].
McFadden has his tons of cash to later buy advertising and propagandize, but in hiding entirely, so far.
What will we see when that egg hatches, chicken or reptile?
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Has anyone else noticed, Bachmann's being silent about "the gay agenda" and other such horseshit she's embraced as doctrine in the past. Always with a finger to the wind, there is the Bachmann barometer, of what she can huckster to the believers who send her money; and this no longer is in fashion, for publicly proselytizing, with Michele.
It is "Obamacare" with her, these days. And in the most recent past.
[And, per earlier UPDATE, my guess is reptile]
My friend Gary Gross has published something of a unique understanding of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property without due process.
This link. This opening excerpt, including two quotes within the quote below, and with the link in the original:
Respect for tradition entails understanding it.
Valuation is a fact question where procedures exist for resolving disagreement in the judiciary.
Power to take, Gary, Gary, Gary.
It's not for you to say what's a public purpose. Representative [aka constitutional] government puts that power elsewhere. If I don't like road expansion, or the Northstar, yes I can criticize judgment, but I cannot sanely deny the power of government to meet its purpose, which, obviously, is to govern.
Wisdom and power are separate, and if one wants to argue wisdom of particular expenditure/particular purpose, please be precise - while if wanting powers changed and realigned, join like minded persons in a campaign to change existing law, including Constitutional norms.
But avoid mish-moshing stuff, as that might mislead the gullible, and I am certain Gary has absolutely no intent of influencing and inflaming passions among the gullible. Continued reading over time of his blogging will give any reader a sense of the honorableness in his position-taking. Of the strength of his effort to avoid sophistry.
An "I like highways, I don't like public decisions for bikeways," attitude can be held, but that's judgmental about decision making by elected representatives, within the clearly lawful bounds of their governmental powers.
Due process means a fairness in compensation and following procedures, not impotence to set public purposes and policy.
_________UPDATE__________
Gary goes on to state:
That statement misunderstands Kelo, wholly so; as well as misunderstanding prior "taking" law, and Gary should reread the case.
Finally, Jeff Wise has proven at least in an individual situation, that there are other avenues to deal with eminent domain besides litigation in the judiciary. In short, Jeff was wise, in protecting his personal interests. In getting his best price.
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Gary might also benefit from reading Lucas. Simplistic statement of simple beliefs while not correctly recognizing precedent can often overlook nuances. It can lead to ill-reasoned conclusions more expressive of a prejudiced viewpoint at the outset of an analysis rather than evidencing an analysis grounded on study and appreciation of argument recognizing precedent - as it is.
Does "conservatism" mean much, truly, besides appreciation of precedent?
Elsewise, what's to conserve?
After reading this article, I’m wondering if I’m living the United States or in the former Soviet Union. Seriously, does anyone think that governments should be able to use eminent domain to take private property from a family to build biking hiking trails? That’s what Dakota County is attempting to do:
The county is seeking a “quick-take” condemnation, effectively a compelled sale, of four parcels of land in the park reserve, offering a total of about $2 million.
County commissioners voted in November to take the land, saying the properties are a key part of a planned trail and other features.
What’s more important: private property rights or giving government to take any piece of land to do with it whatever it wants to do? This is stealing. What’s especially appalling is the taking of the land to build biking and hiking trails. What’s worse is that Dakota County is attempting to steal this private property for a questionable project while offering the property owners settlements at far less than fair market value:
Aho said the county hasn’t shown enough progress on other planned improvements besides the trail to demonstrate a need for condemnation.
She also said the county’s offer for the land, $370,000, “drastically undervalued” assets like a marina and 1,000-plus feet of lakeshore.
Respect for tradition entails understanding it.
Valuation is a fact question where procedures exist for resolving disagreement in the judiciary.
Power to take, Gary, Gary, Gary.
It's not for you to say what's a public purpose. Representative [aka constitutional] government puts that power elsewhere. If I don't like road expansion, or the Northstar, yes I can criticize judgment, but I cannot sanely deny the power of government to meet its purpose, which, obviously, is to govern.
Wisdom and power are separate, and if one wants to argue wisdom of particular expenditure/particular purpose, please be precise - while if wanting powers changed and realigned, join like minded persons in a campaign to change existing law, including Constitutional norms.
But avoid mish-moshing stuff, as that might mislead the gullible, and I am certain Gary has absolutely no intent of influencing and inflaming passions among the gullible. Continued reading over time of his blogging will give any reader a sense of the honorableness in his position-taking. Of the strength of his effort to avoid sophistry.
An "I like highways, I don't like public decisions for bikeways," attitude can be held, but that's judgmental about decision making by elected representatives, within the clearly lawful bounds of their governmental powers.
Due process means a fairness in compensation and following procedures, not impotence to set public purposes and policy.
_________UPDATE__________
Gary goes on to state:
After WWII, eminent domain was used to buy the land needed to build the interstate highway or other high priority pieces of infrastructure that led to great increases of wealth and prosperity to the masses. Since Kelo v. New London, eminent domain has been used to take property from private property owners and give it to government so it can create parks or bike trails.
That statement misunderstands Kelo, wholly so; as well as misunderstanding prior "taking" law, and Gary should reread the case.
Finally, Jeff Wise has proven at least in an individual situation, that there are other avenues to deal with eminent domain besides litigation in the judiciary. In short, Jeff was wise, in protecting his personal interests. In getting his best price.
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Gary might also benefit from reading Lucas. Simplistic statement of simple beliefs while not correctly recognizing precedent can often overlook nuances. It can lead to ill-reasoned conclusions more expressive of a prejudiced viewpoint at the outset of an analysis rather than evidencing an analysis grounded on study and appreciation of argument recognizing precedent - as it is.
Does "conservatism" mean much, truly, besides appreciation of precedent?
Elsewise, what's to conserve?
Kurt Zellers' announcement juxtaposed against Jim Abeler's foot-in-each-camp stance, regarding a currently held legislative seat, while a candidate for higher office.
Zellers' press statement, posted here, and reported here by Brodkorb - the press release beginning:
How about that politicking next to last paragraph above? Hates dangerous criminals, loves pork, did something worthwhile, and whines a lot about taxation (while loving pork for his district).
Abeler has been and remains silent about the district he currently represents, and his having or not having a fallback intent, given the weakness of his campaign in generating traction, so far, in seeking higher office.
Is it time for Abeler to "release" the seat, or dump the higher aimed campaign and move to secure his legislative seniority position? Is it taking the high road, to leave things hanging in uncertainty as time passes?
The question is posed as a hypothetical. The GOP, it's not my party, it's Abeler's - hence, if those people are happy with Abeler as things stand, so am I. In comparison to other Republicans, Zellers for example, Abeler stands out as less dogmatic and less confrontational, qualities all too rare these days in Republican politicians. Rarer too, among "the Republican base," a phrase used at the Residual Forces blog where I quasi-understand what Andy implies in using that term. Folks who generally agree with Andy, is how I read it.
ST. PAUL – State Representative Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) announced today he will not seek re-election to the Minnesota House of Representatives. Zellers, first elected in 2003, represents House District 34B – covering the cities of Maple Grove and Osseo.
“It has been an honor to serve the good people of Maple Grove and Osseo over the past 11 years,” said Zellers. “I’m proud of the important legislation I passed over the past six terms benefitting the residents of Maple Grove and Osseo, as well as the state of Minnesota.”
During Zellers’ six terms in the legislature, he enacted sweeping legislation to impose life in prison sentences for violent offenders after the murder of University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin; secured legislation to build a new hospital in Maple Grove; passed legislation to address the growing need for adolescent mental health treatment; and led the effort to stop Governor Mark Dayton from imposing job killing tax increases on hard working, middle class Minnesotans in 2011-12.
Zellers served as Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions. Zellers is only the third Republican to serve as House Speaker since party designation. In his role as Speaker of the House, Zellers led the effort to balance the state budget without raising taxes, turning around the state budget from a $5 billion deficit to an over $3 billion surplus within two years.
How about that politicking next to last paragraph above? Hates dangerous criminals, loves pork, did something worthwhile, and whines a lot about taxation (while loving pork for his district).
Abeler has been and remains silent about the district he currently represents, and his having or not having a fallback intent, given the weakness of his campaign in generating traction, so far, in seeking higher office.
Is it time for Abeler to "release" the seat, or dump the higher aimed campaign and move to secure his legislative seniority position? Is it taking the high road, to leave things hanging in uncertainty as time passes?
The question is posed as a hypothetical. The GOP, it's not my party, it's Abeler's - hence, if those people are happy with Abeler as things stand, so am I. In comparison to other Republicans, Zellers for example, Abeler stands out as less dogmatic and less confrontational, qualities all too rare these days in Republican politicians. Rarer too, among "the Republican base," a phrase used at the Residual Forces blog where I quasi-understand what Andy implies in using that term. Folks who generally agree with Andy, is how I read it.
Monday, February 24, 2014
"Met Council’s density requirements raise hackles in west metro - Article by: TOM MEERSMAN , Star Tribune - Updated: February 23, 2014 - 12:48 AM"
This link. The politics of Met Council selling flushes to pay its bond debt for its Pigs Eye STP. Forced density. And my, how Met Council helped those folks in East Bethel with their sewer/water bonanza. What a force for planner well being and employment opportunity, there and in regulated towns. And helpful to Ramsey's getting a Northstar stop along with a $300,000 new annual tax for the common good, with Matt Look heading transit planning matters for the Anoka County Board; as Northstar liaison. A silent "Watchdog" watches. That new town tax must fit the dog's temperament.
RAMSEY - Highway 10, a political/technical MnDOT session, Wednesday, Feb 26.
Strib, this brief notice:
Link in original.
The matter has been posted for some time on City of Ramsey's website, "In The News," this link; linking here.
Presumably the session will include more content beyond engineering thoughts and options for the planned Armstrong Blvd. interchange.
It is billed as focused upon the stretch of Highway 10 through west Anoka and Ramsey, aka "Stoplight Alley."
Or is that "Stoplight Bottleneck?" "Alley" rings a bit less awkward.
MnDOT looks at Hwy. 10 upgrades in Anoka, Ramsey
Updated: February 22, 2014 - 3:52 PM
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Anoka County are exploring lower-cost alternatives to a full freeway conversion of Hwy. 10 through the cities of Ramsey and Anoka. Changes are needed to address safety and traffic issues,
The public can learn about some of the options and how they might affect private property at an open house from 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at Greenhaven Golf Course, 2800 Greenhaven Road, Anoka.
Some of the possible alternatives include frontage road connections, intersection modifications, overpasses and pedestrian accommodation.
A brief presentation will begin at 6:30 p.m., with small-group discussions and opportunity to comment at 7 p.m.
For more information, go to http://tinyurl.com/mo27arg.
Shannon Prather
The matter has been posted for some time on City of Ramsey's website, "In The News," this link; linking here.
Presumably the session will include more content beyond engineering thoughts and options for the planned Armstrong Blvd. interchange.
It is billed as focused upon the stretch of Highway 10 through west Anoka and Ramsey, aka "Stoplight Alley."
Or is that "Stoplight Bottleneck?" "Alley" rings a bit less awkward.
Freedom From Religion Foundation. And, the evil practice of deluded or intentionally obtrusive ones, Pulpit Freedom Sunday.
FIRST: Just links. Start with Forbes, here. Linking here. There are those busy-bodies who want to impose upon the freedom and civil rights of others, and often the worse of the bunch is found in pulpits.
FFRP links, here, and
http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes
An LTE to the LA Times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation
NEXT EDITORIALIZING: As to Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the First Amendment clearly allows the proselytizing of secular election advice from the pulpit, so let them do it and only the easily misled will listen and act accordingly since it is not an area where spiritul advisors have any expertise, but then TAX THE BASTARDS for who they really are. That being politicians, societal advocates with a political agenda, (but often dressed otherwise than in well tailored and expensive Kazeminy suits).
An even more basic question, why are churches NOT taxed fully already?
Politics is the obvious answer. But should politics of that sort, taking the easy way out, be permitted to not apply the law fully and fairly to political huckesterism from pulpits? Once the line to secular advice on how to vote is crossed, counseling spirits has been trashbinned in favor of other entirely secular aims.
Souls simply are not saved by preaching on voting choices. It's highly offensive, but allowable as a freedom, as long as it is taxed properly.
LAST: A screen capture:
FFRP links, here, and
http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes
An LTE to the LA Times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation
NEXT EDITORIALIZING: As to Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the First Amendment clearly allows the proselytizing of secular election advice from the pulpit, so let them do it and only the easily misled will listen and act accordingly since it is not an area where spiritul advisors have any expertise, but then TAX THE BASTARDS for who they really are. That being politicians, societal advocates with a political agenda, (but often dressed otherwise than in well tailored and expensive Kazeminy suits).
An even more basic question, why are churches NOT taxed fully already?
Politics is the obvious answer. But should politics of that sort, taking the easy way out, be permitted to not apply the law fully and fairly to political huckesterism from pulpits? Once the line to secular advice on how to vote is crossed, counseling spirits has been trashbinned in favor of other entirely secular aims.
Souls simply are not saved by preaching on voting choices. It's highly offensive, but allowable as a freedom, as long as it is taxed properly.
LAST: A screen capture:
 |
| This link, followed, from here. Bigots anonymous. Professionals at it. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)