"It had nothing to do with slavery, it was about States Rights".
There is no need to discuss the political justifications for slavery in the 1860's. My point was relating to bringing one's moral judgments to the study of history. It is my belief to adequately understand what occurred and the social fabric, for lack of a better word, one should attempt to suspend one's moral judgment.
I'm sure there are many today that would think slavery is perfectly natural and wish they could own slaves. Maybe you should define many. My guess is that once again you are mistaken.
Well, there must have been something there. I mean, we did have a civil war over the issue. If the southern states had not seceded do you believe that slavery would have ended at anytime remotely close to 1865? Northerners did not want to take on the issue of abolishing slavery in the south. They would have preferred to avoid it. Lincoln said as much. Northerners did want to limit or prohibit slavery in the territories. Southerners saw the inevitable consequences of prohibition in the territories. However, that inevitability was years away.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to grasp that you need to understand the values of the period in history that you are studying in order to understand people's actions at the time. You don't have to condone them but you can at least take the stance that we have learned something since then that they had not yet discovered. Many of the Founding Fathers agonized over slavery, just as many people today agonize over abortion or drugs. It's wrong-headed to, for example, scrap everything Jefferson ever said or did simply because he owned slaves.
In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr., Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."
WASHINGTON — Campaign finance reform opponent Sen. Mitch McConnell appears to have scored a victory Friday when a federal court struck down pertinent parts of legislation enacted last year that bans the use of corporate and union money by political parties.
"Oddly, though, because of country music's political consistency, what the Dixie Chicks did was big news."
This story never dies, and the New York Times magazine wrote about them again, today, but in a broader story about the forces shaping country music.
I don't listen to country music. I really tried to like it, but it's just not in me. So anybody who does can freely comment on the exerpts. You need to get the magazine to get the whole scope.
"There was a time when the fire that country music lighted beneath its listeners was to get down to the bar, get drunk and see if you couldn't find somebody to go home with. But the only rabble being roused these days is the call to arms," says Ann Patchett an author, who wrote a column for the magazine.
"Long gone are the days when Merle Haggard took care of his searing morning hangover with an 'afternooner' and sang about it. This is thanks in large part to the vice grip of Clear Channel Radio, which buys up radio stations and makes carefully researched decisions about what Americans are free to listen to. Clear Channel has decided that patriotism sells, and that cussing and afternooners are definately out. As a result, the music industry is frantically trying to find people who look and sing like whoever was on top of last week's chart."
What appears fairly certain is that the Dixie Chicks are also definately out. But it seems to me that the same radio stations that made money playing their music, are now making money publicizing and sponsoring stunts that show their distate for them.
"Suddenly, they were standing on the other side of the Merle Haggard line in the sand. They had become those hippie-liberal protesters they should have been singing against."
As is the tradition of many New York Times columns -- written by authors and college professors -- this one is a bit on the snobby side. I'll leave out some of the more damning comments. They analyze popular culture to dust sometimes.
"Minnesota appears to be on the verge of a metamorphosis."
"Strom uses such terms as "suburban libertarianism" and the "leave-me-alone coalition" to describe the philosophy and attitude of the ascendant power."
Anyone interested in the subject of over-the-top political correctness who hasn't read Diane Ravitch's new book, The Language Police, should if he or she harbors any doubts about the pervasiveness of this nefarious trend.
Ravitch, an NYU professor and former member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which was charged with devising national standards for school testing, chronicles an array of absurd censorship and over-sensitizing of textbooks and standardized tests.
An earlier item here cited an excerpt from the book in the Atlantic Monthly some time back, but the full text cites many more examples. They are as numerous as they are spine-tingling.
Among them:
An inspirational story of a blind man who climbed Mt. Everest was rejected by a bias review committee because it implies that blind people have a disability and are somehow limited by that disability.
A story from an anthology edited by William Bennett was rejected simply because the politics of the editor might distress fourth-graders.
A biography of the man who designed Mt. Rushmore was rejected because mention of the monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota might offend Native Americans.
An essay about the plethora of life in a rotting stump in a forest was rejected because it compared the stump to an apartment building and that might make people who live in apartments or public housing feel bad.
A story about a dolphin that guides ships through a treacherous channel was rejected because it shows bias toward people who live by the sea. Those who don't live by the sea might be at a disadvantage, you see.
A passage about owls was rejected because owls are considered taboo by Navajos. A publisher decreed that owls should disappear from all texts and tests, so American schoolkids are now unlikely to ever read about them.
As per the article on the Dixie Chicks, it seems to me that a dead or stale story keeps getting rehashed. If it was let go I think it would die a quick death, the ones seemingly coming to their defense seem to have the toughest time letting it go. Their music is being played and their record sales are back up. I listen to all types of music except opera and rap. I'm not an afficiando on the country genre but what I think the writer missed is that county is alot more mainstream than it was say 15 years ago or before Garth made it popular. So with that wider audience comes different opinions etc. country used to be limited to a smaller group. A few guys I was in with fit the stero typical country fan, some didn't. It always gave me a chuckle when guys in our sqad bay would compete with their stereos. We had guys from inner city New York listening to rap and another guy from Macon GA blairing country. I opted for headphones to drown them both out. I think the whole story got more coverage than warranted IMO. The syles are different because they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. Their are some acts like the Chicks, Garth, that awppeal to people that normally wouldn't otherwise listen to country. There are some old timers who think country is now to pop-ish. I'm sure to them it would be.
I read the editorial you posted about our changing political climate. There was also an editorial I believe from Saturday much in tune with the one you posted. Both seem to have a chicken little effect to them.
What resonates throughout frankly is arrogance. It's the exact arrogance that made this change possible. That exact attitude blinded them to what was taking place. It's the arrogance of assuming what people need, where to live, where to spend and what to drive. I noted that they and others made sure to take a shot at those evil suburbanites, it's all them thar SUV drivin subbies that got us all these horrible policies.
Notice this quote from the Sat. editorial
The patrons of this movement, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and House Speaker Steve Sviggum, are likable men and persuasive leaders, so the average voter might believe that their agenda is moderate and incremental. It is not.
Ahh I see, the aviruge Minnusotan is just to dum ta' know that them theiar leaders are radikals, good thing the righters at the papur are gonna clear it up four us.
Much like ol' Gary Kellior's low rent comment on electing Coleman. Nope no arrogance their, that'll endear you to voters and bring em over, insult them, good idea !
Or this one from the one you posted.
He said there is a growing "disconnect" between the prosperous suburban areas that went heavily for Pawlenty and much of the rest of the state. He added that many suburbanites have lost touch with their rural or urban roots of several generations ago.
What ? First of all what does "urban roots" even mean. There were alot of people raised in the "burbs" So someone moves to Minnetonka and suddenly have lost touch with their roots ? Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards.
Another and most common theme is the dire predictions that we somehow have changed our values and or traditions. Really ? Spending a billion more is taking us away from all that ? Would 5 billion more make us more virtuous ? Somehow because we are becoming cruel and less compassionate because we might have to cut 1% here or there? I've lived here most of my life and I always thought our traditions were hard work, encouraging and rewarding hard work but also helping people out when they needed help and making it better.
It's gone too far one way, now it's back to the sky falling. I wonder what the editorial writers would be writing if we were faced with a 10 billion dollar deficit ? I'm sure at that point we'd all be Satan because we had to make some cuts. It's easy to be a hero in good times with other peoples money, it's harder to do when times aren't and some decisions have to be made. Nobody on this side of the debate said a peep when we doubled a budget in 10 years, in fact they still were asking for more. Were things so awful 10 years ago at those levels we had turned into a cold Mississippi back then ? Good God how could we survive at those meager levels ? There's nothing noble or compassionate about simply spending money. Compassion comes from the heart as does nobility which also come from actions. Simply declaring that we need to spend more on ______ doesn't nessicarily solve a problem either. It makes you feel better and for some that's apparently enough.
The other falsehood believed and often repeated by many on the left is that Conservatives want to cut or do away with most taxes. Not true. Of course there's a cost to things, of course we have to have a safety net, of course we need infastructure, of course we want good schools and safe streets, clean water and a nice place to live, the DFL forgets, we live here too, we send our kids to the schools, we use the parks, we walk on streets, we have the same hopes and desires. It's hyperbole when it's suggested that conservatives don't, of course they do. We just disagree on the best way to get there and the most sensible way of providing those things.
Making a generalization that voters are somehow not smart enough to choose their leaders or understand the ramifications of their votes and then belittle their choice. Couple that with doubling budgets in 10 years while not once holding back spending even when 5 BILLION in the hole and there's the exact reason the political climate has changed. It's not the voters or people have changed so much it's that the leaders who've had power the majority of the time in this state have refused to look at things another way or perhaps try a new approach. So yes it's changed the people complaining the most haven't changed with it.
No doubt you would prefer humble submission. But not everyone is as gracious and humble as yours truly. I threw in the the towel after November. I'm laying down by my dish.
They quoted the guy from the taxpayers league Mr. Strom, who also said.
"We are seeing a transformation from a blue state to a red state," a reference to the common color code for Democrats and Republicans in election counts, said David Strom, legislative director of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. "
There's arrogance, too. Maybe many suburbanites have lost touch, and are happier for it. Now, that they have the people elected they helped elect, they're after payback.
"Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards."
You seem to be taking the discussion of the suburbs personally. Why? Perhaps you could take issue as well with Mr. Strom, from the Taxpayers League.
"Strom uses such terms as "suburban libertarianism" and the "leave-me-alone coalition" to describe the philosophy and attitude of the ascendant power."
This seemed like a telling phrase from the editorial:
"As economists from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank testified last week, state spending is actually going down, not up, as a share of the Minnesota economy."
I didn't read anything that mentions that they were radical. Pawlenty is certainly very right of center. Sviggum was thwarted by Ventura for four years. Now he has power. Tell my why I shouldn't think that those two and others will not push the agenda as far as they can push it.
You're right Rick, it wasn't arrogant, nope none at all and he did, it too. Yes, the statement that the state was transforming from blue to red was arrogant, how I don't know but apparently you see it that way. Perhaps you could explain how a fact is somehow arrogant. Or was he lying and the state is suddenly leaning DFL again ?
There's arrogance, too. Maybe many suburbanites have lost touch, and are happier for it. Now, that they have the people elected they helped elect, they're after payback.
Lost touch with what ? Of course if they elected people that promised not to raise taxes they naturally don't want to see them raised unless you're in the habit of voting for people who's agenda you don't like.
"Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards."
You seem to be taking the discussion of the suburbs personally. Why?
Well since you decided to redirect I'll answer. No, I don't take it personally. I'm amazed by their obsession with anyone who wants to move to the suburbs. I don't, but sure as hell don't care if someone does. If someone wants to move to Litchfield or Onamia I don't care about that either. I really am amazed & amuzed by the effort to deride the suburbs as being bad places to live.
"As economists from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank testified last week, state spending is actually going down, not up, as a share of the Minnesota economy."
And we'll be a cold Omaha next week for it I'm sure. I mean without the doubling of a budget we would have been just like the Domincan Republic by now too.
I didn't read anything that mentions that they were radical.
Gee you're right Rick, they didn't say radical but they certainly implied it. Here it is, they lay it out for those dumb voters.
"The patrons of this movement, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and House Speaker Steve Sviggum, are likable men and persuasive leaders, so the average voter might believe that their agenda is moderate and incremental. It is not.
Tell my why I shouldn't think that those two anothers will not push the agenda as far as they can push it.
I'm not saying you shouldn't think that, of course they will, it's the way it works. When the DFL controlled MN for many years they did the same thing too, what's interesting is that,,gasp,,,,,,the left seems befuddled now that the R's have some leverage they might want to pass thier legislation, well no kidding.
"Yes, the statement that the state was transforming from blue to red was arrogant, how I don't know but apparently you see it that way."
I didn't see anything arrogant about the Strib editorial, either. But they say that we are turning away from the things that made Minnesota, if not special, at least unique. That's their contention as I see it.
Agree with it or not. I can say, with accuracy, that Minnesota was -- in the past -- different from the neighboring states. There were quality of life studies and other measure that reflected that. But, talk to a conservative, and they would likely say those measures were bogus.
"When the DFL controlled MN for many years they did the same thing too, what's interesting is that,,gasp,,,,,,the left seems befuddled."
Maybe they're just not going to slink away and accept it. God bless the ones who don't. This is their home, too.
Everything changes Rick, I think it's still different and I think there's still a better quality of life. You speak of "In the past" ? Heck the cuts haven't even taken effect and they are realitively small at that and the doomsday scenario's are already coming. What would happen if times were even worse ? The idea that we're turning our back from what made us great is wrong. There's a balance and a balance of power finally seems to be coming around. We don't give people enough credit. Spend too much and the voters will tell you, spend too little and they'll let you know as well and elect different leaders.
It's the end of the world! Our budget is going up only 3.8% instead of the projected 14.3% or the 20 year average of 12.9%. It is only going up $1.012 billion over the current biennium. Oh the humanity.
This is like using one of those blank checks that the credit card companies send you. The Republicans want to tear one off and use it. People do that all the time. That's why the credit card companies mail them out.
Did you know that Minnesotans on welfare can send their kids to the most expensive child care center around, with taxpayers picking up almost all of the tab? Or that a family of four making $52,900 a year can send their children to a very nice child care center that costs $3,000 a month for two kids, pay a total of just $882 a month themselves, and let Minnesota taxpayers foot the rest of the bill?
These are just a few facts that DFL legislators, their special interest groups and liberal editorial writers conveniently forget to mention when making outlandish, the sky-is-falling statements about subsidized child care reductions proposed by Minnesota House Republicans.
Here are the facts: The House has proposed moving Minnesota from No. 1 by a country mile among states in the Midwest when it comes to subsidized child care eligibility to No. 1 by about half a mile.
Currently, a family with an income around 290 percent of the federal poverty level qualifies for subsidized child care in our state. House Republicans have proposed scaling this back to 250 percent of federal poverty, meaning that a Minnesota family of four earning $45,270 a year would still be eligible for taxpayer-assisted child care.
Compare that to our neighboring states: The income eligibility limit in North Dakota, the Midwest's second-most generous child care assistance state, is 201 percent of federal poverty -- 49 percentage points lower than the House plan. In Wisconsin, the income eligibility limit is 200 percent of federal poverty. In Michigan, it's 178 percent. It's 166 percent in Illinois. And in Missouri, it's 122 percent of federal poverty.
Also, when compared with child care costs not paid for by taxpayers, the monthly copays for families getting taxpayer assistance under the House Republican plan are quite reasonable.
Without a subsidy, a Minneapolis family of four (mom, dad and two toddlers in a child care center) earning $30,770 a year would pay about $1,400 a month in child care costs. Under the House plan, this family would pay $277 a month. Taxpayers would pay the balance.
It also must be pointed out that child care copays for subsidized families have not increased for four years, while over that same time, the payments taxpayers have made for child care assistance have increased substantially -- from over $264 million in 1998-1999 to an anticipated $435 million in 2002-2003. In other words, the taxpayers' financial responsibility for child care has increased while the parents' responsibility has stayed the same.
And if a 9 percent health and welfare increase is not enough, how much is enough?
It'll never be enough, that's exactly why we're 5 billion in the hole. It just grows every year, a 9% INCREASE and the sky is still falling, good lored, I'd hate to hear the horror stories if it was only an 8% increase.
are you trying to say there's something good that comes from having a debt burden per person that's twice what i pay in federal income taxes each year? i don't see consequences per se from an increased debt, but at the rate its increasing, you're a fool to think that cutting taxes is a good idea.
are you trying to say there's something good that comes from having a debt burden per person that's twice what i pay in federal income taxes each year? What I said is that the argument about increasing the national debt will cause great problems for the country have been made before and so far they have been wrong.I don't see consequences per se from an increased debt, but at the rate its increasing, you're a fool to think that cutting taxes is a good idea. historically a decrease in tax rate has increased government revenue overall.
Well, the magical debt fairy, from fiscalresponsibilityland, might go POOF, and make it disappear.
Or, there is the chance that these actual dollars that someone will someday have to pay back.
Now, I'm not saying the Liberal side of this is any better. They don't give a rats ass about the debt either. They're just mad their programs aren't going to be funded as much as they like.
in the same way it'll come along and make my debt disappear. as for liberal program funding all i'v got to say is "life's a bitch" everyone gets their share of the squeeze.
But if you don't believe that many people thought it perfectly natural you would be mistaken.
I'm sure there are many today that would think slavery is perfectly natural and wish they could own slaves.
And if you believe abolitionism was an overpowering cause you would be wrong again.
Well, there must have been something there. I mean, we did have a civil war over the issue.
"It had nothing to do with slavery, it was about States Rights".
There is no need to discuss the political justifications for slavery in the 1860's. My point was relating to bringing one's moral judgments to the study of history. It is my belief to adequately understand what occurred and the social fabric, for lack of a better word, one should attempt to suspend one's moral judgment.
I'm sure there are many today that would think slavery is perfectly natural and wish they could own slaves. Maybe you should define many. My guess is that once again you are mistaken.
Well, there must have been something there. I mean, we did have a civil war over the issue. If the southern states had not seceded do you believe that slavery would have ended at anytime remotely close to 1865? Northerners did not want to take on the issue of abolishing slavery in the south. They would have preferred to avoid it. Lincoln said as much. Northerners did want to limit or prohibit slavery in the territories. Southerners saw the inevitable consequences of prohibition in the territories. However, that inevitability was years away.
You could set an example, by suspending your blanket judgement in that Pompous-Ass and Predjudiced tag-line of yours, eh?
What does my tag line have to do with discussing or studying history?
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to grasp that you need to understand the values of the period in history that you are studying in order to understand people's actions at the time. You don't have to condone them but you can at least take the stance that we have learned something since then that they had not yet discovered. Many of the Founding Fathers agonized over slavery, just as many people today agonize over abortion or drugs. It's wrong-headed to, for example, scrap everything Jefferson ever said or did simply because he owned slaves.
In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr., Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85640,00.html
WASHINGTON — Campaign finance reform opponent Sen. Mitch McConnell appears to have scored a victory Friday when a federal court struck down pertinent parts of legislation enacted last year that bans the use of corporate and union money by political parties.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85859,00.html
"Oddly, though, because of country music's political consistency, what the Dixie Chicks did was big news."
This story never dies, and the New York Times magazine wrote about them again, today, but in a broader story about the forces shaping country music.
I don't listen to country music. I really tried to like it, but it's just not in me. So anybody who does can freely comment on the exerpts. You need to get the magazine to get the whole scope.
"There was a time when the fire that country music lighted beneath its listeners was to get down to the bar, get drunk and see if you couldn't find somebody to go home with. But the only rabble being roused these days is the call to arms," says Ann Patchett an author, who wrote a column for the magazine.
"Long gone are the days when Merle Haggard took care of his searing morning hangover with an 'afternooner' and sang about it. This is thanks in large part to the vice grip of Clear Channel Radio, which buys up radio stations and makes carefully researched decisions about what Americans are free to listen to. Clear Channel has decided that patriotism sells, and that cussing and afternooners are definately out. As a result, the music industry is frantically trying to find people who look and sing like whoever was on top of last week's chart."
What appears fairly certain is that the Dixie Chicks are also definately out. But it seems to me that the same radio stations that made money playing their music, are now making money publicizing and sponsoring stunts that show their distate for them.
"Suddenly, they were standing on the other side of the Merle Haggard line in the sand. They had become those hippie-liberal protesters they should have been singing against."
As is the tradition of many New York Times columns -- written by authors and college professors -- this one is a bit on the snobby side. I'll leave out some of the more damning comments. They analyze popular culture to dust sometimes.
Minnesota's desire to become Wisconsin...or Idaho?
"Minnesota appears to be on the verge of a metamorphosis."
"Strom uses such terms as "suburban libertarianism" and the "leave-me-alone coalition" to describe the philosophy and attitude of the ascendant power."
from Fox News website:
Anyone interested in the subject of over-the-top political correctness who hasn't read Diane Ravitch's new book, The Language Police, should if he or she harbors any doubts about the pervasiveness of this nefarious trend.
Ravitch, an NYU professor and former member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which was charged with devising national standards for school testing, chronicles an array of absurd censorship and over-sensitizing of textbooks and standardized tests.
An earlier item here cited an excerpt from the book in the Atlantic Monthly some time back, but the full text cites many more examples. They are as numerous as they are spine-tingling.
Among them:
An inspirational story of a blind man who climbed Mt. Everest was rejected by a bias review committee because it implies that blind people have a disability and are somehow limited by that disability.
A story from an anthology edited by William Bennett was rejected simply because the politics of the editor might distress fourth-graders.
A biography of the man who designed Mt. Rushmore was rejected because mention of the monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota might offend Native Americans.
An essay about the plethora of life in a rotting stump in a forest was rejected because it compared the stump to an apartment building and that might make people who live in apartments or public housing feel bad.
A story about a dolphin that guides ships through a treacherous channel was rejected because it shows bias toward people who live by the sea. Those who don't live by the sea might be at a disadvantage, you see.
A passage about owls was rejected because owls are considered taboo by Navajos. A publisher decreed that owls should disappear from all texts and tests, so American schoolkids are now unlikely to ever read about them.
And that's just the first chapter.
Only in the U.S. The reverse is true everywhere else!
These people need a good dose of reality up the wazoo!
Rick,
As per the article on the Dixie Chicks, it seems to me that a dead or stale story keeps getting rehashed. If it was let go I think it would die a quick death, the ones seemingly coming to their defense seem to have the toughest time letting it go. Their music is being played and their record sales are back up. I listen to all types of music except opera and rap. I'm not an afficiando on the country genre but what I think the writer missed is that county is alot more mainstream than it was say 15 years ago or before Garth made it popular. So with that wider audience comes different opinions etc. country used to be limited to a smaller group. A few guys I was in with fit the stero typical country fan, some didn't. It always gave me a chuckle when guys in our sqad bay would compete with their stereos. We had guys from inner city New York listening to rap and another guy from Macon GA blairing country. I opted for headphones to drown them both out. I think the whole story got more coverage than warranted IMO. The syles are different because they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. Their are some acts like the Chicks, Garth, that awppeal to people that normally wouldn't otherwise listen to country. There are some old timers who think country is now to pop-ish. I'm sure to them it would be.
Rick,
I read the editorial you posted about our changing political climate. There was also an editorial I believe from Saturday much in tune with the one you posted. Both seem to have a chicken little effect to them.
What resonates throughout frankly is arrogance. It's the exact arrogance that made this change possible. That exact attitude blinded them to what was taking place. It's the arrogance of assuming what people need, where to live, where to spend and what to drive. I noted that they and others made sure to take a shot at those evil suburbanites, it's all them thar SUV drivin subbies that got us all these horrible policies.
Notice this quote from the Sat. editorial
Ahh I see, the aviruge Minnusotan is just to dum ta' know that them theiar leaders are radikals, good thing the righters at the papur are gonna clear it up four us.
Much like ol' Gary Kellior's low rent comment on electing Coleman. Nope no arrogance their, that'll endear you to voters and bring em over, insult them, good idea !
Or this one from the one you posted.
What ? First of all what does "urban roots" even mean. There were alot of people raised in the "burbs" So someone moves to Minnetonka and suddenly have lost touch with their roots ? Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards.
Another and most common theme is the dire predictions that we somehow have changed our values and or traditions. Really ? Spending a billion more is taking us away from all that ? Would 5 billion more make us more virtuous ? Somehow because we are becoming cruel and less compassionate because we might have to cut 1% here or there? I've lived here most of my life and I always thought our traditions were hard work, encouraging and rewarding hard work but also helping people out when they needed help and making it better.
It's gone too far one way, now it's back to the sky falling. I wonder what the editorial writers would be writing if we were faced with a 10 billion dollar deficit ? I'm sure at that point we'd all be Satan because we had to make some cuts. It's easy to be a hero in good times with other peoples money, it's harder to do when times aren't and some decisions have to be made. Nobody on this side of the debate said a peep when we doubled a budget in 10 years, in fact they still were asking for more. Were things so awful 10 years ago at those levels we had turned into a cold Mississippi back then ? Good God how could we survive at those meager levels ? There's nothing noble or compassionate about simply spending money. Compassion comes from the heart as does nobility which also come from actions. Simply declaring that we need to spend more on ______ doesn't nessicarily solve a problem either. It makes you feel better and for some that's apparently enough.
The other falsehood believed and often repeated by many on the left is that Conservatives want to cut or do away with most taxes. Not true. Of course there's a cost to things, of course we have to have a safety net, of course we need infastructure, of course we want good schools and safe streets, clean water and a nice place to live, the DFL forgets, we live here too, we send our kids to the schools, we use the parks, we walk on streets, we have the same hopes and desires. It's hyperbole when it's suggested that conservatives don't, of course they do. We just disagree on the best way to get there and the most sensible way of providing those things.
Making a generalization that voters are somehow not smart enough to choose their leaders or understand the ramifications of their votes and then belittle their choice. Couple that with doubling budgets in 10 years while not once holding back spending even when 5 BILLION in the hole and there's the exact reason the political climate has changed. It's not the voters or people have changed so much it's that the leaders who've had power the majority of the time in this state have refused to look at things another way or perhaps try a new approach. So yes it's changed the people complaining the most haven't changed with it.
"What resonates throughout frankly is arrogance."
No doubt you would prefer humble submission. But not everyone is as gracious and humble as yours truly. I threw in the the towel after November. I'm laying down by my dish.
They quoted the guy from the taxpayers league Mr. Strom, who also said.
"We are seeing a transformation from a blue state to a red state," a reference to the common color code for Democrats and Republicans in election counts, said David Strom, legislative director of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. "
There's arrogance, too. Maybe many suburbanites have lost touch, and are happier for it. Now, that they have the people elected they helped elect, they're after payback.
"Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards."
You seem to be taking the discussion of the suburbs personally. Why? Perhaps you could take issue as well with Mr. Strom, from the Taxpayers League.
"Strom uses such terms as "suburban libertarianism" and the "leave-me-alone coalition" to describe the philosophy and attitude of the ascendant power."
This seemed like a telling phrase from the editorial:
"As economists from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank testified last week, state spending is actually going down, not up, as a share of the Minnesota economy."
I didn't read anything that mentions that they were radical. Pawlenty is certainly very right of center. Sviggum was thwarted by Ventura for four years. Now he has power. Tell my why I shouldn't think that those two and others will not push the agenda as far as they can push it.
That's what politicians do.
Rick,
You're right Rick, it wasn't arrogant, nope none at all and he did, it too. Yes, the statement that the state was transforming from blue to red was arrogant, how I don't know but apparently you see it that way. Perhaps you could explain how a fact is somehow arrogant. Or was he lying and the state is suddenly leaning DFL again ?
Lost touch with what ? Of course if they elected people that promised not to raise taxes they naturally don't want to see them raised unless you're in the habit of voting for people who's agenda you don't like.
"Are they suddenly some evil selfish person who only cares about themselves ? The nerve of them wanting to live in a more quiet less crime ridden area with better schools and lower taxes. The selfish bastards."
Well since you decided to redirect I'll answer. No, I don't take it personally. I'm amazed by their obsession with anyone who wants to move to the suburbs. I don't, but sure as hell don't care if someone does. If someone wants to move to Litchfield or Onamia I don't care about that either. I really am amazed & amuzed by the effort to deride the suburbs as being bad places to live.
And we'll be a cold Omaha next week for it I'm sure. I mean without the doubling of a budget we would have been just like the Domincan Republic by now too.
Gee you're right Rick, they didn't say radical but they certainly implied it. Here it is, they lay it out for those dumb voters.
I'm not saying you shouldn't think that, of course they will, it's the way it works. When the DFL controlled MN for many years they did the same thing too, what's interesting is that,,gasp,,,,,,the left seems befuddled now that the R's have some leverage they might want to pass thier legislation, well no kidding.
"Yes, the statement that the state was transforming from blue to red was arrogant, how I don't know but apparently you see it that way."
I didn't see anything arrogant about the Strib editorial, either. But they say that we are turning away from the things that made Minnesota, if not special, at least unique. That's their contention as I see it.
Agree with it or not. I can say, with accuracy, that Minnesota was -- in the past -- different from the neighboring states. There were quality of life studies and other measure that reflected that. But, talk to a conservative, and they would likely say those measures were bogus.
"When the DFL controlled MN for many years they did the same thing too, what's interesting is that,,gasp,,,,,,the left seems befuddled."
Maybe they're just not going to slink away and accept it. God bless the ones who don't. This is their home, too.
Everything changes Rick, I think it's still different and I think there's still a better quality of life. You speak of "In the past" ? Heck the cuts haven't even taken effect and they are realitively small at that and the doomsday scenario's are already coming. What would happen if times were even worse ? The idea that we're turning our back from what made us great is wrong. There's a balance and a balance of power finally seems to be coming around. We don't give people enough credit. Spend too much and the voters will tell you, spend too little and they'll let you know as well and elect different leaders.
It's the end of the world! Our budget is going up only 3.8% instead of the projected 14.3% or the 20 year average of 12.9%. It is only going up $1.012 billion over the current biennium. Oh the humanity.
For me, this debates not about money, Dan.
For me, this debates not about money, Dan.
Sure it is. If it wasn't, you'd pay for your Liberal agenda yourself and not expect the rest of us to.
You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, JT.
I shouldn't have even brought up those Strib stories. They depressed me.
Well Rick, I'll give you this.
I don't think Dubya should be pushing any tax cuts right now.
I don't think Dubya should be pushing any tax cuts right now.
It is the perfect time for tax cuts!
"I don't think Dubya should be pushing any tax cuts right now. "
He's popular and swaggering 'round and driving the women crazy.
Bush would be wasting political capital if he didn't.
Bush would be wasting political capital if he didn't.
It's wrong.
We're all going to pay for it later.
You're missing the point.
It's wrong.
No, its right.
You're missing the point.
Then explain it to me.
No, its right.
Tell me that in 20 years.
They're pushing for this because they can.
Tax cuts will shore up the the voter base.
You use power when you can use it.
"Tell me that in 20 years."
Bush and the Congress will be long out of office.
This is like using one of those blank checks that the credit card companies send you. The Republicans want to tear one off and use it. People do that all the time. That's why the credit card companies mail them out.
Two-pair joe.
Tell me that in 20 years.
That is what they said in 1964 and again in 1981. My guess things won't be much different in that regard in 2023.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3872539.html
It'll never be enough, that's exactly why we're 5 billion in the hole. It just grows every year, a 9% INCREASE and the sky is still falling, good lored, I'd hate to hear the horror stories if it was only an 8% increase.
That is what they said in 1964 and again in 1981. My guess things won't be much different in that regard in 2023.
They were right.
Our current national debt:
Each citizen's share of this debt is $22,279.28.
The National Debt increases an average of $1.13 billion per day
Luv2Fly 5/13/03 8:37am
Screw you, Luv2Fly.
Get your hand off your gland and meet me in the playground!
Cuz I'm opening up a can of whoop-ass!
They were right.
And we keep going on don't we? Is the sky falling? No.
And we keep going on don't we? Is the sky falling? No.
Great argument.
Your argument that the sky is falling is not as good.
Where did I say the sky was falling?
You're either ignorant or just plain stupid to think it doesn't merit concern.
It certianly isn't getting better.
You're either ignorant or just plain stupid to think it doesn't merit concern.
Ah yes the ignorant and stupid argument. Quite convincing.
It certainly isn't getting better.
What is getting worse?
What is getting worse?
the national debt, perhaps?
the national debt, perhaps?
Is it worse? Do you see any consequences from the increased debt? All that is offered is speculation of gloom and doom.
are you trying to say there's something good that comes from having a debt burden per person that's twice what i pay in federal income taxes each year? i don't see consequences per se from an increased debt, but at the rate its increasing, you're a fool to think that cutting taxes is a good idea.
Politically, it's a great idea. Bush will suffer at the polls and drop in public opinion if he doesn't do it.
This is about buying votes.
Don't bother, ares.
Since it's no big deal, we'll just send Jethro the bill.
are you trying to say there's something good that comes from having a debt burden per person that's twice what i pay in federal income taxes each year? What I said is that the argument about increasing the national debt will cause great problems for the country have been made before and so far they have been wrong.I don't see consequences per se from an increased debt, but at the rate its increasing, you're a fool to think that cutting taxes is a good idea. historically a decrease in tax rate has increased government revenue overall.
i like that idea, jt.
Well, the magical debt fairy, from fiscalresponsibilityland, might go POOF, and make it disappear.
Or, there is the chance that these actual dollars that someone will someday have to pay back.
Now, I'm not saying the Liberal side of this is any better. They don't give a rats ass about the debt either. They're just mad their programs aren't going to be funded as much as they like.
btw: Historically a decrease in tax rate has increased our national debt overall.
in the same way it'll come along and make my debt disappear. as for liberal program funding all i'v got to say is "life's a bitch" everyone gets their share of the squeeze.
Or there is the chance that these actual dollars that someone will someday have to pay back.
When was the last time the debt was paid off?
Historically an increase in social spendinghas increased our national debt overall.