“Virtual Town Hall Meetings” Announced to Spur Public Dialog on Minnesota Health Care Reform Proposals
 
Minneapolis, MN- December 14, 2007 – Two groups involved in Minnesota’s health care debate have joined forces to announce a series of virtual town hall meetings to address proposed health care reforms.  Citizens' Council on Health Care (CCHC) and Minnesota Majority will host a series of Internet-based conferences to educate the public on the issues surrounding various health care reform proposals and solicit citizen feedback on alternative reform measures.
The virtual town hall meetings will be held from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. on January 8, January 23 and February 7, 2008.  Each event will accommodate up to 1000 participants and will be free-of-charge.  Legislators from both sides of the aisle will be invited to present their proposals.  The public will have the opportunity to ask questions to the presenters and provide feedback on reform proposals.  Individuals can register for the event by visiting www.HealthCareMeeting.com.
 
"We wanted to provide a more convenient and effective method of encouraging a public dialog on important public policy issues that impact people’s lives,” said Jeff Davis, President of Minnesota Majority.  “The virtual town hall meeting offers busy families a way to take a few minutes out of their day and step into the public square without leaving the comfort of their homes.”  Davis believes that environmentally-conscious individuals may prefer the virtual meeting approach since no fossil fuels are burned travelling to and from a physical meeting location. (is this last sentence tongue in cheek??)
 
Twila Brase, President of CCHC, is optimistic about the potential benefits.  “The online tools will allow participants to submit their questions to legislators and be get immediate responses,” said Brase. We expect health care to be a hot topic during the 2008 legislative session. These town hall meetings will put legislators and the public at large in the same virtual room for a meaningful statewide dialog on this critical issue.
About Minnesota Majority
 
Minnesota Majority is a non-partisan, non-profit issue advocacy group established to help promote traditional values in Minnesota’s state public policy.  Visit www.MinnesotaMajority.org.  Media contact is Drew Emmer, 763-242-0863 or drew.emmer@mnmajority.org.
 
About Citizens Council for Health Care
 
CCHC is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization that advocates for patient and physician freedom, medical innovation, and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.  Visit http://www.cchconline.org.  Media contact is Twila Brase at (651) 646-8935 or mediacontact@cchconline.org

 

Time Magazine is out with their "Person of the Year" and this year's is a doozy!  Time's Person of the Year is Vladimir Putin and the only thing more stunning than the choice was the reason for the choice.

 

TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years.

It is how the former KGB agent achieves that stability that should have put the Time editors off of this nomination.  People who question Putin's tactics have died in some rather creative ways

along with being handled in some of the more mundane ways. 

 

Putin has moved Russia away from democracy and openness back to the old days of dictatorship and fear.  This is what Time feels is leadership.  Then again, they also considered Hitler and Stalin to be a leaders too so I suppose that this is not too much of a surprise.

One of the mantras in the immigration debate is the English language question.  It could be something as simple as a sign in a fast food window or as complex as legislation to make English the national language.  What is lost in the discussion of diversity versus assimilation is WHY it is so very important for immigrants (legal or illegal) to learn how to speak the English language.

 

Police blamed bad information for sending a SWAT team into a north Minneapolis house early Sunday morning in a raid that ended with shots exchanged between police -- who were struck by bullets -- and the resident, who said he was just defending his family.
The homeowner, who does not speak English, told his brother that he thought the police were the "bad guys" after they broke through the back door of the house, where he lives with his wife and six children...In a statement released shortly after 5 a.m. Sunday, police said that officers found no one on the first floor of the house. When they made their way up to the second floor, they were confronted by an adult male. The officers identified themselves as police, and the man fired several rounds at them. Several officers returned fire, but no one in the house was injured.

 

 

 

Former PresidentBill Clinton has been hitting the campaign trail hard for his wife lately. Yesterday, on "The Charlie Rose Show", he said something so unbelievably hypocritical that it defies logic. He came out and said that Senator Barak Obama does not have the "experience" to be President. Now I fully understand that many on the right are saying this, but for former President Clinton to say that, in this day and age of YouTube is stunningly stupid.

The Obama Capaign didn't waste any time....

Former PresidentBill Clinton has been hitting the campaign trail hard for his wife lately. Yesterday, on "The Charlie Rose Show", he said something so unbelievably hypocritical that it defies logic. He came out and said that Senator Barak Obama does not have the "experience" to be President. Now I fully understand that many on the right are saying this, but for former President Clinton to say that, in this day and age of YouTube is stunningly stupid.

The Obama Capaign didn't waste any time....

You may have noticed that Presidential politics has been on my mind a lot this past week. With the Iowa caucuses three weeks away, is it any wonder? The subject of today's post I'm sure will be controversial....Congressman Ron Paul. I've written about Congressman Paul in the past on my own blog and the more I dig into his record, the more puzzled I am by his candidacy. While I feel that his isolationist views are dead wrong and dangerous, I like a some of his thoughts on limited government.

Today Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel takes a look at some of the lessons that the RNC needs to take from the Ron Paul campaign.

If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.

On the stump, Mr. Paul whips up crowds with his libertarian talk of "less taxation, less regulation, a better economic system." While Mitt Romney explains his support of No Child Left Behind, Mr. Paul gets standing ovations by promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Rudy Giuliani toys with reducing marginal rates; Mr. Paul gets whoops with his dream to ax the income tax (and by extension the IRS). Mike Huckabee lectures on the need for more government-subsidized clean energy; Mr. Paul brings cheers with his motto that environmental problems are best solved with stronger property rights. His rhetoric is based on first principles--carefully connecting his policies to the goals of liberty and freedom--and it fires up the base.

First principles....hmmmm where have I heard THAT before??????

The men vying to lead the Republican Party might instead make a study of Mr. Paul. One shame of this race is that for all the enthusiasm the Texan has generated among voters, he hasn't managed to pressure the front-runners toward his positions. His more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a "North American Union") and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.
They shouldn't dismiss the passion he's tapped. If Mr. Paul has shown anything, it's that many conservative voters continue to doubt there's anything "heroic" or "compassionate" in a ballooning government that sucks up their dollars to aid a dysfunctional state. When Mr. Paul gracefully exits this race, his followers will be looking for an alternative to take up that cause. Any takers?

Logical Lady Peggy Noonan has a column out today that all conservatives need to read and contemplate.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far....
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.

Making a three dimensional decision (who has the best character, who has experience and who can get the job done), as opposed to deciding strictly on faith, is the best thing that people of faith can do for their country.

Like a lot of other 2nd Amendment advocates, I have been following the Martin Treptow case quite closely through the pages of Shot In The Dark and Joel Rosenberg's Live Journal. For those of you that want a quick rundown on the case see Joel's post here.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher says St. Paul police officials improperly obtained the cell phone records of Fox-9 news reporter Tom Lyden as part of an
investigation that involved a sheriff's department employee.
The case is a big media deal because Minnesota's shield law protects reporters and their sources; news organizations have the right to challenge any law enforcement request in court. However, the St. Paul police did an end run: they went after a third party — Lyden's cell phone provider — with an "administrative subpoena" which does not need to be disclosed to the reporter or media organization.
"They have basically opened up my reporter's notebook. They have basically looked at my notes, they have looked at sources, they have looked at people I have tried to protect," Lyden told fellow investigative reporter Trish Van Pilsum for a Fox-9
story that aired Tuesday...Fox says police Public Information Officer Tom Walsh denied a request for the criminal history; the sheriff's office gave Lyden the document, ruling it was public. (Walsh refused comment, citing an open investigation into the case.)

 

...Fletcher alleges St. Paul police:
· Submitted a "false affidavit" to get phone records.
· Opened a criminal investigation to "deflect" civil liability police feared due to the records' release.
· Engaged in a conflict of interest by investigating his office as the aggrieved party, rather than referring the matter to a neutral third party.
· Pursued the inquiry in part because of animus between police commander David Korus and sheriff's office director Steve Lydon, plus Walsh's "distain" [sic] for Lyden.

When True North was first formed, the one constant (amongst the Nucleus) was the concept of principles first conservatism. For the Nucleus that is a very important thing for ANY upcoming candidate. That is what makes this WSJ story about Governor Mitt Romney so troubling.
Mitt Romney loves data and lusts after process.

In a recent cover profile in The Weekly Standard by the magazine's Fred Barnes, Mr. Romney is portrayed as the man who would be the CEO of America. Says Mr.
Barnes, quoting Mr. Romney, a Harvard M.B.A.: "His idea of the perfect deal is not when one side wins but when 'you find a new alternative that everybody agrees is the right way to go. That doesn't always happen.' "
Indeed.
Mr. Barnes says Mr. Romney's "approach to government is not ideological." A Romney adviser is quoted as saying of his candidate: "He's super-pragmatic. He's an eclectic conservative." And Mr. Romney himself says flatly that as president he would "insist on gathering data . . . and analyze the data looking for trends."

I can be as pragmatic as the next guy but there are certain core principles that my pragmatism will never over-ride.

One of the subtle images of Mr. Romney's recent speech on religion is perhaps not understood by Mr. Romney's advisers. Where did Mr. Romney go to deliver his talk on principle? And who introduced him? The site was the presidential library of former president George H.W. Bush--the former president himself in his always gracious fashion introducing Romney.
Yet Mr. Romney did not need a visit to the Bush Library to understand why the Library does not contain the papers of a two-term president. The reason, of course, is that then-Vice President George H.W. Bush campaigned for the presidency in 1988 on the principle he phrased as "read my lips--no new taxes." He won. Yet in the name of precisely the process Mr. Romney lovingly describes--gathering data and looking for trends--the first President Bush was persuaded by Romneyesque
advisers like then-Treasury aide Richard Darman to surrender bedrock conservative principle and raise taxes. The senior Mr. Bush was advised to choose data and process over principle. He did--and in short order had lots of time on his hands to decide the process for building a library about a one-term president while Bill and Hillary Clinton took charge.

Process and data can only take you so far...especially in politics. At some point in time you have to decide that there is a line that you will not cross. Governor Romney has yet to show principled voters where that line is for him. He needs to find it soon - voting in Iowa is less than 3 weeks away.

ECM Publications runs several weekly local newspapers in Central Minnesota.  Here in the Savage Lands, the representatives of ECM are This Week Prior Lake and This Week Burnsville.  T.W. Buddig, the Capital reporter for ECM gives us part one of a three part series on Rep. John Lesch's (DFL-St. Paul) pending breed ban proposal.

 

When Kellie Dillner of Andover scooped up Marri, the pit bull showed only tenderness cradled in her owner’s arms.

Tenderness might not be the behavior expected from a breed of dog proposed to be banned from Minnesota.

 

 

According to the article, Rep. Lesch is still adamant on proposing this ill-conceived legislation.  Thankfully, support for the legislation is not high.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is inclined to let local communities handle dog-related issues rather than favor a statewide approach, he recently explained.“What happens in a densely populated area of an urban center may be different than if you have a three thousand acre farm,” said Pawlenty this month. “It’s probably an issue that’s best addressed by local units of government,” he said.Animal control officers, too, see problems with a breed ban.The Minnesota Animal Control Association rejected Lesch’s breed ban proposal, said Bill Forbes, an association official and an animal control officer with the Bloomington Police Department.

Dog bite statistics, Forbes argues, reflect the popularity of dog breeds. He points to dog owners themselves as a major factor in the dog bite equation. “The breeds have changed, but the people (problem owners) are still the same,” Forbes said.Troublesome dogs tend to belong to certain types of owners, Forbes argues.
These owners tend to have personal histories of violence, substance abuse, run in with the law, he explained. “It’s mostly men — it’s kind of a hormonal thing,” said Forbes.  It’s not a racial. It’s not a cultural.  These problem owners are found across the socioeconomic spectrum, said Forbes.

Dr. Margaret M. Duxbury, a veterinary behaviorist at the University of Minnesota Veterinary Medical Center, doesn’t view certain dog breeds as inherently more dangerous than any other. “Do I support the idea of outlawing certain dog breeds? No,” she said. “The issue is way too complicated to be solved that way,” said Duxbury.
“We see dogs every week for many kinds of aggressions. And many, many, many of them are not pit bulls,” she said. Several factors influence dog behavior, explained Duxbury.
Genetic temperament is one, but it strongly depends on a particular dog’s own direct relatives, she explained.
Within breeds, individuals differ, she explained.
Duxbury also points to socialization as a primary influence on dog behavior.“That starts really early — like three to twelve weeks,” she said.“It’s important what environment the puppies are in at the breeders. If they’re isolated — in a barn or a room and they don’t hear many people — they aren’t handled very much, that puts them at a great disadvantage,” she said.

But Lesch believes the testimony of dog bite victims will be powerful and compelling.
“I think they’re (A Rotta Love Plus) going to have to take their chances with that one,” Lesch of the idea of his bill lacking legs.

The Minnesota Animal Control Association is currently working on ways to give courts more ways of dealing with problem dogs.

A lot of folks have been talking about Fred Thompson's campaign - and most of what they are saying is not good. The latest press meme is that the former Senator is "lazy". Others have tried to dispell that notion in the past by rattling off his numerous accomplishments. If you look at what he has done in his life, they are correct - there is no way you can consider him to be "lazy". Now I would offer my observations on the charge.

There was another Southern boy that the GOP and it's northern supporters "didn't get". He'll never get elected, they said. He's too slow and lazy. That Southern boy, the former Governor of Arkansas, that the GOP took for granted ended up beating the northern insider that they chose to run for President TWICE!   My fear is that former Senator Thompson's deliberation will be what keeps him from getting top billing in 2008. There are simply too many voters (in the GOP) out there who don't get "Southern" and therefore will not get Thompson.  It's a shame.  Senator Thompson deserves a good look as his policy positions are quite good and worthy of the GOP's support.
 

I have a few more thoughts on the Hugh Hewitt/Lawrence O'Donnell interview that I wrote about in my last post.  I wanted to make sure that the "Islam" remarks stood on their own because they are such an important admission.  Now I would like to focus on a couple of other salient points that Hewitt made.

 

HH: I want to ask you, Lawrence. You mentioned on the McLaughlin Group that Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather’s polygamy was an issue.  Can you explain to me why? 
LO’D: No, well, he…remember the line in the speech, this is the faith of my fathers, not just the…
HH: do you believe by that he meant… 
LO’D: …not just George. Did he mean his great-grandfather? 
HH: Do you think he did? You asserted that he did. 
LO’D: Yup, I do.  
HH: You… 
LO’D: I do think…if I said that, I’d mean my great-grandfather. 
HH: You believe that Mitt Romney was endorsing polygamy in his speech? 
LO’D: I wouldn’t cut it off with my great-grandfather. No, I don’t think he endorses polygamy...

HH: Let me break in here. Now Lawrence, given your standard… 
LO’D: Yeah. 
HH: Are Catholics responsible for the anti-Semitism in the Church’s past? 
LO’D: Yes. 
HH: They are? 
LO’D: Oh, current Catholics? No. No, not current Catholics, no. 
HH: Well, do current Catholics need to step up and explain that when they say
they’re… 
LO’D: I don’t think Romney’s responsible for his great-grandfather. 

LO’D: I think he’s lying about his great-grandfather. 
HH: I just want to follow through. You laid down a principle, and I want to follow through. As recently as… 
LO’D: I think Romney’s a liar about his great-grandfather. That’s what I think. 

 Gee....this sounds vaguely familiar....

 

Hugh Hewitt (Romney apologist extraordinaire) interviewed Lawrence O'Donnell yesterday.  Now anyone who has listened to the show knows that Hugh tends to get wee bit harpy when he has a member of the MSM on his program.  In this case he had O'Donnell on because of a diatribe of O'Donnell's on last week-ends "McLaughlin Report".  Bye and large, this was one of Hugh's better interviews - he didn't harrangue O'Donnell nearly as badly as I expected him to, given the subject matter.  However, what I did find interesting was the close of the interview.  O'Donnell admitted, what many of us have suspected.  That it is OK to attack Christians because, unlike Islam, they don't shoot back (emphasis mine).

HH: Okay. And do you believe, would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith? 
LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.  
HH: Well, that’s candid.  
LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever… 
HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel. 
LO’D:  They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them. 
HH: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you. 
LO’D: I agree. 
HH: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor. 

The media routinely defers to Islam, refusing to show the "infamous" Mohammed Cartoons and they go out of their way to avoid portraying Islam in a bad light, they relish insulting Christians and Christianity.  Many have long asked "Why?".  Now, finally we know what we have long suspected is indeed true.