Walking the Walk

During the last Legislative Session, the Minnesota Legislature adopted legislation that requires Minnesota to increase our use of alternative energy by 20% by the year 2020. It was hailed by the environmentalists as landmark legislation. One of the alternatives that the Legislature and the Governor are pushing hard is wind energy. Wind power is a favorite among the enviros, except for one itty-bitty, little problem...

There goes the neighborhood
Your Nov. 28 article "An energy model for all to see," about a wind turbine in Maple Grove, certainly tells it all! I am looking out my front window and see this eyesore!
My husband and I specifically chose to live in Maple Grove three years ago as we were very impressed with their "master plan" of residential and commercial. It was very well orchestrated. Note that I say "was." This vulgar wind turbine completely desecrates this once wonderful Arbor Lakes area. Now, don't get me wrong; I am not saying that I do not agree that wind turbines have their place and are certainly an alternative energy source, but the once-beautiful Arbor Lakes area is not the place.
We were recently in the Palm Springs, Calif., area. Take a lesson: Outside of the city, far away from any residential or commercial development, they had a large area of wind turbines. Great!
I can't believe that the Maple Grove City Council would approve this monstrosity. Maybe it was a very late night when it came on the agenda and they all just wanted to go home and so approved it. What will they approve next? A 160-foot giant donut for Krispy Kreme, or a 160-foot super-sized rack of ribs for Famous Dave's?
M. E., MAPLE GROVE

Emphasis mine. In all fairness to M.E. of Maple Grove, she is not the only one that objects to having a wind farm outside their front door.

Rich, oceanfront residents of Cape Cod do not want their view of Nantucket Sound
faintly obstructed by offshore protrusions of a proposed wind farm. So, they have hired high-priced lobbyists to kill Cape Wind, a project providing an environmentally sound source of energy. Their most important ally in this venture is a fellow wealthy Cape Cod landowner, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

This is the problem that I have with the "green" movement. From Al Gore to Barbara Streisand to the Kennedy's of Massacheusettes, they all want alternative energy until they are the ones that have to make the sacrifice and then forget it! It's ok to have a wind farm - unless it blocks their view and then it is an eyesore that must be eliminated. It's ok for the rest of the country to give up their cars, but they must keep their Gulfstream jets because they are "important".

Over at Anti-Strib we are having a discussion on the things that we do to conserve. It started off (as many AS posts do) with a gross over generalization, but... Many of us do don that extra sweater so that we can keep our home heating fuel use lower. Many of us do ride the bus when possible or ride bikes when appropriate - it is plain old common sense! The average Americans ARE doing their part....it's time for the elites to do the same. You want us to sacrifice our lifestyles in order to save Gaia? Fine....LEAD BY EXAMPLE....give up the 100 room mansion and move into an 2 room flat. Better yet - subdivide your mansion into individual "affordable" apartments. Sell the Gulfstream and start flying coach with the rest of the unwashed masses and THEN maybe the rest of the country will pay attention to what you have to say.

The most ethical Congress

strikes again! (HT Gary at LFR)


"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was.
Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system. "


To be fair to the Speaker, I knew (as Bloomberg did) that the promised reforms were not going to happen. They are too entrenched on both sides to ever completely do away with earmarks. Anyone who thought that the Dems could actually get rid of earmarks was deluding themselves. However, the "reform" bill that the Dems finally did get passed was actually a step in the WRONG direction.


"Instead of exposing and eradicating secretive pork-barrel spending the bill has created new ways to hide that spending. The bill, (Sen. Tom) Coburn said, makes earmark disclosure voluntary, not mandatory. Also, the requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes - less than a majority.
The language prohibiting a Member or staff from promoting earmarks from which that individual personally would benefit was eviscerated completely. So was the provision prohibiting a Member from trading votes for earmarks. Coburn was also angry that the provision requiring a Member to disclose earmarks on the Internet 48 hours before a vote was changed to "as soon as practical." Other provisions of the bill were weakened as well, limiting the quantity of disclosure and transparency required of politicians and defeating the original purpose of the bill.
The Washington Examiner editorialized that the bill failed to address the core issue of corruption caused by earmarks. Coburn said that earmarks have been at the heart of recent scandals which have sent Members of Congress to prison and brought others under investigation." (emphasis mine)


In case you are wondering, the entire Minnesota delegation voted for this bill.

Let them eat cake

This story should tell you all you need to know about George Soros and his "philosophy". He has his and no one else is allowed to get to theirs!

"Tonight, PBS will air "Gold Futures," a film by Hungary's Tibor Kocsis. The film focuses on residents in Romania's Rosia Montana, a rural Transylvanian town, who are divided over the benefits of a proposed gold mine. It also features Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company trying to convince them to relocate so it can dig for a huge gold deposit estimated at 14.6 million ounces, worth almost $10 billion. PBS describes the film as a "David-and-Goliath story."...The other side to the controversy is told in a new film that will never be shown on PBS, but is nonetheless rattling the environmental community. "Mine Your Own Business" is a documentary by Irish filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. They conclude that the biggest threat to the people of Rosia Montana "comes from upper-class Western environmentalism that seeks to keep them poor and unable to clean up the horrific pollution caused by Ceausescu's mining."
Mr. McAleer, a former Financial Times journalist who has followed the mine battle for seven years, says he "found that everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false." He produced his film on a shoestring $230,000 budget largely provided by Gabriel Resources, but says he was given complete editorial control."

What, you ask, does all of this have to do with Mr. Soros? His Open Society Institute is a large funder of some of the groups opposing the Rosia Montana mine.

"In April, Mr. Soros, the chairman of the Open Society Institute and a large funder of groups opposing Rosia Montana, wrote to Wayne Murdy, then CEO of Newmont Mining, the Denver company that owns 19% of Gabriel Resources. He urged him not to invest in "a dubious project such as Rosia Montana," citing "the social costs involved in involuntarily resettling hundreds of people" and "the potential for disastrous environmental impact." Mr. Soros did not respond to an interview request. "

Mr. Soros did not respond to the interview request....big surprise...

Here you have a villiage that is impoverished and already polluted by heavy metals due to Communist era mining projects. The group that wants to mine the gold is offering MORE than fair market value for the homes in the area, they will clean up the existing pollution AND they are going to be employing a large number of the remaining residents. People in the Rosia Montana area need jobs...they need FOOD and George Soros is activly working to keep them hungry and poor.

There is a way to balance protecting the environment and the people. Technology has gotten us there. However, if George Soros has his way, the only ones who will have access to that technology are people that already have it. Those that don't will never see it....

Chutzpah!

In the reporting on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence, a local radio station has been playing a sound byte of Presidential hopeful (and former First Lady) Hillary Clinton talking about how the pardon "elevated cronyism over the rule of law".

OK - after the hysterical laughter subsided I started to think back to the waning hours of the Clinton Administration. During his last 24 hours in office President Clinton pardoned the following:

Marc Rich - contributor (through his wife) to the Clinton Library and fugitive convicted of tax evasion was pardoned.
Dan Rostenkowski - fellow Democrat (IL) convicted of fraud was pardoned.
Mel Reynolds - another fellow Democrat (from Illinois) convicted of bank fraud, sexual assualt, obstruction of justice AND solicitation of child ponography - his fraud sentence was commuted.
Roger Clinton - the presidents half-brother was pardoned after serving time on a drug related charge.
Almon Braswell - convicted of mail fraud and was the subject of an active money laundering investigation (federal). Braswell gave $200,000 to Hugh Rodham (Hillary's brother) and within weeks, was pardoned on ALL charges.
Carlos Vignali - a convicted drug trafficer who had his sentence commuted.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory - "friends" of Tony Rodham who were pardoned after their bank fraud conviction. After the pardon was received, Tony Rodham received $107,000 in "loans" from the Gregory's....loans that were never repaid!

Look - it is the Constitutionally given right of ANY President to pardon or commute the sentence of any person he or she so chooses. This is not flouting the "rule of law" as many Democrats are saying today, au contrare....it IS the rule of law and Hillary (of all people) knows this fact better than anyone else!

If this (the commuting of Scooter's prison sentence) is "cronyism" what do you call the rewarding of people who gave money directly to you or your family? Talk about chutzpah!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

That paragon of Constitutional Rights abuses, George W. Bush, is at it again. This time he has closed down Fox News.....

"On the TV, stars of RCTV sing their national anthem, and the crowd outside joins in. The men carrying the massive flag are now holding it steady. People grab me and Keith. They tell me in Spanish that they are losing their Democracy and they are worried about their future. One man asserts, "Go tell America and tell Europe what is being done to freedom in Colombia!"
11:58 p.m.: Like clockwork, the channel goes off the air. The music stops; the TV now features a spinning “TVes” logo, which stands for the new socialist, Chavez controlled TV station."

Oh wait....that wasn't President Bush???

This is the thing that bugs me about a lot of folks on the left. They scream bloody murder about supposed violations here in the US and then they align themselves with some of the WORST human rights violaters (Communist Russia, China, Cuba) and then when their guy does what everyone on the right says he is going to do, they turn a blind eye to the abuses.

Hypocrisy - thy name is....

Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week that got little attention - and it deserved more than it got.

"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. " (emphasis mine)

Senator Kerrey then goes on to chastise people like Senator Biden who, while condemning US intervention in an Iraqi Civil War, have no problems interjecting the US into other Civil Wars around the world.

"The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. "

I have long wondered how the left could justify that position. In the spirit of disclosure, I support us being in Iraq AND into the Sudan in order to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Maybe the Democrats in DC need to think about their positions on these issues and answer the question "why are they so out of line?"