Reps. Tim Walz (D) and Erik Paulsen (R) penned an editorial in today's Star Tribune (surf there at your own risk of malware and other cooties). In it they argue that the moratorium on building new nuclear plants needs to be lifted. I couldn't disagree more strenuously.
I really don't want to do this as I'm a big fan of Tim's and I personally like him a lot, but I have to point out a few things. Despite what I'm about to say, I still think he's a great Representative.
What Tim is doing is validating their tired, old and debunked arguments.
For decades, the debate over nuclear energy has been stalled, largely along ideological lines. During that time, our nation's primary energy sources have drastically narrowed. Our emissions have increased. High and volatile energy prices have become standard. As a result, our nation is heavily reliant on energy sources that come from countries and regions often hostile to our interests.
Stalled along ideological lines, eh? What about stalled because enough politicians have listened to reason? Paulsen and Walz oversimplify by claiming that we either have coal or nuclear power as options. This is the argument that the polluters, the nuclear lobby and politicians like Erik Paulsen have been advancing to prevent any serious investment in green energy technology. And Tim is playing right into it.
You wouldn't know from this op-ed that Tim has worked hard on green energy solutions. You'd think he was a corporate Dem more concerned about his corporate donors interests than the needs of Minnesotans. The opposite is true.
Essentially, Paulsen and Walz argue that we must consider nuclear power because we have to reduce our carbon output. The problem is it's not just about the carbon. The fact that Paulsen oversimplifies the issue is not surprising -- he's bought and paid for by Corporate America. But the fact that Walz agrees with him is not good.
If it's so safe, let's build it upriver from Mankato on the Minnesota river. Then let's build the storage facility in Tim's neighborhood. Oh ... don't like the idea so much now? It's going to have to go upriver from somebody and we'll have to store the spent fuel rods and other toxic by-products next door to somebody.
Next consider that a nuke plant uses more water than any other kind of energy source. Typically around 390 billion gallons per year for your average nuke plant. In addition, the water exiting the plant is often toxic. This water would have to go into a river somewhere and I don't think Tim's neighbors would want it in the Minnesota.
Furthermore, Paulsen and Walz flippantly dismiss wind and solar with "Unlike with some renewable sources, we can count on it (nuclear power) for consistent power -- come rain, snow, sun or clouds." Walz should know that the wind blows pretty much all the time out in western MN and it's plenty sunny.
Paulsen and Walz also fail to recognize the impact that energy savings measures might accomplish. Think of all the people we could employ making existing homes more energy efficient. They fail to recognize the unrealized potential of the combination of wind, solar, geothermal and energy conservation. Paulsen has never wanted it, but Walz? Shame.
Building a new nuke plant will raise everyone's rates. Even if you don't get any of your electricity from the plant. Nuke plants require massive government subsidies to make profits for their owners. Fundamentally, taxpayers subsidize the profits the owners -- nuclear plants are always a bad deal for taxpayers.
Paulsen and Walz want us all to ignore the lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant. Mining uranium is incredibly destructive and expensive. Enriching uranium takes massive amounts of energy plus most enriching facilities are coal powered. Finally, we have no solution to dealing with the waste. We have to store this waste for many, many millions of years.
Paulsen and Walz fail to recognize the true cost and impact of nuclear power plants and want us to ignore the voice of reason on this issue. While this is typical behavior for Erik Paulsen, I am truly saddened that Tim Walz is siding with the polluters, the nuclear lobby and those like Paulsen who oppose green energy solutions.
Normally, I rip on the Minneapolis Star Tribune for poor political coverage, Republican bias and lack of fact-checking. They slashed their political reporting staff to the bone and have recently let go a large portion of their fact-checkers. Which means that things are only going to get worse.
Their problem is, in my opinion, that they are in a death spiral. They have fewer readers so they sell less ads. They sell less ads so they lay off reporters. They have fewer reporters so their coverage of politics in MN is shoddy. Their coverage is shoddy and conservatively biased so they have fewer readers ...
With fewer and fewer people buying their dead tree edition, their future as a news organization relies on their online activities. Of course, their further problems is that their website sucks. It takes a long-time to load and continually eats up your CPU refreshing itself. If they had competent web designers and a better architecture, this wouldn't be a problem.
And now this ...
If you're at work and having trouble connecting to Startribune.com, your web adminstrator may have blocked access due to a malware outbreak Sunday.
Odds are you'd know if you were hit; according to University of St. Thomas admins, "an antivirus software advertisement called Antivirus Soft pops up and cannot be closed."
Strib Digital Media executive director Jason Erdahl says that a "remnant ad" contained the malicious software, which can contain viruses and other nastiness.
The ad - a lower-priced type served up by national networks - was pulled as soon as the virus was discovered, but reports of problems were still trickling in Monday, Erdahl says. "There are still reports trickling in this morning, but they seem primarily to be a reaction to Sunday's outbreak. We are giving this our full attention, however, just in case this is still a problem for our readers."
(MinnPost)
They cannot seem to do anything right lately. So before you visit startribune.com, be sure your virus software is up-to-date.
In the Star Tribune's version of reality, there is always good news to write about for the Republican party. When they do, they most often do it on the front page. Strib stenographer Mike Kaszuba pushed the Republican talking point that the Republicans are really hopeful about the 2010 elections. It seems that whenever the Republican Party has a meme to push, Strib stenographers are always willing. Kaszuba and et al always seem to forget that MN's version of Baghdad Bob, former Party Chair Ron Carey, also always and relentlessly saw the rosy side of things.
Minnesota's Republicans are talking confidently again, hoping to capitalize on a country -- and a state -- they think may already be growing tired of President Obama and the Democrats.
From Rod Johnson, a Cannon Falls auctioneer, to Mike Rolih, a onetime baseball pitcher from Illinois, a new wave of GOP candidates is eyeing state legislative seats and predicting that the worst days Republicans endured over the past two years are behind them.
Buoyed by victories in Massachusetts and at home in Waseca, Minn., Republican leaders are talking openly of building a majority in the Minnesota House, shaving the margin in the DFL-controlled Senate and keeping the governor's office firmly in Republican hands.
(Strib)
Kaszuba points to a win in Waseca where a former DFLer, Roy Srp, stole votes from the DFL candidate, the MA win and the fundraising lead the Republican House caucus as proof ... proof ... PROOF (I tells ya ...) that 3 straight landslides are going to be reversed in 2010.
As usual, Kaszuba only uses two paragraphs to bring a little reality, which he probably hopes shows his objectivity, and quotes House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm). The editors put that on the inside page. Typical.
Maria Elena Baca of the Star Tribune has confused ad agency with newspaper. Or maybe Maria is just confusing stenographer with journalist. She wrote a piece that a campaign would have had a hard time putting out, since it is that balantly an advertising piece for Sheriff Fletcher. Let's see how high we can get on the Kelly scale of how biased can an article be.
1) Starting with the title. "Take note if you're up to no good: Ramsey County is watching". Does Maria Elena Baca or the Star Tribune realize that Sheriff Fletcher in previous campaigns took credit for the Metro Gang Task Force now under serious criminal investigation? Does that count as "up to no good?" Or that two close co-workers of Sheriff Fletcher were convicted of corruption? Did Maria ask if any these cameras were being installed in the Sheriff's office? Or if any cameras were already in the Sheriff's office? Or if any of them were actually turned on?
You may recall from my rant last week about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune will not frontpage any bad news concerning Republicans. Well here's something that I guarantee will not make the paper:
Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.
(Daily Kos)
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has run with two straight days of bad press about Democratic politicians on it's front page. This isn't actually news. But their behavior should be recognized for what it is. Sheer partisanship.
Republican bad news rarely if ever makes the front page.
This blog has documented that the Strib allows Republicans to push debunked lies on their editorial pages. I have documented at this blog and at my old blog, mnblue.com, that the Strib did nearly everything in their power to reelect Norm Coleman -- from ignoring stories, to shameless spinning, to burying bad news about Norm when they couldn't ignore it. Bill Prendergast and I (though Bill has been at it longer) have documented that the Strib has ignored Rep. Michele Bachmann's evangelist backing, insanity, bigotry and lying.
This Wednesday was the "breathless" revelation that a staffer quit and accused Sen. Franken of favoring DC staffers over Minnesotans. They then state in the 4th paragraph that "... Franken's 19-member Washington staff includes 13 people with Minnesota ties, a ratio similar to that of the state's senior U.S. Senator, Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar."
Would they have written this if the staffer quit Michele Bachmann's team?
Today was the news that Margaret Anderson-Kelliher was fined for a campaign violation. If a Republican gubernatorial candidate, would they have frontpaged it? Very, very doubtful.
What I want to know is by what standard would the Strib frontpage bad news about Republicans?
Would a Republican President caught red-handed about lying us into a war make the front page? Nope.
Would allegations that a Republican Senator from Minnesota accepted illegal gifts? Nope, front of the Metro section.
Would a evangelical Christian Republican from the northern suburbs fomenting revoluation against the legitimately elected government of the United States of which she is a member make the Strib's frontpage? Nary a mention.
The Star Tribune published a commentary by former Republican state party chair Ron Ebensteiner today. He admits that Al Franken "outstrategized" Norm in the campaign and in the recount. He admits that Norm couldn't win even with the "prevailing political winds" behind him. Aside from all the factual inaccuracies in his commentary, I couldn't disagree with him more.
I most definitely want former senator Norm Coleman to join the Minnesota Governor's race (MN-GOV).
As we start the New Year, there has been much conversation about the possibility of former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman entering the race for governor. As a former state Republican Party chairman and longtime observer of Minnesota politics, I believe it would be a bad idea both for Coleman and for Minnesota. I write these difficult words as one who strongly supported Norm's historic election victory in 2002, a campaign that left me with a great deal of admiration for his remarkable communication skills and sensitivity to the mood of Minnesotans. Words cannot express how emphatically I wish Norm were still my U.S. senator. Yet there are very clear reasons why Norm no longer represents Minnesota in the Senate, reasons with unmistakable relevance and consequences that resonate statewide, leading me to the inevitable conclusion that he should sit this campaign out.
Let's start with the first factual inaccuracy and this is just the opening paragraph. How could such a few number of words have so many inaccuracies?
"...as one who strongly supported Norm's historic election victory in 2002, a campaign that left me with a great deal of admiration for his remarkable communication skills and sensitivity to the mood of Minnesotans."
Isn't the only reason that Norm won in 2002 because Wellstone died a few weeks before the election? And didn't Norm and the right wing noise machine seize upon Wellstone's funeral and use it for political gain?
"Sensitivity to the mood Minnesotans?" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he and his fellow Republicans twisted what a grieving son said about his father into a sledge with which they bashed the Democratic replacement candidate Walter Mondale?
Ohhhh ... right ... I forgot ... didn't Ebensteiner orchestrate it?
Ladies and Gentlemen, yours truly - the ol' TwoPutter - is filling in for Matt Martin and guest hosting today's "Minnesota Matters Show" on AM-950 KTNF - The Voice Of Minnesota! Joining in-studio will be intrepid field reporter and fellow blogger Dusty Trice, and a very special guest: Taxpaying Liberal! The show runs from 6:00 to 7pm. So, tune in your radio today to AM-950, or listen live on your computer, here.
Obviously, the Mary Kiffmeyer Scandal will be a major focus of tonight's conversation, especially with not only the Strib scrubbing Kiffmeyer from their story, but the Pioneer Press doing some scrubbing, too.
And we might just play "False Or False Witness!" where one lucky caller will have to correctly identify if a quote I read was actually uttered by Michele Bachmann (answer "False Witness!") or if yours truly, the ol' TwoPutter, simply made it up (answer "false"). The fabulous prize awarded is one copy of Bill Prendergast's exceptional comic book: False Witness! The Michele Bachmann Story (Part 1).
The call-in number to participate in the on-air conversation is 952-946-6205!
So, again, tune in the radio today to AM-950, or listen live on your computer, here.
(Eric Zaetsch at Developers Are Crabgrass posted this one today; he graciously agreed to reposting here at MnPP, in it's entirety - TwoPuttTommy)(EZ's original post updated; link at bottom of second page)
The Mary Kiffmeyer - bank closure story is reported first here, with a follow-up account, here.
I want an investigation. The rationale for wanting detail of the failure of Riverside Community Bank, headquartered in Otsego with an Anoka branch, to be fully investigated is basically that one might infer the Pawlenty appointed Commerce Dept. boss had a neck problem from looking the other way on this purported "Christian" governed bank, for the last half year or so (or perhaps longer); with Uncle Sugar now (via the FDIC) on the hook for a reported $20 million. What would losses that way have been if the operation was anesthetized and put under a half year ago?
As everyone knows, in this digital age, space is at a premium on the world wide web. Well, at least it is, over at Strib. According to Strib Reporter Chris Serres, he originally filed the story containing the reference to Mary Kiffmeyer, but the Keffmeyer connection was cut in order to meet the space limitations of the print story. Go that?
The Strib won't expand on stories on the web; the web serves to replicate what appears in print - and that policy means that, as Taxpaying Liberal noted here on MnPP, Kiffmeyer's name got scrubbed.
And as Taxpaying Liberal noted, bad news does indeed get dumped late on Fridays in the hopes that the embarrassing story is gone, come Monday.
But, the bad news for Mary Kiffmeyer, is that is NOT going to happen. Strib Reporter Chris Serres also told me he recived a lot - LOT - of calls and messages over the weekend, and that Mary Kiffmeyer's name will not - NOT - be left out on upcoming Strib stories regarding the failure of Mary Kiffmeyer's Riverview Community Bank.
It was interesting to note that on today's Strib webpage, the story that was dumped on a Friday is one of the "most emailed" today.
And judging by the number of bloggers that wrote about Keffmey's bank failing over the weekend, bloggers won't let this story escape public notice, either.
The editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Nancy Barnes, and it's publisher, Christopher Harte, displayed their rank hypocrisy today by putting news of an investigation into Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-MN) trip to Saudi Arabia on the front page. Barnes and Harte have different standards for Democrats than they have for Republicans.
When Rep. Michele Bachmann goes off on one of her insane rants, Strib reporters call her "controversial" and "outspoken." Reporters apparently consider analysis of the truth about what Bachmann says "boring" and not newsworthy. Barnes and Harte put stories about Bachmann embarrassing herself and lying (usually these happen simultaneously) on the inside pages of the Metro section.
But when the House's ethics panel requests more information about Keith's trip which even reporter Kevin Diaz reports as "merely a minor, technical correction" to follow the proper guidelines, this is front page material.
After a months-long review by a U.S. House ethics panel, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has disclosed the amount of his privately-paid trip to Mecca in December.
The trip, paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, cost $13,350, Ellison said Thursday.
The two-week trip to Saudi Arabia, which Ellison described as a personal religious pilgrimage, or Hajj, prompted little discussion until June when Ellison filed financial travel reports that failed to disclose the amount the Muslim group had paid for his travel.
In releasing the amount on Thursday, Ellison held to his previous assertion that he was following the instructions of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly known as the ethics committee.
"I never had a moral objection to giving the number out," said Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. "But the rules said I didn't have to, so I didn't. Now I am."
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) had an editorial published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today on education. This is odd because Kline is rather ignorant about education issues and has been a back-bencher until his recent promotion to the House's Education and Labor committee. The National Education Association gives him a 17% rating. His main qualification for his new role is his willingness to say "no" to anything the Democrats propose.
As students throughout Minnesota settle into a new school year, area schools, like many around the country, are coping with the stifling effects of the recession. School districts throughout the state are facing multimillion-dollar deficits, and Minnesotans feel the pressure of financial shortfalls on our communities and our students.
Some of the factors leading to these cuts are out of our control, but some should not be. ...
(Star Tribune)
One major reason schools are feeling the financial crunch even more than they might already have is MN's Governor. Tim Pawlenty's education cuts year after year and now his disastrous choice to unallot rather than negotiate a budget with the DFL-controlled legislature are important factors we cannot control. And Kline fails to mention.
We cannot control Tim Pawlenty's desire to become President. He is running for President and is placing his personal ambitions before Minnesota's needs.
I suppose I'm also required to remind everyone that the Republicans consistently slash education budgets. Year after year. So of course our schools are in trouble. Duh?
1. Would you rather have your health care premiums, deductibles, etc., pay for a) actual health care, or b) massive pay packages for executives, and funding the election campaigns of lunatic reactionaries?
2. Would you rather a) return to a pre-Ventura/Pawlenty state income tax structure, where the very wealthy paid roughly the same % as the rest of us, instead of less, or b) your property taxes continuing to skyrocket, in exchange for reduced government services?
3. Would you prefer a local legacy media that a) at least tries to tell it like it is, or b)continues to emphasize shameless, outlandish corporatist bias and 'TPaw for Prez' cheerleading?
There are many, many more...
Not the most profound or sophisticated post, I know. But it's a masterpiece of modern thought, if I do say so myself, compared to the drivel of those who would essentially argue for option 'b', in each of the above.
A normal Star Tribune reader expects the Star Tribune to be providing information. The Star Tribune is carefully waging a campaign against knowledge about the state of health care and about the public option. The Star Tribune carefully reports the whole health care issue as if it was a sports game. The Star Tribune leaves out why someone might possibly support the health care option. So how does one prove the huge gap in Star Tribune coverage. I googled "health care public option" for 100 articles published at the Star Tribune website. found one - exactly one- published opinion letter, The public option: Broken health system needs it that gave some information on why one might want to support the public option. In an hour of looking, I didn't one hard hitting graph, number or fact that was used to explain why people were supporting the public option, published in an article. I invite anyone to find any one hard hitting graph, number or fact published in the google linked list and post them in the comments.
Kevin Diaz, with assistance from Bill McAuliffe, wrote an article in the Star Tribune today about the healthcare reform fight. In it they mischaracterize the right wing opposition to reform; they seem to want to make the Republican's rhetoric less insane than it actually is. They also mischaracterize many of the things Republicans said; they are more credible if they sound less like the fact-free liars that they are. Finally, they fail to note how the anti-reform liars and loonies have been organized; completely astroturfed. The Republican party, the party's mouthpiece Fox News, right wing talk radio and the insurance industry have been providing the talking points, the buses and riling up the base with insane and inflammatory rhetoric.
I'll begin with Diaz's attempts to make the Republicans sound less insane than they have been:
The so-called public option is figuring large in the furious national debate, with conservatives likening it to a government takeover of health care, even a step toward European-style socialized medicine.
While opponents have largely backed away from clearly exaggerated claims about government "death panels," the root of the angst remains.
"It's rhetoric," said Kline, who delivered the GOP's national radio address Saturday. "But the underlying fear is real."
Republicans are not "likening" a public option to government take-over of healthcare reform, they are calling it a government take-over. Diaz is toning down their rhetoric to make them sound more reasonable than they really are.
How does bringing a loaded AR15 assault rifle to an Obama healthcare reform rally add to the debate? How does equating Obama with Hitler show that a public option is a bad idea? How does insisting that the Democrats want to create death panels, an outright lie, add to the debate?
Diaz forgives their insanity by claiming they've "largely backed away" from their deather claims? They have? Who has? Can Diaz actually name any Republicans who have?
They would probably point to Rep. John Kline (R-MN), who isn't bat**** insane like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), as one of the few who hasn't claimed Democrats want to institute death panels. But even he claims that the "underlying fears are real."
Which underlying fears? That a socialist/totalitarian/fascist black muslim who wasn't born in the USA is President? That healthcare reform might deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment right to carry assault weapons to political rallies? That insurance industry CEOs won't keep the gargantuan compensation packages?
While I'm being somewhat facetious, Diaz let's Kline off the hook with a flippant remark about Republican fears. Republicans cannot defend the behavior of the health insurance industry and are trying to deflect with their lies and insanity.
