I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, the Minnesota Supreme Court Likes Me. This election may have been a virtual tie, but Al Franken swept the Minnesota Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that Franken should be certified as the winner of the state’s Senate race — rejecting a challenge by Republican Norm Coleman. With Franken, the Democrats will have the votes to overcome any filibuster (if you include the two independents).
On election night, Coleman was ahead by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes. After the recount, Franken led by 225 votes.
Coleman’s hopes were pinned on thousands of absentees votes that were rejected by election officials, but the Supreme Court found that those voters failed to satisfy the conditions set out for such voting.
On the substantive due process issue, the court ruled:
We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman’s argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court’s February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent.
Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and has always been, required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice. Furthermore, Coleman does not cite, and after review of the record we have not found, any evidence in the record that election officials required only substantial compliance in any past election or any official pronouncements that only substantial compliance would be required in the November 4, 2008 election. Nor does Coleman point us to the testimony of any voter who neglected to comply with the statutory requirements for absentee voting in reliance on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
At oral argument, Coleman posited that because of the increased use of the absentee voting method, it should now be treated as a right, not a privilege. But that is a policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make. Indeed, Coleman‟s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Coleman cannot claim that any voters changed their behavior based on the alleged substantial compliance standard.
It is difficult to argue with the Court’s opinion, which is well-written and well-based. There is no satisfying conclusion here for everyone. Coleman’s supporters have a right to be bitter. A couple hundred votes put the result on an almost arbitrary basis. I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes. With the two most popular candidates, the election is likely to produce a majority favorite and avoid most such razor-thin results. While it is possible to still have close races, it is less likely.
Coleman has conceded the race.
Here is the ruling: OPA090697-6030
For the story, click here.
Sartiblast,
Lets get to the original point:
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) because it is the only way the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if their is a cost attached.”
That is what you said! Your words! Can’t take them back or manipulate w/semantics now!
Since cap-n-trade will raise taxes w/out curbing global warming as is irrefutably accepted. Then that means you approve of raising taxes only for symbolic reasons.
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective in fighting global warming” This seems like the closet thing your stubborn progressive mind will get in admitting that cap-n-trade will not do what it’s suppossed to as far as fighting global warming.
“I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) You said it. You determine what is “undesirable behavior” and deem it worthy of taxing.
“because the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached” Again your words. You believe the way to control the free market for what you have determined to be waste is to attach a cost with taxation.
In my book that is puntitive taxation. And I do NOT believe in that.
In your distorted progressive view of the world you think “attaching costs” in the form of “taxation” to what you in your ivy-tower deem to be “undesirable behavior” to “eliminate” what you once again in you ivy-tower deem to be “waste” is the way to remedy and solve problems.
I obviously do NOT believe that and b/c you progressives are such a raging ego-maniacal lot who can NOT take your self-dubbed altruistic positions to be questioned and only work to demonize your opponents or frame loaded questions from which you can give your morally superior soapbox rants, I will NOT engage you in a tainted and corrupted debate from the outset.
You accomplished my mission by crystalizing your progressive views in that one sentence. The fact that you further explicated them in your next post only confirmed your extreme progressive views.
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade will do nothing to fight global warming, I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior because it is the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.
Your words!
Classis progressive thought process!
I proved my point! You are undoubtedly a raging progressive!
sicilian1,
Since its a beautiful day and I’m sitting in a light, airy room with a gorgeous view (not to mention I’m procrastinating furiously), I thought that I would go through your latest post paragraph by paragraph – lets see how far I get before I decide to go jump in the lake…
You said:
The grant money IS doled out by the govn’t so it goes to the programs which make their vulnerability to being compromised to the adgenda of the hacks doling out the money. If their science does NOT jive w/the adgenda the grants stop. The govn’t is NOT going to dole out grant money to a program that is critical to an adgenda they won’t to promote.
I know you are not so naive to not know that is how things in the real world work.
I know some of the people who decide which grants get funded and I can say that their agendas are typically along the lines of what research is most likely to successfully advance the research mission of the agency. The agencies have missions like “cure cancer” or “study the impact of the environment on people’s health”, not “produce false research supporting global warming to further the evil progressive agenda”. I suspect I know much more than you about how grant money is handed out in the real world and the agendas of the people doing it are much more focused on doing what the see as their part in scientific advancement rather than marching in lockstep to further the goals of some massive conspiracy. (For your convenience I though that I would make a note of each time I labeled you by your ridiculously broad definition 😉 1 – conspiracy theorist)
You said:
And scientist that can NOT get the grant money to promote their scientific adgenda will get it from so-called philanthropic organizations or so-called non-profits.
What is wrong with this? Keeping in mind that the agenda of most scientists is to better understand the nature of the small corner of the universe that they’ve chosen to study (all from the most base and selfish of motives, I’m sure), why shouldn’t they look for money to further their life’s work anywhere they can find it?
You said:
You see, the problem is that you are to naive to see how everyone is a pawn to promote the adgenda’s of the powers that be. But that is unsurprising b/c as a progressive you are too filled w/intellectual arrogance to understand how your own masters play you to do their bidding. And if you are part of the power structure then you of course would want everyone to think that it is all on the level.
Okay, I should have waited until here to label you a conspiracy theorist – sorry, I jumped the gun a little. But I guess that as someone who is dependent on my cruel overlords doling out grant money to forward their evil agenda (of trying to cure melanoma, in my case) I’m a part of the power structure and want everyone to think that it is all on the level. Move along people, nothing to see here…
Well, that was kind of fun – I’m going to get dinner and go for a swim, I’ll post some more after the fireworks.
AY,
I certainly made enough practical sense to prove your argument to be valid yet unsound. I did the truth table to prove it.
If you refer to my post on:
3 July, 2009 @2:07
My intention was to “bait” the progressives to then expose them as progressives that they are then prove ALL their hypocricies and how they use those hypocritical biases to brand label and demonize in order to drape their own biases in some type of moral sanctity.
I explained how I did it in:
3 July, 2009 @2:07
I know it is difficult for you progressives to understand b/c you spend so much time patting yourself on the back for what you think are “right” and “virtuous” beliefs and that they are such b/c you hold them. I also know it will be hard to understand for you progressives b/c you are such a bunch of intellectual arrogants who believe you are endowed with a higher degree of intelligence and nobility.
But if you see I NEVER initiate the insults or accusations. I only “bait” to then “expose” And it works every single time.
I have in fact spent 4 days explaining to you progressives what I am doing and what I know you will do but you are too stubborn and blinded by your arrogance and continue to fall into my traps and prove my point.
Instead of continuing to try and “one-up” me you would be much better served to engage in a deep existential inquiry of yourselves to come to terms w/what I have done to you.
Also please do NOT tell me to advise what I have just advised you b/c you will once again further prove my point.
Sil1
What are you attempting to say with your rant. For about 4 days now you have made absolutely no sense. Is there a reason why?
MIKE S,
Oh you do not disappoint. All your ad hominem attacks do not gain you any points. Of course that is what you resort to when it is all you have left.
MY point is that you’re a progressive. You have proven to be so you do not like the label I attach.
Remember, I only pull out the progressive label after you and the rest of your ilk swallow my bait.
The progressive label NEVER comes out untill you’ve taken my bait unlike the rest of your lot who throws political tag’s on me on assumption only.
Then when I brand them w/the label from my exposition of them, they get mad
Slartiblast,
The grant money IS doled out by the govn’t so it goes to the programs which make their vulnerability to being compromised to the adgenda of the hacks doling out the money. If their science does NOT jive w/the adgenda the grants stop. The govn’t is NOT going to dole out grant money to a program that is critical to an adgenda they won’t to promote.
I know you are not so naive to not know that is how things in the real world work.
And scientist that can NOT get the grant money to promote their scientific adgenda will get it from so-called philanthropic organizations or so-called non-profits.
You see, the problem is that you are to naive to see how everyone is a pawn to promote the adgenda’s of the powers that be. But that is unsurprising b/c as a progressive you are too filled w/intellectual arrogance to understand how your own masters play you to do their bidding. And if you are part of the power structure then you of course would want everyone to think that it is all on the level.
There are those producing false research on both sides. If you do NOT think that this is mainly a politically fueled debate then you are naive.
Yes, you are so ingrained in your progressive rhetoric that you believe that taxing “undesirable behavior (i.e. poluution) is effective governing. Of course that is what all progressives feel. People are either too “stupid”, “mean”, “lazy”, “apathetic”,”corrupt” or the progressive favorite, “EVIL” to do what you have determined needs to be done so “attaching a cost” through “taxation” is your remedy.
Now here is where we get into the political ideology of the progressive. You feel that taxing an “industry” will give them the “incentive” to be more “efficient” and “compensate” the “owner” Then according to the rest of your progressive theory that you have “cut” and “pasted” from the progressive “theorum manual” are just suppossed to fall in place and “kumbaya” we’ll all live happily ever after just like the great progressive masters have told us we will if we follow and implement their plan.
I will not argue specific policy with you b/c I have BAITED you into laying out your policy which allowed me to expose you strict BIASES on the issue.
You like all progressives just want to paint me into an either/or corner where you can pull out your locked and loaded artillery to demonize me then wag your moral finger in my face. An argument with you on this topic could in fact NEVER be an argument b/c you have already laid out your adgenda and even been so smug as to extrapolate imagined arguments I might say when I have NEVER indicated my true positions. You like all progressives assume what everyone else thinks just b/c they do not come from your specific school of thought then you “label”, “demonize”, “dismiss”,”insult”,”belittle”,etc. And then you feel you have the right to do so b/c you could never imagine you progressive viewpoint could ever be wrong.
I never said I was a libertarian. You just try once again to tag me. You as a progressive do NOT and NEVER will understand that you can NOT group people. I am an individual with differing opinions of different issues and I reserve the right to avail myself of all the information untill I take a definitive position. But you as a progressive feel you have to fit your opinion to whatever adgenda your party masters dictate and you can’t understand anyone who doesn’t and if they don’t then you brand them an enemy and evil.
Let me put it this way, just b/c I do NOT agree with you does NOT mean that I am not making sense. There is a reality outside your own little progressive world. And just b/c you have a bunch of sychophantic progressives egging you on from the peanut gallery does NOT prove anything.
You are so blinded by smugness, arrogance and ignorance that you do NOT even have the ability to existentially examine yourself.
My ONLY intention was to expose the biases of progressives. It took you a little bit but I finally did expose.
All it did was take a little “bait” with the mention of a professor who I specifically said I was NOT promoting. I only mentioned a specific insight on a general topic. NEVER did I say he represented me. And I specifically stated I was not endorsing his position. But you siezed on that and several times tried to “bait” me into taking his side on climate change. I refused to bite and instructed you so. Then you gave yourself up with one little sentence (which I believe the progressives should adopt as their mantra) I exposed your biases through that sentence. Then through your intellectual arrogance you actually explicated your argument in fair detail in the process deepening your biases while then exposing your dismissive bias of other viewpoint that you tried to dishonestly assign to me then through in an insult that I couldn’t even defend those policies you imagined I endorse to try to goad me into a defense of policies I may not agree w/but which you are ready to assault.
I do NOT like taxes. I do NOT feel they solve problems. You on the otherhand disagree. And further you feel it is a right to “attach cost” to the “free-market” to eliminate the “waste” of “undesirable behavior”
It may be “waste” and it may be “undesirable behavior” and I may agree with that. But “attaching a cost” to the “free market” through “taxation” is NOT something I agree with and does NOT work.
You are a progressive and I exposed your progressive adgenda. I also exposed your faulty logic w/my repeated logical equations and also exposed your dishonest ad hominem character assaults.
You see, as a progressive who looks to group others you would obviously need the cheers from your group.
Me on the other hand have accomplished my mission of exposing you progressives. Look how many assaults I have encountered. If I wasn’t successful in exposing progressives then I wouldn’t have so many of you assaulting me. You continue to prove my point.
But you are so filled w/arrogance you will continue to post retorts to my post. It is your inability to come to terms w/your faulty intellect or at least the reality that I continue to expose you. So you continue to try to step out of the quicksand only to let me push you down deeper.
I said before that I was throwing dirt on your grave but that it wouldn’t surprise me that you would try to come back. Well, please, keep proving my point.
You said, “but I doubt that you could make any of these arguments effectivly”
So besides exposing your intellectual smugness, you have also played another one of the slimy progressive tricks by attaching positions to me that I NEVER once verbalized.
When did I say, “these goals aren’t effective”, “are too expensive”, “this policy isn’t an effective way of achieving them”?????
That is the loaded tricks progressives play to take their argument onto familiar territory where they can spew their well-rehearsed party-line
FFLEO,
I subscribe to the threads I post on so I know when some old coot replies with a post trashing mathematicians 😉 Personally, I think that there is a value in people with a math background working in biology. The last biology class I had was my freshman year of high school, but I am currently working in a molecular biology lab doing mathematical modeling – I am useful because given my background I have skills that no one else in the lab has. Everyone else in the lab knows a great deal about the biology so I get to learn it from them and help them improve their understanding. My collaborators and I find this a good paradigm for mathematicians and scientists working together. There is a depth and breadth of knowledge about mathematics that I think is essential to doing my job that I doubt many people not trained in math have and at the same time, while more knowledge about biology is useful it is also in plentiful supply in my lab so it is easy to learn what I need to do my job. My collaborators verified a prediction of my model, so I need to go and work on the paper, but in closing just let me say that mathematical biologists beat biometricians any day of the week! Ppptthhhbbbbbttttt!
Buddha,
sicilian1 probably is The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight. They both provide running commentary via crazy, disjointed rants and talk about themselves a lot…
Slarti & Gyges,
Have any of you seen The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight? I hear he’s running around these parts. The 4th is just his kinda holiday.
“… he took up the law instead (of math) where he could make a livin’ and a difference.” That hurts man –”
_________________________________
Slar, I am pleased you read my ‘slight’ towards mathematicians. I love biometry and ‘Biometry: The Principles and practices of Statistics in Biological Research’ by Sokal and Roth is one of my favorite books. I purchased a copy for my government job and turned it in when I retired. I have often considered purchasing a personal copy for the sheer reading/thinking pleasure.
The perfect biometrician—in my book—would be comprised of a field biologist who spent 10 years afield and then returned to college to receive his masters in biometry/biomathematics and finally returned to the field to apply what he had learned in both scientific endeavors.
Obviously, I have a great respect for biometricians but I also like to get in an unintellectual jab at any mathematician whenever I can.
I somewhat doubt that you will return to read this; I almost got lost trying to find this long thread.
straight not strait lol I don’t want to give him credit for being smart enough to wage naval warfare.
Mike,
He sure does remind me of someone. His initials were Wayne. But it seems like he’s abandoned the strait attack line (which was getting him mauled) and, as you so aptly noticed, switched to the “victory is mine if I say so long enough” strategy. Wayne tried that before, but his personal animosity towards some of the regulars always blew up in his face before he could reach the stage of our current pest. The fact that some of the regulars pushing Wayne’s buttons clearly pissed him off is beside the point but you can see a “redemption” attempt for that kind of embarrassment in The Last Genius In The Universe’s current strategy – also an indicator that you you may be on to something as to identity. If they aren’t the same person they should certainly consider going bowling together.
Gyges,
SPOON!
Thanks Buddha, that was it.
Remind you of anyone…….?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
None shall pass . . .
So many posts since my last one that it has taken me time to catch up. This man is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. More truthfully it is like watching a kickoff returner
zigging, zagging, sidestepping and backtracking for endless seconds and then being tackled fifteen yards behind where he caught the ball. Afterwards, being interviewed on TV about the run he proudly states: “Well I may have lost yardage but I sure tired them out.”
This guy argues like someone else we encountered about 8 months ago, but the name escapes me. Perhaps he’s returned with a different persona, or maybe there is just a rampant narcissistic
personality type about, that declares victory, while in the throes of defeat. Wasn’t there a Monty Python skit about a knight that keeps returning from battle with another extremity lopped off only to proclaim the progress he was making?
Slart,
You can’t eat the earth, that’s where I keep all my stuff!
sicilian1,
You said, “Every scientist is a bought and paid for shill for whatever interest group is using them to manipulate the science to promote their adgenda[sic].” It is statements like this that show your ignorance. For the record, most scientists in universities are funded by grant money which is decided on before the research is conducted. They don’t have interest groups controlling their agendas and if they compromise their science they hurt their own reputation and their ability to get new grants. On the other hand, when scientists work for a corporation their research is typically only published if it furthers the company’s interests. I don’t know who you think is spending huge amounts of money to produce false global warming research, but it just isn’t happening.
As for your straw man misrepresentation of my thoughts on cap and trade, (I assume that a logician of your caliber understands the concept of a straw man, especially given your gratuitous use of straw men in you arguments) the point of taxing pollution has nothing to do with moral superiority or punitive taxation, it has to do with effective governing. The act of polluting (and I’m not just talking about carbon emissions, I’m talking about all pollutants) reduces the value of the air or water that has been polluted. When a corporation reduces the value of something they do not own, they should be forced to compensate the owner. As the ownership rights of our air, water, and soil are difficult to exert, the government is the only entity capable of dealing with this. By attaching a cost to polluting, industry is given incentive to stop polluting in an efficient way. This results in greener industry, cleaner air, water and soil, and new technologies and expertise in sustainable industry (which will be in demand throughout the world). One may argue that these goals aren’t appropriate or are too expensive or this policy isn’t an effective way of achieving them, but I very much doubt that you could make any of these arguments effectively. (Not to interfere with your compulsive need to label everyone here progressive, but the idea of pollution being a property rights issue is really a libertarian one.) CEJ suggested earlier that you might want to have a friend or confidant look at this thread and I have to second the idea as I don’t think that your arguments are a part of the reality based world. Let me put it this way: One of us is not making any sense and I’m pretty sure that most of the posters here would agree that it isn’t me. You seem to be harboring a lot of anger towards progressives and I’m sorry if progressives killed your puppy (hit by a Prius?) when you were a child, but you really have no understanding of what progressives believe or what the logical underpinnings of our philosophy is, so please stop proudly displaying your ignorance and hypocrisy by talking about things you don’t understand and labeling everyone in sight while shrilly decrying any labels anyone attaches to you. Spend some time looking at your own behavior here – you might find that it doesn’t reflect very well on you.
Bob,Esq:
“Does the foregoing mean you have or have not the courage of your convictions?
Are you also saying that felons like Nelson Mandela are not worth the time or effort…?
I ask because I taunt.”
*********************
To compare sicilian 1 to Mandela is to compare a fart in my bathtub to Katrina.
AY,
I was quoting “The Tick”, but I believe in finding meaning where you can…
AY:
“But then again remember when June would tell Ward that he had been too hard on the beaver last night? Now that was a family show as well.”
I will never watch “Leave it to Beaver” the same way again.