Let this be an object lesson to moonbats everywhere – do not send an email wishing death by anorexia to somebody who can easily find out that days earlier, you had a letter decrying “cyberbullying” published in the local paint-catcher like one Joe Roppe of Stevens Point, WI.
No Runny Eggs
The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
Archive for January 9th, 2008
Ace vs Paul the racist
Those of you with sensitive sensibilities, don’t click as there are 4 f-bombs and 2 s-bombs just in the post (I lost count how many undeleted expletives are in the comments). The rest of you, enjoy Ace’s extra-crispy roasting of the head Paul-Nut.
Comments Off on Ace vs Paul the racist
Something rotten is going on at the Mitchell Interchange
Patrick has some exclusive video from a Citizens for Responsible Government press conference announcing support for the 27th Street businesses opposed to the closing of a portion of the I-43/894 ramp movements at 27th Street. Specifically, the DOT wants to shut off access to 27th Street from northbound I-94 (coming from the south) and from 27th Street to southbound I-94, prefering to shove all that traffic onto Layton Avenue. There are two schools on 20th Street (between 27th and I-94) within a half-mile of Layton, as well as a senior citizen complex on Layton between 20th and 27th.
The stated excuse is that traffic would have to cross too many lanes of traffic to get from the north-94-to-894 ramp to the 27th Street exit. While that is true right now (there is roughly 0.36 miles between the merge point of traffic coming from the north and south and the 27th Street exit, and essentially the same distance between the merge point of traffic coming from 27th and the split between northbound and southbound traffic)…
Click for a full-sized pic (1048×892 pixels, 235KB); from Google Earth
…that is not true under the prefered alternative:
Click for a full-sized pic (1211×768 pixels, 295KB); from WisDOT’s Map Safety and Design with Capacity – North Leg update
Note that the southbound 43/94 traffic that wants to exit onto 27th Street would get off the freeway before 20th Street, while traffic from 27th Street that wants to get onto northbound 43/94 will not merge with the “mainline” traffic at all and not merge with traffic committed to going north until 20th.
“So far, so what?”, you are probably saying. While the WisDOT has attempted to scrub any reference to direct access to 27th Street from the south from its project website, they forgot to “fix” the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, specifically Exhibit 2-7 focused on Layton Avenue (archived here):
Click for a full-sized pic (1004×776 pixels, 175KB); from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement linked above
Do note the small ramps extending from the main north-to-west ramp and the southern-most ramp from eastbound in the first two alternatives. Those were the planned movements between 27th Street and I-94 toward the south, movements that would not have encountered the “mainline” I-43/I-894 at all. While there was a major change between the prefered alternative in the DEIS (which is missing those movements) to the current prefered alternative in that the traffic moving from eastbound 43/894 and 27th Street to northbound 43/94 goes under rather than over the “mainline” I-94, there is no logical impediment other than cost that would cause those movements to be eliminated. Given the movements west of the split from southbound 43/94 to 27th Street and especially the merge between the 27th Street on-ramp and northbound 43/94, there does not even appear to be any less land used by the movements’ elimination.
If the businesses of 27th Street are willing to pay for the additional cost of keeping the movements between 27th and I-94 toward the south, there is absolutely no logical explanation to eliminate said movements.
Comments Off on Something rotten is going on at the Mitchell Interchange
Gableman at the Center-Right – 1/22/2008
For those of you who were wondering whether there would be a Center-Right Coalition meeting this month, don’t fret. It is a bit later than usual, and it’s going to be on a different day of the week, but Mark Block and Brian Schimming have made a pretty good score. On Tuesday, January 22, Judge Mike Gableman will be the featured speaker at the Center-Right Coalition. As usual, it will be at The Madison Club (5 E Wilson in Madison) at 9 am (refreshments at 8:30). If you’re interested in going, let Mark know – markb – at – afphq – dot – org (though Mark reads this humble blog, I’m not the contact, so comments are off for this post).
Comments Off on Gableman at the Center-Right – 1/22/2008
Prepare to freeze in the winter and bake in the summer
(H/T – Charlie)
I probably should’ve jumped all over this piece from The American Thinker yesterday, but California is proposing taking ultimate control of one’s home temperature away from the homeowner or renter by requiring either a central energy management control system or a programmable communicating thermostat control any new or re-fitted central HVAC system (Section 112(c), p. 63-64). Of particular note is the section regarding what happens during an ’emergency event’ – “Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.”
Who determines what constitutes an ’emergency event’? Why, the state of California, of course (specifically, the California Independent System Operator).
For those of you who think that 60-degree indoor winters and 85-degree indoor summers will never come to Wisconsin, Peter has a dose of reality for you:
…(L)et me remind you that less than a year ago, California came up with the idiotic idea to ban the incandescent light bulb and force consumers to buy those crappy, expensive bulbs that cost thousands of dollars to dispose of if they break.
Guess what? It’s now the law of the land, as the zealots in Congress passed bipartisan legislation banning the incandescent light bulb and forcing us to buy those crappy, expensive light bulbs. The man Grumps refers to on occasion as "President Rain Man" signed the legislation making it the law of the land.
Comments Off on Prepare to freeze in the winter and bake in the summer
A transparent effort – to turn Wisconsin into Illinois
It’s been a while since I grabbed the chainsaw and pruned a Journtinel idiotorial, but I believe I’m still in practice. Besides, they made it so easy with their rabid, partisan opposition to voter ID, so let the fisking begin:
The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of voter identification today. It should side with the position that enables as many people as possible to vote.
Translation – it should side with the theft of elections. To that, I say, “Foxtrot Tango Sierra.”
It should see the effort to impose voter ID as a transparent attempt by Republicans to dampen voter turnout by a segment of the electorate that tends to vote Democratic. Fraud – what supporters say a requirement to show photo ID when voting is intended to combat – simply isn’t such a problem that it demands this solution. Milwaukee’s election problems in 2004 were principally about resources and record-keeping, not about voter identification.
Translation – it’s more important that DhimmiRATs win by every means necessary than to have honest elections. Once again, I say, “Foxtrot Tango Sierra.”
Regarding Milwaukee’s problems, they’re systematic, and there is no willingness at any level to deal with the big problem. That, however, is no excuse to not deal with the smaller problem.
Today, the justices will consider an Indiana law that requires voters to produce a state ID or a passport before being allowed to cast a ballot. Most states allow some other form of identification – a utility bill or a bank statement, for instance.
A state ID isn’t exactly fool-proof (it does not state whether one is a US citizen, which is a requirement to exercise one’s right to vote), but at least it’s better than a no-picture utility bill/bank statement.
In Wisconsin, which has same-day registration, registered voters need not show any photo ID at the polls. But to register, they need to produce a document that shows they live in the ward or district in which they are voting. If they can’t provide a driver’s license number, they can, for instance, give the last four digits of their Social Security number. Or they can attest that they have none of that and still get to vote.
Which proves that Wisconsin is ripe for fraud. Considering that there is, outside of the soon-to-be-ousted US Attorney for Eastern Wisconsin, nobody willing to prosecute any level of fraud, it’s just going to get worse.
Surprise, Wisconsin traditionally ranks high among the states in voter turnout. That turnout, we suspect, is what proponents of voter ID are really targeting. Sure, that likely means opponents want to get more Democrats to the polls. But one direction could lead to fewer people voting and the other more. It’s that simple.
Oh, really? I can’t speak for anybody else that is part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (charter member here), but my goal is to make sure that every legitimately-cast vote is counted once and only once. By the way, thanks for admitting your goal of a permanent-‘Rat majority by every means available, Pimentel.
In Wisconsin, the Republican-controlled state Assembly has voted to put the matter of voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. The Democrat-controlled state Senate is unlikely to go along.
Gee, I wonder why. Is it that they’re afraid they can’t manufacture votes?
Indiana is among the strictest of the handful of states – Arizona, Georgia, Florida and Missouri – that enacted voter ID, though the state cannot produce much evidence of voter fraud of the kind that this law would erase. Yes, those who challenged the law could not produce anyone harmed by the law, but that was, they say, because they filed the suit before it went into effect. In the interim, they point to 32 legal voters whose votes could not be counted because of the law.
Simple math should convince the justices to overturn the Indiana law. About 10% – or 20 million voting age citizens – don’t have a driver’s license or passport.
Do we really want to go into the math game? I can just as easily point to dozens of people that would probably be alive if Wisconsin had a concealed-carry law.
So go get one is the usual retort. But cost (unless they’re free) and transportation to do that are obstacles for many. In any case, why would we want to provide any disincentive for those eligible to vote in the first place?
Given that they need IDs to get government welfare, cash those government checks, and generally participate in society, that’s a bunch of freshly-dumped Bravo Sierra. To counter the disincentive, why should government do absolutely, positively nothing to ensure the integrity of said vote?
The message, intended or not, is that some eligible people don’t deserve the vote. That’s unacceptable.
What is unacceptable is that those votes can easily be stolen because we refuse to allow any safeguards whatsoever.
Wisconsin may or may not be a permanent-‘Rat majority state. I want to find out honestly, not through stolen elections.
Comments Off on A transparent effort – to turn Wisconsin into Illinois
Re: Can Conservatives Back McCain?
Charlie got an e-mail this morning from somebody who, in Allahpundit’s words, is taking a SECOND LOOK AT MCCAIN! Since my response is going to bust the 500-character limit over there, I’ll let loose here, at least as soon as I get a couple of disclaimers out of the way; I’m a FredHead, and I don’t speak for anybody other than me.
Dear Charlie,
Don’t get me wrong I’m as conservative as they come, and as most conservatives have not been happy with John McCain lately. However, I have taken a second look at him since Iowa, and have realized he’s not as bad as I thought. Here’s my take.
I too have taken a second look at McCain; however, he is as bad as I thought.
1) He’ll be just as good as Guiliani on the war on terror, a lot of conservatives give Rudy a pass on a lot of issues because of his strong war stance. why not McCain?
I will grant that McCain understands the war must be fought, just like Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter and Romney. However, due to understandable personal reasons, he is mistaken on what needs to be done to get information out of jihadis that we capture.
2) At least he’s Pro-Life.
Just like Thompson, Hunter, Huckabee, and at least since 1995, Romney.
3) Cannot be criticized for being a hypocrite on the war, because he did serve honorably in the military.
Just like Hunter.
4) Media does like him a little, I know they will turn on him fast during the general election, but at least I don’t think it will be as venomous as it would be with; Huckabee, Romney and the rest.
Really? I believe they will be even more venomous because they will have to work extra-hard to get people to forget that they did like him.
5) Can claim the high road on the campaign, because of his campaign reform bill (I know I don’t like it, but it will make a good commercial).
You mean like Russ “I’ll take the high road” Feingold? Of course, the letter-writer ignores that the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act is patently unconstitutional.
6) Does have widespread name recognition, except for people who pay attention, no one knows who Romney, or Huckabee are.
There is such a thing as bad publicity, and that is what McCain has.
7) Has hardly any personal baggage to make him a easy target.
Does the Keating Five ring a bell?
8) His voting record in the Senate (which could be better) will look a lot more mainstream than the ultra liberal records of, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
Except for his records on judges, campaign “finance”, taxes, illegal immigration (shall I go on?)
9) Will attract a sizeable chunk of the Senior vote, which Republicans have been losing it’s share lately.
Really? That assumes that seniors as a whole are just as easily-led by the nose as Dem women and blacks.
I admit I have some hang ups still, but we need an electable candidate. No, I am not on his campaign, or affiliated with him in any way. Just a person worried what this Country will look like after four years of a liberal President. Thank you.
McCain qualifies as a liberal as well, folks.
New Hampshire fallout
Unlike last time, I won’t be creating a mega-link post. My head is still spinning from an ugly head cold (no, Drinking Right didn’t have anything to do with it; in fact, I attribute the fact that I’m still standing to the 3 Heinekens I had last night), so somebody else can do the collation and get the glory. Before I get to my view from the bunker, however, I do want to point you in the direction of a pro, Brian Fraley. He’s been at this for a while, and more importantly from an objectivity standpoint, his company, The Markesian Group, doesn’t yet have a dog in this fight (attention, your attention please; those campaigns that think they’ll survive until February 19th ought to be considering hiring them to do at least the Wisconsin portion of their campaign). His point; politics is not “Survivor”.
Now, on to my view. In what is a bit of a switch, I’ll take the Republicans first, because there are fewer surprises here. First things first; can we please retire the myth that New Hampshire is a small-government state? True, Fred Thompson kissed off NH, but Ron Paul (who, whatever fatal faults he has, is a no-government type) supposedly burned a lot of his gold there. Their combined NH totals – 9% (I don’t have who all was involved in the 2% write-in totals).
Sticking with Paul, I once again overestimated the Paul-Nut factor. Can it be that his mile-deep support is but an inch wide, or is it that a lot of that “support” is actually coming from the other end of the aisle?
Similarily, I underestimated the support for Mike Huckabee. I am sticking with my earlier assertion that NH is not Evangelical-friendly, though I have to admit I underestimated the effect of the Iowa bounce.
Now, onto the Democrats. How did everybody get this one so wrong? I guess everybody, me included, got wrapped up in Obamamania, and New Hampshire women decided to give us a snow job after Hillary Clinton’s play of the crying card. I guess that old saying has truth – Hell hath no fury like wymyn scorned.
Regarding John Edwards, I believe Marcellus Wallace said it best: “You came close, but you never made it. And if you were gonna make it, you would have made it before now.”
Comments Off on New Hampshire fallout
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
