Ventura

[Q]

Morgan, I'm not talking about normal levels of self-indulgence.

As an example, his first day on the job, he was moaning (happened four times during the course of the day) about his wife not being reimbursed $25,000 for projected lost profits this year from her horse ranch.

I guess by that same rationale, I could say, "Gee, Jesse, if she wanted that $25,000, maybe you shouldn't have run for Governor!"

It seems the $14 million that Minnesota taxpayers will be shelling out for him during his stay here isn't enough. First day on the job and he wants a raise.

=Q=

------------------
"Oh, grow up, 007."

 

[DC]

Q...
wasn't that voicing his wife's reticence about being a "first lady"? My understanding is that she has an established business and her "duties" as wife of Gov will hurt her biz. Couldn't his complaints be a "heads up" that she may not be the traditional Gov wife and be at all the BS functions?

I'm not trying to deify the man, but they are "normal" folk, not the traditional politico family....she has a real life separate from hubby's career. I can honestly say that I wouldn't readily drop my business.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Q]

correction: make that $15.4 million.

 

[Q]

DC, I respect your point of view, however, just as the case of the pregnant woman being blamed for "getting herself pregnant," Jesse's wife did not deserve that money. The fact that she could not continue to work as the result of her husband's job doesn't really matter. She didn't earn the money, any more than the woman who was asking the Governor to do something about her situation. The woman who was asking for an education did not "get *herself* pregnant." Last I checked, that kind of situation took *two* people.

Jesse is notorious for this sort of sexist attitude. Instead of being rude, he might have asked where the father was. Seems to me, that 100% of the blame cannot be put on her, because she was not the only one who "got herself pregnant."

So, forgive me, but if Jesse is going to be a hypocrite, I'm going to point it out.

=Q=

 

[DC]

Q...

Please do so , perhaps if folks had talked about WJC we wouldn't be in this mess.

As I heard it on the news, he pointed it out that his wife would lose that amount in business; I didn't hear he was putting in tic (requisition) for it before the fact. If I'm in err or if you have better data, by all means bring it up.

We'll have to talk about the college girl, I have my own concept of who is "deserving" of a supra-taxpayer funded education

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Q, I'm not from your part of the country, so please excuse my ignorance. I'm having a little trouble following this discussion.

I don't understand your point about the $14mm, then $15.4mm "Minnesota taxpayers will be shelling out for him" - is this the cost to maintain the governor's home, security, etc.? From what I have seen, even some pretty highly placed political positions pay poorly, in comparison to what an entrepreneur / executive in private industry can earn. I assume the $14mm to $15.4mm is not going into his pocket, right? Again, I'm a bit confused on the point. From what I've seen of Ventura so far, wouldn't surprise me if he encouraged the state to cut the frills and the expenses. As far as security goes, if I was in his shoes I wouldn't skimp in that area.

And, I didn't read these comments about his wife's business / $25K loss, so I admit some confusion here as well. If his wife will be losing business because of Ventura's position, I can understand her frustration to some extent, and his - although, I would expect the 'contacts' wouldn't hurt! It certainly may have been indiscreet for him to voice this concern.

May sound odd, but I have a tough time comparing a pregrant mother's request for welfare with an entrepreneur's frustration at losing business because of her husband's political career. How is Ventura being sexist here? Seems like it would have been more sexist if he wanted his wife to shutter her business, no? I confess that I lose you completely when you say "Jesse's wife did not deserve that money." You mean the money she would have earned?

Thanks, and regards from AZ.

 

[Q]

From what I have seen, even some pretty highly placed political positions pay poorly, in comparison to what an entrepreneur / executive in private industry can earn.

The point of having Jesse in office is that he is supposedly an "everyday man"... an "everyday man" does not make that much money, so I guess I don't follow what you are saying.

I assume the $14mm to $15.4mm is not going into his pocket, right?

The biennium budget sets aside 7.7 million for his salary and maintenance on the Governor's mansion.

Again, I'm a bit confused on the point. From what I've seen of Ventura so far, wouldn't surprise me if he encouraged the state to cut the frills and the expenses.

From what I've seen of Ventura so far, it would surprise me. This is not the only instance of self-service he has proposed.

May sound odd, but I have a tough time comparing a pregrant mother's request for welfare with an entrepreneur's frustration at losing business because of her husband's political career.

Both were expecting financial compensation from the state for doing nothing. If I had to relocate because of my husband's job, and if that relocation meant a dip in my profits, I would get another job myself, not expect the state to pay for it.

How is Ventura being sexist here?

Putting 100% of the blame on a woman for "getting herself pregnant" is refusing the responsibility of the other party. It is saying to the mother that she alone is responsible for the consequences of the pregnancy, while it's fine for the father to get off scott-free.

That is a sexist attitude.

In Minnesota, the man who fathered that child is 50% responsible for its welfare. If Jesse had any respect for the woman, he would have suggested that she seek child support from the father, instead of the wise-acre reply he gave.

Seems like it would have been more sexist if he wanted his wife to shutter her business, no?

She wanted compensation for lost profits from a job she could no longer perform. Perhaps he should suggest that his wife seek employment, or better yet, pay her for the services she is providing out of his own pocket.

I confess that I lose you completely when you say "Jesse's wife did not deserve that money." You mean the money she would have earned?

But she is not earning it, is she? It is a matter of her consequences that she is unable to work, just as it is a matter of the pregnant woman's consequences that she is unable to attend school. Why should the taxpayers reimburse Jesse's wife for her losses? If I were losing funds because of relocation due to my husband's job, even if he were in a political office, I would not expect the state to pay for it.

=Q=

 

[Byron Quick]

Q,

I hate to tell you this but you are one of the strangest sounding "liberals" I've ever heard talk. Are you sure you are a liberal or are you relying on hearsay

You sound as if you've been hanging around a libertarian much too long. Be careful, libertarian philosophy is very contagious.

 

[Ray VanderLinden]

Q,
I think Sparticus is right about you. You began to sound Libritarian. However I tend to agree with Ventura on the Girl and you on his wife.
If Mrs.Ventura wants to recoup the money she has lost she should go back to the buisness, and reduce her First lady role.
As to the girl that wants the State to pay for her education, she wants something for nothing, she wasn't asking for a loan, she thinks that she is entitled to the money because she is a mother. What would your response have been, if the man who got her pregnant had said, "I can't go to school because I have to work to suport my child, and I have to watch the child while his mother goes to college on state funding.". I would bet few would feel at all sorry for him.
When that woman yelled, "I am the Future!". I thought to myself. "Woman if you are the future, then we don't have one."
I'll tell you what, You send Ventura one state south and I'll send Vilsack one state north.

[This message has been edited by Raymond VanDerLinden (edited February 25, 1999).]

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Q, I'll take your word for it - you're way ahead of me on the facts here.

If he wasn't just complaining / mentioning the $25K lost profits, but rather actually requesting reimbursement, then I agree with you 100% regarding his wife. I won't argue the comparison of entrepreneur vs. pregnant woman welfare rights - I don't care for corporate or personal welfare. I did like it that Ventura was apparently willing to publicly respond that the state isn't supposed to fix everyone's problems, and I believe that is what many people appreciated in his reply. I'll cut the guy some slack for not giving the absolute best response in an extemporaneous situation - your response regarding the father's responsibility (and not the state's) would have been more on point.

Of the $7.7mm every 2 years, I would be surprised if he sees a large chunk of that. I don't know a soul in the business community around here that is interested in political office. Pay is too low, aggravation is way too high. IMHO, these are two major reasons why we usually get such lousy politicians.

Again, I appreciate your comments since you are in the thick of it. I suppose many of us are pulling for the guy because we're so disgusted with the rest of our so-called leaders. Your points are well taken. It was probably unfair of me to jump into this conversation from 1,800 miles away, and without all of the facts. Thank you.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jeff,

I think your last paragraph summed up the situation very well for a number of folks here.

 

[DC]

Minnesota has a University system similar to California...i.e. a taxpayer funded institution of higher education, with a very affordable tuition for state residents. I did my post-doc at the St Paul campus.

The point being...the taxpayers make the institution available and as far as I am concerned, that is where their "obligation" (if any) ceases. Just because someone wants a University education doesn't mean they are entitled to it and surely not at further taxpayer expense.
There are a whole gamut of scholarships available for deserving people. Does this "single mother" qualify? Does she have the grades and test scores indicating that she is worth the further taxpayer investment? Student loans are both easy to get and have a very low interest rate and very lenient payback period.
My point is that there are already existant and abundant avenues in place to help someone get a University education...so what the hell is she whining about?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Exiled And Addicted]

I agree with Q about Jesse's wife's business.

And although I like most of what Jesse says, the "special permit", IF TRUE, thing rips an incredible hole in his credibility. What went from greater-than-average respect for him for getting a CCW, plummeted to way-below-even-democrats respect for him for being elitist. He's a citizen like everyone else. I cannot blame him for political reasons for walking on eggshells somewhat when justifying the CCW permit to the media, because of the incredible anit-gun climate in a liberal state like MN. But there is no excuse for creating special privileges for the powerful. He sucks big time.

Oh, and when it comes to pregnancy, the male is 100% responsible. The female is also 100% responsible. It's 100% to both, not 50%/50%. She deserves all the blame for an unwanted pregnancy, as does the male, because either party acting responsibly (unilaterally) could/should have prevented it. Each is legally and morally responsible for half the child's support, though.

 

[David Wright]

Wow! Talk about getting wrapped around the axle.

There is some benefit to having a rabble-rouser around, even if they are rattling your cage. It keeps all of us honest, and wreaks havoc with those folks that are less than intellectually honest with their own belief systems.

Folks, no one(except yourself) is going to see eye to eye with you on everything. Even with his many flaws and gaffes, while we can, we should enjoy watching Jesse cause vapor lock to the many talking heads and chuckleheads out there. (Meet The Depressed, Newsweak, U.S. Muse and World Retort, et al) It's so refreshing to see the intimidation in the eyes of the press when they interview him.

My favorite scenario(and I would even pay to see this) is Jesse being interviewed by perky Katie Couric. And, lets say, they debate gun control and/or Bill Clinton. He would verbally "field-dress" her. I would laugh so hard I would probably spit-up a piece of lung!

I can't be too hard on anyone that gives grief to the types of folks that annoy me. Am I ALONE on this one?

 

[Bill F]

Exiled,

I agree with you completely on the pregnancy issue. I think people have to be held a 100% responsible for there own actions and stop blaming everyone but themselves.
I do have to disagree with you that MN is a anti gun state. There is more guns here than a lot of people would think. The problem here is that most of the people that have guns are hunters and they think that as long as they don’t touch there shotguns or rifles, who cares. They don’t realize that they just haven’t gotten to it yet. I think a lot of hunters think there safe now that MN past an amendment to are constitution to protect our right to hunt and fish, what ever that means. If anyone would even mentions anything about restricting shotguns or rifles, people here would go ballistic, especially in northern MN. Those people are loaded for bear.
As far as Jesse is concerned, I think I look at it like David does, as long as he’s going to be around for four years I might as well sit back and laugh my ass off. He is deficiently the funniest thing in politics I’ve ever seen around here.


[This message has been edited by Bill F (edited February 25, 1999).]

 

[Q]

I suppose I should lay off Ventura. For the most part, I just like gettin' feisty from time to time.

I guess what is really chapping my hide about gun issues and Jesse Ventura is that everyone is talking about how CCW is "in the bag" for Minnesota this year...

The truth is, CCW isn't in the bag because Jesse isn't doing anything about it.

The whole idea of it being a "done deal" creates a general apathy that keeps people from contacting their local reps and saying, "I'm in favor of CCW."

Look, last week, the only point the anti's made that turned the faces of those Crime Committee politicians absolutely white, was that public opinion may not look favorably upon CCW reform.

The crime statistics didn't shock them as much as the proposition that they might be doing something that Minnesotans would oust them out of office for. Their eyes were still glazed over as John Lott tried to explain that the polls didn't ask the right questions; I think that went in one ear and out the other.

That is why it is so important for Minnesotans to realize that Jesse isn't fighting on this one and we have to continue to contact our elected officials. We can't expect that CCW (or any other pro-gun laws) are going to pass just because we have Jesse for Governor.

The current bill needs to get through both the Senate and House Crime Committees, then through the Senate and House Floors before it gets to his desk to sign. That's a pretty long way from a done deal. We can't expect that things are going to happen simply because he's in office. It's clear that Ventura is not going to do anything for RKBA that we don't do for ourselves. He's already stated that the extent of his involvement will be to sign a paper if it lands on his desk.

We've got a long way to go before we get there and I, for one, don't want to wait another eight years to get a bill heard again. SF274 has GOT to get out of committee by March 19th or it's dead. That's not much time and the people in Minnesota are going to have to do it without expecting any of Ventura's help. We simply aren't going to get any from him.

=Q=

 

[Rob Pincus]

Q,

For me it is just an intellectual excercise to be wary of Ventura.. you, obviously, have much more to loose if you just accept him as a messiah and believe that his ex-wrestler-ex-SEAL-outspokeness will automatically translate into libertarian type results.

I hope there are others like you in MN that remain vigilant.



------------------
-Essayons

 

[Byron Quick]

Amen, Rob! Watch him like a hawk, Q! One of the sad facts of the human condition is that the act of seeking office tends to render a person unqualified to hold office.

 

[DavidN]

There are a few of us trying to stay vigilant . I hope everyone will please call/write the gov. and your senator/congressman.This is arguably the best chance we have ever had to get ccw reform,and if we fail it may not come again for some time.we appreciate the moral support from you non-minnesotans,thanks.

------------------