There's an unwritten rule in broadcasting that says never admit a technical mistake. Move on, it says, and pretend it didn't happen. I bring this up because basically I screwed up the last column. Not only did I put it on the Web site a day late, I also somehow managed to erase half of it so only the first half showed up. I blame this on the fact that I was on vacation for a week and forgot all my passwords and procedures. And frankly I still don't understand why all this spam gibberish continues to show up at the bottom of the stuff I write. But because I am a broadcaster and not a Web guy, I will pretend everything's fine and move on.

One thing I did ask last time is whether I should continue with this effort now that the session is over. I had a couple replies, including this one from Theresa Sheehy:

I would continue reading your column if you kept it up now that the session is over.

One thing that I don't particularly like though, is how you always quote the 2 local papers. Why? By the time I get to work I've already read one. Why should I look at your column if you're just quoting from those sources? I check the MPR site for another angle or different information from what was in the newspaper. Otherwise, there's no point. I could just read the paper.

Hmmm...are you sure the New Media people at MPR didn't put you up to asking that?

Basically, the reason I often cite the newspapers is that I write this very early in the morning (usually before 6:30 a.m.), and I'm at work before the papers arrive at my house. My original idea was to have the column be sort of like one of those newscasts you hear on MPR every half hour, but focused on state politics and government. I thought I would grab an item from here and there as I go through the papers first thing, and direct you to items on the MPR website as well, but make the whole thing self-contained. My thought was that if you wanted to read the items I linked to you could, but if you didn't want to, you would still be left with a pretty complete sense of what was going on.

I'm not quite sure if it actually works that way. You apparently don't think so (and neither do some of our New Media folks). But read this comment from Ben Brown:

Please continue to write the column if when the legislature is not in session. It is a great source of information that is also quick. Your column lets me know about items I am interested in without having to go through many more items I am not (a problem I have with many newspaper sites). You are also a pretty funny guy. So thanks for what you've done so far and please don't deny a news junkie one of his favorite fixes.

Now Ben is obviously my target audience. The format is working for him. And, Ben, yes, sometimes my humor is intentional.

So there are at least two votes to keep this thing going. The big problem is that the flow of political news has dried up a little.

There are a couple interesting items on the MPR site today you might want to check out. Laura McCallum did a wrap-up of the session based on some behind the scenes interviews with legislative leaders that were embargoed until the end of the session. there are some interesting tidbits in there, especially about how early Gov. Pawlenty was suggesting the cigarette "fee" and about how foremost politics were in all the negotiations.

MPR's Mark Zdechlik also has some news about the 2006 campaign for U.S. Senate, including interviews with a couple of candidates you may not have heard about yet.

I have to do Midday for Gary Eichten the next few weeks, but I will write when I can. So I can't promise a new one every day, but keep checking back. Assuming I can fix my technical problems I'll keep writing when I can.