Why the right is wrong...

Ok, so I can't help myself. CNN splashed former House Majority Leader Tom Delay's mug shot across the screen, and I got a little giddy. I don't know whether Delay is guilty or not, though I find the "politically-motivated" defense thin at best. Is Ronnie Earle out to get to Delay? Maybe. The bottom line, however, is that Delay represents a craven, power-hungry side of the Republican Party, which is devouring itself in its own corruption. Delay may or may not be guilty of the specific charges against him; Delay is guilty, without a doubt, of crooked politics with aims to only benefit himself and his friends.

There have always been corruption allegations against Delay and Congressional members of the national Republican Party. From ethical violations to pork-barrel spending to a president who has not seen a spending bill he didn't like, the crop of Republicans that rode into Congress during the Republican Revolution and the "Contract with America," who were no Johnny-come-nicelys themselves, have transmogrified into a bloated, bellering machine that has come to expect people to simply take them at their word and not ask questions. The difference this time around is that very few conservatives, and extremely few of any of import, are backing up Delay 100 percent. Even conservative icon George Will, writing in the October 17 Newsweek, said, "Delay, who neither knows nor cares about calculus, probably will never return to the House leadership, and might even be voted out of the House in 13 months."

Will's article, which focuses primarily on the excesses of Republicans, is an example of why the right - or more particularly this right - is so wrong for America, and so wrong for the supposedly conservative base, as discussed in Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas? In a previous post, I wrote about Roy Moore and what I see as the coming insurrection within the Republican Party. (Bear in mind, the Democrats have more than their share of problems as well, but I am focusing on Republicans here.) Up to this point, it appears that social conservatives, of the kind Frank looks at in his book, have been able to look the other way at Congressional (and presidential) Republicans who are elected on social conservative platforms, and when in office proceed to kow-tow that agenda in favor of showering the wealthiest of this nation, including businesses, with tax cuts, subsidies, and so on. When election time rolls around again, as in 2004, many Republican politicians whip their social conservative base into a frenzy over abortion, gay marriage, and yada-yada. Yet, once put back in office, the pols shelve those social conservative issues in favor of Social Security "reform," unfavorable (to lower- and middle-class citizens) bankruptcy measures, and massive wastes of money in the form of a transportation bill. Then, our so-called fiscally conservative Republican president flip-flops by instituting the largest domestic reconstruction effort since, well, the Reconstruction, while at the same time insisting that revenue cuts such as the repeal of the estate tax be made permanent.

Anyone who believes that Republicans who are currently administering and legislating our federal government are true conservatives is either blind or a fool. As George Will states, "Conservatives are not supposed to be cuddly, or even particularly nice. They are, however, supposed to be competent. And to know that scarcity - of money, virtue, wisdom, competence, everthing - forces choices. Furthermore, they are supposed to have an unsentimental commitment to meritocracy and excellence." If this definition fit the description of our country's current leadership, I wouldn't necessarily be happy, but I would be far more tolerant. The leadership comes nowhere near this definition, however.

And even if it did, I'd still take some guilty delight in seeing Delay's mugshot.

State of the Blog

In the past week, we, the authors or contributors of the blog have brought our eggheads together to divine a path towards greatness for the PeP. Mandingo has thrown the gauntlet down against the Powerlineblog. Frankly, outside of their national reputation, their claim to fame of having done in Dan Rather, and featuring widely published conservative pundits who on top of that have successful and lucrative day jobs, they don't have a damn thing on us. Their musings on discourse political and social barely approach the proverbial wet bags of shit Mandingo churns out. And Mandingo has volume going for him.

But no, dear readers, the purpose of this post was not to blog about our superiority over the Powerlineblog, or DailyKos, or any other inferior spot on cyberspace. Rather, after a week of deliberations we have tentatively achieved a consensus on the future of the blog, and that future is strong. We will move beyond our current format of enlightened yet amateurish attempts at explaining news items big and small to creating a Cyber Cabal for Dorks hither and yon. We have a new contributor, Archduke F.F., I don't know him but he has an MFA, which is great to have on your resume if you want to work in the restaurant industry.

Also, in keeping with the interactive nature of the medium, as subjects arise that intrigue you--you being our vast readership--please inform us of as much through email or comment and we will do our best to incorporate your area of interest into the PeP's front page content. Though, please understand, we receive such a high volume of inquiries that the turnaround is not yet where we'd like it to be.
Godspeed and God Bless!

Jennings walks away from Bar/None, steps into bucketful of insanity

Pitchfork reports that Minneapolis heartthrob/musician Mason Jennings has signed on with the nascent Glacial Palace label, Isaac Brock’s very own subsidiary of Epic records.

Now, I’m not so indie that I go ballistic and scream traitor if an independent artist decides to switch to a major label and become a member of the music world’s ruling elite. My problem is that Isaac Brock, frontman for Modest Mouse, is actually in charge of something. The man carries sugar packets full of crazy in the pockets of his unwashed Levi’s. Though Modest Mouse is a kickass band, Isaac Brock shouldn’t have any job where he isn’t directing his demento-rays into creating something like “Ocean Breathes Salty” or “Cowboy Dan” or “Trailer Trash.” Or the whole Moon and Antarctica album. Or Long Drive….

Mason Jennings is a big boy, but I worry about our little friend from Minneapolis (via Pittsburgh). Perhaps he’ll catch a little bit of Isaac’s insane and forget to sing his songs as though he is impersonating someone impersonating Bob Dylan.

Having just fact-checked myself about the Pittsburgh thing, I noticed that the entirety of MJ's homepage is now hosted by Sony/Epic records. So, if you were trying to learn about Mason and also wanted some sweet ringtones for your Sony/Ericsson cell, it’s one-stop shopping.

*Thanks to Hensley for the tip

Koizumi Drops Coins in Box, Pisses Off Asia in General

In case you missed it, which you probably did, Japan's impeccably coiffed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited the Yasukuni war shrine in Tokyo on Monday morning. The Shinto shrine is a tribute to soldiers, WWII heroes, and a host of war criminals of the Tojo regime.

The rest of East Asia is, predictably, perturbed. Japan transformed most of the Korean peninsula into a brothel during its 35 year occupation, something that South Koreans are still pretty angry about. China didn't get off much easier, what with the massacres and all. Even that bastion of democracy and restraint, North Korea, has weighed in on Koizumi's visit.

What is really striking about this whole debacle, though, is that the High Court in Osaka has ruled that Koizumi's visit crosses the barrier between religion and state dictated by Japan's constitution. Koizumi, in visiting the shrine, is not only pissing off China and the Koreas, but also pissing on Japan's Constitution, at least according to the Osaka High Court.

Hmm...seems like our old pal Junichiro is taking a few cues from our even older pal Roy.

Educating or pissing off readers at a stroke

I used the word "unstintingly" in my last post. Someone commented (in so many words) that this usage was unnecessary and pretentious. You want pretention? - try this word: nullipara. A noun referring to a woman who has never given birth to a child. It should be printed on T-shirts.

On Women Being Strategically Single

In social life, people are unstintingly Machiavellian, molding themselves in ways to maintain their social standing and influence others. For example, single women are known to wear a ring indicating that they are married when in fact they are not. This is usually or always done to ward off men for whatever reasons. But this practice is less interesting than its converse: married, engaged or otherwise committed women pretending to be single. This occurs as much or more often than single women pretending to be married. By “pretending” to be single I mean strategically withholding information about their relationship status in communication with a single or married man, but mostly in communication with single men. This withholding can take the form of either not informing the guy at all or not reminding him that you are not single, but already committed to another man. For example, I’ve asked a woman in a relationship a question that clearly implicated her boyfriend and expected to hear about him as the central reason for her plans – but he was not mentioned. And I think this was no accident. Why do women do this? What compels committed women to remind men that they are not single at some times and places but not at other times? (Do we have any female readers out there who can speak up here??)

I have a hypothesis: Unavailable women are strategically single so as to not drive away (single) men they find interesting. But donning this cloak is tricky. You want to see open, friendly and available, but not too available. You want the guy to be closer to you but not too close. You want to keep him at a distance, but not shut him out completely.

But this assumes that the woman’s commitment to her boyfriend is non-negotiable. In reality, this is not always the case. Many women seem to be on the verge of ditching their boyfriends. That is to say, committed women are sometimes strategically single because their loyalty to their boyfriend is at bottom contingent -- he is temporary and provisional until it becomes too costly to find someone better. So strategic singleness, in short, sometimes signals openness to a possible affair, or if not an out-and-out affair, it indicates uncertainty or doubt on the part of the woman about the future of her current relationship. Feel free to agree or disagree about my stronger or more moderate interpretation of this social practice…

Week in Review: Fall of an Icon

• PiedPiper throws himself at the mercy of Roy's Rock, and suggests a Wetterling-Klobuchar ultimate-fighting match.
• Ilya makes a desperate plea to find a friend.
• Xtra makes reentry to Minnesota; surprisingly, they allow him across the border.
• Mandingo offends half of world's population; digs deep into the Vikings' sex party; seeks to destroy Powerline; and goes from most-favored blogger status to probation in two shakes of a lamb's tail.
• Anti-Everything? Bah.

• Shameless plug: I've added a link to my friend Der Staubsager's nascent blog - The StuSie - which you can find in the right colulmn. If you're tired of reading about out bloviations on Minnesota and US politics, take a break by reading his musings on the European systems.

Give me liberty or give me...

...Patty Wetterling? In the biggest non-news event since Randy Kelly's press-filled commercial shoot, child safety advocate and official Mother of Minnesota, Patty Wetterling, announced her bid to replace Mark Dayton in the U.S. Senate.

She'll have to seriously bone up on issues other than child safety, though, if she expects to beat Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic candidacy. Klobuchar has the crime-and-punishment credentials and a larger war chest. Not to mention the coveted EMILY's List endorsement that caused Wetterling so much trouble in her ill-fated run to unseat 6th District Congressional representative Mark Kennedy (who, BTW, will be representing the GOP in the Senate race).

But, then again, Wetterling does have the sympathy vote, and that oh-so-coveted name recognition. And, really, if Minnesota can elect ultra-liberal-Wellstone-supporter-turned-archconservative-Republican-purse-pooch Norm Coleman (who had previously lost to [gasp] Jesse Ventura in a race for governor) just about anything's possible.

So, really, how do we choose between Wetterling and Klobuchar? I say an MPR-sponsored ultimate-fighting cage match. Garrison Keillor can moderate.

Our Readers

Our Readers. Do we have any? Can they speak? We have 6000 some odd hits, but where are they coming from? I figure that the 5 PeP bloggers each add an average of 3 hits per day (a conservative estimate, it's probably more like 5). I don't know if the comments bots add hits to the counter. "Anonymous" speaks from time to time, whose referent at any given time is probably any one of I suspect 3 or 4 people. So that adds up to about, say, 600 hits a month from 8-10 people closely associated with the blog.

This leads to my query: if you read this blog on a somewhat regular basis, and you don't see yourself in the tally above, or if you have no clue who the people are behind their screen names, give us a holla' in the comments section. This is like an experiment or something, to see if we're basically talking amongst ourselves or not.

Thanks.

Black, white, and [not quite] read all over

Holy Steely Dan, Batman! How the PeP nearly missed a link to the Strib redesign is beyond me. Not since we blew the Pawlenty F-enheimer and Jayson Blair was our guest blogger have we come this close to blogger incompetence. Did you know that the new Strib is made of velvet and has embedded microchips that play Chopin as you read it? Yeah, me neither. Pick up a copy tomorrow, and tell us what you think!

PS-Per usual, they've set up a cheesy Strib blog to track the incoherent madness.

Roy's Rock, Abortion, and Harriet Miers

In October's Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green followed Roy Moore - or, more specifically Roy's Rock - on tour. Who's Roy Moore, and what's Roy's Rock? Well, Moore is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who became something of a cult hero to the extreme religious conservative crowd when he commissioned a 2.6-ton (!) statute of the Ten Commandments (aka Roy's Rock), had it placed in the Alabama Supreme Court building under cover of darkness, and was later forced out of his position when federal judges determined its unconstitutionality. When crews removed The Rock, there were protests that, I'm assuming, consisted largely of gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts.

Since that time, Roy and his Rock have been in exile, but have held a large part of the Deep South limelight. His battle with the courts, and his deep-rooted belief that Christianity should not only be represented in government, but that it should be at the core of government, has won him legions of fans among the religious right crowd. Moore argues, essentially, for nothing short of a Christian theocracy. His campaign started with the Rock and the courthouse, and will soon move to a race for Alabama governor, and - perhaps? probably? - end with a run for the presidency, or another national office a la that other famous Alabaman reactionary, George Wallace.

So what does Roy's Rock have to do with abortion and Harriet Miers? Moore and his cohort of Christian crusaders represent a force in modern American politics that, when directed toward a common, specific goal (say, for example, the reelection of George W. Bush?) has the capability to swing elections in their favor. This cohort is intimidating and insatiable in its hunger for the organization of government around Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity. (Remember, there are still large parts of this country that consider Catholics papists and the pope Satan...for real.) This cohort is also largely comprised of the vast anti-abortionista lobby, who drool over Roy's Rock so much that the thing has to be chemical washed wherever it goes.

What I've had a hard time understanding these past few years, is how and why this segment of the population, after electing and reelecting Bush, and holding majorities in both houses of Congress, still manages to maintain such a simmering anger. And then along came Harriet Miers...

Perhaps the time has come when the so-called social conservatives of this country have realized that abortion will never be made illegal. Not only would it be a disastrous failure of social policy, its politically untenable for Republicans holding political office. Despite holding the levers of power, the radical right has still witnessed a series of failures. Federal ban on gay marriage, anyone? Split establishment clause positions in the Supreme Court? The filibuster fight? And, though I loathe to mention her, Terri Schiavo? It behooves Republicans - mainstream and otherwise - to keep the blood temperature of radical social conservatives simmering just below boil. That way, when election time comes around, they can stoke the flames with auto-pilot speeches, declare that next time 'round they really will do something about that social conservative agenda, and ride the wave of radical indignation all the way back to their D.C. offices.

In nominating Harriet Miers, a decision that has left everyone but members of the Bush administration flabbergasted, the president - just like his father before him - disappointed his radical right base. Roy and his crowd were left in the lurch with an untested, unqualified nobody when they were spoiling for a fight. And so the rightist reaction hums along.

I have to wonder, though, how long the charade will be played. How long will the radical right sit in the corner, like a red-faced, bleary-eyed six-year-old during a temper tantrum, before finally turning on those who keep telling them to wait their turn. How long before they hijack the Republican Party and boot the moderates, or cause a schism and move to the magical land of third-party obscurity tempered only by political purity. How long must we wait for that blessed relief, Lord, how long?

The Pie-Eyed Picayune at 200

Well, we've come a long way, baby. With Mandingo's throw-down at the scions of the nefarious Powerline, the Pie-Eyed Picayune has published its 200th post. Let's all take this opportunity to give ourselves a thick-handed pat on the back with one hand, while picking the nearest pocket with our other. Congrats, chaps. We've successfully secured our place in blogosphere mediocrity.

Meeting of the Minds

Run...don't walk...to the nearest TV and turn on CNN. The eminent Wolf Blitzer is discussing the end times with Rev. Jerry Falwell, live from Liberty University in Lynchburg.

Terrorism, tsumanis, Katrina, Rita, earthquakes in Pakistan, etc., etc. And now the four horsemen of the apocalypse are breathing down my neck!

Uh oh...Wolf just segued from the end of the world to Harriet Miers. Brilliant.

UPDATE: Check out the transcript here.

The gist? Blitzer: "I'm asking you if you believe that this is wrath of god, if you will?"

Something makes me think this situation is a bit too big for The Situation Room.

Let's be honest...

I think it's time to say it: There is nothing one can say about Harriet Miers (who names their daughter Harriet?) that hasn't already been said about Iraq.

Our Strange Mediated World

20,000 people or more are feared dead in Pakistan because of a tremendous earthquake, and the No. 1 most emailed article on the NYT website as of 11:25 a.m. Sunday is "A Fast Track to Toilet Training for Those at the Crawling Stage."

What is our world coming to?

Rybak's re-election folly

MEMO
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RE: Mobilization and Participation in Electoral Politics

To: R.T. Rybak's Campaign

It has been brought to my attention that ever since political scientists have inhabited the Earth, they have shown that free-wheeling, footloose and fancy-free college students do not vote in great numbers. Whereas homeowners, churchgoers and long-time residents not only vote in greater numbers but know more people as well and can thus spread the word. This evidence suggests that that Rybak campaign should spend very little time at the U of MN and other institutions of higher education in Minneapolis. Storm the city, not the dorms.

I am, sincerely,

a concerned "Re-elect Rybak!" staff member.

Rumsfeld's illocutionary forces

Illocution: An act such as ordering, warning, undertaking, performed in saying something.




Forget about the armed forces, we got Rummy! Whether he's asking rhetorical questions to himself and then answering them, or just reporting to the public, his illocutionary forces are strong. You will succumb.

Federalist Paper #76

Harriet Miers may be a lovely lady, she may ultimately satisfy partisans down the road if she is confirmed, except, she shouldn't be. Some have complained that she is Souter in a dress. Bush cooly responds that she is a "Pit Bull in six inch heels." She might be the best damned lawyer in whatever her niche in private sector law was. Though, from the brief histories of her career distilled in the newsmedia, it appears that she has largely functioned as a very capable administrator. I suspect that she would be a great CEO of a Fortune 500 firm(My friends on the left tell me Halliburton is a great firm), or even possibly a good jurist provided she had the opportunity to foment a judicial philosophy on the district or appellate level. Bush has opted for loyalty, and loyalty so extremely exercised converges on cronyism. Her primary qualifications are: 1. She's a She; 2. She's Bush's friend. Harriet Miers is one of the most thinly qualified nominees and should be voted down pursuant to Federalist Paper #76:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

Bennett, Race, Freakanomics

In keeping with his moniker, Anti made a reactionary comment with regards to Bill Bennett's impolitic comments. On a side note, I would like to applaud Anti for labeling such a mass abortion genocide, maybe in your next post you could take on Roe v. Wade and a general right to privacy. Below I have posted a post from the Blog of the Author of Freakanomics, Stephen D. Levitt, regarding the Bennett fiasco. On a very basic level this appears quite obvious, if you prevent somebody from existing (notice my deference to you pro-choice people), you also prevent them from committing crimes, or any other actions such as breathing. Now, obviously, the crux of the issue is that Bennett went one step further and injected race into the discussion, so without further adieu, here is the Author's take on Bennett's statement:

"Bill Bennett and I have a fair amount in common. We've both written about crime (his "superpredator" theory gets a quick discussion in Freakonomics), we have both thought a lot about illegal drugs and education (he was the original "drug czar" and is a former Secretary of Education), and we both love to gamble (although it seems I do it for much lower stakes and perhaps with greater success).Now we also share the fact that we have made controversial statements about the link between abortion and crime.Here's what Bennett said during the Sept. 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

'BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.'

Bennett's comments have, not surprisingly, ignited a furor. For some of the media reactions, see here and here. Less than an hour ago, the White House weighed in.Here are my thoughts on this exchange:

1) People should bear in mind that this took place on an unscripted radio show in response to a caller's question. It was clearly off-the-cuff. This is a very different situation than, say, Bennett's writing an op-ed piece.
2) Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics. It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.
3) Some people might think that my comments in (2) above are just ducking the race issue because it is politically correct to do so. Anyone who has read Freakonomics knows that I am not afraid to take issues of race head on. Much of the book deals with challenging issues of race (e.g. black-white test score gaps, black naming patterns, etc.). I mean it when I say that, from a purely fact-based and statistical perspective, race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime.
4) When a woman gets an abortion, for the most part it is not changing the total number of children she has; rather, it is shifting the timing so those births come later in life. This is an important fact to remember. One in four pregnancies ends in abortion and this has been true for 30 years in the U.S. But the impact of abortion on the overall birth rate has been quite small.
5) In light of point (4) above, it is hard to even know what Bennett means when he says "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Implicit in his comment is the idea that some external force, like a government, is forcing blacks to have abortions. This is obviously a completely different situation than abortion as we know it today, in which a woman chooses whether or not to have an abortion now, and then starts her family later in life, when her situation is more stable and conducive. The distinction between a woman choosing to control her fertility and the government choosing to limit her fertility is fundamental and people often seem to lose sight of that.
6) If we lived in a world in which the government chose who gets to reproduce, then Bennett would be correct in saying that "you could abort every black baby in this country, andyour crime rate would go down." Of course, it would also be true that if we aborted every white, Asian, male, Republican, and Democratic baby in that world, crime would also fall. Immediately after he made the statement about blacks, he followed it up by saying, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down." He made a factual statement (if you prohibit any group from reproducing, then the crime rate will go down), and then he noted that just because a statement is true, it doesn't mean that it is desirable or moral. That is, of course, an incredibly important distinction and one that we make over and over in Freakonomics.
7) There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.
8) As an aside, the initial caller's statement is completely wrong. If abortion were illegal, our Social Security problems would not be solved. As noted above, most abortions just shift a child from being born today to a child being born to the same mother a few years later."

When It Rains It Pours

Needless to say it has been pretty tough lately to be a Republican. Let’s recap:

• Rep. Tom Delay was indicted on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 Texas state elections.
• Sen. Bill Frist is being formally investigated by the SEC for insider trading.
• The Republican governor of Ohio, Gov. Bob Taft, was recently convicted of ethics violations. Yet he won’t resign and his approval rating is down to 15%.
• Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who Tom Delay referred to as “my good friend” and who also paid for Tom Delay to go play golf in Scotland, was indicted on five counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy.
• According to the Government Accountability Office the Bush administration broke anti-propaganda rules.
• There is new speculation that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of the discussions about leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
• Former Secretary of Education in the Bush administration, William Bennett, stated on a radio show: “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” I wonder how genocide plays into being a compassionate conservative?

But then again maybe all this bad news will just go away so long as Bush nominates the lawyer who allegedly got his drunk driving charges off of his record to the Supreme Court. The funny part about this is that Harriet Miers pulled a Cheney, she was the head of the selection committee to find a new Supreme Court Nominee and instead chose herself. I thought the complete and utter failure of Mike Brown as the head of FEMA would have taught Bush that the use of cronyism when appointing people to important offices isn’t’ the best policy.

Let's Move On...

Let's face it...the PeP has had a hard time coming back from Mandingo's "Bearded Matriarch" debacle. So let's look at something just as ridiculous.

St. Paul mayoral "candidate" (if you can still call him that) Randy Kelly - who happens to be the incumbent - held a "press conference" this week. Just about every news organization in the Twin Cities turned out for it. The problem? There was no actual news. In fact, by most accounts it was an attempt by the Kelly campaign to just get some press their drubbing in the primary by DFL-endorsed contender Chris Coleman.

So what's the matter with Kelly? Well, first and foremost, he endorsed President Bush in last year's presidential election, while he was a supposedly Democratic mayor of one of the most liberal cities in America. This decision, as Kelly makes it sound, was based on principle. Unfortunately for him, that notion has backfired and just about everybody and their dog has called his bluff. Now after nearly losing his general election spot to the Green Party candidate he's resorted to holding non-news events in order to get a sliver of the limelight.

I don't have a huge problem with Kelly. I do have a problem with a guy who purports to identify with certain progressive ideals, yet cosies up with those - Bush, Pawlenty, Norm Coleman - who reflect, and vote, on the far opposite side of those ideals. Kelly thought that he could have things both ways. He thought St. Paul was so wrapped up in him that they could forget his transgressions on the other side.

His campaign persona says he's a man willing to reach out to the other side while holding fast to progressivism. Reality, though, shows a shallow, opportunistic politician who is completely transparent. And everyone realizes that but him.

*Read the "press conference" Q&A at the City Hall Scoop.

The Hand Formula

"[...] if the probability [of an injury] be called P; the injury [and level of liability], L; and the burden [on industry taking precautions], B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P."
--- Judge Learned Hand, United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 1947

Little did I know when I was accepted to law school that I would be going back to 9th grade algebra, but here I am. The above equation has become known as "The Hand Formula," and it originated with a case coming out of World War II, in which a negligent tugboat owner tried to pull a negligently managed barge out of New York Harbor, and in the process sank the barge, which happened to contain some much needed supplies for the Greatest Generation fighting in Europe.

Since its relatively obscure beginnings, the Hand Formula has been used in many tort litigation cases involving small people butting up against large companies. Hand breaks it down like this: Multiply the probability that an accident will occur by the magnitude of the injury at bar; if that figure (or idea or image) comes out less than the cost of the burden to the corporate entity to take precautions to prevent such an injury, there is no liability on the part of the corporation.

Now take this into consideration: Hand does not expect you to actually plug in any numerical figures. In fact, that would be basically impossible. Say the accident took someone's life. Well, then the liability was very, very high. Are you going to assign a number to that? Probably not.

Essentially, the Hand Formula is supposed to prevent companies from being held liable for freak accidents and just plain stupidity. And, in that regard, it does its job and it does it well.

My only problem with this formula, however, is that both sides - the injured private citizen and the potentially liable corporation - are seen on equal footing. It doesn't take into account the fact that the injured private citizen may only have limited resources with which to bring a legal challenge, while the corporation may have nearly unlimited resources to fight a legal challenge. Therefore, should a legitimate negligence claim be raised as a matter of serious public safety, whose to say the corporation can't just run out the clock on the private citizen, making them jump through all kinds of hoops until they just don't have the resources to continue.

Someone call Erin Brokovich.

Making the Grade

In yesterday's Sunday Star Tribune Op-Ex section, the lofty Strib scribes pay homage to a recent report card put out by some group calling itself the Great Northern Alliance (I have not yet been able to uncover yet exactly what or who makes up this alliance, but I doubt it has anything to do with the brothers in Mazir-e-Sharif).

The report card assigned letter grades in several categories and - in contrast to Minnesotans relentless ability to pat themselves on the back - gave the Twin Cities an overall GPA of a B-. While we achieved high marks for "Unique Character and Social Blend" (credit Mandingo with that one), "Values Good Health For All," "Can Attract Talent From Other Areas," "Am Concentrated With Skilled Workers," and "Support the Arts," there were some notable areas of slippage where the Twin Cities specifically and Minnesotans generally should take heed. We earned a grade of D in the categories "Adequately Support Regional Infrastructure," and "Work and Play Well with Others." Furthermore, we earned a C- in the categories "Have Resources to Reach Commerical Potential," "Provide a Foundation for Future Growth," and "Resource Flow." All told, the lower grades stand out more - and are far more telling of the challenges facing the Twin Cities - than the higher grades.

So what? The Twin Cities still tops the quality-of-life lists. We have a highly educated workforce of high-income earners. Our children's ACT scores are among the highest in the country, and we graduate a boatload of B.A. and B.S. students every year from our quality public and private universities and colleges. We have a huge arts network, a huge nonprofit network, and an active business community. Why mess with a good thing?

The problem is, we're not taking steps to secure our position at the tops of these lists and statistics. Other similar metropolitan areas - Denver, Phoenix, Raleigh - are taking cues from our past and beating us at our own game, and they have an inherent advantage in attracting residents: weather (or mountains, in the case of Denver).

Our current political environment - lead most notably by Teflon Tim Pawlenty - does not lend itself to accomplishing great things in the name of civic improvement. As evidenced time and time again, Pawlenty would much rather offer David Strom and the Taxpayer's League a couple dimes off taxes when they repatriate their off-shore accounts than worry about calling on Minnesotan to make a joint sacrifice for everyone's benefit. It used to be - or so legend has it - that Minnesota was a place where Democrats and Republicans could get along in the name of basic civic foundations (i.e. Arne Carlson). The current crop of Republicans, however, poisoned that environment a couple years ago, and will probably pay a poltical price next year.

The Twin Cities metropolitan area is widely predicted to add more than 1 million residents in the next 20 years. This is a fact stated over and over again by experts, but a fact you will rarely heard uttered from a Minnesota Republican's lips. Why? Because to admit that we will be adding these people is to admit that we need to be planning for the future, not merely spending on the present.

Therefore, I offer you a Pie-Eyed Five-Point Plan for the Betterment of the Twin Cities. Take umbrage if you will, but if you will, at least provide your own suggestions for improvement. There's nothing worse than a critic who only criticizes and does not provide his own thoughts.

1. Put together a comprehensive transportation infrastructure package that covers the entire metropolitan area, and includes Minnesota's other major cities. This will be our biggest challenge: Getting everyone together at the table and figuring out the best way to move people around. It will take a combination of public transportation options and highway infrastructure in order to make this work. It will also take a metro-wide sales tax in order to pay for it.
2. Fully fund education at all levels. Fun Bobby Bruininks at the U of M wants to be one of the top three research institutions in the world. Rather than laugh him off the stage, we should be encouraging him. Reduce the drastic income gap in education by ensuring our urban school districts receive the support they need, and push math and science to provide future employees for our biotech firms. Do what it takes to make this happen, rather than cutting corners or freezing spending.
3. Utilize smart growth in order to better develop our communities, conserve land usage, reduce pollution, and ease transportation difficulties. There is no reason Maple Grove and Andover should look and feel the way they do. It's purely bad design. We need to mix our residential and commercial land use and place them close to transportation hubs. Why must we always rely on our cars? It's unnecessary.
4. What's the deal with biofuel? Minnesota and its neighbors to the south and west (Iowa and the Dakotas) ought to be working together in order to make this region the energy capitol of the US. We're honestly sitting on a gold mine of untapped energy resources in our corn and soybean industries. If we work jointly, we can make more waves nationally, and pretty soon we can provide fuel and energy to the whole country. We need both public and private investment in research and implementation.
5. Finally, we need to bolster partnerships in the private and public spheres. We need to attract businesses here, and help them invest in the growth of Minnesota. Pawlenty has said that he won't raise taxes because it'll scare away businesses. I say, get the money to build the infrastructure that produces the employees companies want.

Something For the Weekend

Pie-Eyed Lyrics of the Weekend are brought to you by the impenitent Nickelback

"How You Remind Me"

Never made it as a wise man
I couldn't cut it as a poor man stealing
Tired of living like a blind man
I'm sick of sight without a sense of feeling
And this is how you remind me
This is how you remind me
Of what I really am
This is how you remind me
Of what I really am

Cup of Joe

(from the Coffee and Caffeine FAQ)

Where did the term "cup of joe" come from?

Legend has it that the origin is a follows:

The U.S. Navy used to serve alcoholic beverages on board ships. However, when Admiral Josephus "Joe" Daniels became Chief of Naval Operations, he outlawed alcohol onboard ships, except for very special occasions. Coffee then became the beverage of choice, hence the term "Cup of Joe."

How Buses Burn

I have witnessed a large bus burn. This summer, on a trip to Chicago, we stopped at a rest stop in Wisconsin, where a bus had pulled over because the kids inside saw smoke rising from the rear wheels. When we pulled up, all the kids had safely evacuated the bus. The bus driver could not put out the fire that had erupted at the back of the bus. His small, red extinguisher was useless in comparison to the flames coming out of the bus. In the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin, firetrucks were not forthcoming. We watched the bus burn, then, for over 30 minutes. The flames slowly made their way to the front of the coach. It never exploded. When the fire reached the fuel tanks the fuel burned like a controlled blow torch. Some people around us said that this is the nature of diesel fuel, it just doesn't explode like gasoline would (I don't know if this is true). When the firemen arrived, the fire was put out in no time, and the bus looked like a burned skeleton as in the picture above.

Anyway, I learned three things from that event. First, large buses should be equipped with many large fire extinguishers. Small extinguishers aren't adequate to put out anything larger than a stove fire. Secondly, the allegedly 20 people who died on the road in Texas in a burning bus know what being burned alive feels like. Their pain is unimagineable. It is really unfortunate that they couldn't evacuate the bus before it was engulfed in flames. Was there only one exit? Finally, buses are liable to catch fire in hot, sunny weather. This is unacceptable. There is no reason that buses cannot be made safer.

The Coming Storm?

The Judiciary Committee voted on John Robert's nomination today, sending him on for a full Senate vote. The Judiciary Committe is composed of ten Republicans and eight Democrats. Three Democrats (Kohl, Feingold, Leahy) joined the Republicans in voting in favor of Roberts, five Democrats voted against Roberts (Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Biden). It is clear that Roberts will be confirmed, but what remains unclear is by how large a majority. If a strong majority of Democrats vote against Roberts, Bush and the Republicans can and will credibly claim that Democrats have not voted on the basis of qualifications (see Scalia and Ginsburg whose combined senate wide no vote was 5) but rather on partisan affiliation. This will give Bush license to push the envelope on the next nomination, which, likely, will be handed down upon Robert's confirmation. The tea leaves are still hard to read as many Red State Democrats (Johnson, Pryor, Nelson, Baucus with Landrieu and Conrad possibly moving to the yes column as well) are expressing support for Roberts, but if such a scenario plays out look for a revival of "Nuclear" politics.

This Day in History

Two hundred years ago, on September 21, 1805, U.S. Army Lieutenant Zebulon Montgomery Pike lead a group of soldiers up the Mississippi River to the mouth of the Minnesota River, where he camped on an island that now bears his name. Two days later, Pike signed a treaty with the Dakota Indians, "purchasing" one thousand acres on both sides of the Mississippi River from the Minnesota to the St. Croix.

This "purchase" cleared the way for the establishment of Fort Snelling, as well as the future cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, making the wild Great Northwoods safe for the white man.

And the American Indians? Well, after years of searching for what they lost, one tribe settled in a magical land known as Mystic Lake.

Greatest Threat to America…PORN

The FBI announced that under the guidance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales they are currently recruiting a new anti-porn squad to investigate obscene material. Gonzales describe the initiative as “one of the top priorities” of the Justice Department and the FBI.

So let’s see, instead of utilizing FBI agents to investigate terrorists who wish to do Americans harm or corporate criminals who steal billions from the American public, we are instead investigating porn. And will this investigation relate to child pornography and the noble task of protecting children; nope it goes after consenting adults.

So apparently one of the greatest threats to the American public is some chick getting pissed on or taking it from a horse, who knew?

Could this just be an attempt by Gonzales to pander to the conservative American base in an attempt to get the nomination to fill Sandra Day O'Connor’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court? Of course not that would just be absurd.

That is sexy?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Macalester's national ill fame and local pride

It's official, ESPN ranks Macalester College football as the 2nd worse team of all time. And Mac students take a slightly perverse pride in this fact, along with having being voted a few years ago in the top 10 most godless colleges. But as far as the equations go for calculating quality of education, lack of football talent and disdain for religious devotion make for one hot liberal arts college.

Here's what ESPN has to say:

"2. Macalester College (1974-80)
Between 1974 and 1980, the St. Paul, Minn., school lost 50 games in a row. The Scots' worst season probably came in 1977, when MIAC rivals Concordia Moorhead -- yes, the Concordia Moorhead Cobbers -- beat them 97-6, scoring 14 touchdowns to set an NAIA record that still stands (Cobbers kicker Kurt Christenson scored 13 points on extra point kicks alone). Also in 1977, Macalester set a Division III record by allowing 59.1 points per game. The losing streak ended in dramatic fashion: Kicker Bob Kaye put a 23-yarder through the uprights with 11 seconds remaining in an early September 1980 contest as the Scots beat Mount Senario College."

Week in Review

• PiedPiper quotes Alanis Morissette, delivers a State of the Blog address, and recites his class notes (much to ire of his fellow PePpers).
• Ilya goes on a rampage and revels in his single status.
• Xtra falls silent, even on his "other" blog.
• Mandingo reveals his tasteless humor, reports on the happenings at the Neighborhood Group for the People's Republic of Seward, and wants the world to know just how uber-hip he really is.
• Anti-Everything breaks his seal with some serious soul-searching. Search on, brother.

In other news...

• (Not) Surprise of the Week: Northwest Airlines files for bankruptcy...and the union strikes on.
• Randy Kelly gets trounced in St. Paul mayoral primary, and I'm going to go ahead and start a completely unfounded conspiracy theory that when he loses the general election in November, he'll switch parties and challenge Betty McCollum for US House of Representatives, 4th District.
• David Brooks...wow.
• George W. Bush: A Closet Socialist? What's better, a tax-and-spend liberal or a don't-tax-and-deficit-spend conservative?

Gay Equals Pedophile…says the Catholic Church

In response to the Church sexual abuse scandal of three years ago the Vatican has announced a new plan to root out homosexuals from the priesthood and seminaries throughout the United States.

Instead of taking a serious look at how the Church actively covered up this scandal and make radical reforms in the Church (i.e. allow priests to marry and allow women to become priests), they have instead decided to equate pedophilia with homosexuality even though there is no credible scientific research to support this claim and most experts agree that there is not a link.

This is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. In a Church that is suppose to foster a sense of love for all people, they are instead perpetuating false stereotypes and creating even wider social barriers to the acceptance of others.

I guess the Westboro Baptist Church just found another ally.

For the Pie-Eyed Record

Since this blog has turned into "What I am thinking/reading in law school/public policy school/business school/grad. school today," I might as well contribute to the decline. I found this tirade against Judge Robert's manner of answering questions quite funny.

SCHUMER: Let me just say, sir, in all due respect -- and I respect your intelligence and your career and your family -- this process is getting a little more absurd the further we move.

You agree we should be finding out your philosophy and method of legal reasoning, modesty, stability, but when we try to find out what modesty and stability mean, what your philosophy means, we don't get any answers.

It's as if I asked you: What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography.

And I ask you, No, give me an example of a good movie. You don't name one. I say, Give me an example of a bad movie.

SCHUMER: You won't name one. Then I ask you if you like

Casablanca, and you respond by saying, Lots of people like 'Casablanca.'

(LAUGHTER)

You tell me it's widely settled that Casablanca is one of the great movies.

SPECTER: Senator Schumer, now that your time is over, are you asking him a question?

SCHUMER: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

Strict Constructionism

As I watched Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn bloviate, pontificate, and toss softballs to Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, I can't help but relate a case that demonstrates how the terms strict constructionism, judicial activism, and the bedrock phrase "legislating from the bench," can mislead.

-----

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. - New York Court of Appeals, 1970

FACTS: A group of landowners, represented here by Boomer neighbored Atlantic Cement Co., a cement plant near Albany. Boomer and the other plaintiffs alleged injuries to property from dirt, smoke, and vibration emanating from the plant and filed a nuisance claim against Atlantic Cement.

HOLDING: The court reversed a lower court's ruling that awarded Boomer damages without an injunction (a judicial order to cease an activity). The court reversed this ruling because without an injunction against a nuisance, as in this case, the plaintiffs would be free to continue bringing suits against the defendant.

-----

To solve this dillema, the court devised a compromise. Rather than ordering the business to effectively shut down (which would have cost 300 jobs and the loss of a $45 million investment) until a solution could be found to the problem of the plant's severe air pollution, the court ordered permanent damages paid to the plaintiffs until the defendant - in a "good faith effort" - found and installed technology to eliminate or drastically reduce the damaging effects on the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property.

Essentially, the court skirted a well-established precedent to protect a business that was not only causing a private nuisance to the plaintiffs named in the case, but also a public nuisance to the greater Hudson Valley. Additionally, the court, in its distribution of the award, bought off the plaintiffs, while leaving the company free to continue interfering with the use of property - both public and private - without the threat of damages. Atlantic Cement was not held accontable for the lasting and continuing damages it wrought on the effected area. Writing in the dissenting opinion, Justice Jasen argued that since this nuisance was harmful to the general public, it was therefore within both the court’s bounds of precedent and responsbility to protect the public from harm, and in awarding permanent damages rather than issuing an injunction, the court failed its duty.

Keep in mind, this is only a short case example from 35 years ago, and I am a very green law student. It is from a state court system, rather than the federal court system, and obviously is not a constitutional case. The dissenting view, however, is the strict constructionist view. It interprets the case within the long line of precedent (a.k.a. stare decisis). Republicans (and others) who rail against so-called judicial activism would view this dissenting opinion as an egregious infringement on the personal property rights of a private business.

People who consider themselves modern strict constructionists radically misjudge some of the fundamental and historical roles of our nation's courts. The recent decision upholding eminent domain for economic improvements is a good example. The US Supreme Court followed precedent and adhered to the Constitution. Yet the decision was lambasted by people on the right, the left, and in the middle. I'm one of those people. But the Court upheld the law.

I agree with so-called strict constructionists that judges should not "legislate from the bench." I do believe that the courts, in upholding the laws written in the Constitution and passed down through generations of precedents, may make decisions that compel policy. The courts are the arbitors between the push and pull of the legislative and executive branches on one side and the public on the other. Strict constructionism wants to make them puppets of the legislative and executive branches, thereby leaving the public powerless. Except, of course, for the power of our manipulative voting system.

*Note: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two proponents of the strict constructionist ethos, have voted to overturn Supreme Court precedent more than any other justice on the Court today.

An Ethical Conundrum...

As you folks may or may not know I recently started in the MBA program at the University of St. Thomas where they say that business ethics is a big deal. In the College of Business mission it states that “we are committed to encouraging serious consideration and application of ethical values in business decision making.”

A movie I watched recently has made me take a second look at what exactly ethics in the bussiness community and society in general really means. In the movie, The Corporation, they look at a study done by Russell Mokhiber entitled Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade (the nineties).

And after watching the movie and looking over the study I had a number of questions about our society and its ethics. I think it is reasonable to say that not to many people would be excited about going to work for a small business that is owned by an individual that has been convicted of child abuse or has been convicted of dumping dangerous chemicals in his neighbor’s backyard. So then why is it morally and ethically acceptable to go to work for criminal corporations who do virtually the exact same thing only on a larger scale?

What is it exactly about the giant faceless corporation that makes us willing to accept and shrug off their endangerment of the public, but when an individual does so we write them off as a terrible person? Is it the corporate PR machine that allows them to maintain their wholesome image? Maybe it is the fact that corporations are so intertwined in our lives that we consider them almost like family members who always have the best of intentions and deserve a second chance?

Super Tuesday

Did anyone realize the primaries for the St. Paul and Minneapolis mayoral elections are today? No? Did anyone vote? Didn't think so.

Well, I did. And now I can lord my supreme citizenship and civic skills over all of you.

The line was pretty sparse in my precinct. In fact, I walked into a gymnasium consisting of three elderly women and two ballot stands. Exercising my right to an anonymous vote, I won't reveal the candidates I chose. I will tell you, however, that the ballot counter was up to a balmy 162 votes with just three hours remaining until polls close. Talk about turnout!

Hey people, there's still time. So stop playing Tetris and weeping crocodile tears for Natalee Holloway. Democracy requires participation!

Reflections

Some lessons learned in my first two weeks of law school:

• Precision; precision; precision
• Organization; organization; organization
• Learn to use semi-colons, and use them frequently
• Sit in the first row; it's a sure-fire way to stay focused and stay awake
• Make an argument and stick with it (even if it turns out to be wrong); vacillation gets you nowhere
• Think like a lawyer, even if you have no idea what that means
• Be collegial, even with Republicans
• Case briefs, case briefs, case briefs
• If you have done an act, or intend to do an act, that can be construed in a manner "maliciously, wantonly, callously, and recklessly," you are assuredly screwed.

Oh the riotous single life

"In the summertime when the weather is fine
You can stretch right up and touch the sky
When the weather's fine
You got women, you got women on your mind
Have a drink, have a drive
Go out and see what you can find."
—Mungo Jerry, "In the Summertime"

"Whereas there is a loose & sinful custom of going or riding from town to town, and that oft times men & women together, upon pretence of going to lecture, but it appears to be merely to drink & revell in ordinarys & taverns, which is in itself scandalous, and it is to be feared a notable means to debauch our youth and hazard the chastity of such as are drawn forth thereunto...all single persons who, merely for their pleasure, take such journeys, & frequent such ordinaryes, shall be reputed and accounted riotous & unsober persons, and of ill behavior..."
—Measure passed by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1675 in an attempt to restore the Puritan people to God's favor.

State of the Blog

********OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM********

TO: Staff and Readers of the Pie-Eyed Picayune

FROM: PiedPiper

RE: More changes to the Pie-Eyed Picayune

Friends, colleagues, secret MSM operatives, it is with great pleasure that I address you this evening on the state of the blog, the Pie-Eyed Picayune.

As you may have noticed, the PeP has grown considerably since its inception this past May. From a rambling, incoherent message board filled with wanderlust, it has become a respectable, established blog with a voice and presence all its own.

Additionally, long-time readers know that the PeP used to be a one-pony show. I shouldered the load myself, but, realizing the value of dissenting and concurring opinions, I have systematically been adding new bloggers to the contributors list. Just this week, the impenetrable Mandingo had his coming out party. And while I see that his recent posts lack a certain, how shall I put this, decorum, I have all the confidence in the world he will learn to blog with the big girls and boys. Also, added onto the list is former PeP Supercorrespondent Anti-Everything, who has been promoted to PeP Contributor. In addition to this role, Anti-Everything will be serving as our resident anarchist as well as treasurer. We thank him in advance for his services.

After commissioning a survey by the Rand Corp., we have also ascertained some information about you, our Readers. While most of you consist of a single man some of us went to college with who may or may not be gainfully employed, there are a significant portion of you from around the Twin Cities. The study also found a small but strong population of northeast Iowa readers. On behalf of the Pie-Eyed Picayune, I invite all of you to share comments with us and suggest ways we can improve the blog. After all, if we weren't writing this for someone else, we'd just be writing it for ourselves, in which case we'd probably just keep doing it anyway.

With that, I'd just like to say that the state of the blog is strong and properous. But please send us things that like money and other things that will make us strong. Please.

Good night, America.

Sincerely,

PiedPiper

Pie-Eyed Picayune Editor-in-Chief

Saint Paul

"One cannot live for oneself, and one cannot die for oneself."

---Letters of Paul to the Romans 14:7

Isn't it ironic; Don't you think?

Less than one year ago, George W. Bush was running for reelection in one of the closest presidential races in U.S. history. He won - as Dick Cheney is so apt to say - with the largest number of votes ever. (Never mind that John Kerry had the second highest number of votes ever. Really, never mind it. His campaign sucked.) The Bush administration was flying high after the election and claiming that their 51 percent share of the electorate entitled them to a "mandate" that would fundamentally change or eliminate a number of long-standing American policies and programs. Remember the "ownership society" we were going to create? Remember that bellyflop known as Social Security reform? Remember the Iraqi with the purple thumb at the State of the Union address? Remember September 11, 2001? Everyone seemed to believe that Bush had at least two years of political capital shored up, and it was going to be spent fast and furiously in his second term.

Unfortunately for the administration (and fortunately for the country), the Bush capital has been sucked up faster than $3 per gallon gasoline in a Hummer H2. Rising oil prices, an unpopular war (ok, that's an understatement), reform policies that everyone but corporate wags hate, blatant religious fanaticism (Terri Schiavo, the filibuster flub, "intelligent" design), and now the worst natural disaster in our history followed up by the worst federal government response in history, and abysmal poll results, have all left this president with practically zero political capital as we head into the 2006 Congressional races. George W. Bush has effectively become a lame duck with more than three years left in his second term.

What we appear to have here is a melting pot boiling over with political turmoil. Yeah, things were heated during the election last year. But people still bought into Bush because they thought he'd make us safer, or that he was somehow more "moral," or that you can't change horses in midstream (which, strangely enough, are the lyrics to a Bob Dylan song). People bought into Bush and they're now realizing that there are some immense defects. Empty promises (like Rumsfeld's recent one that troops would be out of Iraq in two years...haven't we been hearing that for two years now?) sound like broken records. And people become much more attuned to their repetition when they're faced with tragedy and ineptitude at the same time. Perhaps we need a product recall.

Assassinations happen

Reagan was shot, but survived. JFK was not so lucky. W., too, if my memory is correct, has been fired at (or someone threw a dud grenade at him when he was speaking). Anyway, with the news that President Bush's job approval rating is at an all-time low of 39%, he and his secret service men should be worried for his life. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anything is afoot. But history tells us a lot about extremely unpopular political leaders: they are especially vulnerable to assassination attempts.

Why? Machiavelli said it best. The most powerful remedy a prince has against those who would conspire to kill him is "not to be hated by the people generally" (The Prince, Chapter 19). Now, 39% approval is not exactly hatred, but Mr. Bush doesn't exactly have the good-will of the electorate either. According to Machiavelli, conspiracies are entertained in the minds of mad men when they believe they will satisfy the people with the death of the ruler. Because the difficulties on the side of conspiracy are so enormous, and because the protection of the ruler is so great, only the prospect of being praised by the people will motive assassins. Dick Cheney got a big "F--- You" on television—which was met with much applause on Comedy Central. It is not inconceivable that the President will receive a much more deadly message. Again, I don't support such crimes, but history is laden with assassination attempts. This is a warning, not a threat: the President ignores the potentials of the situation to his own peril.

Has Hurricane Katrina Jumped the Shark?

After witnessing Kanye West's not-so-eloquent and not-so-persuasive argument during a hurricane relief fundraiser that George Bush hates black people, and after pulling out my bleeding eyeballs while Richard Simmons blubbered all over his pink sequin shirt while "reuniting" with his brother (who evidently has not sweated to the oldies since the early '90s) on Entertainment Tonight, the question must be asked: Has Hurricane Katrina jumped the shark?

It's an unhidden fact that the media - well, actually pretty much just television media - swarms around disasters of mass inhumanity. As much as people hate the violence and horrible events that others are forced through, we can't turn our eyes away. We crave it.

Television media long ago realized this fact, and now has perfected packaging, marketing, and selling the human drama to millions of viewers. The "idiot box," as it's sometimes so lovingly called, has turned into a conduit for transactions between addicts and dealers. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all of the major networks, push their stories on the viewers, who consume it until every last drop of sentimentality is bled out. And then? Well, the swarms move on to the next tsunami; the next missing beautiful pregnant white woman; the next high-speed car chase; the next celebrity courtroom drama.

Am I cynical? I would argue that it is not I who is cynical, but this whole process that is cynical. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath is an event of gigantic proportions, the repercussions of which will be felt for years to come and at multiple layers of our society. Without a doubt it deserves all of the attention that it receives. But rather than focusing on the gruesome eye candy - such as Richard Simmons in short shorts going into manufactured hysterics - the focus should instead be on the sobering facts.

Such a Parisian Way of Life:

Former first-ladies say the darndest things

For Barbara Bush, at the summit of priviledge, those at the bottom of society seem to be different creatures. Of the Katrina refugees, she said on public radio today,

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -[slight chuckle] this is working very well for them." (my italics)

Indeed, Mrs. Bush, they [slight chuckle] feel your love.

The Heat and Ferment to Come

As Senators, commentators and bloggers gear up for U.S. Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts' Senate confirmation hearing scheduled for next Monday, I thought I'd emphasize just how important this hearing is, how much impact it could have on the future of our country.

In the light of the following consideration by the ever-prescient Alexis De Tocqueville on the peculiar importance of the Supreme Court in America, it hardly seems that there should be limits to the scope and degree of the questions put to Mr. Roberts, his good education and character notwithstanding:

"The President may slip without the state suffering, for his duties are limited. Congress may slip without the Union perishing, for above Congress there is the electoral body which can change its spirit by changing its members. But if ever the Supreme Court came to be composed of rash or corrupt men, the confederation would be threatened by anarchy or civil war." (Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Part 1, Ch. 8, p. 151)

Nominate Michael W. McConnell

Michael W. McConnell should be nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Such a decision is one that the President is surely considering, having nominated McConnell on September 4, 2001, to a seat vacated by Stephen H. Anderson in Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. McConnell, in short, already holds the president's trust.

I know little about him, the current composition of the Court, not to mention the other potential candidates. Nonetheless, what I do know is that whatever one thinks about his allegedly conservative political affinities, McConnell is above all a brilliant legal scholar and judge. McConnell taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. He is an authority on religion and the constitution and the first ammendment, two issues that have received more attention since 9/11 and the global war on terror, issues that will continue to vex law students and laypersons alike.

I had the occasion to hear him speak at the University of Minnesota on the anti-establishment clause. He reviewed the reasons for and against the separation of church and state, and why the separation is good for religion, civic virtue, and liberal democracy. It took a while, he said, but the argument that government is bad for religion won the day. Religion has flourished in American because government has refrained from exercising its authority in matters proper to the church. And America's government has been a beneficiary of religion, the first of America's political institutions, as Tocqueville noted.

McConnell's experience and style of learning is impressive, and I urge his nomination. As Madison said of Jefferson in Federalist No. 49, everything from his pen "marks a turn of thinking original, comprehensive and accurate; and is the more worthy of attention, as it equally displays a fervent attachment to republican government, and an enlightened view of the dangerous propensities against which it ought to be guarded."

A Better Measure for Media Bias

Though the press (i.e., the MSM) have not been associated with one of the parties since the early 19th century, it is curious that the question of the partisanship of the press has been raised with much intensity in the last five or ten years. Attempts to measure partisanship, however, have proven hopelessly contentious and inescapably political. One can prove that the media is almost entirely liberal, or the opposite, that there is hardly a genuinely liberal sentiment to be found. For it all depends on how one defines "liberal" or "conservative" bias.

Trying to measure media bias by directly investigating media content seems to be a dead end. It is not helpful because one can demonstrate anything with this approach.

I would like to suggest that there is a better way.

If the press were significantly and systematically biased to the right or to the left, and if it is true that most people who seek out news consume news sources that reflect, rather than challenge, their political views, we would expect to see a considerable stability of political opinions. For it is true as any political science truth goes that people who are little exposed to opposing views exhibit stability of political opinions. So if the media is markedly biased one way or another, and people are watching it, their opinions are being reinforced rather than destablized, and we should be able to observe stability of political opinions.

But this is precisely what is absent in our political climate. Today more and more people change the way they vote from one election to the next, and there are many people who don't identify with any existing party. This political instability amounts to indirect evidence that the media are not as partisan as they are made out to be. Or at least that people are in fact exposed to opposing views. This is of course only a highly suggestive conjecture. My evidence is inconclusive because there may well be other factors which better account for the instability of political opinions today than the media.

Week in Review

Let's see...

• PiedPiper was held up at gunpoint;
• New Orleans has descended into anarchy, and we want heads to roll;
• President Bush had to cut short his vacation;
• About 1,000 people died in a human stampede in Iraq, when merely the rumor of a suicide bomber went through the crowd;
• Ilya can't break an egg; and
• Xtra flogged a dead horse.

All things considered, not a bad week.

Monday-Morning Quarterbacking

Merely pointing out in the Pie-Eyed Pickle of the Week that some people must be held responsible for the continually unfolding breakdown of law and order in New Orleans as a result of Hurrican Katrina, provoked some commentary questioning how blame could be tossed around. Esteemed PeP Supercorrespondent Anti-Everything did some serious sleuthing and came up with a couple of great articles to give our readers a better understanding of how this tragedy was considered not a matter of if but when.

One is a series that appeared in the New Orleans Times-Picayune in 2002 that details many of the problems faced by the geography and topography of that city, and how various government agencies - particularly the Army Corps of Engineers - have played roles in both protecting residents and setting them up for this disaster.

The other is from Editor & Publisher, which goes a bit more in-depth on the financial issue and how over the past few years - as hurricane seasons have produced larger and more frequent storms - funding for the projects that were meant to protect New Orleans was slashed; the biggest reduction came just this past year. There is also an argument to be made (my apologies to Xtra who may see a political spin to this) for a direct correlation between lack of funding for flood-prevention projects in New Orleans and increased funding for the Iraq war.

Of course, as the title of this post shows, this is all Monday-morning quarterbacking (and undoubtedly the kind that drives President Bush bonkers); however, it will be necessary in the weeks, months, and years ahead to figure out exactly why steps weren't taken to prevent a catastrophe that everyone agrees was inevitable. One of the core duties of government is ensuring public safety. There has been a dramatic and drastic breakdown in the public safety of an entire municipality. If responsibility is not assigned, there is no way to learn from these mistakes, and they are doomed to be repeated.

Learned Hand

“A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached my mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops (!) that either party, when he used the words, intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes upon them, he would still be held, unless there were some mutual mistake, or something else of the sort.”
– Judge Learned Hand; Hotchkiss v. National City Bank, D.C.

He sure ain't no activist judge. We all know Scalia is a strict constructionist, but would he still adhere to the 20 bishops rule?

Talk Radio and the Origin of the MMLB concept

So much time is spent by conservatively disposed media sources expressing outrage against the mainstream media's so-called liberal bias that one wonders whence this began and why it has proven so effective in framing people's view of the MSM as left-leaning. Not only has the integrity of reporting come under attack by blogs and talk radio, but the very distinction by which the MSM defends its integrity, between facts and spin, reporting and editorializing, press and politics, has been discredited. Whatever the causes, the consequences have been a boon to the likes of FOX news and the disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

The politically-charged state of writing these days is revealed in the comments by David Faster Wallace (of Infinite Jest fame) in his sprawling, seemingly endless Atlantic Monthly (April 2005) article, "Host." "Host" is about Mr. John Ziegler, conservative talk radio in America, and the operations of his southern California talk show. In the magazine margins, Wallace complements the main text of his article with side-bar-like information with labels making explicit the point of view on offer. Nobody can accuse D.F.W. of being neutral, of coloring his views with the pretense of pure, value-free truth. "Editorial Aside," "Purely Informative," "Semi-Editorial," "Consumer Advisory," "FYI," "Contains Editorial Elements," "Contains What Might Be Perceived As Editorial Elements," "Editorial Quibble," "Just Clear-Eyed Dispassionate Reason," "Editorial Opinion," "Tiny Editorial Correction," "Editorializing, Or Just Stating The Obvious?" The labels function as WARNING signs, directing the reader to read fact as fact and opinion as opinion and never to get them mixed up—precisely what the subject of his article, John Ziegler, must confuse and conflate in order to be entertaining and "stimulating" on-air to sustain his audience's interest and animostity toward the "liberal" MSM.

Wallace doesn't criticize this common practice for being bad journalism. Talk radio, he says, is motivated less by ideology than revenue. "Political talk radio is a business, and it is motivated by revenue. The conservatism that dominates today's AM airwaves does so because it generates high Arbitron ratings, high ad rates, and maximum profits," he says. Conservative radio wouldn't have such high ratings, suggests Wallace, if it wasn't for Reagan's repeal of the 1949 Fairness Doctrine and the national syndication of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Without the latter, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have meant much. Limbaugh's blend of news, entertainment and partisan analysis has become the great model for ambitious radio personalities to imitate.

More to the point, he was "the first great promulgator of the Mainstream Media's Liberal Bias idea." To quote Wallace,

"This turned out to be a brilliantly effective rhetorical move, since the MMLB concept functioned simultaneously as a standard around which Rush's audience could rally, as an articulation of the need for right-wing (i.e., unbiased) media, and as a mechanism by which any criticism or refutation of conservative ideas could be dismissed (either as biased or as the product of indoctrination by biased media). Boiled way down, the MMLB thesis is able both to exploit and to perpetuate many conservatives' dissatisfaction with extant media sources—and it's this dissatisfaction that cements political talk radio's large and loyal audience."

Welcome to the State of Nature: Bring your gun.

New Orleans, Aug. 31—Little food, scant water, no security—welcome to the state of nature, the consequence of political breakdown, an ever-present human possibility inherent in any organized political society. No commerce, no common law among men—in short, chaos and continual fear of violent death. As some commentators have recognized, New Orleans has slid back in time, not back to Mediaeval times, but rather into a sort of pre-political condition, a reversal of time. Life in such a state, as Hobbes famously remarked, is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short. Witness the looting (in the face of the police) and gun fights, dead bodies and violence in the streets of New Orleans. Thankfully, owing to the swift deployment of state and federal troops, the situation won’t slide into civil war (for it’s only a mitigated version of the state of nature after all). But it might get worse before it gets better. As we know from Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the state of nature makes nearly all persons evil, including children. Welcome to the state of nature: you’re lucky to get out alive.

The Gray Lady body checks Dubya

I just love this little cheap shot masquerading as a call to rise above politics in a time of tragedy:
"But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation. All the focus now must be on rescuing the survivors. Beyond that lies a long and painful recovery, which must begin with a national vow to help all the storm victims and to save and repair New Orleans." Classic New York Times.

Pie-Eyed Pickle of the Week

Our hearts go out to everyone on the Gulf Coast affected by Hurricane Katrina, the victims of which are in a pickle of imaginable size. The biggest pickle of all, however, may be reserved for those responsible for keeping New Orleans dry. By all accounts, everyone expected New Orleans to drown at some point...but will heads roll when they look at what could have been done to prevent such catastrophe?

P.S. With Venice sinking, perhaps we should just make New Orleans the new city of gondolas.