Week in Review: A Day Without A Mandingo Edition

The Pie-Eyed Network continues to skyrocket onward and upward, despite Mandingo's sabbatical. Perhaps our next Pie-Eyed Poll should be a referendum on his adminstrative service...

• Pied gets taken to task for citing inaccurate numbers. Sheesh...that'll teach me not to cite my source
• Klobuchar pulls ahead of Kennedy in the polls; Hatch runs even with Teflon Tim; and don't forget about those Jesse the Mind afficianados
• Xtra's feeling the heat
• Our president uses some rrreal cowboy language to describe what Syria oughtta do; next thing you'll know, he'll be telling Kim Jong Il to shove those nukes where the sun don't shine
• Mandingo's alter-ego, Herr Diktator, blew himself up in a bunker
• GC offers a thoughtful explanation of jihad; but what about the environmental impact?
• The ever-provocative Anti-Everything garners praise and recriminations over his high school senior thesis paper: Is Israel a Terrorist State?
• One guy drops out of the election and it sets off a chain reaction in the local political world...and Joe Q. Citizen has no idea what's going on
• Bush to NAACP: "Freedom." Fox News commentators: "Brilliant!"

BOOKS: Scathing Scalia

One of the most enjoyable parts about taking Constitutional Law in law school is reading and thinking about Antonin Scalia's dissents. (See Romer v. Evans; Lawrence v. Texas; U.S. v. Virginia) Justice Scalia is so vehement, so definitive in his beliefs, and often so colorful in his descriptions of legal situations and the logic behind his reasoning, that no matter where one stands on the political spectrum, one cannot help but give him credit. Of course, this is also a man who believes in a super-rich homosexual cabal that acts as a political juggernaut, pulling the strings of the nation's consciousness, and does not hesitate to explain such conspiracy theories in his dissents. Scalia is both a man to respect for his intellect, and seriously question for his motivation. Thus, I picked up a copy of A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law at the St. Paul Central Library.

The book, published in 1997, contains Scalia's essay "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws," which was extracted from a series of Tanner Lectures at Princeton. His essay is followed by commentaries from Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin.

Throughout the essay, Scalia lays out his theories of interpretation, in several different areas. He bemoans the state of statutory interpretation; discusses "textualism"; offers his disgust for the use of legislative history in modern court cases; and finally, looks at constitutional interpretation.

While Scalia eloquently puts forward these theories, much of what he writes ultimately falls apart. His notion is that we look for the "original meaning" of constitutional provisions, and then determine how that would apply to new circumstances of today. What's wrong with this, and what several of the commentators point out, is that this leaves much of the decision up to judicial discretion, which is precisely what Scalia loathes. Take free speech, for example. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]." That's it. It appears to my eyes, and to anyone with common sense, that the drafters of the Constitution deliberately left this - and other similar provisions like "equal protection under the laws" (which was drafted and added to the Constitution much later than the First Amendment)up for future interpretation to constantly changing situations. This particular point becomes even stronger when considering the fact that the constitutional drafters purposefully included specific language in other provisions, such as the make-up of our representative government.

There is much, of course, to think about in this book. The above argument is only the tip of the iceberg. Politically, I stand on very different ground than Justice Scalia, but I cannot just write him off, as many people who have never read a Supreme Court opinion (or the Constitution, for that matter) would like. No matter how you dice it, he has legitimate arguments that demand legitimate responses. Which why anyone who chooses to bitch about conservatism on the Supreme Court ought to read pay more attention.

Less than full Hitlers?

Making the rounds today through Minnesota, on the airwaves and at the U of MN, where I attended his lecture, John Dean, author, most recently, of “Conservatives Without Conscience,” wants everyone to know that Dick Cheney really calls the shots in the White House (“he lets Bush wake up every morning thinking he is president”), which he has set up in a very secretive, authoritarian manner. “It’s Nixon’s imperial presidency on steroids,” remarked Dean. With the prominence of Bush-Cheney and their followers, we are witnessing a revolution in conservatism, “a whole different political animal in these people.” Whereas his friend Barry Goldwater described the “Conscience of a Conservative,” Dean describes Conservatives who have forgotten the Conservative Conscience. And Dean thinks he has an explanation for what is going on with conservatism these days.

To make a long story short, Dean sees himself as a popularizer of a large body of technical social science research, dating back to WWII, concerned with the “Authoritarian Personality.” Dean argues that today’s conservatives, both the “base” of the Republican party as well as its leaders, exhibit textbook authoritarian personalities in their lemming-like willingness to obey authority— Bush/Cheney—wherever it takes them, never mind the consequences. The authoritarian personality is more or less attracted to others with the same character structure. While today’s conservatives blindly follow authority, says Dean, what is peculiar to this “type” is that they at the same time “think of themselves as running the world.” Hitler, he said (yes, he mentioned Hitler), was one of these types, albeit much more extreme. And he advances this thesis, discussed at length in his book, to explain why Fox News style conservatives exhibit so little “conscience” in their actions regarding spying, torture, civil liberties, presidential powers, and so forth.

Is there anything to this idea of “authoritarian” personality? Historically, the idea germinated from various investigations undertaken into Hitler’s psychological character as part of broader efforts to understand the psychology of Nazism. For instance, as Erich Fromm wrote in his book Escape from Freedom, “The love for the powerful and the hatred for the powerless which is so typical for the sado-masochistic character [the essence of the authoritarian character] explains a great deal of Hitler’s and his follower’s political actions” (230).

This level of analysis didn’t work then, and it’s not going to work now. We don’t face some monolithic force called “the authoritarian personality”; we face specific actors with specific agendas and ideologies that cannot be explained and summed up by saying that these people set aside their conscience and take refuge and comfort in authority. At best this describes something going on, but even so, it’s a very crude description. Dean shouldn’t be selling it, and I’m not buying it. Neither should you, dear readers.

President Bush on Freedom

Addressing the NAACP Annual Convention this morning, President Bush spoke of his commitment to see the blessings of freedom extended to every American. He called freedom “the most basic birthright,” identified its “unfolding” as the “unfinished” “story” of America, a story which “began with the founding promise of equality and justice and freedom for all men.” God, “the Creator,” he said, implanted “the desire for liberty in our hearts," and "also gives us the strength and wisdom to fulfill it.” In other words, Bush believes that God gave all people, not just Americans or Christians, the innate desire for liberty, as well as the means to satisfy this desire, and human history is the history of man's endeavor to become free. Everything about liberty here except its imperfect fulfillment in America is situated outside of human history—in Nature or in God—that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that God's providence is also at work in political history, according to President Bush.

More importantly, as a way to understand history, this articulation is problematic in that it cannot help us understand the obstacles to the unfolding of freedom. It ignores the other forces that work through history, particularly the social forces set in play by one or another institutional form. Bush's determination to express his confidence in the innate desire of all peoples for liberty is so far from how the world works, that it amounts to whistling while the earth and the Middle East burn. Indeed, the more Bush talks about history as the progressive unfolding of freedom, the more he begins to sound like a preacher interested less in what is possible politically than in what God has in store for the world. No advancement in liberty has been made by leaving it up to God to act in its favor.

Attorney General Maelstrom: The Day that was Yesterday

The epicenter of yesterday's local political earthquake was the steps of the State Capitol, the time just before noon. Matt Entenza, former minority leader of the Minnesota House and DFL-endorsed candidate for Minnesota Attorney General, dropped out of the race. This move set off a chain reaction, a mad scramble, and will prove to be a defining moment of Election 2006.

As a resident of Entenza's district - 64A in Saint Paul - I can tell you that I am more than a bit sad about this news. Despite the ridiculous assertions by Nick Coleman - what exactly do you know about conflicts of interest, Nick? - Entenza is a stand-up guy who honestly believes in Minnesota. I don't blame him for pulling out of the race; the accusations and insinuations over the past two weeks have been deafening, and I know I would not want to put my family through another four months of that. And Entenza's responses to those accusations were not what they should have been. But alas...

After the annoucement, however, came the craziness. The filing deadline was also yesterday, and Entenza's annoucement gave potential candidates just five hours to decide whether to run or not. Almost immediately, rumors circulated throughout the Minnesota political landscape. Who would step up to the plate? Some said Mike Freeman, others Steve Kelley, Bill Luther, David Lillehaug, Lori Swanson. Some lesser-knowns showed up also at the SecState's office. When the dust settled the only candidates with statewide recognition and the moxy to really pull through were Steve Kelley (who recently lost the endorsement for governor to Mike Hatch) and Bill Luther. Now, the state central committee must decide who gets the endorsement.

My personal endorsement goes to Steve Kelley. A patient, down-to-earth politician, Kelley has proved himself wise at the Capitol and willing stay above politics in favor of his constituents. A good Attorney General needs to be someone trustworthy, competent, and capable of skilled leadership. Kelley has proven this time and time again.

Also, as opposed to Coleman's baseless assertions, Kelley was not hand-picked by party elites. This was a mad dash, where candidates had to decide for themselves whether to shoot for the moon or not. That takes guts. Coleman, however, would have us all voting for Jennifer Mattson, who just finished law school three years ago. I'm sorry, Nick, but you need to know the law and how to lead in order to be AG.

Is Israel A Terrorist State?

So the death toll from the escalating Israeli conflict continues to grow. As of this morning 215 people have died in Lebanon, 85 Palestinians have died in Gaza, and 24 Israelis have died in Northern Israel.

Add to this that the Israeli bombings have displaced more than 400,000 Lebanese residents from their homes and the World Health Organization expects the number of Lebanese residents displaced from their homes to reach 900,000 by the end of today.

I understand that every country has the right to defend themselves, but the more this situation escalates the more it appears that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is collective punishment on the Lebanese people rather then self-defense. Israel is punishing the Lebanese people because their government, in this very fragile democracy, is incapable of disarming Hezbollah, much like Israel after 22 years of occupation was never able to disarm Hezbollah.

Add to this collective punishment that Israel is basically destroying Lebanon’s entire infrastructure. Lebanon’s airports and seaports have been destroyed. Thirty-Eight roads have been cut off by bombs or shells and 42 bridges have been destroyed. Power stations, water-processing plants, grain silos and gas stations have also been targeted as well as communication and television antennas. In addition to the destruction of the countries infrastructure Israel is specifically targeting civilian neighborhoods. All of this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Even the Vatican is speaking out against Israel. A spokesperson for the Pope stated that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations."

Israel may also be in violation of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act by using U.S.-made fighter planes and missiles to kill civilians and to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure. Defense experts say Israel has over five-hundred F-16 and F-15 fighter planes – all of them supplied by the United States.

So my question is what is the difference between terrorist acts, such as detonating a bomb in a coffee shop, and being a terrorist state? I think we would all agree that any specific targeting of civilians, like my example of a suicide bomber in an Israeli coffee shop, constitutes terrorism. So f the state of Israel is targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure then by definition doesn’t this constitute state terrorism.

I make the argument that Israel’s excessively harsh military response and the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure constitutes that Israel has become a terrorist state. Israel’s response to the kidnapping of two soldiers is basically the military equivalent of beating the shit out of someone with a baseball bat for stepping on your foot, an extreme and unnecessary response.

Dove-Hunting and the Story of the One-Issue Voter

I met a middle-aged, scraggly gray-haired woman this weekend when I was pressing the flesh on the steamy hot campaign trail. I engaged her in conversation about the upcoming election, and began a litany of accomplishments made in the past two legislative sessions. Increased funding for education, fighting for transportation, the defense of health care, etc., etc. The woman looked at me listlessly. She said:

"I don't care about any of that. My only concern is banning dove-hunting. I know a lot of people who are going to fight against dove-hunting, and we want a candidate who's going to fight with us. Where does your guy stand on dove-hunting?"

Uhhh. Not knowing where my candidate stands on dove-hunting, I offered some lit with his e-mail address. Someone will be happy to get back to her on that issue.

The incident, while humorous and odd, brings up a good question. In the face of so many other problems, what makes a person chuck it all and show concern only for doves? Why do one-issue voters exist, and what is their motivation? Also, if you were going to vote on just one issue, what would it be and why?

Discuss.

Jihad defined

Okay, on those same lines. I am relatively ignorant on the subject, but a world religions class and a book on the history of Islam (Reza Aslan's "No god but god") compel me to try and share what I understand of the subject.

The image of Islam as a "warrior religion" probably has roots in papal propaganda from the Christian Crusades. Back then, every religion was a religion "of the sword." Aslan's words: "Muslim armies that spread out of the Arabian Peninsula simply joined in the existing fracas; they neither created it nor defined it..."

The term Jihad has several meanings; the primary definition is that of an internal struggle of the soul to overcome sinful obstacles separating an individual from God. This struggle is often intertwined with external conditions, such as oppression by a state. Thus, a secondary meaning of Jihad is "any exertion against oppression or tyranny." The Qu'ran identifies war as either just or unjust, but never "holy war."

The evolution of this external Jihad led to the evolution of a code of conduct in times of war. This Islamic code includes: combatant/noncombatant distinctions, the outlawing of prisoner torture, the outlawing of sexual violence, the outlawing of the killing of diplomats, and the order to only fight defensively, not offensively. A code many nations certainly could heed.

The idea of killing nonbelievers and nonconverters defies much of Islamic belief according to the 13th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya. The Qu'ran says "there can be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and "To you your religion; to me mine." (109:6). The prophet Mohammed believed that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all held different chapters of the one "mother book" of God, and that no chapter was correct alone.

The term Jihad, in the 20th century, was wrought into new definitions by individuals, not by the whole of Islam. I must already be on some government watch list, so I'm not going to go there. But I think it is important that we as a country understand just what we are up to in Iraq, including understanding the terrorists so often referred to in the "war on terror."

By the way, Iraq...

Yes, the war is still going on. And it does not appear to be getting any better.

Yesterday, depending on the news source, at least two American soldiers were killed. We are closing in on the loss of 3,000 American soldiers - Bush's dramatic 2003 proclamation on the aircraft carrier, that major combat operations are over and US and Allied forces had prevailed, no longer seems boastful and almost comedic.

Yesterday, depending on the news source, at least 45 Iraqi civilans were killed. We are closing in on the loss of tens of thousands of civilans, and an entire generation of a nation that will not be able to forget this conflict and whatever lessons they take from it.

Mandingo as National Socialist

Some time ago I loosened my grip on power over the Pie-Eyed Picayune - my brainchild - and bestowed administrative privileges to Mandingo (aka Herr Diktator) and his willow-o-wisp Mustache. In some of the necessary changes to the PeP, 'Dingo enabled comment moderation, thus stifling the speech of anyone not affiliated with the PeP. And this, my friends, was how the Reichstag was won. I've reasserted myself in the face of my protege, and taught him a worthy lesson with a fresh switch. Your voices will no longer be muzzled, PePpers. Herr Diktator ist tot.

Phraseology: "Phraseology"

"Hopefully, if I remember, I'll make 'Phraseology' an every Friday-thing where I recall an interesting phrase or word I came across throughout the week."—Mandingo

Phraseology (noun): Mandingo's attempt to justify his unjustifiable beliefs about language.

Eden Prairie?

CNNMoney.com (a credible source, if there ever was one) has named Eden Prairie, Minn., No. 10 on its list of Best Places to Live in the US. And you can live there too...for a down payment on the $300,000 average mortgage. I hope whoever said money can't buy happiness is helping Sisyphus push the rock.

Guv's Race: The Hutchinson Effect

Just a quick follow-up to the my post below about the governor's race. The Independence Party of Minnesota (aka the Party of the Body and the Mind, Jesse Ventura; aka the Party of the Buffalo) has put ex-Democrat Peter Hutchinson in the race. While Hutchinson's (and the rest of the Independence Party's) numbers are anemic, especially compared to the heyday of Ventura and Tim Penny, they are worth mentioning. Hutchinson currently polls at around 5 percent. That 5 percent is taken primarily out of anything Hatch musters. The word around town is that if Hutchinson secures 5-7 percent of the electorate in November, Pawlenty wins. If Hutchinson's support falls below that 5 percent, Hatch wins. Buckle your seatbelts, PePpers...it's going to be one heckuva fall.

(I'd also like to mention that the Green Party comes in at less than 2 percent, offering Ken Pentel, of Election 2002 fame, once again. I wouldn't mind seeing their numbers drop even further, as after this weekend I have lost considerable respect for one of their candidates, Jay Pond, who is running for the 5th Congressional seat. Pond is bar-none one of the most obnoxious human beings I've ever met. Pentel, on the other hand, is quite a decent chap.)

Hot, Hot, Heat

I am sorry but Minnesotans complaining about heat is like Washingtonians bitching about the cold. We have a high of 98 degrees and the air is so thick you can cut it. Dingo, welcome to D.C. because it just gets worse in August.

Hatch and Pawlenty: Neck-and-Neck

The same Minnesota Poll referenced below by Anti-Everything also showed the-one-the-only Teflon Tim Pawlenty running just about dead even with DFL challenger Mike Hatch. The spread is 43% Pawlenty and 41% Hatch. A few interesting things to note about these numbers:

• As Lori Sturdevant noted in yesterday's Strib, the DFL candidates have had a rocky start this summer. From the inimical Keith Ellison, to the dust-up over a Hatch-Entenza feud, to the Ember Reichgott-Junge bitch-slap, us DFLers have not made things easy on ourselves, per usual. The poll, however, was conducted July 6-11, which was right in the thick of some of this bad press. Being that voters typically respond more negatively to candidates and parties in the throes of negative news, the numbers for Hatch and Klobuchar are helpful.
• I'm very interested in the comparison of these two races. A lot of people support Klobuchar not only because of party, but because of profession (prosecutor) and gender (female). Both bode very well for her, especially against Kennedy, who the entire state watched demonize one of its most beloved icons, Patty Wetterling, two years ago. Hatch and Pawlenty, on the other hand, are both shrewd, seasoned politicians, who've already won statewide races. That may prove to be more of a slugfest.
• It's also interesting to note that the Strib Minnesota Poll is one of the most accurate in the country. For whatever that's worth...

This is the 477th post on the Pie-Eyed Picayune

O! How I loathe my fellow Pie-Eyed contributors! A pox on thee!

Amy Takes The Lead

A new poll was released today by the Star Tribune looking at the upcoming Senate race between Amy Klobuchar and Mark Kennedy.

The poll found that 50% of respondents support Amy Klobuchar while 31% support Mark Kennedy.

My favorite part of this poll was the response from Mark Kennedy’s campaign where his press secretary stated that “given the Star Tribune poll's long and consistent track record of getting it wrong, we weren't exactly expecting good news. We're confident about where we're at this point in the campaign. We're hopeful the Democrats actually believe this stuff."

Also I believe this post is now number 476.

This is the 500th post on the Pie-Eyed Picayune

I guess you could say we're kind of a big deal.

"War on Terror" up for grabs

New York Times reporter Scott Shane ("Fighting Locally, Fighting Globally") shows that the phrase "War on Terror" has served as a convenient rationale to justify violent aggression by anyone against imminent threats because its meaning is totally up for grabs:

“Other countries dress their actions up as ‘the war on terror,’ and we have a hard time condemning it,” said Paul R. Pillar, a retired Central Intelligence Agency analyst who served as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

President Bush has of strategic necessity had to shift away from such a broad characterization of the enemy, Shane notes. Professor Stanley Fish ("Condemnation Without Absolutes") was prescient in pointing out, just over a month after September 11, 2001, that international terrorism is not our, or anybody's, enemy, and as long as we hold on to this conception, we deprive ourselves of the ability to determine the identity and whereabouts of our real enemies. A phrase such as The Global War on Terror (GWOT), explains Fish, "prevents us from making distinctions that would allow us to get a better picture of where we are and what we might do. If you think of yourself as the target of terrorism with a capital T, your opponent is everywhere and nowhere. But if you think of yourself as the target of a terrorist who comes from somewhere, even if he operates internationally, you can at least try to anticipate his future assaults."

As I wrote about a year ago ("Know Your Enemy"): "Metaphors and rhetoric matter because if we continue to speak about the war on terror in ambivalent terms, our language will continue to provide our enemy with secrecy, anonymity, and the ability to change identity at will."

You think this weather is hot?

As Governor Pawlenty and others make heavy weather about how hot it has been in Minnesota this week, we should bear in mind what excessive heat can really do to men:

Moreover, is it not a fact that excessive heat has brought men to such extremity of thirst that they have drunk human urine, and even their own?
(St. Augustine, City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 22)

Sh*t and Fans

Alright well anyone who has watched the news or read a newspaper lately knows that the shit is about to hit the fan in the middle east.

But never fear, I have been watching CNN and just found out that Anderson Cooper has just arrived in Israel and will be broadcasting Anderson Cooper 360 live from Israel...thank God.

Touché

NYT: "The firebrand Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said on today that Iraqis would not “sit by with folded hands” while Israel struck at Lebanon, signaling a possible increase in attacks from his mercurial militia, the Mahdi Army. Mr. Sadr made it clear in a written statement that he considered the United States culpable in the conflict unfolding in Lebanon, since America is the largest foreign ally of Israel."

What have we heard from Bush? What have we heard from Arendt? Either you're with us or against us—for politics is not like the nursery, there is no such thing as neutrality. Mr. Sadr is right.

Pie-Eyed Poll

Apparently, our vast PePper Network considers Anti-Everything their favorite Pie-Eyed Contributor, despite a dormancy nearly rivaling PiedPiper's winter doldrum. This proves one of two things: (a) Anti-Everything has more money for bribes than the other contributors; or (b) Anti-Everything's friends have less to do at work than he did this week. The results (out of 55 votes):

• Anti-Everything - 29%
• XtraChromosomeConservative - 18%
• PiedPiper - 16%
• Ilya - 15%
• Mandingo, GreeCe, AFF - 7%

Hopefully, our next poll will be cleaner. The question is: What should we do about North Korea's nukes? As the saying goes, vote early; vote often...and you can also vote for multiple answers. Cast your ballot today!

Two Sides of a Coin

Google News headline 1:
Nebraskas Too Broad Marriage Amendment Ruled Constitutional

Google News headline 2:
Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Nebraska Anti-Gay Amendment

The first headline is from the Christian Public Relations webpage, WDC media. The second is from 365Gay.com. The fact that our blog now links to 365Gay.com will bring both a boycott by the Christian Coalition and lots and lots of window treatments.

Nebraska's law says that homosexuals have no way to legally recognize their relationship, short of starting a "I'm gay with Pedro" club.

I am not sure about the details of the opinion, however according to the Christian site the court "took note of the large majority" of voters who said Nay on the sodomy. However, I was under the opinion that the job of the United States courts was not to take into account the will of the majority, but instead to protect the Constitution. Having said that, I'm not enough of a law scholar to tell you whether the Equal Protection Clause should allow homosexuals to marry, as the usual argument goes, I am enough of a law scholar to tell you that miscegenation was a crime in Virginia until 1967, 3 years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Week in Review: Casual Friday Edition

The combination of skank-nasty heat and Friday giddiness has apparently caused our Pie-Eyed Contributors to relax both language and grammar standards. After two days of conversation covering foreign policy issues with North Korea and environmental policy, we've devolved considerably. Sure, we can't be serious all the time, but can't we be decent? A review:

• GinCo (biloba) gave us a recap of the World Cup final...from the Wyoming perspective.
• Ilya outted himself as an anti-Amerrrrcan, writing himself a one-way ticket to Guantanamo
• Mandingo began a worthy experiment, turning the blog inside-out and further alienating us from our massive "readership"
• Anti-Everything introduced us to the North Korea problem, Pied shouted him down over a technicality in the Japanese Constitution (see also Mandingo's optipessimism and X's MADness)
• 'Dingo plugged open defiance of city ordinances
• P.Piper threw out the "green" question, which was responded to with calls for a gas tax, and an escalation to war over Xtra's ideology
• Anti-Everything expressed some displeasure with Congress. Not sure what that was all about...

Looking ahead: If you've got nothing better to do this weekend than melt into a cesspool, feel free to join me at the Hopkins Raspberry Festival! I'll be sweating off so many pounds, I fully expect to be thinner than a wisp of Mandingo's Mustache come Sunday.

Douche Baggery

A few weeks ago the Senate voted down an amendment that would have raised the minimum wage for the first time in nine years. This was the 11th time since 1998 that the Senate rejected attempts to raise the minimum wage. The proposed increase would have raised the minimum wage from it’s current level of $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour.

Here are some facts about the minimum wage:

• There are 7.3 million Americans working for the minimum wage.
• 72% of minimum wage workers are adults.
• The average worker brings home more than half of the family’s weekly income, a third bring home 100% of their families’ earnings and 60% of these workers are women, 760,000 are single mothers.
• $5.15 an hour is a gross pay of $10,500 a year for full-time work, which is well below the poverty level.
• The last increase in the minimum wage has been entirely eroded by inflation – the purchasing power of $5.15 today is the equivalent of $4.23 in 1997. In 1997 when the last increase took place it was raised from $4.25 an hour.

Interestingly a week prior to this vote the House approved $3,300 salary increase for all members of the house, this would be the seventh year in a row that members of the house have voted to increase their own salaries.

So apparently Congress feels they deserve an increase in pay, but that the working poor in America do not. Regardless of party I am giving all members of Congress the title of DOUCHE BAG for not getting this wage increase passed…it’s pathetic.

Marx?

"I am sure you can partially offset an increase in gas taxes with a cut in income taxes."

I think "offset" is the operative word. I think the phrase "cut in income taxes" threw you off.

Xtra, I had no idea

Raise taxes, reduce the State -- Xtra, I had no idea you were a fellow follower of Karl Marx. I should have known, given that you keep reminding us about your JOB.

Where's GecCo in all of this?

A conversation about environmentalism and gas taxes without GitCo is like Kool-Aid without sugar.

Gas Taxes

There is essentially nothing inconsistent with my ideology or prior remarks with having a gas tax. Or for that matter, a much broader consumption tax or a partially broader carbon tax. I have advocated it in prior comments. Savings and consumption are in direct competition. Disincentives to consumption provide incentives to saving. The more one saves the less one needs government. A liberty enhancing proposition. That said, adding the gas tax to current tax rates would simply increase government, a liberty diminishing proposition. I am sure you can partially offset an increase in gas taxes with a cut in income taxes.

Dost mine ears d'ceive me?

Xtra...advocating a $1 per gallon gasoline tax? Based on the temperature outside, I've clearly died and gone to hell.

All in all, X, the greenies and the progressives (and a majority of both houses in the Minnesota Legislature) agree that a gas tax is one primary answer to the problem. Why? Because it generates income that can be used for more eco-friendly transportation options, while increasing reliance by people on those alternatives. So what's lacking? Political will and no-tax Republican rhetoric. As long as political obstacles are laid in front of solid, economical, and helpful policy proposals, little is capable.

Which brings me back to one of my original thoughts on this whole subject: Ultimately, reducing the effects of global warming and preserving the environment are extra-governmental problems. A gas tax would undoubtedly prove helpful; but, if a Critical Mass of individuals and businesses alter their lifestyles and practices (and these alterations are not large - it's a matter of biking, walking, taking public transportation, and/or turning off your unnecessary lights in your home, and/or purchasing more efficient appliances, etc., etc.) that begins a wave of change. Once sustainable and environment-friendly options are seen not only as a government concern (although, obviously, it must always be), but as economic and moral concerns, then we will see interesting things happen.

Captain Planet, He's My Hero

Can't we just raise the gas tax? There are all of these wonky green proposals floating around at anytime that move along the petty tyranny continuum of shaming people to stipulating every little potential human activity (think about waterless toilets, great idea till you figure out they suck). Increase the gas tax by a dollar a gallon, and I am guessing that we won't be talking so much about the ratio of SUVs to hybrids.

Go green or go home

Despite what may possibly be the worst cover photo (see right) and headline ("The New Greening of America: From Politics to Lifestyle, Why Saving the Environment is Suddenly Hot"), Newsweek has managed to put together an interesting survey of different ways conservation/environmentalism is changing the way people interact with and react to the environment.

The trap this article tries to avoid, and the trap most similar articles fall into, is that of providing merely anecdotal information, while failing to comprehend or offer a glimpse of the larger picture. Here, we find out that a woman who rides her bike and takes the bus on a 24-mile commute subtracts 15 pounds of potential carbon dioxide pollution from the atmosphere. That, of course, is 15 pounds out of the 1.7 billion tons of carbon produced annually by vehicles in the U.S.

This brings up an interesting question, that the author, Jerry Adler, issues forth toward the end: "Is the relevant statistic that sales of hybrid cars doubled last year to 200,000 - or that they were outsold by SUVs by a ratio of 23-1?"

BTW

Sorry that I haven't kept pace with my fellow bloggers. I have this obnoxious thing called a JOB!

Randomnimity

• It's freakin' hot out. Days like today make me realize why I love Minnesota in December. I also wonder if it has anything to do with my scathing remarks concerning Al Gore's movie in a previous post. That man has some kind of Jedi mind control over this stuff...
• Anti-Everything, Mandingo, and I clearly need to find something more productive and fulfilling in life, as evidenced by the sheer number of posts today.
• Mandingo: You are the Kim Jong Il to my Hu Jintao. Just a puppet...
  

Are you friggin Mad?, Zizou's balls, and Other Thoughts

First off, this idea that MAD is tenable is absurd. The USSR is fallen and now we no longer have a world dominated by two offsetting powers but rather one superpower (the US) a handful of nuclear powers: some rational, some less than nice, and some that are raving lunatics (read: Iran and North Korea). MAD assumed rational actors, some of my fellow bloggers are willing to make this leap of faith. I have to agree that I view conventional nuclear aggression on the part of North Korea as unlikely, and that Kim Jung IL the lunatic theory is probably overstated. Yet we don't know. However, what really troubles me vis-a-vis mad is another assumption, that the actors are state actors balancing each other. If I were Kim Jung Il, and I just love causing a ruckus, what would stop me from delivering a suitcase bomb to Al Qaeda or any other Islamo-Fascist group to level a sizable chunk of D.C. Now, nukes do have a DNA, so this may mean that a suitcase nuke compared to an ICBM are essentially the same in terms of their ability to be traced. However, I do not know if this is true given that most recent proliferation is based on the A.Q. Khan network. Are Pakistani, North Korean, and eventually (hopefully not) Iranian nukes going to be sufficiently different to determine who is blowing us up? If so, MAD may still be relevant provided nuclear powers are rational (an assumption I believe to be careless). If not, MAD is irrelevant. All of that said, what to do next? Atlantic Monthly reported on a Korean War simulation (part deux) forecasting 100,000 casualties in the first day and Seoul in flames. Not a pretty scenario.

On to important things like the World Cup. Now as a conservative, it is an ideological obligation to hate the French. In fact it should be a personal one as I was denied entry as a child. Nonetheless, I am a Francophile and the soccer team is no exception. Zizou is once in a generation talent. I liked both Italy and France but rooted for France on the basis of Zizou and that the Italians are inveterate divers. I found the whole diving bit to be loathsome. If I were a soccer player I would rather castrate myself with a spoon than dive. Though, that comes from a no blood no foul perspective, which I suppose is unique to the Anglosphere (American Football, Rugby, Aussie Football, Hockey, even basketball). That said, Zizou's headbutt was not prompted by diving but some good old fashioned shit talk. I believe it to be one of the rights endowed by our creator to speculate aloud on whether one's opponent has made it with a goat or about fornicating with an opponent's wife. So, Zizou was wrong to headbutt the trash talking Italian. Instead, he should have stomped one of the diving Italians in the balls. Right foul, wrong player. All of that said, Italy deserves mad props. Their defense was incredible. Oh, and while Zizou was crazy good, Fabio Cannavaro should have won the golden ball. For a compelling defense of diving go to TNR's world cup blog: http://www.tnr.com/blog/world-cup.

Klinsman by the way would be a great get for American soccer. As would Becks for the MLS.

You’re either with us or...

Alright so I found this little poll that was conducted by The Korea Times which found that almost 48 percent of young people in South Korea think that if the U.S. attacks North Korea then Seoul should support the North Koreans.

I don’t really have any commentary on this at all I just found the results of the poll interesting.

I Also Want His Balls

So Zidane was interviewed on French television today concerning the "head butt heard around the world" (I made that up myself thanks). In the interview Zidane stated:

"I want to ask for forgiveness from all the children who watched that, there was no excuse for it. I want to be open and honest about it. I do apologize but I don't regret my behavior because regretting it would mean he was right to say what he said."

In regards to what exactly Materazzi said to provoke him Zidane only replied that the remarks were "very personal and concerned my mother and sister. I tried not to listen to him but he kept repeating them.”

On a completely different note, but one that is of much greater interest to me, Jurgen Klinsmann announced today that he will not be returning as manager of the German national team, and will instead be heading back to his home in southern California to spend time with his family.

This is great news considering the numerous rumors that have been circulating around that the U.S. national team is very interested in having Klinsmann replace current national team coach and choke artist Bruce Arena. Arena needs to go and getting Klinsmann would be the greatest thing to happen to the U.S. soccer program in a very long time.

MAD...or just plain crazy

I largely agree with the fact that the world is not in danger of full-scale war a la WWII or the Korean Conflict, and that "war" as we know it will consist of small-scale actions against both rogue states and stateless organizations (read: Al Qaeda and its many, many progeny). The two nations existing as exceptions, in my estimation, reflect 2/3 of the famed Axis of Evil. [cue ominous music] North Korea and Iran both maintain large, semi-equipped forces. Both are geographically smackdab in the middle of potentially explosive international tensions. Both are governed by fellows three-sheets-to-the-wind on power and extremism. While the forces and those governing them are not as large of a concern, the geography of each situation is what makes things infinitely more complicated.

While I believe KJI is primarily a lunatic lording over a tragically malnourished populace, and that his actions largely consist of harmless saber-rattling - he has to at least know that if he were to lob a missile and actually strike Japan, it would be his downfall, one way or another - I don't think we can safely assume that he is not dangerous and his actions are not provocative, particularly to those in the same region. Containment with North Korea has worked, for the most part, in that there have been no serious incidents. In order for containment to continue to work, North Korea and the U.S. have to play along.

A Pacifist Constitution? I think not...

While I agree with my friend Anti's analysis of Kim Jong Il's intentions - which is badly influenced by a case of severe attention deficit disorder, imperial narcissism, empathic lacking, and bloodthirst - I must point out that the Japanese Constitution is not, in fact, "pacifist." If we go with a typical definition of pacifism - the belief that disputes between nations can and should be settled peacefully, demonstrated by refusal to participate in military actions - we see that it is not pacifist. Why? While the text of Article 9, the famed "No War" Clause, states that Japan renounces war and its use to settle international disputes, the interpretation of that article has long held the Japanese right to force in self-defense. This has allowed Japan to build and maintain strong armed forces, as well as participate in international conflicts.

As a result of this interpretation, Japan has some of the best (if not the best) defensive forces in the world. These forces, however, would not be able to successfully carry out a "preemptive" attack on North Korea. They are simply not set up or trained to follow through with such an action.

Essentially, Japan is doing what it can - making threats, empty or not - to protect itself and its citizenry. I certainly think it's foolish to expect that a targeted attack on North Korean nuclear facilities wouldn't lead to international bloodshed, particularly among South Korean and American soldiers amassed on the DMZ. But I don't know what a good plan would look like in this situation...which is probably why the Bush Administration has largely ignored it.

Got Nukes? pt. 2

I never once stated any sort of support for the North Korean regime, Kim Jong Il (or as I like to call him Kimmy) is a terrible dictator who through his actions and his father before him have completely devastated his own people.

I say that Japan's comments are hostile because of the potential fall out of what would happen if preemptive military action was taken against North Korea, meaning that in all likelihood instead of responding with an attack against Japan, which would be made very difficult without their missile arsenal, Kimmy would most like commence with ground attacks against South Korea which would lead to the deaths of thousands.

What makes it even more hostile is that unlike the U.S. Japan has a pacifist constitution so any talk of preemptive attacks is a drastic departure from every other post World War 2 military decision. It is basically the equivalent of a Quaker suddenly getting the urge to go off and fight in Iraq, Japan’s previous history makes this much more hostile then if lets say the U.S. said they were considering such action.

Furthermore although Kimmy is considered by many to be crazy, I don’t think he is. This whole missile launch thing, in my opinion, wasn’t meant to be hostile. I think that Kimmy was just getting pissed that Iran was getting all of the attention and wanted some for himself, thus the reason he launched the missiles on the 4th of July. Basically Kimmy is just one big attention whore.

See: Got Nukes?

Why Zidane? Why?

I'm sure everyone has seen the video of Zidane's overtime headbutt that sent him off with a red card in the finals of the World Cup last Sunday.




Well now there are new theories concerning what Materazzi said to provoke him. Zidane has said that in the next few days he will reveal exactly what happened and what was said. Until then here are my favorite guesses as to what Materazzi said:

1. "I wish an ugly death to you and all your family, Go f--- yourself."
2. "son of a terrorist whore, so just f--- off"
3. "a son of Harkis" (a term for collaborators in the Algerian war of independence from France)

By the way the more I looked into this the happier I am that Zidane did what he did, it may not have been a classy way for him to end his career, but Materazzi is one of the dirtiest players in the game check out this video.

Got Nukes?

I’m confused about this whole North Korea situation going on right now. As I am sure all of you are aware North Korea tested at least six long range missiles on the 4th of July. Since the testing of these missiles the rhetoric from all countries has been deafening, with the most hostile rhetoric coming from Japan where Japanese officials have called for a debate to see whether a pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s missile bases violates Japan’s constitution.

Now I understand the argument that is made concerning North Korea and Iran possessing nuclear technology and how they could pass on this technology to the so called “terrorists”. Even so I have yet to see one news report of this actually occurring, unless someone out there knows something or has seen something that I haven’t. Yet we still label North Korea and Iran as two of the greatest threats facing our national security at the moment.

Now compare this stance in U.S. foreign policy to the stance we have taken with our so called “allies” in Pakistan. Thanks in large part to Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions they have started a brand new nuclear arms race with India. India just this weekend tested a nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range that would make a nuclear strike against China possible. Back in 1998 the U.S. imposed temporary sanctions against India for nuclear testing, but I am guessing our response to these tests won’t be remotely similar since President Bush recently agreed to share nuclear technology with India.

Brand new nuclear arms races aside it is also well document that A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has provided nuclear technology to such “terrorist” states as Libya, Iran and North Korea. And in response to Khan’s admission of providing nuclear technologies to “terrorist” states, General Pervez Musharraf pardoned Khan for any crimes that were committed. And yet according to U.S. policy and our current administration Pakistan is a vital ally in the “war against terror”.

So basically I don’t get it, will someone out here in blogger world please explain to me how the current U.S. policy concerning nuclear non-proliferation is anything more then the one giant hypocrisy that I currently perceive it to be?

See also: What To Do About Iran?

Why Do We Support The Troops?

In view of the ongoing debacle that is the war in Iraq, and the widespread recognition that the war was sold to the American public on a false platform connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and WMDs, one might wonder why Americans have been so consistent and steadfast in their support of the troops. What exactly are we supporting?

One argument that could be made is that we are supporting the norm of civilian control of the military. Although we may think the war unjustified, we accept the power of the president to command the troops. Moreover, we recognize the danger to our liberty and security, and ultimately to our democracy, in openly calling for disobedience on the part of the military. So we stand behind our troops, who are standing behind their civilian commanders. In this way, to support the troops is to support the norm of civilian control of the military, even though we distrust the current form of that control.

So why do we support the troops, and not those whom the troops are supporting, such as the Bush Administration's policies? If we suppose that many alert American citizens recognize that whatever degree of liberty and security they enjoy can only be the outcome of a steady recognition and pursuit of the public good of defending our "homeland" against terrorists, then our support of the troops is based on the recognition of the necessity of helping to forward the common defense so we can hope in turn to avoid a state of insecurity and tyranny. However, since we also recognize that the pursuit of liberty and security also depends on preventing the agents of the state — e.g., Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. — from coercing the American people into serving their private ends, we have become deeply suspicious and afraid of our own government, as it has become more opaque and has built up private forces to circumvent public participation and oversight. So while we support our troops to protect us from external threats, our cries to support the troops also seem to be directed against the powerful internal threat that is our government. I suggest we say, then, "support our troops, because only through their success can we hope to maintain our freedom and security against the actions of our own government."

ITALY WINS

Italy wins the World Cup Final on penalty kicks, perhaps in redemption for the 1994 loss in the Final, also on penalty kicks. The game was marked by some bumbling touches in the first half and several trades in offensive momentum, with Italy seeming to dominate the first half and France by far out-shooting the Italians in the second half.

In overtime the French captain Zidane was sent off for head-butting an Italian player to the ground, off the play. What a way for Zidane to cap his appearances for the French team. It was a move straight out of Street Fighter.

Here in my little town in Wyoming, the half-full bar was dominated by a big screen television and soccer fans. Quite a few homegrown fans cursing and shouting, smatterings of accents Scottish and British, encouragement and disbelief in Spanish, and maybe more. The world's game. It's a cliche, and Tom Powers may try to bastardize it into an ignorant bleating of misdirected American pride, but it is the world's game, and that's a beautiful thing.

Nature as Hobby

"THESE days, the authentic outdoor sporting experience is fast becoming an endangered species," begins an article in The New York Times about a $32 million dollar commerical park for kayaking and rafting under construction near Charlotte, N.C. The article interviews people who all say the same thing: the wonder of nature is lost when humans manufacture nature-like parks for sporting experiences, and without a sense of wonder, people will never get in the habit of preserving "the real thing."

This is a familiar argument. As Bill McKibben notes in his The End of Nature, "Wendell Berry once argued that without a 'fascination' with the wonder of the natural world 'the energy needed for its preservation will never be developed'—that 'there must be a mystique of the rain if we are ever to restore the purity of the rainfall.'" But as the title of McKibben's book suggests, we live in a world disenchanted with nature. This "fascination" no longer exists. "How can there be a mystique of the rain," asks McKibben, "now that every drop—even the drops that fall as snow on the Arctic, even the drops that fall deep in the remaining forest primeval—bears the permanent stamp of man? Having lost its separateness, it loses its special power. Instead of being a category like God—something beyond our control—it is now a category like the defense budget or the minimum wage, a problem we must work out. This in itself changes its meaning completely, and changes our reaction to it." This view of nature is such a part of our beliefs and actions that we hardly think twice when we hear Al Gore explain the pervasive effects of human-induced Global Warming on the globe, and how humans can conduct themselves in relation to nature so as to reverse this problem. The power of Al Gore's "slide show" to incite efforts to save our global environment presupposes not wonder of the natural world, but the power of man over that world. To be sure, Gore begins and ends his movie with moments of meditation on the splendors of nature, but these moments are subordinate to the emphasis he places on how much we understand about nature and man's influence upon it.

Gore's strategy and the NYT article alike reflect the reality that nature has become with us not a mystical thing encompassing our every action, but something of the nature of a hobby. As McKibben observes, “Nature has become a hobby with us. One person enjoys the outdoors, another likes cooking, a third favors breaking into military computers over his phone line….We have become in rapid order a people whose conscious need for nature is superficial.” This suggests that if real and widespread action is to be taken to counteract Global Warming, a major shift is needed in the way we perceive and conceptualize nature. Otherwise, as the Piedpiper quipped in a pessimistically honest way, the only people Gore will persuade are those who already believed in him and his cause long before they saw the movie. I fear that by presenting his concern with nature as his hobby, Gore only reinforces the very worldview that has lead us into this mess in the first place. But I hope I'm wrong.

Pie-Eyed Poll

Yes, I voted for myself. It is the first vote I "received" and likely the last. But let it be known, that there are some fellow contributors that are either too dumb, slow, or "honorable" to have voted for themselves and are thus at 0 votes. You know who you are.

The King of Pop

In the review of a new book analyzing the life and times of the ever interesting Michael Jackson, Andrew O'Hagan recounts some of his more famous nicknames: "the Gloved One, the Baby Dangler, or the Prince of Pop, as he’s still sometimes known." I think it necessary to add "The King of Pop" to that list. After all, as O'Hagan himself notes, Jackson's Thriller "became the biggest-selling album of all time (fifty million sales, plus seven Top Ten singles)." Let it be said that so talented a performer, Michael Jackson, lacked nothing to reign save the Kingdom of Pop.

Awful Talk Radio

Host: "Today we're here to talk an awful lot about Iraq, that awful place to be. Who do we have on the phones? Mr. Awful, you have an awful lot on your mind?"

Mr. Awful: "I just wanted to say how awful this is, I mean, people are dying unnecessarily, its awful, absolutely awful."

Host: "Thanks Mr. Awful. I know, we've heard an awful lot about Iraq, especially after the awful events of late, and we're at the point where we can't deny the awful truth about the awful conditions over there. This is, this is, awful, just awful. People just don't understand this."

Back from Nature

Humans are highly unnatural creatures. We tend to forget this fact. We are highly unnatural in the sense that we are conditioned by society and the historical circumstances in which we find ourselves. Birds and trees and other creatures of nature are not conditioned in this way. Whereas nature has no control over its own history, humans do. As Feuerbach wrote in his Theses on the Reform of Philosophy, in a line that resonated with Marx, "Man as a being sprung from nature is a creature of nature, not a man. Man is the product of man, of culture, of history."

Though the human essence is determined and expressed through man's social relations, man is nonetheless in some sense a creature of nature. People have always felt a peculiar sensation when they have spent days among forests and lakes. There is something invigorating about it; something that ever inspires reflection and wonder.

For me, time spent in the woods of northern Minnesota (yes, in a modern, well-stocked cabin), reminds me of the primordial fact that everything humans make requires a tremendous amount of work and activity, which depends upon community. Nature has to be constantly worked on to make way for the trappings of human society. In a sparsely populated area, it is easier to observe the fact that people are sustained by their relations with other people, by cultural activities and rituals, and the memory of times past; in the woods, utter solitude can be death to man, can sap the humanness from him. Nature is a relentless process indifferent to the concerns of humans. Humans cannot live by nature alone.

Independence Day

I would like to take the flag back; to take it away from the progressives, take it away from the conservatives; take it away from the television news anchors and commentators; take it away from the makers of magnets for automobile exteriors, take it away from Wal-Mart and Target.

I would like to take it away and let Marvin Hoffman give it back, in words from his 1996 memoir "Chasing Hellhounds," which describes the evolution of a teacher bouncing between one-room schoolhouses and inner-city jungles. He writes from a small town in New England:

"We tried to remember to run the flag up the flagpole every morning, and on the days we forgot, someone from the VFW called to remind us. This was a community that took its patriotism seriously. Although Memorial Day was a school holiday, every teacher and almost every student assembled on the school porch to be issued an American flag mounted on a thin dowel, retrieved from basement storage. Somehow, here, close to the source of the original impulse, patriotism felt more like an affirmation, a giving of thanks, than a mean-spirited nose thumbing at a threatening outside world."

We can't forget the past and we can't ignore the present, but I think Hoffman reminds us of another side of things that can too easily slip away.

World Cup or Rocky IV Redux?

Is it just me or are there an inordinate number of Dolph Lundgren/Ivan Drago look-a-likes on the Ukrainian football team. Ukraine must break you.

Pawlenty & Higher Ed: Merits vs. Politics

Some time ago, our esteemed contributor Xtra commented under my Economic World Cup post about providing incentives for college students to study math and science as a way to improve American competitiveness in the global economy. I've been meaning to revisit the subject, and lo and behold, your favorite governor and mine, Teflon Tim Pawlenty has opened the pathway to such a discussion.

This week, Teflon Tim announced a proposal that would offer two years of free tuition at the University of Minnesota, or other colleges in the MnSCU system, to students in the top 25% of their class and come from families making less than $150,000 a year. Students receiving the assistance must attend full-time and maintain a B-average, and students are eligible to attain two more years of free tuition if they major in math or a science. The rationale behind this is purported that it would keep Minnesota's best and brightest in-state while boosting our enrollment in math and science.

Politics aside, this is worthy start. This being a politically-charged election year, however, I think we must examine the proposal both on the merits and on its political nature.

Merits

On its face, Pawlenty's proposal fulfills, or seems as though it would fulfill, the objectives set forth in my previous post. We need an increasing number of young people who are trained and can work in math and science fields, and who are educated with an eye toward America's (and Minnesota's) global competitiveness. It seems both reasonable and fair; it targets mostly middle- and low-income students; it offers incentives to study math or science.

Detractors (including Brian Melendez, DFL state party chair) have claimed that the proposal gives unfair advantage to those students already doing well, while leaving others behind. Call me elitist, but I don't see a huge problem with that. If we are to do anything, it is encourage and reward those who perform. Unfortunately, however, we do not have an secondary education system set up to provide a level playing field. For example, Minnesota ranks near the bottom of states in African-American graduation rate (a dismal 44 percent), while posting one of the highest overal graduation rates in the country. Therefore, not all of the kids who could potentially achieve status within the top 25 percent of their class are afforded that opportunity based on our malnourished schools, which are primarily based in Minneapolis/St. Paul, but also exist throughout rural Minnesota. Ultimately, the bulk of students that will be able to take advantage of this proposal are those in property-tax-rich municipalities, located primarily throughout the inner- and outer-ring suburban school districts. Without investment in quality secondary education, this proposal unduly rewards those who already have the advantages of a high-performance education. But, I do agree, that this is a good starting point for further discussion on that subject.

The additional math and science incentive is another topic. Unfortunately, "math and science" are about as ill-defined subjects as one can find on a college campus. Is leisure studies a "science"? Is nursing? Is dental hygiene? The question is: Where do we draw the boundaries? Math and science are terms of art that can fit practically any individual definition. Also, who will decide what math and science are? The governor? Legislators? Educators? We don't know...

Another question here is why just math and science? I think the aim should instead point toward the goals of improving Minnesota's competitiveness on a global scale, and preparing (many) students for the economy of the present and future. This does not mean only providing incentives to math and science majors, but rewarding future educators who will instruct and develop the economic leaders of the next generation. Why not provide an additional two free years to education majors? What about areas of the local economy where there are shortages, such as in nursing?

There is also the matter of private colleges and universities that award a full 25 percent of all the bachelor's degrees in Minnesota. Students attending those institutions are left out in the cold as well.

Politics

No matter what the merits of this proposal, the real story here is in the politics behind it. I have to hand it to Teflon Tim; this was an incredibly shrewd move that has put his most likely opponent, Mike Hatch, on his heels fresh after his DFL endorsement.

The beauty of this move is that is completely deflates the legitimate point that Teflon Tim has moved the state backward in higher education. He has overseen the largest increases in state college tuition, hiked student fees, and has ignored faculty salaries. And now, with a Jedi wave of the hand, he can deflect all of that criticism with this proposal.

And what's better, he doesn't actually have to do anything with it. This is less than a campaign promise, it's merely words. Teflon Tim comes off looking like a moderate (even David Strom, Grand Poobah of the MN Taxpayer's League is in a huff over this thing) and if he does win re-election, he won't actually have to follow through on it. Why? Two likely scenarios:

1. Democrats retain the State Senate and win a majority in the State House. They follow up on Pawlenty's proposal, and make amendments to it similar to what I described above. The proposal passes and goes to Teflon Tim's desk. He refuses to sign it, because the DFL has "distorted" his intent and it's no longer fit for the state. Period. End of discussion.
2. Democrats retain the State Senate and Republican retain a majority in the State House. The proposal passes with amendments similar to my descriptions above. But, the proposal fails in the State House because Dr. No Phil Krinkie and his Zero-Tax Clan tie it up in committee, the necessary Republican votes do not materialize on the floor, or the proposal is gutted in a conference committee.

As a result, the criticism for not seeing the proposal through slides right off Teflon Tim and sticks somewhere else. Timmy gets a winning campaign message, and no blame when it blows up after the election. I'm awestruck.

The other question I'd like to ask here is: Why doesn't the DFL ever make proposals like this sooner? Instead, we fritter around with code words - health care, education - but we rarely present voters with something concrete. Is it fear? Are we inept? My suggestion and my hope is that Hatch comes out with something bold - most likely something to do with health care since that's the feather in his cap - and run with it. We need to beat Pawlenty back or else he'll run roughshod right over us with his folksy Minnesota smile and his in-the-closet extremism.

Israel in Gaza: Hamas under Assault

I'm reluctant to take sides in this conflict, which is looking more and more like a war. As the NYT notes in today's editoral, "Hamas Provokes a Fight," even though Hamas is responsible for this violence, Israel's arrest of many high ranking Hamas officials is "unsettling." Neither side is innocent. We should recall what Hannah Arendt teaches us about politics. She concludes her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, with the following verdict on Eichmann's actions:

For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations—as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world—we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.

PeP @ 20,000

Primarily as an excuse to re-use this graphic of the pat-yourself-on-the-back machine (which is certifiably stamped with the Pie-Eyed Seal of Approval), I think it fitting to mention the fact that PeP Nation has jettisoned us to more than 20,000 hits! (Remember, it was not too long ago that we sputtered away at 10,000.) Never mind the fact that most of those hits came from the PeP contributors themselves...some of those hits had to come from other people. Right? Right?

(For a nice little recap of some of the PeP's greatest hits...click here.)

Wal Mart: the Great Debate

Follow this link: http://www.slate.com/id/2144517/entry/2144521/

It features a debate on the merits of Wal Mart between Barbara Ehrenreich and Jason Furman. Most of the readers/contributors of this blog are probably aware of Ehrenreich (sharing her dismal views) but Furman is a sharp guy. Part of the Clinton economic horde.

Got Wedding Blog?

Nothing says romance like a wedding blog. I can already hear the echoes of the imaginary conversations between the two bloggers, across each other's cyberspace, and between them and their "readers." I'll wait for the book-length account of the whole affair, which is probably also forthcoming under the title, How Pieper Got Out of New Prague, Got Kissed and Got Engaged.

Warren Buffett: 'Wildly Generous Bigot'?

The news of multibillionaire Warren Buffett's graduated donation of more than $1 billion a year to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (as well as four others) really struck a chord with me, particularly in light of Xtra's expressed dislike of generosity.

What stuck out the most was the description during the news conference of Buffett's and the Gates's philosophy on wealth. Essentially, the three agreed that accumulated wealth ought to be shared with society. Rather than going to his grave in a coffin filled with $1 million bills (?), Buffett has ensured a lasting legacy through the work of his chosen foundations and in the lives of the millions of people he is helping.

The beauty of this gift, however, is not the sheer size of it, nor the causes it's going to. It is simply the fact that it is (by all accounts) genuine. This gift is not made as a corporate tax write-off, or for personal or political gain. It is merely a donation to concepts that work, with the primary concept that it takes money to make things like global health and education initiatives work. Warren Buffett, the iconoclastic investor, is showing the world where true investment lies, which is in humanity.

And now, before Xtra and 'Dingo can accuse me of weepiness, I depart.

Did somebody say.....Chevrolet?

Maybe it's just me, but the advertising on the Strib's homepage is a little ridiculous.

And yes, this is exactly how I'm coming off hiatus.

Was Kanye Wrong?

According to research recently conducted by Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar Republicans don't hate black people, they are just cheap. What about Democrats you ask? They are bigots, wildly generous bigots. There is nothing I dislike more than generosity.

HTML Bleg

To our vast readership:

I am in the process of lobbying the resident gatekeepers, ergh, Administrators (PiedPieper and Mandingo) to incorporate an interactive side bar or something of the like. Pied has ignored me entirely and Mandingo has pleaded html ignorance. Thus, if anybody knows anything about html (can html be a verb?, Ill, a new topic/excuse to post picture of hot woman) please help me improve your blogging experience by posting your related knowledge on the subject in the comments section of this post.

Best regards,

Xtra

A Man of Means by No Means

Incentives matter and ultimately Governments incentivize certain types of lifestyles, tacitly rewarding those lifestyles. This is a long winded way of making me rethink the concept of means testing (as it relates to such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare, not Medicaid) and the extent to which it fails to achieve horizontal equity.

My father is keen on telling people that my brother and I represent a perfect balance: he saves everything, I spend everything. My brother is famously cheap; he squeezes every penny till it screams. And, alas, I am a spendthrift. Fast forward to retirement age, in all likelihood, my bro’ will have a much more secure retirement unless knight ridder decides to buy the blog (even then, my contributions have to rank in the bottom quarter with our resident master of the proverbial wet bag of shit-‘dingo), even assuming equal earnings.

Means testing typically looks at one’s means or revenue or income—however you want to call it—in the period when a person is receiving the benefits. As one gets older, or more specifically, when one retires, their income is no longer labor income but rather capital or asset income (i.e. interest and drawdowns from your 401 k or IRA). If you reduce one’s benefits (that they were taxed for in the first place), due to significant asset accumulation, while maintaining the benefits for someone with equivalent lifetime earnings, you are effectively taxing thrift. Capital income at the time of one’s retirement should not be the basis for benefits, but rather lifetime earnings.

When adjectives become . . . commodities

I've been searching for a word or an explanation for the following retail phenomenon. For example, books make good gifts. Seizing on this fact, some book stores now have sections where they sell "gift books." Another example: tattered jeans. Seizing on the fashionableness of such jeans, jeans are now made and sold as "tattered jeans." Adjective. Noun. Product.

In both examples, what used to be made by individual gestures and uses - books into gifts, jeans into tatters - is presented as pre-made and sold as a special kind of product. What is going on here?

The Argument for Moral Superiority in War

In two recent pieces in The New York Times, Haim Watzman's op-ed, "Hiding Behind the Enemy," and A.O. Scott's review of "The Road to Guantanamo," the authors lament the lapse of adherence to now accepted moral norms in times of war. A.O. Scott points to the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo as a shameful practice that "squanders a crucial strategic advantage in the fight against terrorism, namely the moral superiority of liberal democracy to the nihilism and extremism that oppose it." Watzman, similarly, argues that rather than elide morality, commanders should enforce it because "It is an element of an army's strength. . . . An army that does not take risks will be easily beaten by an opponent that does." Both statements are underpinned by two assumptions—first, that democracies should behave morally in war, and second, that the moral high ground is a valuable vantage point in war, especially in an asymmetric one between state and non-state insurgent actors.

Is any of this true? Neither Scott nor Watzman marshal any historical evidence to prove this. In fact, if we examine A.O. Scott's argument, we see that what he laments as a strategic blunder is not the reality of Guantanamo, but rather the fact that this reality has been made so easy for all to see, that the quasi-documentary about it "may already have lost the power to shock." The point implicit here is that the appearance of morality is what is important, not the actual following of it. What people believe is going on is more important than what is actually going on. In war, as in politics, public opinion and appearances are the only reality that counts. In Guantanamo, then, the U.S. has lost a strategic asset in failing to be recognized as the morally superior country in the war against terrorism.

The truth here is one that Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince and The Art of War, knew very well. It is not only not necessary to follow what people generally hold to be morally good, but in many cases what is called good will lead to ruin in enterprises such as war. So a prudent army captain should always make it appear that his troops behave well, while in reality doing whatever is necessary to win. As Machiavelli wrote in one of his most famous lines, "For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good." In other words, pace Scott and Watzman, there is no strategic advantage in imposing on one's army "moral" rules that only put soldiers' lives in jeopardy. But this must be emphasized to avoid confusion: this is not to say that there is not an advantage in appearing to follow morality, and that armies should follow it whenever possible. It is to say that morality carries no intrinsic or absolute value in war. Indeed, the arguments on offer by both Scott and Watzman for adhering to it testify to this fact because they make it an instrument to achieve a strategic advantage. And just like any instrument, when it stops working, you pick up a new one. And in some cases, this, lamentably, will be torture and the like.

Late-night Cliffhanger: The Advertisement

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF A DYSTOPIAN FUTURE

She had wandered back into town to find a candle or die. So odd to her: this one door, with the light on. Light always filled her with delight, or at least the pictures of it.

A male voice-over intones, "By 2500, America's Information Age will be no more. The affairs of our specious will be conducted in darkness."

Nothing is necessary if not candles.

The Lighting Material Solutions Group

Minneapolis ... as Mecca?

While I remain solidly loyal to St. Paul, a city I find far superior to our sister across the River, I cannot help but applaud and stand in amazement at the level of cultural and creative additions that have been made to Minneapolis in the past two years. And I am not alone.
The new Guthrie Theater is lauded as another cultural landmark putting Minneapolis on the map, in the most recent issue of Newsweek. (Click here for a kick-ass Strib special section.) Dubbing Minneapolis "The Design City," Newsweek places it at the forefront of its a list of the top locations in global culture. In addition to the new Guthrie, of course, is the Minneapolis Central Library, a new wing at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and last year's unveiling of the Walker Art Center expansion.

Despite all this, I will remain in St. Paul, the fairer city. Yet, bravo, Minneapolis. Bravo!

(And, don't forget, the Guthrie's opening extravaganza is this Sunday...Heiruspecs and POS are playing...)

Late-night cliffhanger: Denouement

She was a neighbor, from an apartment building across the street.

She lives alone, and she had been lying in bed nearly asleep when she heard her back door open, and heavy footsteps on the floor. She didn't have time to reach for her glasses, but she squinted at her doorframe just as a large figure walked down her hall, past her bedroom. She called out "hello?" and didn't get a response. She instantly started to panic; her door had been locked, nobody else had a key, what the hell was somebody doing in her apartment at midnight?

So she bolted. She ran from her room, picked up a heavy object to defend herself (candleholder) and sprinted into the street, where she saw the bright light above my door and instinctually ran for it.

But what if I had been no better? What if it was "out of the frying pan and into the fire?" When I opened my door, we were facing each other at the bottom of a narrow, steep stairway, and I was taller and larger than her.

She looked like she needed to sit down, so I offered her a chair in the front room. I purposefully moved calmly and left my front door open, so she didn't feel trapped in the apartment with me. We called the cops, they came and checked her apartment. A friend of hers - who had a key to check on her plants if she was gone - had come in to crash for the evening, not realizing she was home. No harm, no foul, the cops talked to them both and got it straightened out.

But what about her perception of danger, and her trust in me based on a front door light? It made me think of a report on the local public radio about crime on campus (at a university of 15,000). They had interviews with female dorm residents, who described walking home late at night with keys in hand and cell phone dialed to 9-1. But there have only been a couple - like two or three - random attacks on campus in that situation. Almost all of the violent crime on campus happens between people who know each other, in dorm rooms or similar scenarios. Same thing with "rape myths" - most rapes occur between people who know each other, not in a dark alleyway with a stranger. But which scenario, which attack, do people prepare for?

And what about me? I never really think of "street crime." I left my light on simply to avoid fumbling with my keys.

I live in a town of about 30,000 and bike thefts usually happen in rashes, when some wayward urban youth bring up a van from a nearby big city and steal 100 bikes in one weekend then return and sell 'em. I know quite a few people who leave their cars and homes unlocked. But I've seen quite a few barfights here, and I know of at least one horrific murder in this town.

My wish is - aside from providing a narrative to be parodied - just to provoke your own thoughts on the perception of crime and danger versus the reality.