Cycling the Twin Cities

I've taken the opportunity of My Lovely being on a business trip this weekend to explore the city I love - St. Paul - and part of that other city - Minneapolis - on my 1986 Diamondback Momentum bicycle. My routes:

• Friday - Starting at Dale Street, I went down Summit Avenue to the Cathedral, where it turns into John Ireland Blvd. I then wrapped around the lawns in front of the Capitol, and entered downtown St. Paul on Cedar Street. After crossing over I-35E, I scooted down 11th Street to Robert Street where I was going to go to Aroma's Art House, which turned out to be closed. I then decided to maneuver down 9th Street to Temperance to 7th Street, where I took a right on Wacouta. This took me down past Mears Park to 4th Street, where I took a left, passed the Farmer's Market and stopped in at the Black Dog Coffee and Wine Bar. After a couple hours at Black Dog, I rode back up 4th Street, then Kellogg Blvd. to West 7th. I took 7th to Grand Avenue, crossed I-35E again, and then tackled the Grand Avenue hill (not to be confused with the suicidal Ramsey Hill).
• Saturday - Fellow PePper Ilya and I decided to meet at the Cliquot Club, so I ventured over to South Minneapolis. I took summit Avenue, past St. Thomas, to the Mississippi River Blvd. pathways. I followed that to 27th Street, crossed the bridge (that offers a spectacular view) and then down Franklin. I met Ilya and we rode through the Seward neighborhood to Cliquot. After a chocolate chip cookie, some green mango tea, and incredibly high-minded conversation, I rode back to the Minneapolis side of Mississippi River Blvd. up to Lake Street. I crossed the Lake Street Bridge, where on the St. Paul side I carried my bike down the steps. I then retraced my route back home.
• Sunday - After a three-egg omelet with cottage bacon, mushrooms, and pepper jack, I decided to further explore St. Paul. I rode through my neighborhood to St. Clair, and took that down across West 7th near the river. I followed the bike route to the High Bridge, and briefly toyed with the idea of going into West St. Paul. Deciding I probably didn't have the energy for that today, I kept going along 7th to the old Ramsey House, then down to the paths below the bluffs along the river. I took that to Randolph, crossed 7th again, then turned right on Victoria, where I thought I might be able to go through the Linwood Recreation Center area. Unfortunately, I never found Linwood from that route. Instead I had to turn on Jefferson (where I suffered the indignity of having to walk my bike halfway up a hill), followed by a left on Lexington, and finally a right on Grand Avenue to home.

During these journeys, while not incredibly long or extensive, I made some observations. And I'm sure you want to read them. So here you go:

• It almost always takes a shorter time to get from point A to point B than I originally anticipated. My trip to Minneapolis took 29 minutes exactly, while I thought it would take 45 to 60 minutes.
• Each trip left my legs less sore than I thought I would be. For example, when I biked to downtown St. Paul and then climbed the hill back up Grand Avenue on Friday, I figured I'd be finished for a day or two. The next day, however, I was reenergized and ready to go.
• Both cities are great places to bike through, although I much prefer St. Paul. Summit Avenue makes an easy thoroughfare and because there is less traffic downtown (and more residential zoning) its less pressure. Of course, I didn't spend a lot of time cycling in Minneapolis, so my opinion may be biased.
• The St. Paul riverfront represents decades of what must be some of the absolute worst city planning in the country. The city's greatest natural resources has been marred by heavy industrial zoning, and is now littered with anonymous vacant factories and plants. When driving down it you notice it, but when you bike down there you become appalled at the utter lack of forward-thinking.

Related Link: Map of St. Paul bicycle paths

Relearning the Lessons of Military History

Some things change, only because some things never change. History, upon careful examination, shows us many important truths about human life. There is one truth that Israel and the U.S. has clearly failed to learn, and that is that war should be treated as an extension of politics, and hence the most important thing is to build defenses in the people.

When cavalry and artillery were gaining popularity in early modern Europe, Machiavelli in his Art of War continued to emphasize the importance of infantry, which was regarded as comparatively worthless. Nobody believed that foot soldiers, who we now refer to as "boots on the ground," could withstand the charge of cavalry. This was thought impossible until the mountaineers of Switzerland proved everyone wrong.

Once again, we are witnessing the remarkable ability of foot soldiers - "insurgents" - to withstand shock and awe campaigns carried out through aerial assaults. This feat is only underscored by the history of America's "Green Zone" in Iraq - a highly fortified fortress of steel and concrete - which has proven to be an embarrasingly weak outpost of security. If our army generals were actually trained in the art of war, they would know that the best fortress is built out of people, not out of steel.

One needs to look no further than Hezbollah to see the military folly of relying on heavy artillery to win battles against skilled foot soldiers. As Sabrina Tavernise writes in this excellent analysis of Hezbollah's roots in the people of Lebanon,

They cover medical bills, offer health insurance, pay school fees and make seed money available for small businesses. They are invisible but omnipresent, providing essential services that the Lebanese government through years of war was incapable of offering. Their work engenders a deep loyalty among Shiites, who for years were the country's underclass and whose sense of pride and identity are closely intertwined with Hezbollah. Their presence in southern Lebanon is so widespread that any Israeli military advance will do little to extricate the group, which is as much a part of society as its Shiite faith. "The trees in the south say, 'We are Hezbollah.' The stones say, 'We are Hezbollah,' " said Issam Jouhair, a car mechanic. "If the people cannot talk, the stones will say it."

Hezbollah is the people. If there is no better fortress than the people, the battle for Baghdad has long been lost.

Scientist to global-warming skeptics: Quit calling me your friend

Did anybody else see the op-ed piece in the NYTimes on 28 July entitled "Cold, hard facts?"

It was written by Peter Doran, whose 2002 paper in Nature caused quite a stir: he and his colleagues concluded that more of Antarctica had actually cooled, rather than warmed, from 1966 to 2000. So much for global warming, right?

Well, yes, if you are an armchair scientist looking for any title to possibly support your point of view. Doran says "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear' and by Ann Coulter in her latest book 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism.'"

Doran argues emphatically that his research has been misinterpreted. First, a large part of the continent was indeed warming during that period. Second, subsequent modelling has indicated that the lack of warming he and his colleagues found is related to the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica; as the hole heals, the continent will likely begin to warm. Third, other research has contradicted his results; while he stands by his paper, the conclusions are being debated.

Thus, he states: "I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming."

P.S. - Michael Crichton is a tool, by the way. His book "State of Fear" includes an "author's message" at the end where he claims to lay out some truth concerning environmentalism, after penning a work of fiction.

Basically, he slams environmentalism for being narrow-minded and chauvinist, says environmentalism is working to build and sustain a modern imperialism of developed nations, and slams most environmental science for being biased.

Specifically, two of his messages included are:

"I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences."

"Everybody has an agenda. Except me."

Right. No agenda. Michael Crichton, alone, is able to stand strong against the corrosive influence of bias and avoid the guise of self-interest.

Tool.

Week in Review: Pie-Eyed Self-Pity Edition

Well, this was the week that was. (?) Drink up to another seven days of mediocrity at the Pie-Eyed Picayune. And, really, Mandingo...we know that you're sooo busy, but what happened to "Phraseology"? Another piece of refuse in the recylcing bin of history?

• Ilya offers an explanation for his own pasty whiteness; then, he expounds on Augustine
• Mandingo to the PeP: Cry for me!
• Xtra argues against giving himself a raise. That's so unbecoming a Republican...
• "That guy" puts things into perspective for Il, leaves the rest of us perplexed
• PiedPiper: Establishing the new school of PiedPiperian Thought

Pie-Eyed Poll: Captain Planet Edition

Another week, another Pie-Eyed Poll. I was particularly interested in the result of our last poll, "What's your favorite international crisis?" "Other" garnered nearly as many votes as the top choice "Iraqi quagmire," and almost twice as many votes as "Global warming." (Sorry, GC.) I'm very curious what "Other" international crises folks had in mind. And what about the Kashmiri separatists! The results:

• Israel-Hezbollah conflict - 9%
• Iraqi quagmire - 30%
• Iran's nascent nuclear weapons program - 3%
• North Korea's saber-rattling - 3%
• Russia's slide toward authoritarianism - 9%
• Kashmiri separatists in India - 3%
• Global warming - 15%
• Other - 27%

In honor of the showing by global warming, we have an all-environmental poll this week. Remember: vote early, vote often!

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a word that has been sticking out in my mind for quite a while now. Progressive pragmatism, to be more specific. I don't know if that phrase has been coined yet; if not, I hereby copyright it before the political jackals steal it.

What I mean by progressive pragmatism is recognizing societal problems, outside the context of the bipolar American political model, and working towards pragmatic solutions. It involves bringing numerous voices together and striking a path of sensical compromise. The players need to enter negotiations knowing that their self-interests may not be fulfilled, but also knowing that the other players won't take advantage of that fact, and in reality that all players are willing to give up some parts of their self-interests.

An example of where this concept worked is welfare reform, which Robert Samuelson discussed in his Newsweek column this week. (Yes, I just linked to Newsweek...again!) Despite calls for elimination on the right, and calls for no change on the left, a solution was achieved. Granted, the solution wasn't foolproof, and there are holes that ought to be filled. But overall, welfare reform has been a success in striking a middle ground to win a pragmatic answer.

That reform, however, came in very different times. A Democrat in the White House, a Republican majority in the House (and maybe the Senate...I don't remember). No large-scale conflict. A booming economy. Today, we find ourselves in quite a different situation. We have a poisonous political climate, with lawmakers feelings forced to huddle in their corners. Meeting in the middle and working out compromise is seen as a betrayal.

The primary problem with this is that it causes people to lock up their viewpoints in the relative safety of their political perspectives. If Republicans can make themselves believe that there is a "debate" over global warming, then they don't have to make concessions for progressive pragmatic environmental reform. If Democrats can make themselves believe that Social Security is a sustainable program, they don't have to make concessions to make the program better and stronger. (Although I also don't believe Republicans are willing to seek other or additional solutions beside the one that failed miserably last year.)

The most recent example, of course, is the minimum wage increase/estate tax elimination bill that just failed in the Senate. This is a case of bipolar politics gone awry. Rather than working to achieve their aims, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle failed to win any of their objectives. If Democrats had been more willing to work with ideas like Xtra's, and Republicans had been more willing to concede on estate taxes, perhaps a solution could have been reached that would have fulfilled (partially) the self-interests of both sides.

Let's Put Things In Perspective

In the light of this guy, don't tell me so-and-so lives a simple, sustainable life because he rides a bike, carpools, grows his own and eats natural foods, recycles and reduces waste, and makes environmentally friendly "alternative" lifestyle choices. This guy is the alternative. Otherwise, you're pretty much like everyone else: hooked into this modern life with your reliance not on your own self, but on cars, phones, running water, and things that run on electricity to bring you all that you expect and enjoy. It goes with the territory, so to speak. That is, unless you live on this guy's territory - but you don't. None of us do.

Random Thought

I was reading a transcript of a Panel held at the Brookings Institute on Welfare Reform and beyond and a notion put forth by Eloise Anderson of the Claremont Institute particularly struck me:

Our social policies for men, at least those of age, boil down to incarceration.

Minimum Wage Thoughts: Transition Away From the Welfare State

I just thought I would chime in on the minimum wage debate that is currently not raging in d.c. because congress is in recess (which is the best thing for democracy). My disclaimer: I believe the minimum wage should be $0. Helping the working poor is a compelling end but ultimately I question how effectively minimum wage achieves this end. I think from both a politicial and policy standpoint we could much more effectively help the working poor through expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or through a negative income tax.

We value work as a society. There is a certain dignity achieved through working that manifests itself in a number of areas. People respect those that work, and those that work have an elevated self-worth. I would also argue that employment has positive implications for the family structure which itself has ramifications but that is an argument for another time. As a country we are much more supportive of public assistance that is conditioned on work. A minimum wage that really provides ample subsistence will have significant negative employment effects while diluting the benefits by dispersing them over a broader population than intended. I think a more effective means of finessing this tension lies with either increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or instituting a negative income tax.

XTRA's "Facts":

I think there are certain elements that we can all agree on in terms of discussing a minimum wage hike (or maybe not and thus we'll call these Xtra's "facts"):

1. The proposed minimum wage hike (about $1.50 per hour), which is modest, is unlikely to have a significant impact on the employment of those currently earning the minimum wage.

2. That said, it is clear that minimum wage does have a negative employment effect as the imposed marginal cost on the employer may exceed the value of a given employee's labor. We call this the law of demand, for evidence of this phenomena look at Europe. Points 1 and 2 appear to be in competition but in fact this tension speaks to the economic concept of elasticity.

3. The minimum wage is intended to help the working poor and does so (though, in my view not without adverse effects, see point five).

4. A significant portion of those earning minimum wage are either retirees supplementing their retirement income, spouses supplementing a household income, or students (high school and above) that are not part of impoverished families (looking at a DHHS study during the Clinton administration I would say this non-working poor population approaches half, that 75% of minimum wage workers work under 20 hours per week is a particularly telling statistic). I expect this point will be subject to quibbles, thus my "Xtra's Facts" qualifier.

5. Over the long term, the less one works the fewer skills/experience one will acquire thus reducing their lifetime earnings. This is acutely problematic for those with less education as a job is their only avenue to attain marketable skills.

Xtra's "facts", should you choose to entertain them at least, present several problems with the minimum wage and its effectiveness. A vast pool of people, who we don't necessarily define as the working poor are affected by minimum wage. So it is not an effective transfer as far as precision is concerned. The minimum wage imposes greater costs than intended as it benefits others than the working poor. We are effectively asking consumer and employer alike to subsidize the wages of a population that doesn't necessarily need or warrant this form of assistance.

And it is a transfer. When we advocate a minimum wage hike what we are doing is forcing employers to pay more for an employees labor than the employer would have otherwise. The essential difference between this and any other transfer is that the benefit is transfered from the employer as opposed to the general taxpayer. Proponents would argue that cost of the minimum wage is borne by the employer. I think proponents of the minimum wage are hard-headed to a fault on this point. A large part of support for minimum wage emanates from romantic notions of the social contract or corporate social responsibility or plainly to stick it to big business. I think sticking it to employers for the sake of itself is idiotic. Regardless of the motivation, the employer will do everything possible to avoid absorbing the costs of a minimum wage hike. Employers will either try to pass the cost on to consumers or do without the employee. How this is progressive escapes me unless progressivism is measured in proportion to its antagonism towards businesses. On a broader level, this is reflective of a tendency amongst "progressives" to conflate in their own minds how things ought to work and how they do work.

The earned income tax credit or a negative income tax is essentially the opposite of taxes. If your paycheck is below a certain level, your pay is supplemented by the taxpayer. It's like getting your tax refund without having to pay taxes in the first place (though, you do have to work, thus the earned part). The EITC enjoys bipartisan political support, does not have the negative employment effects, and could be precisely targeted to those that most need assistance. At a broader social policy level, we have been moving away from the notion of the welfare state to something along the lines of a "Work Ethic" state (I am stealing this phrase from Mickey Kaus) and I think such a step would accelerate this movement.

Helping the working poor is a compelling end. The minimum wage simply isn't an effective means towards that end. Our transition from a welfare state to a "work ethic" state (which may be merely a figment of my imagination), is a positive trend and should be continued. It impacts not only the level of poverty but the pathologies associated with poverty. Removing the minimum wage and offsetting the difference with the Earned Income Tax Credit would be a good first step to that end.

Mandingo Bares Soul, Beats Breast

Pick yourself up out of the gutter, 'Dingo. Ask yourself this question: Am I a man, or am I a mouse? Write the damn paper. Move to the East Coast. And get with the program. I trust you will find no sympathy within the Pie-Eyed Network.

That being said, we all deal with both procrastination and writers' block. They suck. Surefire cure: Just start typing. Type anything that remotely deals with the topic at hand. Eventually, things will start aligning and coming into focus. Pretty soon you'll be humming along.

My guess, however, is that you know what you need to do. Your self-importance and self-loathing just got the better of you.

Sustainable Peace: An Augustinian View

Just as those who suffer the calamities of war live in hope of the future, President Bush, looking forward, hopes to see war in the Middle East make a long, lasting, sustainable peace emerge. For what is the ultimate purpose of war if not peace? But both sides desire to fight to gain peace with glory, that is, through victory. After all, wars are fought to be won, no less. When one side conquers the other there will be peace.

But it will not be sustainable, for such peace is a poetical fiction, unavailable on earth. Peace on earth is always a doubtful good in the sense that it always admits of either improvement or increase, and so men who wish to disturb the present peace do so not because they hate peace, but because they desire the present peace to be exchanged for one that better suits their wishes. Thus it is that the major disturbers of peace are often those who claim to be upholding it.

The Middle East will enjoy unbroken peace so long as neighboring peoples refrain from attacking each other. But no country, not even the U.S., feels that it possesses its dominion so securely as not to fear attack by its enemies. As long as there is this dread of attack, the earth will never be a dwelling place of lasting peace and security. On earth, ceasefire is the best peace available.

When to Spot an American Outdoors

Americans spend most of their time indoors. And one can make a pretty good generalization about when Americans venture out of their climate controlled environments. As political scientist Sebastian de Grazia forecasted in his Of Time, Work, and Leisure (1962):

Together, indoor work and indoor at-homeness [after work, as well as indoor free-time in general] may make the American timorous of outdoor temperatures below 60º or above 85ºF. Certainly his ingenuity at the technology of central and individual unit heating makes it difficult to feel cold in America without deliberately going ice skating, or being foolhardy enough to take a walk instead of a ride on a wintry Sunday. He is somewhat better at withstanding heat and humidity than cold, but with the coupled heating and cooling systems now appearing it won't be long before he feels suffocated on the un-air-conditioned summer street. (184-185)

Pie-Eyed Poll: Choose Your Own Adventure

With all precinct reporting (32 votes! Wo!), the Pie-Eyed Poll results are in for the week. The question: How do you think the Israel-Lebanon conflict will play out? The results:

• Diplomatic solution brokered with help from the US - 6%
• Diplomatic solution brokered without help from the US - 6%
• Continued escalation resulting in Israeli occupation - 25%
• Continued escalation drawing Syria and/or Iran into the conflict - 22%
• World War III - 19%
• Israeli withdrawal; Hezbollah disarmament; multi-ethnic drum circle on the border - 22%

Personally, my vote was for Israeli occupation, which now seems unlikely, but you never know. The sleeper favorite, though, really surprised me. Obviously, many of you in the Pie-Eyed Network are optimists who enjoy drum circles.

This week, we've got a related poll. With all that's going on in the world, we want to know "What's your favorite international crisis?" Vote early; vote often, PePpers!

Week in Review: The Silence is Deafening Edition

The lazy, hazy, dog days of summer are upon us, and the Pie-Eyed Krewe is feeling the effects. Sure, it's been a slow week...but what about the content? Marginal, as usual.

• Anti-Everything offers everyone a chance to make an "informed decision" on the AG race, while Xtra throws down his endorsement from light-years away
• Ilya comes out of the closet as a pedant. As if we didn't know...
• AFF comes back with a vengeance, discussing the finer points of keeping prisoners alive in order to kill them
• The first Pie-Eyed Party consisted of three contributors, two baskets of free popcorn, some condescending laughter at those "other" people participating in a trivia game, and one-and-a-half beers shared among all
• A Green Cowboy seeks to resolutely crush those who live on the coasts
• Ilya, Maureen Dowd, and yet another "zing" ... weird

MOVIES/BOOKS: Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut"; Schnitzler's "Dream Story"

Stanley Kubrick's last masterpiece, "Eyes Wide Shut," released after his death in 1999, did not draw great praise from film critics; like so many overly-hyped movies, it opened with great expectations—sparked by the great secrecy surrounding its production—that it was bound to disappoint. In America, the unreal yet worldly orgy scenes were censored so the movie would earn an 'R' rating. Unfortunately, many critics failed to understand that those scenes were not meant to be scary or charged with sexual energy; they were meant to be strange and phantomlike, seeing as Dr. Bill (Tom Cruise) found himself in a large mansion among lunatics? conspirators? some religious sect? jokers? We never really know. To see the uncensored, 'NC-17' version, one must obtain the European version, as the European film industry in contrast to Hollywood is more mature about sex on the silver screen. As NYT critic Elvis Mitchell observed, "A foreigner judging the United States by its films would think Americans spend more time running from exploding fireballs than having sex." Indeed, when is the last time you saw a good movie about sex?

"Eyes Wide Shut" is based on Arthur Schnitzler's novella, Traumnovelle ("Dream Story"). Kubrick's is a story about erotic desire and fidelity, whose primary lesson is that, as Dr. Bill (Tom Cruise) says at the end of the movie, "dreams are never merely dreams." We come away from the movie questioning the reality of Dr. Bill's ostensibly real adventure consisting in a succession of sexual encounters in a world that feels more and more unreal. And in the second half of the movie, Dr. Bill himself resolves to clear up the mystery of his adventure, to find some meaning in what he has witnessed. Faithful to Schnitzler's novella, Kubrick troubles the distinction between dreams and reality, showing that reality is never entirely real, just as dreams attend and belong to our reality.

Like so many of Kubrick's movies, you have to watch them over and over again to see the things that are not readily apparent. For instance, the experiences of both Dr. Bill and his wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), testify to the theme of the sudden power of male sexuality over females. This theme is spelled out more explicitly in "Dream Story" than in the movie. As Schnitzler writes, "there may be hours or nights, he thought, in which some strange, irresistible charm emanates from men who under normal circumstances have no special power over the other sex."

If you haven't seen the movie, see it; if you have, see it again.

Xtra's Challenge; Pied's Retort

In the comments of my post last week on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's essay in the book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, our eminent Xtra challenged my assertion that Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans contained what I refer to as a gay conspiracy theory. In the same vein as Justice Scalia, I dissent. A selection of quotes from Scalia's dissent in that very intriguing case:

"The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. [Amendment 2 of the Colorado state constitution] is not the manifestation of a 'bare desire to harm' homosexuals, but is rather a modest attempt [to] preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politcally powerful minority to revise those mores through the use of the law..." Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620, 636 (1996).

“The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of "animus" or "animosity" toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as un-American. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct …” Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620, 644 (1996).

"The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities … have high disposable income …
and, of course, care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality.” Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620, 645, (1996).

First, some background about this case. Colorado had passed Amendment 2, which essentially allowed landlords, employers, and other similarly appointed folks to deny homosexuals housing, jobs, etc. based on their sexual orientation. In the majority opinion striking down the amendment, Justice Anthony Kennedy applied minimal, rational-basis review citing the fact that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Obviously, there was much more involved in this case than I'm willing to discuss here, but that's the gist of it.

Scalia, in dissent with Rehnquist and Thomas, does three things here:

First, he attempts to turn the law on its head by proclaiming that the Colorado amendment didn't deny equal protection, but rather that it prevented homosexuals from obtaining "preferential treatment." This, of course, is a complete farce. As Kennedy pointed out, the law's single objective was to deny protection to a class of individuals based solely on a single trait.

Second, Scalia attempts to paint a picture of homosexuals as a politically powerful minority that does not need equal protection. Scalia appears to believe homosexuals strategically amass themselves and their wealth in order to create a favorable social climate throughout the nation.

Finally, as many conservatives often do, Scalia compares homosexuality to polygamy and bestiality, trying to make a connection that allowing equal protection to homosexuals will open the door to equal protection to all sorts of other "conduct" that society morally disapproves. It is not homsexuals, Scalia asserts, that he has a problem with, it is homosexual conduct.

Similar arguments, of course, have been used throughout the ages to justify unequal and, in fact, immoral, treatment of disfavored minority groups. In several passages of Scalia's dissent, one could easily substitute "homosexual" and "homosexual conduct" with "Jew," "Asian," "race," or "religion." Scalia reaches for the moral high ground, as most arrogant social conservatives do, but it doesn't take much searching to find his crass and homophobic message.

Zinger: "It's not even like watching paint dry..."

From Dowd's latest column, "The Immutable President":

That’s what’s so frustrating about watching him [G.W. Bush] deal — or not deal — with Iraq and Lebanon. There’s almost nothing to watch. It’s not even like watching paint dry, since that, too, is a passage from one state to another. It’s like watching dry paint.

Zing!

For a definition of a Zinger go here, for Dowd's previous zinger, go here.

Quit building on the coasts, dammit!

July's National Geographic magazine had a feature story on the increasing degradation of our nation's coasts, particularly in light of the impending boomer retirement.

Today's NYTimes had an article about climate researchers who disagree on the importance of human-caused climate change in hurricane trends, but who all agree that our country is building too much too fast on the coasts. These trends are encouraged by friendly disaster insurance created through political pressure.

This isn't neuroscience, theoretical ecology, rocket science, or even a challenging rubik's cube. This is straightforward: our coasts are important, and they are delicate.

As the interface between two ecosystems - terrestrial and aquatic - our coasts are critically important for our ecological health (remember, we are part of these ecosystems just as much as seaweed, horseshoe crabs, squirrels and beetles). The coasts are also extremely dynamic...a simple example: beaches are supposed to be destroyed during storms, a process balanced by slow rebuilding during times of gentle wave action.

Human construction to interrupt natural processes like beach building, tidal movement, wetland migration, barrier island formation, etc, is going to screw up the coast. No two ways about it. We need to get serious about mitigating our coastal damage, and being thoughtful about new construction.

Khrushchev's shoe, Ivan Drago, Hunt for Red October...

The region of the world that was home to the former Soviet Union has, unfortunately, a stereotyped identity in the minds of many Americans. A certain interpretation of the iron-fisted strength of the "motherland."

In the news on NPR this morning, there was a story on growing tension at the Russia/Georgia border, where a local warlord has declared an uprising against Georgia. Georgia claims this warlord is being supported by Russia. Russia has warned Georgia that it will not tolerate instability near its borders.

The Georgian president (or a spokesperson - it was hard to tell) had this to say about the warlord and his nascent uprising (I'm trying for verbatim, but give me a little slack):

"The revolution will be resolutely crushed...the only kind of negotiations I can make will be for the size of their cells..the president and his team will make their mothers weep."

You can't make this up.

Saddam hospitalized, fed with tube

That's the actual Strib headline currently gracing the front page (though not front and center) of the dot-com.

There's a certain irony about giving Hussein the 'ol Fristy McDoctor Schiavo treatment. Because of his hunger strike, he's too weak to go through the trial that will ultimately lead to his hanging. So he gets put on a feeding tube to give him strength back. So we can kill him.

The fact that we can't allow him to starve himself to death is an insight into the way the community perceives justice. If he were to starve himself, it would mean that he had the agency and the power to do so. The courts and the justice system were powerless to stop his agency. Yet, because we want justice--or some form of closure, perhaps--we are forced to go through the farce of saving him so we can kill him.

Phraseology: Pedantic

Though I've used Mandingo's "Phraseology" posts as occasions to question his linguistic competence, and more generally to make cheap shots at his pie-eyed posts, today I'll do him the honor of considering his recent post as worthy of this piece of phraseology. Besides, someone has got to keep an eye on the phraseology of the self-proclaimed phraseologist.

Before leaving from Minneapolis to D.C., Mandingo shot off a quick "ripost" to my "pedantic" remarks about the very definition of "phraseology." "Pedantic" was an apt word to use there. As Thomas Wolfe wrote in his short story "A Portrait of Bascom Hawke,"

there was something sneering and pedantical in the way he pronounced each word, biting it off with a prim, nasal and heavily accented enunciation in the manner of certain pedants and purists who suggest by their pronunciation that language in the mouths of most people is vilely and carelessly treated, that each word has a precise, subtle, and careful meaning of its own, and that they—they alone—understand these matters.

My attitude, vain of language usage, cannot be spelled out any better than that.

Attention: Xtra's Endorsement for the Minnesota AG

Thanks to Anti's recent post, I feel adequately informed now to endorse Steve Kelley as the Democratic Nominee for Minnesota's Attorney General. Not that I would advise anyone to actually vote for him in the general election, he is a Democrat, and thus a National Socialist. In fact, I read a study that said all Democrats are Nazi's, and that explains a lot.

Pie-Eyed Poll: War in the Middle East

The results of our latest Pie-Eyed Poll shouldn't surprise me, but I guess they do in some ways. In answering the question of what should be done with North Korea's nukes, the largest response came in favor of multi-lateral regional talks. Fair enough. With 38 votes in, here are the results:

• Nuke 'em - 5%
• Defer to UN - 11%
• Withdraw troops from South Korea - 8%
• Push for multi-lateral talks - 37%
• Push for bi-lateral talks - 24%
• Nothing; wait patiently for Kim Jong Il to die - 16%

I encourage any and all to explain their rationale for voting as they did.

This week, in light of the tragic, muddled, and incredibly dangerous situation transpiring on the Israel-Lebanon border, I thought it would be worth asking our PePpers their thoughts on what should be done in the world's most volatile region. And, as always, vote early and vote often.

Jen Mattson

Alright here is what the candidate for attorney general looks like...now we can all make an informed decision based on her appearance.

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.