Shot In The Dark - Politics and Current Events in Minnesota and Beyond

Saturday, March 01, 2003

The Countdown - The invasion is just around the corner. When?

The New Moon is tomorrow. The Full Moon is March 18. Two Airborne divisions set out two weeks ago, along with a fair chunk of the British Army.

The Guardian presents several scenarios, and predicts March 18:
Nearly all coalition forces might have reached the combat theatre. Coalition forces would be approaching 250,000, about the size discussed recently as appropriate.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush would also have had time to play out their diplomatic strategy. The period is also still relatively cool in Baghdad, with high temperatures approaching 27 degrees. It is the time of the full moon. But that may not pose a big problem if the early days emphasised high-altitude bombing and ground force operations in open terrain, where US-British forces have enormous advantages.
How about attacking early, by surprise - perhaps (as some have theorized) as early as tomorrow?

Unlikely - we still have three divisions that are en route - the 82nd and 101st Airborne, and the 4th Mech Infantry. They should be off-loading in the Gulf any time here - but these units, especially the 101st, are all vital for a quick war, and each will need time to unscramble their equipment and get ready for action.

Still - I think this is the month.
posted by Mitch Berg 3/1/2003 08:43:26 PM

The Sound of Dropping Pretenses - Iraq is deploying its troops - including surface-to-surface missiles - to try to meet an attack. We're bombing them, in return.
Iraq, for example, is repositioning its Adnan Republican Guard division by moving it from its base near Mosul toward Baghdad or Tikrit, Mr. Hussein's hometown. An Iraqi MIG-25 fighter has zoomed down to the Saudi border, one of several recent violations of the no-flight zone. That may be a way to test the American ability to defend the skies over Saudi Arabia and other gulf states as well as a means of trying to signal to the Saudis what might be in store for them if they cooperate with the American invasion plans.

But the deployment of Iraq's surface-to-surface missiles is a growing concern for the American military, and one that American officials assert violates Security Council resolutions concluded after the Persian Gulf war 12 years ago.

"They have moved some of their short-range, surface-to-surface missiles to the north and to the south," the senior Pentagon official said. He described the missiles as "an immediate potential danger to us and our allies and the coalition in the region."
By the way - for those of you who think inspections are the answer:
The Ababil-100 is one of Iraq's newest systems, and it is under study by the United Nations. The Central Intelligence Agency says the Ababil-100 has a longer range than the 93-mile limit permitted by the United Nations. Work on the engine is carried out at Iraq's Al Mutasim site. The British Defense Ministry says the missile's solid fuel makes the system easier to handle than the Samoud 2, which uses a liquid propellant.
This seems to have escape Hans Blix' attention.

posted by Mitch Berg 3/1/2003 06:55:47 PM

The Disarmament Sketch - Mad Swede at Viking Pundit has done a wonderful take-off on Monty Python's classic Argument Sketch:
USA: (Knock)
SH: Come in.
USA: Ah, Is this the right place for disarmament?
SH: I told you once.
USA: No you haven't.
SH: I’ve already disarmed.
USA: When?
SH: Just now.
USA: No you didn't.
SH: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't
SH: I did!
USA: You didn't!
SH: I'm telling you I did!
USA: You did not!!
SH: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Do you mean full disarmament or just a couple of missiles?
USA: Oh, full disarmament.
SH: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
USA: You most certainly did not.
SH: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely disarmed.
USA: No you did not.
SH: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
SH: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
SH: Yes I did.
USA: No you didn't.
SH: Yes I did.
USA: You didn't.
SH: Did.
USA: Oh look, this isn't compliance with UN. Resolution 1441.
SH: Yes it is.
USA: No it isn't. It's just defiance.
SH: No it isn't.
USA: It is!
SH: It is not.
USA: Look, you just contradicted me.
SH: I did not.
USA: Oh you did!!
SH: No, no, no.
USA: You did just then.
SH: Nonsense!
USA: Oh, this is futile!
SH: No it isn't.
USA: I came here for a full accounting for destruction of your weapons.
SH: No you didn't; no, you came here for compliance.
USA: Compliance isn’t just saying “I’ve disarmed.”
SH: It can be.
USA: No it can't. Compliance is revealing and destroying weapons of mass destruction in full view of U.N. inspectors.
SH: No it isn't.
USA: Yes it is! It's not just empty statements.
SH: Look, if I comply with the U.N., I must take say I’ve disarmed.
USA: Yes, but full disarmament isn’t just saying “I’ve disarmed.”
SH: Yes it is!
USA: No it isn't!
USA: Disarmament is an open process. Declarations of de-weaponizing absent records or hard evidence of actual destruction of WMDs is useless.

Pause

SH: No it isn't.
USA: It is.
SH: Not at all.
USA: Now look.
SH: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
USA: What?
SH: That's it. Good morning.
USA: I was just getting started.
SH: Sorry, the inspections are done.
USA: That was never disarmament!
SH: I'm afraid it was.
USA: It wasn't.

Pause

SH: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowing inspections anymore.
USA: What?!
SH: If you want me to allow inspections, you'll have to pass another U.N. resolution.
USA: Yes, but that was never compliance, just now. Oh come on!
SH: (Hums)
USA: Look, this is ridiculous.
SH: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've passed another U.N. resolution.
USA: Oh, all right. (passes 18th resolution against Iraq)
SH: Thank you.

Pause

USA: Well?
SH: Well what?
USA: That wasn't really compliance, just now.
SH: I told you, I'm not going to allow inspections unless you've passed a U.N. resolution.
USA: I just did!
SH: No you didn't.
USA: I DID!
SH: No you didn't.
Sounds like the UN debate, really...
posted by Mitch Berg 3/1/2003 06:31:22 PM

Vikings - A few weeks ago, when I mentioned that Denmark was supporting the invasion of Iraq, a friend of mine wrote be "Whoah. What next, Vanuatu?"

This story from blogger Crimen Falsi, about Danes in action, should bely that. Scroll down to February 25 (his archives are broken) for the whole story.

But here's my favorite part:
That's when it struck me -- the Danes aren't mushy naked volleyballers like some of their Nordic neighbors -- they are the actually descendants of the Vikings, who as we know conquered a country whose name rhymes with "Pants", pretty much wiped out the Irish coastal cities, wreaked havoc in Britain, invaded (and traded in) Russia, and even knocked off Malta just for kicks. Yeah, that whole creeping socialist Danish government thing had me fooled, but then I remembered that the Vikings used to live communally for the most part, so maybe socialism is just part of their national culture, and not the same plague for them as it is for us.
Some of our European neighbors aren't the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that we keep hearing about in the media. It's worth noting that Danish and Norwegian special forces both fought alongside our guys in Afghanistan.

posted by Mitch Berg 3/1/2003 02:09:23 PM

Reader Mail - I got this one yesterday:
I'm compelled to write to you after reading your piece on
'Indoctrination' because of the part where you say you 'plan on' talking to your daughter's teacher. I know, it was facetious... It amazes and appalls me at the same time when I read stories such as yours, that as a parent you don't take your daughter's education seriously.
Go back and read the original story.

Who was the kid - the only kid - that pushed back at the teacher and the Hamline students who were discussing the demonstration?

My daughter. My eleven year old girl was the one that brought up the fact that Iraq has misled the inspectors, that they've hidden weapons of mass destruction, and so on.

I'd say I've taken her education pretty seriously, actually.
Apathy abounds for most kids parents, and it's quite sad, I think. If I had a child in school today, and was told A.N.S.W.E.R. stopped by my kid's school, along with the disrespectful statements about our president coming from a 'public' institution, I would have called the school district superintendent, your daughter's principal, the media, you name it!
Been there, done all that.

And you know what? They'll be running into this through their entire lives. Someday they'll go to college, and things'll be worse, no matter where they go, and they'll be adults and it won't be my job, then.

So the way I see it, there are three options:
Homeschooling. I could do it now, but once I get a job...well, I'm a single parent, and there are only 24 hours in a day.
Private school. I can't afford this now. It may be an option soon.
Teaching my kids to be critical consumers of education. As long as they're stuck in the public system (and for the moment they are), I want them to be as equipped as possible to think critically about what they're being told.

To credit my daughter, she's gotten her teacher to back off the George W. Bush jokes, and has pushed back on a number of other things. To me, that's a lot more important than making sure the public schools' indoctrination is acceptable to me.
I can't believe what you parents let these schools get away with! Let alone someone like yourself who is informed. I sincerely hope all of you wake up and smell the coffee, instead of some of the stench being shoved down your kids throats.

If these kids fail to know the difference when they grow up, I will harshly tell you you have only yourself to blame. It shouldn't be just a wink wink, nod nod, to the child. Do something!
Enh. I've been a fly in all my kids' schools' ointments for years. None of my kids have been found protesting at the capitol!

But most of all - yes, they do know the difference. I teach them a lot, too. How many kids celebrate Reagan' s Birthday at home?

Thanks for the letter.
posted by Mitch Berg 3/1/2003 08:06:40 AM

Friday, February 28, 2003

Strange Days - We're teetering on the brink of war - according to some pundits, it could happen next week. Some of the "smart money" says the week after. I recall how wrong everyone was in '91, and figure I'll wait to see what happens.

I just finished...gaa, has it really been eight weeks of job hunting? Oy. I haven't been on the beach this long since 1987. It feels like the local high tech economy is building up tension, almost like a bow that's been quietly pulled back...something's going to let it go, one of these days. But for right now, everyone's sitting on their hands.

I have a morning of appointments coming up - but I'll post some stuff this afternoon. Hang in there.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/28/2003 09:46:25 AM

Thursday, February 27, 2003

Governor Rice? - The talk about Condi Rice running for governor of California has been flitting about the periphery of GOP circles for a few months.

It's going more mainstream now:
Rice, the former Stanford provost who rates highly with California voters in opinion polls, is "very much open" to a future gubernatorial run in the nation's most populous state, according to those high-level Republicans.

Though they admitted much depends on the outcome of the expected U.S. war in Iraq, Republicans at the state's recent party convention openly speculated that a Rice campaign could instantly recharge a party still reeling from losses in every statewide office this past November.

"She's said no on the Senate race, but is very much open on '06," said a Republican insider who asked not to be identified. The Republican said Rice sees herself as more compatible with an executive position such as governor than a legislative office.

Mark Baldassare, pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California, said Rice is "a very visible figure in the Bush administration, very articulate, has roots at Stanford -- and would be taken very seriously."

"In a state where you have to look long and hard for elected officials outside the white male category on the Republican side, Condi Rice would certainly add a new dimension to GOP politics in California," Baldassare said. "It would help (Republicans) deal with what is becoming a stereotype -- that they don't have women and people of color."
Very interesting.

I maintain that, if she manages to win California (and there are many potential clinkers in that scenario) and succeeds at it, she stands a great chance of being America's first black and female president.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/27/2003 03:56:28 PM

Indoctrination - My daughter came home from school yesterday and told me that her class had been given a presentation by a number of Hamline University students that had recently been involved in anti-war protests in Washington.

According to my daughter, the students went to great lengths to repeat the standard A.N.S.W.E.R. mantra to the kids; the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction; the war is wrong; the President is doing this to finish his father's job, ad nauseum.

My daughter, bless her spunky little heart, claims to have pushed back. She's definitely my little girl - her classroom teacher is a rather avowed far-lefty (Nader, Wellstone, yadda yadda) who earlier in the school year amused the students with derogatory George Bush jokes, until my daughter pushed back.

School can be a terrible place - kids can be so awful. But apparently if you or your parents flout the beliefs of some teachers, the kids are the least of your problems:
Members of the Maine National Guard, called up to prepare for an attack on Iraq, have asserted that their children are being harassed at school by teachers who oppose the war. Top Stories

Guard members say their children are "coming home upset, depressed, crying," said Maj. Peter Rogers, a spokesman for the Maine National Guard. "This was based on some incidents that were happening in school, both in the classroom and on the playground."

In an e-mail sent to the parents of one child who had complained of harassment at school, National Guard officials said they had "over 30 complaints that name schools and individual principals, teachers and guidance counselors."
Kids may not know any better. But teachers?
Mr. [J. Duke Albanese, state commissioner of education] told the Bangor Daily News that only one complaint involved classroom remarks, after the child of a Guard member became upset during a discussion of Iraq when a teaching assistant "took up the anti-war" argument.
We don't know the details - but if it's true, how much gall does it take to attack something a kid's parent is doing, to his/her face?

I plan on asking my daughter's teacher if she plans on bringing in any of St. Paul's Kurdish population to talk about what a harmless fella Hussein is.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/27/2003 08:31:47 AM

Pollcats, Part II - Hot on the heels of Tuesday's spinfest, the Strib released another Minnesota Poll yesterday, measuring Tim Pawlenty's first month or so in office.

Despite the furor over cuts to Local Government Aid, Pawlenty's numbers are pretty strong:
Although 60 percent of the 845 adults interviewed Feb. 20 to 23 said that they approved of his handling of the job...

In general, Minnesotans find Pawlenty likeable and credible and are giving him the benefit of the doubt despite the harshness of some of his proposals to balance a $4.2 billion projected budget shortfall, two state political scientists said.
According to those two political scientists, Minnesotans seem to think Pawlenty's a likeable enough guy - especially compared with his predecessor:
"This guy is affable, there's no question about it," said Steven Schier, a professor at Carleton College in Northfield. "He has strong convictions and can be tart, but he's basically polite and nice, and Minnesotans like that compared to what they've seen over the past four years."

Said Lilly Goren, a professor at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul: "There are some legitimate concerns because people are losing jobs and benefits and bus routes. But people liked him better than the other candidates [in November], and they're still feeling warmly toward him."
The administration has its two cents worth:
Pawlenty's chief of staff, Charlie Weaver, said that the results were a "ringing endorsement of him personally" and evidence "that we can fix our problems without raising taxes," a centerpiece of Pawlenty's campaign and budget strategy.
It may be a ringing endorsement, or it may be that Pawlenty's still enjoying a honeymoon period.

But evidence in favor of "ringing endorsement" includes this bit:
...approval of his handling of the projected budget deficit for fiscal years 2004 and '05 was slightly lower, at 56 percent.
"Slightly" lower being the operative word. Pawlenty's approval numbers are predictably lower on some of the issues where the budget problem impacts Minnesotans on a less abstract level: 43 percent for cuts to Local Government Aid that might lead to property tax hikes (49 percent opposed), and 31 percent on his K-12 education spending freeze and the cuts to higher education. This isn't much of a surprise - these sorts of issues are analogous to unfavorable polls about legislators; people consistently give poor marks to legislators in general, but rate their own legislators much higher. In this case, the budget cuts that are most visible to people are the ones that cause the least favorable impressions.

But it would seem Pawlenty has done a decent job of selling his program:
Support for Pawlenty appeared to be tied to self-perceived knowledge about the issues. More than half the respondents, 55 percent, said they knew "a fair amount" or "quite a lot" about the budget, while 44 percent said they knew "only a little" or "not much at all."

Among those who said they knew a lot or a fair amount, support for Pawlenty's proposals was higher on all of the major budget issues: use of tobacco money, local government aid and education spending.
Support was highest in the Twin Cities area, and among males and Republicans.

Here may be the best news for Pawlenty - his key message, that government should tighten its belt as Minnesotans are doing the same, seems to be selling, at least on the abstract level:
Tad Engstrom, 27, a carpenter from Stillwater, said he likes Pawlenty because he agrees with his message that, like families, governments can't just raise taxes and must reduce spending to survive. "We have to make cuts in our budget, and it's always worked for us," Engstrom said. "I don't agree with raising because they're way too . . . high the way they are. A lot of us are getting to the point where enough is enough."
While there's still a long way to go on this budget process, and the economy is still soft (and the poll may predate reactions to many budget cuts), it is in some ways an indicator of a watershed in Minnesota politics. For generations, Minnesotans were willing to swallow ever-higher spending, and near-endless tax increases. Now, though, after twelve years of unprecedented increases and the squandering of years of massive, tax-funded surpluses on program increases, the message of the state's right is finally getting through; enough is enough. There's no reason state government should be living any larger than its citizens.

This next few months are going to be interesing for the Administration. I'd suspect the Pawlenty administration is banking on the same thing many of us are; that the economy is going to pick up through the spring and summer, which will erase a fair chunk of the deficit. Like many households - mine included - the Pawlenty adminstration is hunkering down to get through the downturn, in a fashion to which Minnesotans are unaccustomed to seeing in their government.

If this poll is an indication, Minnesotans appreciate it.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/27/2003 03:47:33 AM

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Take the Deal - Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee and current District Attorney on Law and Order, is providing a welcome antidote to Martin Sheen, according to Drudge:
"Thank goodness we have a President with the courage to protect our country," LAW AND ORDER's Thompson says in the commercial. "What should we do with the inevitable prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of a murderous and aggressive enemy? Can we afford to appease Saddam?"
And here's the coolest possibility of all:
In an interview with a local Memphis newspaper, Thompson did not hide his disdain for what he considers WEST WING's preachy liberalism. "I've been thinking about the possibility of having my character run against Martin Sheen (Bartlet) for president," Thompson declared.
If he does, I'll make my own line of bumper stickers: "Fred Thompson Is My Real Make-Believe President".

posted by Mitch Berg 2/26/2003 10:23:10 PM

Cogent - Neil Pollack of the Stranger has perhaps one of the most cogent comments about the media and the blogosphere as we count down to war:
Just Shut Up. Nobody gives a shit what anti-war or pro-war writers think. Really. So shut up. That goes double for poets. Shut the hell up, poets. Everybody just shut up.
The article goes downhill from there, of course - how could it not? But I figured with a lede like that, I had to give it a nod.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/26/2003 05:11:38 PM

Word Processing - After all these years, I finally saw a picture of Molly Ivins. She looks like Lambchop's alcoholic aunt.

Which might explain some of her "logic" in this column.

I almost hate to bother fisking Molly Ivins. I won't take the cheap shot route - the woman's neither retarded nor senile. She's just an idiot. An idiot with a way with a faux-homespun yarn, but an idiot nonetheless.
Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media."
Isn't this like complaining about how everyone in a bowling alley is talking about bowling instead of baseball? Talk radio is the only niche within the media - really, within public, non-military society - where the dominant culture is conservative. That is as compared to the networks, most newspapers, academia, the public school system, all unions, the non-profit community, Public Broadcasting, and on, and on...

Ivins continues:
On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. ... Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."
It's sort of like taking a little kid to a store ten times. The first nine times, you buy the kid a pack of gum. The tenth time, you say "no", and the kid scrunches up her face and pouts "you NEVER buy me gum!".

Yes, Molly and Edwin, talk radio is a conservative preserve. It is not "the media", though, just a medium. One medium, among the long list of news, info and entertainment media.

Commercial talk radio is conservative. Against that:
All the broadcast networks but Fox News
Most cable news outlets (from CNN on down)
Public radio and TV
the vast majority of newspapers
Almost all entertainment television
Almost the entire movie industry
Almost the entire music industry
Pretty much the entire arts community (which is heavily publicly-subsidized).
As always, the same challenge; show me a single medium other than talk radio that's even balanced, to say nothing of "conservative".

Indeed, it's the only intellectual competition there is among American media. Competition - a concept for which Ivins cries crocodile tears:
To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market."

Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.
So the US is ranked 17th by "Reporters Without Borders"? Whoah - where did they come in?

We're Number 17! - Who is this "Reporters Without Borders" group that Molly Ivins has so favored?

They're a French organization, for starters.

How did they end up ranking us 17th?

Look at this map - RW/oB ranks the US equal to the likes of Peru and France - and worse than Canada, whose trends on censorship would make any genuine American reporter or libertarian blanche in horror.

No, indeed, the only criticism RW/oB seems to have is that we're in the midst of a war on terrorism - and the poll, being compiled from reports sent in by journalists in the countries themselves, reflects the rather exacting standards of journalist/activists in the US, who would seem to regard any hint of restriction of information as censorship.

Not that it's not justifiable - a free press is vital to a free society. But RW/oB's poll, as quoted by Ivins, is an incredibly misleading piece of work.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/26/2003 11:29:16 AM

Why Is It... - ...that so many of the stars I instinctively like the least, end up being the ones with the political views I appreciate the most?

First, Ted Nugent. Now; Kid Rock:
Kid Rock won't be joining the music industry's anti-war movement.

"Why is everybody trying to stop the war? George Bush ain't been saying, 'You all, make s-y records.' Politicians and music don't mix. It's like whisky and wine. [Musicians] ought to stay out of it."

But it doesn't take much nudging to hear the Kid's policy analysis. "We got to kill that mother-[bleeper] Saddam," he says. "Slit his throat. Kill him and the guy in North Korea."

Are some women and children going to die? "Yeah. But is doing the right thing. You got money, you sit around talking about peace. People who don't have money need some help."
Side note - he made this statement the day after he shared the stage with Sheryl "War is Bad Karma" Crow, at the Grammys. Bummer.

(Via Jay Reding)
posted by Mitch Berg 2/26/2003 07:47:55 AM

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Drastic Oversight - So this fall, it'll be ten years since I moved into my house.

And in all that time, I still haven't had a housewarming party. I may have to fix that.

Part of it was that it was just impossible; my then-wife and I had a newborn, a toddler and a teenager to deal with. Then two toddlers and a teenagerier teenager. Then two school-age kids and the teenageriest teen I've seen, and a divorce. And since then - oy, gevalt, so busy I've been.

But it occurs to me that I need to do this. It's time to start planning my party, for this October. And I may just make it the first blog-centric decade-late housewarming in history - an occasion to meet the Twin Cities' small but pretty darn high-quality band of bloggers, among many others.

Of course, it's all dependent on finding a job (and there've been some positive developments in the past week, although obviously one development short of where I'd like it to be) by then. And a girlfriend would be nice to have by that point, too, although I'm not going to set my sights too high...

It also occurs to me that I haven't thrown a genuine party since the last time I was on unemployment, back in 1987. In celebration of my last UI check on getting a job, I threw a bender that had it all; sick-to-puking drunkenness, food-poisoning-til-puking eating (someone made a hamburger from meat that'd been sitting out for eight hours on a hot July evening), at least one brawl, one breakup, one new and fabulous relationship (for someone else, of course) that lasted at least through the next weekend (and lots of other flirtation and dalliance...), and the worst hangover I've had in my life.

The next one will probably be a bit more restrained.

Anyway, finger-food for thought. Stay tuned - more to come in this space as events warrant.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/25/2003 02:35:56 PM

Poll Cats - Is it just me, or is the Strib spinning like mad?

Today' Strib Minnesota Poll headline reads "Support for Bush slipping". And then proceeds to tell us that things are basically...normal.
As he steers the nation to the brink of war with Iraq, President Bush faces a continuing slide in his approval ratings and a majority that disagrees with his determination to proceed against Iraq even without a new U.N. resolution, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.
So they start off claiming a "majority" opposes Bush on Iraq. Then, a few grafs down, the story says:
A slim but steady majority continues to back the idea of using force to remove Saddam Hussein, when the question is asked without reference to the United Nations. But when the Minnesota Poll asked respondents to consider the possibility that the Security Council might reject a resolution authorizing force, only 38 percent agreed with Bush's intention of beginning military action with the help of countries that are willing.

Fifty-six percent would prefer that war be postponed while inspections proceed and multilateral discussions continue...
...assuming the UN spikes the idea!

So in other words, the Strib is taking "A majority favors force (depending on the conditions)" and turning it into "A majority opposes force".

Strikes me as either clumsy spin or biased reporting. OK - what am I missing here?

The article goes on:
Fifty percent of Minnesotans said they approve of Bush's overall job performance -- down 12 percentage points since December, and down 37 points from the stratospheric levels his ratings reached just after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In general, the poll showed declining support for Bush's performance and his policies.
It says this without mentioning that the numbers, in any case, are still almost unprecedently high, even as they inevitably erode over time, especially given the state of the economy!
A majority of Minnesotans still approve of Bush's handling of the campaign against terrorism, but that majority is down from 64 percent in December to 57 percent now. A plurality of Minnesotans -- 47 percent -- now disapproves of Bush's handling of the economy, while 42 percent approve.

And 58 percent of Minnesotans -- the highest level since 1996 -- say the nation is off on the wrong track.
I need to dig through the raw data (assuming I can find it), but I have to wonder, when nearly 2/3 approve of the way he's handling terrorism and a slim plurality disagree with the Administration on economic issues, where that figure comes from.

Here's the part I have to wonder about:
"Everything you are finding indicates a presidency on the precipice," said University of Minneota political scientist Larry Jacobs. "He's put the country's prestige on the line and appears to be on a glide path to war, yet the country appears to be more divided than at any time during his presidency. An approval rating of 50 percent is an alarming vital sign for any presidency."
Reagan pushed through his agenda with lower numbers. I have to wonder where Professor Jacobs gets this.

So after the Strib's - and Jacobs' - gloom and doom predictions, the poll gets down to brass tacks:
The 55 percent majority that supports military action to remove Saddam is virtually unchanged since December and last August. Thirty-eight percent opposed military action. Men, Republicans, and those with higher incomes were more likely to support the use of force. Recent national polls have shown similar results.
Get that? The real number supporting Bush is 55-38! That's three points shy of a twenty point lead, and it hasn't changed since August!

So re-read the headline, and tell me how this makes sense?
Although national polls have shown support for removing Saddam, they have also shown a preference for a multilateral, U.N.-sanctioned approach, in contrast with Bush's determination to proceed with or without a new U.N. resolution.
I've seen no poll yet ask the question "do you think Hussein is playing the UN for a bunch of patsies"? Anyone?

Safe Home - the Minnesota Poll also measures how safe we feel, here in Minnesota.
A large majority (68 percent) of Minnesotans believes another terrorist attack against the United States is at least somewhat likely within the next few months. But only 10 percent said such an attack was likely to hit in the area where they live or work.

The number of Minnesotans describing themselves as very or somewhat fearful for their own safety -- which was never high -- has continued to drift down slowly. In October 2001 -- immediately after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks -- 26 percent of Minnesotans expressed a personal fear. By August 2002, it was 23 percent, and in the latest poll, 19 percent.

Just 9 percent said they had taken steps to prepare for a terrorist attack.
Interesting, given the little burst of warnings about "soft targets" a few weeks ago, coming from everyone this side of the agent in charge of the Minneapolis FBI office on down.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/25/2003 01:58:33 PM

Peace Rally - Jay Manifold talks about a genuine peace rally he visited - an interfaith observation at a Baptist church.

The whole article is very much worth reading - it's great - but here's the payoff section as far as I'm concerned:
The church sanctuary, built in the style of an immense amphitheater, was full. Musicians, singers, clergy, and congregants from six evangelical churches and five synagogues were there; American and Israeli flags stood on the dais, with more Israeli flags draped from the balcony, and banners hanging above the choir loft behind the dais, on either side of the 10' x 15' video screen; Isaiah 56:7 was prominent. The pastor's first word to the congregation was "shalom," and he spoke of the gathering in terms of a "family reunion." The closing remarks were delivered by a rabbi, who spoke on Genesis 22:6, which ends (in the JPS TaNaKh) with: "And the two of them walked on together." Then the video screen showed the words to the Israeli national anthem so that we could all sing it.

One of J.R.R. Tolkien's letters contains an astonishing vignette. He tells the story of a Jewish friend glancing meaningfully at a clock by way of subtly reminding Tolkien that he will miss a church service if he does not depart immediately, and of the feeling this gave him: "A glimpse of an unfallen world." Just about any American evangelical baby boomer with Jewish friends has gotten many such glimpses. Of course, this service was in many ways a reminder of our all-too-fallen world; we were, after all, praying for the peace of Jerusalem -- thus the readings of Psalm 122 (in Hebrew, with English translation printed in the program), and Psalms 116, 125, and 128.

But it left me in awe, with a sense that after centuries of wretchedness, I was born into the first generation to get it right, the fruit of emergent behavior in the freest society on Earth. The lights may be going out in Europe, but in America, in this year 2003 of our Common Era, the lights are coming on.
A few lights, here and there.

Outside, things are still pretty dark. But here in America, for all the naysaying and the emotional hinkiness that attends times like these, we're not doing all that badly.

(Via Instapundit)
posted by Mitch Berg 2/25/2003 09:25:34 AM

The Times, They Are A-Bleating - I love this email to Sullivan on The Dish today:
"At the end of the 3rd quarter in the "Is the NYT biased bowl?", let's review some relevant stats:
Score: Sullivan, Kaus et al: 52, NYT: 3
1st downs: Sullivan, et al: 28, NYT: 1
Passing Yards: Sullivan, et al: 320, NYT: 15
Rushing Yards: Sullivan, et al: 225, NYT: -5
So yes, while it may be true that the 4th quarter belongs to you, Mr. Raines, the rest of the world has turned the game off. It's over."
Via, obviously, Sullivan.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/25/2003 07:25:21 AM

Monday, February 24, 2003

Nahm - I remember reading, back in 1995, reading about how Republicans, let by Vin Weber, were courting Norm Coleman for national office - there was even speculation he was on the long list for the 2000 GOP race. That talk receded a bit after the '98 gubernatorial campaign.

It seems the talk is back. Coleman's making a pretty big splash for a freshman senator:.
Dinerstein [Sid - chair of the Palm Beach GOP] predicted that Republicans in 2008 are likely to face a presidential contest between Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He said that having Coleman as a running mate could help in states such as Florida, New York and California.

Erich Mische, Coleman's state director, said that "it's always very gratifying to be the topic of speculation about your next job" but that Coleman is focused on his two subcommittee chairmanships and Minnesota issues.
Given that Jeb and Rudy'll be the front-runners, the Vice Presidential race could be really interesting in '08; Norm is obviously an attractive candidate for the GOP - young, capable, a very adept politician, and able to help the continuing swing to the right among younger Jewish voters.

I see him pitted against Condi Rice, whom some analysts see being able to win the California governorship in the near future. Depending on how the Iraq situation turns out, she could be a real superstar, soon.

So which is more important to crack - the Jewish vote or the Black Female vote? Which can be more easily cracked?

It's fun to be a Republican these days...
posted by Mitch Berg 2/24/2003 08:42:39 AM

Democrat Problems - Jay Reding has an excellent analysis, I think, of the Democrats' current problem:
The Democrats are doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. They're copying the GOP playbook of 1998 by creating a demon figure on the opposition.

Except the problem isn't with the hardcore DNC partisans that this strategy would motivate. The problem is that swing voters are moving towards the GOP. This strategy does nothing to correct that movement. In fact, it will only make it worse.

The Democrats are coming off as a shrill and partisan party with an obssession with the President. In other words, they're coming off as the GOP of the Clinton years. We all know how effective that strategy was back then.
There really doesn't seem to be a Democrat with a coherent vision. Not that that's a bad thing. Or for that matter, not that the current Democrat vision would necessarily sell.

Reding continutes:
If the Democrats want to have a chance in 2004, they need to start becoming an effective minority party. That doesn't merely entail attacking the plans of the majority, it means coming up with better alternatives. However, even if the Dems do come up with viable public policies, their message is going to be lost to the attacks they make on Bush.

Political attacks are only viable when you are confident that you have the ability to gain an edge. This strategy is only going to compound the Democrats problems with swing voters and reduce their viability. Then again, looking at the current makeup of the Democratic Party, having them out of office is probably a good thing for the country.
That's the thing that many of us railed about in '96 - and hope nobody in the DNC's railing about now; Reagan never had to attack anyone. He articulated a vision that Americans wanted to share.

Do the Dems have any such vision?
posted by Mitch Berg 2/24/2003 07:34:54 AM

What The.... - Norah Jones sweeps the big awards?

I mean, it's great intimate-fifth-date music (which is why I've only heard the album on the car radio and on the kiosks at the record store), but Album of the Year, during a year with The Rising and The Eminem Show came out?

Can anyone say "Christopher Cross"? Sarah Vaughn or Cassandra Wilson are to Norah Jones as Django Reinhardt is to Pat Metheny.

On the other hand, the "All Star Tribute to the Clash", by Elvis Costello, Springsteen, Miami Steve Van Zandt and Dave Grohl, was really, really great. Even my 11 year old daughter went "Wow. That was cool. Wish we could get that on CD".

UPDATE: A correspondent writes: "Django was a genius, yes, but don't sell Metheny short - he's hardly a lite-jazz fret caresser."

Fair enough. Metheny is good, although I haven't listened to him much since the late eighties. I just needed something a little less obvious than "Billie Holiday is to Norah Jones as Charlie Parker is to Kenny G". Point taken.

Here's the real question: Am I wrong? Am I selling Jones short?

I'm willing to be convinced.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/24/2003 07:16:26 AM

Sunday, February 23, 2003

Grammy Whaaa??? - Jesse Harris beats Springsteen for Songwriter of the Year? Granted, Norah Jones is very good. But...what?

The E Street Band; the TV sound mix was just plain wierd. Live is still the only way to fly.

Can't wait to see the all star salute to the Clash. Also can't wait to see why the Academy figures they had to honor the Clash this long after they broke up, unhonored by the Academy in the first place. I mean, should they also honor Stiff Little Fingers?

More to come.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/23/2003 09:12:47 PM

Taking a Page from the Sullivan Songbook - I am now running two awards for the end of 2003:
The Barney Fife Awards, given to overweening, arrogant authorities.
The Alec Baldwin Award, for celebrities who stick their feet in their mouths to the knee.
Each has one nominee so far.

More are sought!
posted by Mitch Berg 2/23/2003 07:10:03 PM

Baldwin Award Nominee - George Clooney, famed military historian and thinker, has favored a German news program with his keen, cutting and qualified observations about a potential war with Iraq:
Clooney, 41, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was making a mistake to think a war against Iraq would be an easy win for the United States.

"I believe he thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore," said Clooney, who starred in a film about the 1991 Gulf War "Three Kings" that took a dark look at the war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

"We can't beat anyone anymore," added Clooney
One wonders two things:
On what does Clooney base this observation? Is it on some new, unconventional definition of the term victory? Perhaps to Clooney it means "solves all problems, even those that are far out of scope of the war's aims, beyond any doubt, instantly and beyond debate".
Perhaps Mr. Clooney is engaging in transferrence? His sole war movie, "Three Kings", was a piece of dung. Perhaps he's transferring his feelings about that notorious Spike Jonze stinker with actual military operations. Seems as likely as anything.
Has anyone informed Laura Billings yet?
posted by Mitch Berg 2/23/2003 07:08:32 PM

Single Payer Healthcare - Advocates of Single Payer Heathcare - and the Twin Cities are crawling with them - say we couldn't possibly have any worse-quality healthcare than we do now, and point to the British system as an example of how to do it right.

Not that years of other evidence to the contrary has had any effect, of course. But this story is the cherry on the sludge sundae:
BRITISH hospital managers gave a surgeon a dessert spoon to use in a hip replacement operation, prompting him to spend £150 ($405) of his own money to buy the proper instrument, a tribunal has heard.

Dr Godfrey Charnley later quit his job and is suing the public agency that runs Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, south-western England, for allegedly forcing him out.
Just a fluke?
He said assistants had given him a sterilised metal dessert spoon instead of a curette, a sharp-edged, spoon-shaped tool he should have had to scrape cartilage and damaged bone from the hip socket...He held up a household spoon similar to the one he said he was given.

He said the hospital's cost-cutting managers had previously tried to persuade him to use a dessert spoon, but he refused.
The system, threatened, is striking back:
Julian Hoskins, lawyer for the Plymouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust, accused Charnley of threatening Sister Helen Wood, a nun present in the operating room, over a report on the incident "by telling her what you would do or not do unless she tore up that piece of paper".

Charnley replied that he had only asked to see the page to check that it fairly described what had happened.

The surgeon, who now practices at another hospital, also claims managers pressured him to manipulate waiting lists so they would not be fined for making patients wait too long.
What? A bureaucracy, cheating?

Never.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/23/2003 10:18:19 AM

Many Times Bitten, Twice Shy - I'm not shocked we've had such a rash of club disasters in the past week - shocked, perhaps, only that it's taken this long to have a serious disaster.

As the death toll in the Rhode Island Concert Fire climbs toward 100, the word is leaking out that the band had no permission to use pyrotechnics.
Great White used pyrotechnics during three other shows - Feb. 7 at the Pinellas Park Expo Center near Tampa, Fla.; Feb. 13 in Allentown, Pa.; and Tuesday in Bangor, Maine - without discussing it with promoters or the venue, according to concert organizers or their spokesmen.

Domenic Santana, the owner of the Stone Pony club in Asbury Park, N.J., said Great White failed to tell him they were using pyrotechnics during a Valentine's Day show.

"Our stage manager didn't even know it until it was done," said Santana. "My sound man freaked out because of the heat and everything, and they jeopardized the health and the safety of our patrons."

Officials at other clubs said Great White asked before using pyrotechnics and complied when they were turned down. One of those venues was the Oxygen Nightclub in Evansville, Ind., where the band played Feb. 3.
The motto among a lot of rock and roll people is "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission". The Chicago and Rhode Island disasters greatly - and justifiably - overshadowed our own near miss, when the Fine Line in Minneapolis suffered $100,000 in damage from another band that not only used pyrotechnics, but apparently made it a habit:
Members of the The Jet City Fix never told club owner Dario Anselmo that they would be shooting anything off during their set, Anselmo said. The band played a show at Luther's Blues bar in Madison, Wis., on Sunday and was yelled at by the owner after it did the same thing, Anselmo said.
I'm amazed that we haven't seen more of these sorts of things. Bands and their roadies (those that have roadies) are incredibly casual about these thing - usually from ignorance. I've seen lots of bands fire off pyros in bars. I'd be amazed if more than a few of them had permits.
posted by Mitch Berg 2/23/2003 08:02:25 AM

Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary:

In attacking the reasons for war, no liberal commentator is capable of addressing more than one of the justifications at a time; to do so would introduce a context in which their argument can not survive