Shot In The Dark

Tuesday - Posting will be

Tuesday - Posting will be light until evening. I have the biggest job interview of my life Tuesday afternoon, and all the errands that lead up to it in the morning.

Prayers, wishes, karmic effusions and any other sort of well-wish are eagerly solicited!

RIP Hepburn - Katherine Hepburn,

RIP Hepburn - Katherine Hepburn, you've no doubt heard, is dead at 96, after years of failing health.

Her memory is being heaped with accolades today, and justly so; but one is conspicuous in its absence: Hepburn one of Ronald Reagan's key allies in the fight against Stalinist infiltration of Hollywood after World War II. Don't expect to hear much about that.

My personal favorite was her Oscar-winning turn in A Lion In Winter, which I saw immediately after playing Henry II in a stage version. It was a dazzling role, and she was wonderful in it.

Hatch, American Bankers and the

Hatch, American Bankers and the Twin Cities Media - Part 4 - Today, Part 4 covers the audits and followup to the Pioneer Press story that broke this scandal.

We examine the Legislative Auditor's Report, and much more.

Look here for the story index, introduction, and parts1, 2 and 3.

The series will conclude on Wednesday.

Whew - At least Lileks

Whew - At least Lileks is back. Things seem to be working out.

And if you're one of those who tried to give money to donate to James on his Amazon link but got locked out, and you still want to support a struggling blogger, feel free to hit my Amazon link! It'll help out as I slog toward my six-month un/underemployment anniversary...

Although hopefully we'll start fixing that tomorrow. More later. I'm getting back to work on the story.

Grrrrr - My computer seems

Grrrrr - My computer seems to have lost its mouse driver - it went and did some kind of hardware discovery process yesterday when I booted. I'm re-discovering a lot of the keyboard shortcuts I used to know when I had a laptop for which I could never find mouse drivers, way back when.

Part 4 of the American Bankers story will be coming out shortly. It's hard to do without a mouse... :-(

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Media - Part 4

Part 4: "Confusing, deceptive, inappropriate, inconsiderate"

Once you get past the January 6 meeting, things get confusing.

In February, Patrick Nelson (Deputy Commerce Commissioner) finally negotiated a settlement with American Bankers. There would be a $200,000 fine, and a $1.8 million reimbursement for investigative expenses.

According to the Attorney General's office, the machinery set in motion by American Bankers' donation to the Republicans (but, apparently, not the one made to the Democrats) led to a huge reduction of the settlement - from the $3.5 million agreed to in the summer of 2002.

But according to sources at the Commerce Department that are familiar with the inner workings of this story, Commissioner Wilson felt that, since American Bankers had backed out of the original settlement on August 7, the next stop would be trial. The source says that, rather than waste Commerce Department resources on a trial, the Department would be better off settling for a lower amount, while still exacting a fine, as opposed to a gift to charity (which would not be listed as a fine).

The Media Chimes In

At some point after the settlement was finally reached - in late February or early March of 2003 - Ron Eibensteiner got a call from "a reporter". He wouldn't say which one.

"He asked me if I'd gotten a check from American Bankers", says Eibensteiner, who say he denied getting the check. "The reporter told me he had a copy of the thank you letter for the check", says Eibensteiner. "I asked him to fax me a copy - he wouldn't do it".

Eibensteiner continued "the reporter asked me if I knew Ron Jerich. I said no".

According to Eibensteiner, he then had a staffer find a copy of the letter in the outgoing correspondence file. "I called the reporter, and clarified our process" - the process by which checks are sent to the RNSEC office, and generate an automatic form letter to the donor.

On March 5, 2003, the Pioneer Press ran the first story on the subject. The article relied heavily on statements by Jim Bernstein, the former Commerce commissioner.

After the story ran, Eibensteiner says, he got a call from another reporter. "He was howling with laughter", says Eibensteiner. "He had a copy of the letter. He asked me, do you know who this [Ron Jerich] is? Ron Jerich is a friend of Mike Hatch!".

"It was a clear setup from the start", Eibensteiner says. "Hatch tried to blackmail [Glenn Wilson] with my letter. The whole thing was contrived between Hatch and Jerich, to play in case Tim Pawlenty won the election".

As this is written, nobody involved with the Pioneer Press story has responded to my request for comment.

The Audit
On March 10 and 12, the Senate Commerce and Utilities Committee held hearings on the brouhaha, hearing testimony from Bernstein, Hatch and Wilson. They referred the matter to the Legislative Auditor.

On March 14, Governor Pawlenty and the legislative leadership (Republican House speaker Steve Sviggum and Senate Minority leader Dick Day, and DFL House Minority leader Matt Entenza and Senate majority leader John Hottinger) also sent a letter to Jim Nobles at the Legislative Auditors Office, requesting an audit of the settlement.

The Audit Report was released on May 21, 2003. It's 33 pages (plus about fifty pages of appendices) that reads like...well, an audit report. But it reached some interesting conclusions. It agrees with Hatch's assertions that American Bankers had reached an agreement "in principle" with Bernstein, and that the company opted for a political approach. It found no evidence that the Department of Commerce had had contact with Ron Jerich after January 8 that might have influenced the settlement. It also was bothered by the lack of publicity for the settlement until after the story broke in the media.

The report also concludes that Hatch's actions in this case were not illegal, but were troubling nonetheless.

The report was concerned that the Attorney General apparently presented an illegal settlement to Wilson.

"Attorney General Hatch told us that on January 8, 2003, he was he was fully aware that it was not legally possible for American Bankers to make a contribution to to a charity as part of a settlement, but he did not disclose that fact to those attending the January 8, meeting. According to Attorney General Hatch's testimony to us, he did not make more of the he legal problem associated with a charitable contribution from American Bankers Insurance because he wanted to get the proposal "on the table" . And he said he invited Mr. Neimeic (sic) and Ms. Brainerd to the meeting with Commissioner Wilson and Mr. Jerich so there would be "witnesses" that an offer had been made.

The Legislative Auditor found this troubling. While Hatch presented this in his testimony as merely presenting the offer, saying "Lawyers are like realtors", he said in his testimony to the Auditor, and "All offers have got to be presented to the client. It was important to me that they make their offer to the client immediately. I wanted to get the bar set", the legislative auditor noted the Attorney General is not a neutral agent. According to his own statements, he was aware that the "charity" proposal was illegal under Minnesota law (which, the Auditor noted in his report, forbids state officials from even pursuing such arrangements).

The Audit Report also noted the impropriety of inviting Commissioner Wilson to the January 8, alone and unprepared for anything but a "meet and greet", for such a complex matter.

Finally, the report noted with little comment the Attorney General's claim to have taken the letter from Ron Jerich during the October 5th lit drop, except that the evidence tended to support Ron Eibensteiner's statements, that the check was sent to the RNSEC (as per Minnesota law) and that the letter was an automatic form letter. Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles noted in a phone interview that the letter was quite obviously a form letter. "Form letters have a certain generality, with details interspersed", said Nobles. "In the report, we characterized the letter as a form letter, and I concur with that. The letter had no specificity."

Questions

Mike Hatch says that he invited Dick Niemiec and Mary Brainerd - representing Blue Cross and HealthPartners, both major players in mental health care in Minnesota - to the January 8 meeting to serve as witnesses to the deal. So if what was going to be presented required "witnesses", why did the Attorney General call the meeting a "meet and greet" to Commissioner Wilson? Why did he not tell Wilson that "witnesses" were going to be necessary?

And indeed, wouldn't a "witness" from either the Attorney General's Office or the Department of Commerce - or both - have been more appropriate than bringing in people who happened to be from two organizations that would benefit from the proposed illegal settlement?

Coda

Ron Eibensteiner met Attorney General Hatch at former Senator Bob Lessard's annual fish fry - a bit of a Minnesota government institution, by most accounts. The fish fry happened sometime after the story broke in the media.

According to Eibensteiner, he approached Hatch about the brouhaha - especially the form letter. Eibensteiner says Hatch smiled and answered:

"Welcome to Politics in Minnesota, Ron."

American Bankers and the Twin

American Bankers and the Twin Cities Media - and the Weekend - Monday - the fallout from the American Bankers investigation. Read the index, introduction, or Parts 1, 2 or 3 here.

Probably done posting for the weekend - tons of yard work to do, plus I have to start prepping for this big interview.

Oh, yeah - and finish writing Part 4...

Sabine Herold - The toast of the blogosphere lately is Sabine Herold, the 21 year old French college student who quotes Hayek, reveres Margaret Thatcher - and is leading the first mass movement in memory against the excessive power of French trade unions.

Her organization has a website - mostly in French, natch, but with at least one interesting piece in English.

Here's the part that concerns me about Herold; like Pim Fortuyn, she is a member of a class that the left considers their own. Their backlash will be that reserved for any apostate by the true believers. And yet, according to one article, Herold travels with two fellow students as bodyguards. This will be interesting to watch.

Following nascent conservative movements is, of course, a top priority of mine.

(Via Chicago Boyz)

R.I.P. Brunching Shuttlecocks - The

R.I.P. Brunching Shuttlecocks - The Brunching Shuttlecocks - long one of the best humor sites on the net - has apparently quit publishing new material.

Not like you couldn't see it coming - all the signs of comedy burnout were there for at least the past year. There'd be long gaps between regular features, more repeats, fewer of the more ambitious bits that used to make them famous. It was probably time.

But it's sad to see one of the most consistenltly funny sites on the web call it quits.

Ice Age - I minored in German in college. As such one of the little perks of membership was that I got to sneer at all the pansy Yanks who whined and caterwauled about "warm beer" in Germany ("But it's not warm, it's just slightly chilled!"), or having to ask for water, almost never iced, before a meal (Germans 20 years ago were said to assume that water with meals was for taking medication - a hush-hush personal matter).

But one person's pride is another person's business opportunity - a former American soldier is introducing the Germans to...ice. In a bag.

Matthew Meredith certainly isn't the first foreigner in Germany to wonder why his beer was served luke-warm or why his ice-water was missing one of its namesake ingredients. But whereas most visitors simply grin and bear what is admittedly little more than a cultural nuisance, Meredith and his German partner decided to do something to satisfy the needs of cold-beverage lovers.
At a time when small businesses have been closing in droves as Germany suffers through its worst economic decline in its postwar history, the two entrepreneurs founded Ice Age Ice, a packaged ice company that has taken the risk of finding out if nascent demand for ice in Germany can be nurtured into a full-fledged market.

Hm. I guess the natural response is to try to start marketing room-temperature beer to Yanks.

Maybe as a status thing...

Press Bias - The Strib

Press Bias - The Strib yesterday carried a story about the U of M trying to declare itself above the law - at least as regards legally-permitted concealed handguns.

The story has the same paranoid, ignorant, alarm-baiting bleatings from the U administration:

"Our university community has always assumed that handguns and other weapons had no place in our classes, libraries, labs, student unions and at other sponsored activities," Bruininks said. "Given these considerations, we felt that a policy addressing the possession of weapons on campus is the best course of action for the University of Minnesota."

But most galling, the Strib article relies on campus shooting incidents that, if you look a little closer, actually make the case for concealed carry on campus:

Shootings occur every year at American colleges. Last year at least five incidents resulted in fatalities. At the University of Arizona, a failing student shot and killed three professors and then turned the gun on himself.

The story fails to note that, while Arizona is a "shall issue" state, the University had gotten itself exempted. The shooting took placed in a "Gun Free Zone".

Just like the U wants to be!

At the University of Cincinnati, a student shot two other students and then killed himself.

Until last week, Ohio was a "discretionary issue" state.

This next one is the best...

a student suspended from a Virginia law school shot and killed the dean, a faculty member and a student and wounded three others.

The article omits that the shooter was then apprehended by three students - armed with legally-permitted handguns!

Thomas Vs. MoDo- Eugene Volokh,

Thomas Vs. MoDo- Eugene Volokh, pinch-blogging for Glenn Reynolds, has a fascinating article about the criticisms Clarence Thomas is getting over his affirmative action opinions last week.

Lots of people have criticized Justice Clarence Thomas’ anti-race-preferences opinion (from Monday’s Grutter v. Bollinger decision concerning the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy), on the grounds that there’s reason to think that he has benefited from some such preferences. Maureen Dowd in The New York Times has a particularly intemperate expression of this view: “It’s impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself. So maybe he is disgusted with his own great historic ingratitude.”

The most basic objection to this view, I think, is that if a judge thinks that a policy is unconstitutional, he has an obligation to so vote, whatever his personal history might be. “Gratitude” isn’t a proper basis for constitutional decisionmaking.

But beyond this, I wonder how far these critics would take their criticism. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court held that sex discrimination was unconstitutional. The justices who voted for this position had spent their lives in a nation in which women were largely excluded from the legal profession. Those men may well have benefited from this exclusion — when half the population is out of the competition, the competition is easier. Maybe if men hadn’t gotten preferences, some of those justices wouldn’t have made it onto the high court.

Should Justices Brennan, Marshall, and the others have said “Oh, we benefited from sex discrimination, so it would be ungrateful for us to now hold that sex discrimination is unconstitutional”? Or should they have resigned en masse, in shame at having gotten this benefit that they realized was improper? Should people have berated them for having gotten the advantage of preferences for males, and then denying future generations of men the same advantage (“pull[ing] up the ladder after [themselves]”)?

Read it all, of course.

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Local Media - Part 3 - In today's installment, we go over the meeting last January 8, between Mike Hatch, Commerce commissioner Glenn Wilson, lobbyist Ron Jerich, and representatives of two non-profit HMOs with whom the Attorney General had (by some accounts) discussed a diversion of settlement money to a mental health trust.

Confused yet?

Monday, we'll try to tie up some of the loose ends of this story. Next Wednesday, we'll talk about the media's role.

Read the Intro, Part 1 and Part 2.

Dayton, Theologian of the Apocalypse?

Dayton, Theologian of the Apocalypse? - Hindrocket from Powerline takes the blowtorch to Mark Dayton's homily at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church last Sunday. (Trunk provides the full text of the homily, as well as the requisity pithy-yet-perfect zinger).

This is amazing:

Minnesota's Mark Dayton may be the least distinguished member of the U.S. Senate. His abilities are modest at best, and his history of psychological problems is well documented--by himself. He is qualified for public office only by his immense inheritance.

Dayton recently gave a "homily" at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in Minneapolis. Here are some excerpts:

"Our country has moved decidedly to the right. Our citizens, many are less involved. Our social system is less compassionate, government is less effective and liberalism is more distrusted....Where is God in the midst of all this injustice? I don't have a clue. I don't know if He, or She, or Whatever doesn't exist, died, is incompetent, doesn't care, is laissez faire, or has a master plan I don't understand."

Yeah, that's the problem with God. She's too incompetent to smite Republicans the way she ought to. In normal times, this would be considered extraordinarily pathetic. These days, it's pretty typical Democratic hysteria. But Dayton has all the earmarks of a one-termer.

The guys at Fraters Libertas and Powerline have ripped capably on our "Senior Senator" for as long as I've read them - and I plan on helping pile on.

Here's a question; noting Minnesota's (apparently divinely-sanctioned, if Dayton is to be believed) drift to the right and Dayton's weakness (I almost said "vapid vacuity", but I'm glad I didn't) as a Senator and candidate, who should the GOP run against him in '06?

Yes, of course - we have to deal with '04 first. But - knowing what we know now, who do you think would be the person to tackle Dayton?

I'd like to print some responses. Email or comment.

My Archives - Blogger did

My Archives - Blogger did a real number on my archives over the last month or so. One of you noted that my archives from May 8 until sometime in June are still hosed up. I'm working on it, but I have a bad feeling about this...

Stiff Upper Lip - 67

Stiff Upper Lip - 67 British citizens died in the World Trade Center.

As we close in on July 4, Bill McGurn writes about a British family whose father died in the attack, and their British perspective on America and its Americans.

There are many great quotes - the whole thing is short and worth a read - but I liked this part:

Not that her English sensitivities have entirely adjusted to an American exuberance that inclines less to a stiff upper lip than to the full-throated versions of Lee Greenwood's "proud to be an American" belted out at the school's recent spring concert. Yet maybe, Mrs. Napier allows, there is something to be said for expressing one's feelings.

Alex certainly thought so: Though he was determined that he and his family would return to England one day to raise their children, a major reason that Alex extended their stay here was so that their children might imbibe something of the spirit and optimism he so associated with America.

Here's the part that I love; can you imagine anyone, at least anyone in the major media, referring to America as "optimistic" in, say, 1975? When I was 12, the sense of pessimism was thick enough to cut with a blowtorch.

I'm much happier with the America my kids are inheriting than with the one I had at their age.

Status - It's been one of those weeks that's been frenetically busy...doing nothing much in particular.

My daughter, whom I used to have to drag to bagpipe practice with much wailing and moaning on evenings when her mother couldn't watch her, fell in love with highland Tenor Drums. If you've ever watched a bagpipe band, the tenors are the drummers that twirl the fuzzy-headed sticks as they march. I think it sort of satisfies her female inner urge to be a baton-twirler, but without having to wear the baton-twirler outfits. I haven't told her about kilts yet.

I hate this part of the job hunt. I'm currently:

• Waiting to hear if I got a second interview with the company with which I had such a great first interview on Tuesday. I hate waiting.
• Waiting, still, to hear back from the company with whom I'm in the "final three".
• Waiting to hear from two companies with contracting jobs that'd make the here and now a whole lot more endurable.

So, cross your fingers for me, OK? All four of those jobs would hit the spot right now.

Maybe even simultaneously.

On top of that - it's 10AM, and still no Bleat!. Say it ain't so, James!

UPDATE: Second Interview! Woo Hoo! Tuesday!

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and The Media - Part III

Part 3: The Meeting

After a tumultuous campaign season, Tim Pawlenty was elected governor of Minnesota in November of 2002. He appointed Glenn Wilson to the post of Commerce Commissioner. Wilson's main experience was in the mortgage industry - Ronald Reagan had appointed him president of the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginny Mae") in 1985.

On January 6, Tim Pawlenty was inaugurated, and his cabinet (including Wilson) were sworn in.

The January 6 Meeting

After the inauguration, according to the transcript of Attorney General Hatch's deposition to the Legislative Auditor as well as the auditor's report [warning - big PDF file], he had dinner at the Oceanaire (a restaurant in the Minneapolis Hyatt).

Hatch described the meeting in his testimony to the auditor:

So we met at the Oceanaire. It's Jerich, some guy named Harry at American Bankers [Harry Bassett, Senior Vice President of Government Relations for American Bankers] and myself. He makes the offer exactly like the August 7th settlement, except they said the three and a half goes to chairty. I said fine, I want this presented to the Commissioner immediately. Because I wanted to get it on the table. I wanted to get the bar set. I met on January 8, I believe it was the 8th, it was on a Wednesday. I told them, I wanted either Jerich or Thornton in my office at 11:00 on January 8th, whatever the Wednesday is, to make that offer. I wanted the offer on the table...

This set the stage for the January 8th meeting between Hatch and Wilson that we'll get to in a moment here.

Such settlement are, of course, illegal under state law. The legislative auditor noted this in their report:

We were asked to examine the Attorney General’s actions because state law prohibits a diversion of settlement money to a charity (Appendix M). Moreover, Minn. Stat. §16A.151, Subd. 1(b) makes it illegal for state officials—including the attorney general—to even "pursue" such a diversion. The key provision of law says:

(b) A state official [defined to include the attorney general] may not commence, pursue, or settle litigation, or settle a matter that could have resulted in litigation, in a manner that would result in money being distributed to a person or entity other than the state.

How serious was this illegal proposal? Apparently, according to the Auditor's Report, seriously enough to report:

Attorney General Hatch reportedly told people attending a task force on mental health access that he might have a donor for the Community Behavioral Health Trust Fund. The Attorney General asked Dick Niemiec, a senior vice president at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Mary Brainerd, Chief Executive Officer of HealthPartners to come back to his office to discuss the possible donation to the trust fund with the new commissioner of Commerce.

So - according to the Auditor on the case, Hatch convened a meeting among a couple of people who would be key stakeholders in a diversion of American Bankers' fine to charity, broached the idea, and then walked over to his office to meet with Glenn Wilson.

The January 8 Meeting - Wilson meets Hatch

On January 8, Glenn Wilson had been in office for two days. According to a source familiar with the issue, Wilson had gotten a call on January 7 from Hatch, calling a meeting for the eighth. The meeting was supposed to be "primarily a meet and greet", according to the source, as well as a letter from Ken Wolf (Commerce Department Reliability Administrator) to Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles, dated June 18, 2003 - "On January 7, 2003, the day before the January 8, 2003 meeting between Commissioner Wilson and Attorney General Hatch, Commissioner Wilson told me that he was going to meet with Mr. Hatch. I asked the nature of the meeting and he said he was invited over for a courtesy visit to meet Mr. Hatch".

But according to the source, there were some indications that Wilson had no idea this meeting was to be anything but a "meet and greet" between two men that hadn't worked together before; Wilson, who reads with glasses, left his reading glasses at his office. And when officials go to meetings with substantive issues on the table, they very often take associates, or at least notebooks. Wilson took neither, according to my source. He went alone.

According to the source, "It was a setup".

Hatch presented to Wilson the proposal - the $3.5 million dollar settlement would go to a charity for the mentally ill (the "Community Mental Health Trust") According to the source, Wilson asked if it was a "done deal", and Hatch replied that it was one of the options on the table.

At that point, says my source, Dick Niemiec (an official from Blue Cross) and Mary Brainerd (from HealthPartners) were brought into the meeting. Wilson, says the source, thought they'd been brought in to endorse the contribution. Ron Jerich also entered the meeting - it was the first time Jerich and Wilson had met, according to my source.

According to my source, the entire meeting took about twenty minutes. Wilson went back to his office, and told members of his senior staff "I can't believe this." My source tells me that Wilson felt befuddled by the situation - he had no familiarity with American Bankers Insurance, or the issues involved, and he wondered "why should I be able to choose where the money [from the settlement] goes?" The deal was presented to Wilson, says my source, as "Zero to the taxpayer, $3.5 million to a charitable entity that Hatch was arguably the inventor of," alluding to the Attorney General's propensity for installing his own people on the boards of non-profits with which his office becomes involved (which we'll discuss in next Wednesday's installment).

Although my source spoke on background, the details of his account are corroborated by the letter from Ken Wolf.

Mr. Wilson frowned and said, "I was set up." I asked what he meant by that. He repeated his previous comment to me that it was just supposed to be a courtesy visit. However, he told me Mr. Hatch called other people into his office to present an offer of a settlement of $3.5 million to go to some charity to settle some case that the Department had outstanding against some insurance company.

Commissioner Wilson was taken by surprise by the issue and returned to his office to investigate the situation. He told me he didn't yet know his lines of authority. However, he clearly stated that he felt it was inappropriate for the Attorney General, the Commissioner, or any other individual to decide what charity should be the recipient of settlement money. He felt any fines or penalties should go to the general fund.

The Meeting - according to Hatch

Hatch described the meeting in his deposition to the Legislative Auditor's office:

I invite Dick Niemiec of Blue Cross, and Mary Brainerd of HealthPartners. I tell everybody, you know what? This company is about to make a three and a half million dollar offer. They want to give it to a charity. Maybe they can give it to this group [the mental health charity]. What a fine thing. I tell these two, come along to the meeting. I'll introduce you to the new commissioner, who is their regulator. And so they come to the meeting. I make them wait in the lobby. By that time Jerich is there, pursuant to our discussion, and so he's there. Those two are there. They are in in the lobby. I go into the meeting with Wilson and Chief Deputy Eiden [Kris Eiden, deputy Attorney General and a former law partner of Hatch's]. She gets the letter. She kept the letter. Gives him a copy of the letter. He's reading the letter. I go over the mischief. I go over the whole nine yards what I've explained to you. This thing is bad. They tried to influence the [pauses] this proceeding by contributing to both the Democrats and Republican Candidates. You are going to get hit by political people on this thing. You make damn well and sure you don't cave in to it. This is extraordinarily unusual. This is not a good company. It's disreputable. You don't want to start off with this kind of a case.

Jerich enters the picture again. He had asked [pauses] I said that Jerich, representing American Bankers, was in the lobby. They are going to make an offer along the lines of August 7th, except that it goes to a charitable organization. I also told him that there were two executives from insurance companies that propbably have two thirds of the health care in this state. That he's going to be very much involved in because health care is a huge issue in this state. And we had a mental health problem in this state. If it's okay, I would like to introduce you to the two of them and then they can tell you want they're doing in mental health. SO I bring them in. They spend ten minutes to saying that they are doing mental health and what a fine thing. I bring in Jerich and I tell Jerich, okay, make your presentation. He makes the presentation along the lines of August 7th. He agrees. It's the same thing as August 7th, except for it goes to a charity and wouldn't that be great. And you two over there, what a fine charity you've got if it could go there. Kick 'em all out, so now we're getting to noon. The meeting is going over. I tell the commissioner to meet with our lawyers. That you can't [pause] there's a problem here. There's a fly in the ointment, and that is it can't be done to a charity. But talk [pause] My recommendation was that he talk to the political people and tell them up front what he can't do. Tell them about our conversation. And that our lawyers will brief ou with regard to what can and cannot be done with this money. He then leaves the meeting. The Legislative Auditor noticed the inconsistency between the two accounts - one of their findings read:

We received conflicting and irreconcilable testimony on whether Attorney General Hatch told Commissioner Wilson on January 8, 2003, about the campaign contribution American Bankers Insurance made to the Republican Party.

And noted:

Asked whether Attorney General Hatch discussed a campaign contribution from American Bankers to the Republican Party or showed him a letter from Mr. Eibensteiner to Mr. Jerich, Commissioner Wilson said: "I don’t believe that happened." Asked whether he was sure it did not happen, he said: "It didn’t happen." Asked whether it was possible that the conversation occurred as Attorney General Hatch described it, but that it did not register on him, Commissioner Wilson said: "I don’t believe so." Asked if he could reconcile his recollection and testimony about the meeting with that of Attorney General Hatch, Commissioner Wilson said: "No, sir.".

Questions

So what did Wilson know, and when did he know it?
• Did Hatch show Wilson the form letter from Eibensteiner at the January 8 meeting, or not?
• Was it an Ambush?
• Did Hatch call Niemiec and Brainerd to the meeting because, as he said, he wanted them to meet the man responsible for regulating them - as he confronted the same man with the letter from Eibensteiner? Or was it to nail down the specifics of the contribution to the Community Mental Health Trust?
• And did the Commerce Department actually give American Bankers a better deal based on their contribution to the national party?
• Why is Attorney General Mike Hatch bringing his client, Commerce Commissioner Glenn Wilson, into a meeting with a representative of his client's adversary (Jerich, representing American Bankers) and presenting allegedly incriminating evidence about the Client (Wilson) without (Wilson says) informing the Client about it first?

We'll talk about all of this in Monday's installment.

[Previous - The Check]
[Next - "Confusing, deceptive, inappropriate, inconsiderate"]

Posted by Mitch at 05:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It Just Occurred To Me...

It Just Occurred To Me... - ...that I am the only member of the Northern Alliance of Blogs that has not been on the Hugh Hewitt show.

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Local Media - I'm on schedule to finish Part Three tomorrow - detailing the meeting between Attorney General Mike Hatch, Commerce commissioner Glenn Wilson, and some other players in this controversy.

You can read Part One and Part Two, or the Story Index, right here.

Parts Four (the investigation) and Five (the media's side of this) will follow on Monday and Wednesday.

It's been an interesting experience. How interesting? I'll blog about that after I'm done with it.

Cops In Minneapolis - This

Cops In Minneapolis - This story from the Strib highlights an issue that came up last week, in the story about the drunk Minneapolis cop that allegedly beat up the motorist. A group of community activists assailed Minneapolis Police chief Robert Olson during his mid-year performance review.

inneapolis Police Chief Robert Olson wasn't surprised that the use of force and officer accountability would come up during his midyear job review Wednesday morning with Mayor R.T. Rybak and other top city officials.

But an unexpected visit by a group of community activists and the 14-year-old boy whose mother filed a brutality lawsuit this week turned a generally mundane administrative process into a discussion on how Olson will improve community relations.

Spike Moss, who did most of the speaking for the group, rejected the mayor's request that they set up another time to talk about the case of Damani Bediako, who allegedly was beaten by an officer last month.

"We don't want to wait," Moss said. "We don't want this put on the back burner. We're on the front burner today."

Granted, Spike Moss is the Al Sharpton of the Twin Cities - a political grandstander. But there's something to this.

Minneapolis' police department seemed, in the mid-eighties, to take after Los Angeles. Darrell Gates' philosophy was always to have a relatively small force with a very strong "us against them" ethic. The stress of the overwork mixed with the attitude, the theory goes, to create a police department that was prone to excessive violence.

Minneapolis' police department has, in my memory, always had a similar reputation. And while I know most Minneapolis cops are as good as any, I also know that they've had some strange hiring practices; when I was working as a nightclub DJ, I can't tell you how many thumper bouncers I met who were waiting to get into Minnapolis' police training program. It always seemed strange to me that Minneapolis' police department seemed to have so many more problems than St. Paul's.

More on this as time permits.

Gloom of Impending Doom...Averted! -

Gloom of Impending Doom...Averted! - Lileks finally told us what the problem was.

I mean in no way to make light of his situation - it's scary. But speaking as a guy who's been out of work too many times to care to count (13 years in radio will do that), my unsolicited advice - buck up, camper. The world won't end - especially since your wife is a lawyer. The market for lawyers isn't all that bad right now.

Speaking of job hunting - I had a great first interview Tuesday. Hoping for a second next week. The job? Almost heart-breakingly perfect for my current aspirations.

Anyone pull some strings for me?

Testing 1...2...3...is this thing on?

Testing 1...2...3...is this thing on? - Blogger.com "upgraded" their service last night.

We'll see if this works.

UPDATE: It seems to. I was nervous - Sullivan was yakking about having trouble with it yesterday.

WHOAH! All the features now work on Mozilla! Life is good!

DOUBLE WHOAH! Archives and permalinks work again!

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Twin Cities Media, Part 2 - The second part of a five-part series.

Nobody argues that during last fall's election cycle, American Bankers tried to rent some influence with a potential, incoming Commerce Commissioner.

The big question is, why were the payments made the way they were? And how did Mike Hatch get that letter from Ron Eibensteiner?

Part Two today, Part Three on Friday.

Affirmative Action - Powerline was

Affirmative Action - Powerline was on fire yesterday, talking about the SCOTUS affirmative action decision.

The link is to the latest of several articles. Many are quite long - but all worth a read.

Reasons I Love Baseball, Part

Reasons I Love Baseball, Part XXVI - Once they hang up their cleats, football players seem to tend to go on to sell cars. Basketball players either get high-school coaching jobs or fall into bad habits. Hockey players and boxers sit and nod their heads at imaginary voices...

...but baseball players? They have it made.

It's a Legal Matter -

It's a Legal Matter - Doesn't hardly matter what I write about - abortion, guns, Mike Hatch, Music - but the thing that always gets me the most email is Gay Marriage.

I posted about this last week (I'd check, but my permalinks and archives are all hosed). I got quite a bit of response.

One letter came from regular reader EB, who wrote:

You miss the point entirely. Check your premises.

Contrary to popular opinion, the gay community is not just some benign collection of misarranged sexual preferences. For the most part, it consists of physically, sexually, and psychologically abused children who have found sanctuary with each other as adults in their shared sexual behaviors, which, in most cases, merely represent the repetition and compounding of earlier traumatizations in childhood.

There are as many theories about homosexuality as there are theorists about homosexuality. I personally trend toward Camille Paglia's theory - that homosexuality is an adaptation, rather than the still-nearly-evidence-free genetic explanation.

This explains why there exists an unusual degree of anonymous sex in public places, an extraordinary high rate of sexually-transmitted diseases, high-risk sexual practices, rampant substance abuse, promiscuity, and gay violence. Genuine homosexuals do not behave in this manner, but most of the "gay community" does.

True enough. And for purposes of equal protection, irrelevant.

Gay "marriage" offers no solution to these problems whatsoever, but instead compounds the issue by demanding that a universally accepted institution be distorted by aberrant sexual behavior in defiance of both public health standards and simple common sense. Even the Romans recognized homosexual behavior as a threat to public health and injurious to its governing institutions.

True - but I'm not talking about offering "marriage" in the sense that most religions recognize it.

I'm serious about that, actually. While I do believe gays should have access to contractrual civil unions, and that churches may decide for theological reasons to offer the sacrament of marriage to gays, I doubt I'd personally seek marriage in a church that recognized gay marriage as theologically sound. I doubt I'd even continue to worship there. That's not about bigotry, that's about faith, and having some basic standards. It may be the issue that finally runs me out of the Presbyterian Church, which, groaningly liberal as it is, is still (IMO) generally the most theologically sound denomination.

It is a completely misguided assumption that gay "marriage" has anything at all to do with the notion of spiritual union, religious or otherwise. It's about access to health care at a time when the gay community is being devastated by STDs and the AIDS epidemic, which is itself the product of gay political activism reaching all the way to the Pentagon.

You're right and wrong.

Marriage - or whatever you call the union - is about whatever the two people involved make it, consciously nor not (and as a divorced guy, I'm here to testify - the unconscious or denied part is just as much a factor as the part you really think about).

As to the business aspects - the health care coverage for high-risk behavior - that is nothing the market can't handle.

Assuming, of course, we let the market handle it. That is both a different topic and a crucial one. Let's tackle that one later, shall we?

The whole point of the "don't ask, don't tell" challenge to military policy was deliberately mischaracterized as the "right to serve." In fact, the military is replete with homosexuals and always has been. Who do you think started the USO?

Bob Hope?

If the issue were really about homosexual "unions," the gay community would find any contractual validation it seeks in common law. But that is not their intent. What they want is to use "marriage" as a gateway to the State and corporate health benefits of their employed sexual partners, which most could not otherwise obtain, and which they want the rest of us to pay for. If you think your health insurance premiums are high now, what do you think they will be by the time you're paying for 4 million dying AIDS patients every year, a plethora of epidemic diseases from Hepatitis C to syphilis, and endless trips to psychotherapy and emergency room facilities --all because a tiny vocal minority insists someone sticking an arm up someone else's anus or pulling a train all night with unprotected multiple partners and a headful of amyl nitrate is perfectly "normal behavior?"

Again - I think we can reconcile equal protection and high risk behavior, assuming the market is left to its devices.

I'd suspect that insurance companies, if allowed to operate under sound actuarial practice, would price insurance to gay couples commensurate with risk, which would enforce saner behavior.

And for those gays for whom "union" is, for whatever reason they believe, a genuine personal or even religious observance (and there are a few - I know a handful), I'd suspect society (given a healthy, unimpeded market) would be little worse off for allowing them to legally marry.

The suggestion that gay "marriage" would do anything to remedy the public health problem is laughable. To the contrary, aside from again mischaracterizing the issue, it would unfairly penalize and invalidate those in the majority of society who do not engage in repetitive, dangerous, promiscuous sexual behavior unequivocally associated with the spread of insidious disease and the solicitation of minors. What Sullivan refers to as "civil equality" is just lipstick on a pig.

Again, I invoke the market. "Marriage" itself won't regulate gay behavior, any more than it controls adultery, in and of itself. But I strongly believe that a free market response to the sorts of behaviors we're talking about here - a resopnse that only happens within the framework of a legal, domestic partnership situation, whether it's marriage or civil union whatever - is exactly what it'll take to moderate the behavior of those who can, in any case, be moderated.

To tell you the truth, my whole outlook on this issue is informed by the following:

• I'm straight, and have no personal interest in the issue.
• I have many gay friends who do, and I have a hard time seeing gays as a huge threat to society.
• I am a Christian, so I have a set view of what "marriage" is. Two people, two genders, family. I believe this is the majority view in this country.
• I'm a libertarian who believes that our government is as much set up to protect people from the majority view as to perpetuate it.
• That opposition to gay marriage is built on a number of logical inconsistencies which have little to do with religious faith.

This is, of course, a huge topic for Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative Catholic (which makes him almost as much a fish-out-of-water as me, the stragiht Republican Presbyterian). He's written a lot - an awful lot - over the years about this subject, all of it worth a read. Today's post is no exception. Money quote:

Many simply do not acknowledge a need to make anything but religious arguments on this matter - or any other. They pick pieces of the Bible with which they agree (you won't find many members of the religious right decrying usury or personal wealth) and then insist that they be reflected in the civil law. They see zero distinction between religion and politics. Zero. Can you imagine Jonah quoting a fundamentalist Muslim who simply asserted that "many social conservatives in America believe there is one God who is Allah and a Koran that says that women have no right to vote."

I'd be the last to pretend I have all the answers - and nobody asked me, anyway.

What do you think?

Reader Mail - Regular reader

Reader Mail - Regular reader and frequent writer PH writes about the rather long schedule for putting out my story about the American Bankers brouhaha:

Every Other Day? Mitch! Why the dawdling? Just put the story out!

Two reasons, P. One: this isn't a fulltime job. I'm in the middle of job-hunting, my kids are home for the summer - it's a lousy time to be writing. Two: I'm trying to to a good job. I could bang out a screed, an opinion piece, in an hour or two that'd cover most of the facts as I'd like to see them, but it'd be just that - a screed. I'm trying to talk with all the principals, get quotes and reactions, to get the whole story out. While I'm an unabashed conservative, I used to be a reporter, and I tried to be a good one. And I'm trying to do the same now.

Part 2 will be out tomorrow, of course. Even if I have to tranquilize the kids...

Smart Distraction

The Strib discusses Mike Hatch's allegations about budget cuts and sexual predators and his claims that Pawlenty's "no tax" pledge is behind the cuts to the State Gang Strike Force.

Here's the money quote:

Hatch on Monday defended his actions, describing as a "smart distraction" suggestions that political ambitions were motivating him.

"The issue is not whether sexual predators should be put in halfway houses as part of their treatment plan because of budgetary costs. No, the issue is that the attorney general is political," Hatch said sarcastically. "The issue is not politics, the issue is not the governor's race. I'm not running for governor; I'm being attorney general."

"Smart Distraction?"

Let's see: The Attorney General is:

• Playing the "Sexual Predator" story for all it's worth; the Strib article is good enough to note "At a news conference Monday, Pawlenty asked why Hatch, the state's highest-ranking DFLer and, officially, the governor's lawyer, didn't walk across the hall at the Capitol to ask about the implications of the story."
• Accusing the governor of being soft on crime because of the funding cuts to the Gang Strike Force, which was allegedly a DFL action in the first place (more on this later)
• Allegedly used the American Bankers Insurance story for political leverage (see the first part of a five part series on this story).

What conclusion would anyone make?

More on the Gang Strike Force and ABI stories in this space later this week.

Above the Law - Six

Above the Law - Six of the Nine Dwarves have commented on the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action.

Gephardt says:

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.

Ah.

So President Gephardt would bypass the legislative and judicial branches to create law?

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich also made a pledge to put affirmative action into federal law as president.

"If this president doesn't want to let us be one nation, then it's time to elect a president who will let us be one nation," Kucinich said.

But affirmative action locks us in as two, or four, or maybe five, different nations. It institutionalizes the balkanization of the "United" States.

But I think most Americans are sharper than that.

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Media: Part I

If a Settlement Falls In The Forest, and Nobody Hears It...

A source close to the story says "Make no mistake, American Bankers was a bad player. Everyone acknowledges that." 

American Bankers Insurance (which was originally two companies, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida and American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida) was an insurance company that dealt in several niche insurance markets, including Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage. The company was acquired by
Fortis, Inc., a company based in Europe, in 1999.

They solicited customers from mailing lists bought from lenders like Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., Fleet Mortgage Group, Household Financial Services and The Money Store. 

And
in the nineties, their business practices left something to be desired,
according to Minnesota insurance regulators. The state of Minnesota cited American Bankers Insurance four times between 1993 and
1998 for a variety of regulatory problems.
(American Bankers Insurance is also the subject of at least one class action suit related to
overcharging for insurance).

This story starts with one of those actions.

In May of 1998, regulatory officials from 43 states began a cooperative "market conduct examination" of American Bankers Insurance, with Minnesota, Kentucky and Maryland taking the lead roles. In these types of investigations, say sources close to the story, the various participating states take on different portions of the investigation. Each state then relies on the work done by the other states in pursuing the overall action.

As a result, American Bankers agreed to a settlement with the 43 participating states on November 23, 1998, to settle the regulatory violations. American Bankers agreed, according to documents related to the case, to pay a sanction of up to
$15 million, and to change its rates and forms subject to a compliance plan to
be worked out with the states. The company distributed $12 million among the states
involved in the action. Minnesota's share came to $688,776 - the largest fine ever charged an insurance company in Minnesota
at the time. The settlement withheld the other $3 million pending a
"reexamination" to be held after a year.  The settlement would be
paid if the company was not found to be complying with its end of the deal.

The company failed the reexamination, according to a November 2000 report issued by the Maryland Insurance Department, and American Bankers Insurance agreed to pay the $3 million deferred penalty. Minnesota's share came to about $67,000.

In the two  years since the initial settlement, the executive branch in
Minnesota had changed.  

Enter Bernstein

By this time, Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota. Ventura's second Commerce Commissioner, James Bernstein, a longtime DFL party activst, was appointed in April of 1999. He presided over an investigation of American Bankers Insurance.

On February 5, 2002, Bernstein filed charges with the Office of Administrative Hearings - the state agency that supplies Administrative Law Judges to hear contested Administrative Law
cases - against American
Bankers. 
That same day, Bernstein held a press conference. According to the report from the Twin Cities Business Journal:

Bernstein charged...that the two insurers have repeatedly violated Minnesota insurance laws and have issued illegal insurance policies to more than 200,000 Minnesota residents. The companies are also charged with failing to provide information to the department.

James Sykes, an Atlanta-based spokesman for the insurance companies, said the charges were without merit.

Bernstein said he would seek a fine of at least $10 million, and to
bar the company from doing business in Minnesota. 
This would have been one of the largest fines in the history of the insurance
business, had it been imposed.

While the Commerce Department was leading the effort, the Attorney General's office was
involved.  The Attorney General's office provided lawyers and legal expertise to
help the Commerce Departent proceed with the case. According to Attorney General Hatch's testimony to the Legislative Auditor:

We do the legal work, we try to stay out of the policy, at least at the line level. [The Attorney General's office attorneys] would not be getting into policy matters...we've had a policy since '99, if there's a lawsuit, only the agency is on the pleadings"

Up until August of 2002, according to the record, this was the extent of the Attorney General's Office's involvement.

The Settlement. Or Not.

Negotiations proceeded through the summer. Letters included in the Legislative Auditor's report show:

• A May 23 letter from Assistant Attorney General Michael Tostengard to Tim Thornton, an attorney from the Minneapolis firm Briggs and Norton, who was representing American
  Bankers, laying out the terms of the settlement.
• A June 20 fax/letter from Thornton, outlining his understanding of the terms. It includes an amusing apology for Thornton's delay in responding - remodelers had gotten a late start on his house.
• A July 3 letter from LaVasseur to Thornton, with a funny, collegial aside about the remodelling - "Remember, if you start having problems with the project, we also regulate residential builders and remodelers" - that noted in a more serious vein that Thornton had missed Tostengard's deadline to accept the terms, but adding that the Commerce Department still wanted to settle out of court.

The State and American Bankers were, by all accounts, in basic agreement on all points but
one by early summer; American Bankers wanted to keep the settlement secret.

All this led up to a meeting on August 7, 2002, between Hatch, his deputies (Tostengard and Steven Warch), Commerce Commissioner Bernstein, Thornton, and Jerome Atkinson,
a lawyer from American Bankers. 

Thornton and Atkinson told Hatch that American Bankers wanted to back out of the deal.

By his own description from the deposition transcript, Hatch was dumbfounded. "I said I think what you're doing is you are trying to run out the clock here. and it was clear to me, I
mean...the administration was about to change. By that time, the Governor
[Ventura] had indicated he wasn't going to run again. And that's my assumption was what was going on is that they were running out the clock."

But there were two hitches with the settlement. First: the settlement may or may not have actually been a settlement. Second: it was election season.

On the first point, there is disagreement. A source in the Attorney General's office is clear
about the Attorney General's office's opinion - the agreement had been printed up, and the agreement was a done deal, as Attorney General Hatch said in his deposition to the Legislative Auditor on April 15, 2003,

There was an issue as to whether or not it was a done deal. We had all the terms done. And there is some 
law that if two lawyers agree, then they've got authority, it's a done deal. In fact, I was involved in a case involving that. The clients can't pull out afterwards...The lawyer gives an oral
agreement. It's done. It's never been done with the State. It would have been in bad taste, and I don't think we'd push that. But clearly, in my mind, it was a done deal.

But Commissioner Wilson disagrees. In a May 16, 2003 letter to Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles,
Wilson says:

It is not accurate to say that the State and American Bankers had agreed “in principle” to settle for $3.5 million in August 2002. An agreement in principle is one where the parties have specifically or generally agreed on all essential terms and will then proceed to nail down the details, generally in a definitive document. Here an essential term – secrecy or public disclosure – had not been agreed upon and the parties had fundamentally different positions on that issue so there was no agreement in principle.

If I agree to sell you my business for cash and a secured note and we agree on the price and the terms, but we disagree on what security shall support the note we do not have an agreement in principle. If we agree, however, that the security will be one of three specific items (but leave for later agreement as to which one) we have an agreement in principle although we do not yet have a legally binding contract. In August 2002 the State and American Bankers were in the first situation, not the second. This is an important point. This writer’s view is that in February 2003 Commissioner Wilson and American Bankers did have an agreement in principle before the consent order was signed because they had agreed on all essential terms, but at no point

Prior to that point had any such agreement ever been reached between the State and American Bankers. Indeed, I think one of the reasons for all the confusion here is that some of the players — Commissioner Bernstein comes to mind – do not understand this legal point. (I thought Gary LaVasseur [former Deputy Commerce Commissioner, currently Director of Enforcement] touched on it in his testimony and explained it well.)

So "when is a settlement
really a settlement?" might be a valid question.

But on the second point, there is no argument. By August of 2002, the gubernatorial election campaigns were in full swing. The polling at the time was too close to call; opinion polls in July showed a three-way dead heat between Independence Party nominee Tim Penny, DFLer Roger Moe and eventual winner, Republican Tim
Pawlenty. A new commerce commissioner was a distinct possibility.  American
Bankers and their attorneys apparently liked the odds that the new commissioner might give American Bankers a better deal.  

So,
as Attorney General Hatch described it, the company "went
political".  While the legal discussion returned to the procedural ping-pong match after the abortive August 7 meeting, the story moved into the political arena.

When
companies want to get things done politically, they hire specialists, or
"lobbyists".

In early August of 2002, American Bankers Insurance
retained Ron Jerich, an Eagan-based lobbyist.  

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and

Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Twin Cities Media - Today, I kick off a five-part series on the American Bankers Insurance story.

You may remember the story; last March, the local media carried the story that new Commerce commissioner Glen Wilson had reduced the amount charged American Bankers Insurance compared with the fine the previous Commissioner, Jim Bernstein, had negotiated - after details of a $10,000 check from American Bankers to the Republican Party "surfaced". Some took this as evidence of a quid pro quo.

But the story's not that simple.

The story will run in five parts between now and Wednesday, July 2.

Today - the introduction and background to the story.

Mistaken Identity - Punk rock

Mistaken Identity - Punk rock fans of a certain age who are also news junkies have to listen carefully these days.

That's something I found out yesterday, listening to news coverage of the Arizona wildfires. They had a quote from the governor of Arizona - and when they read the name, I thought "Whaaaaa?"

So, for my future reference as well as yours:

• This is Arizona governor Janet Napolitano.
• This is Concrete Blonde bassist Johnette Napolitano.

As you were.

The Other Goldberg - I

The Other Goldberg - I always loved reading old Saturday Evening Posts when I was a kid - if nothing else, for the Rube Goldberg cartoons. These cartoons, with Goldberg's fanciful inventions, were a fun chuckle.

But for others, they were an inspiration, as we see in this new Honda ad. [Flash 6 required, although there's a Quicktime link on the page].

(Also via Andrew Sullivan)

Fact-Checking 101 - The NYTimes,

Fact-Checking 101 - The NYTimes, as Sullivan noted, uncorked a doozy, making the casual press observer wonder if their fact-checking department perhaps took an overly hard hit in the recent layoffs:

But it was the pope's presence here that spoke volumes. His arrival comes as the broken pieces of the Baltic states are desperately trying to prove that they have made progress toward unity and deserve a first step toward admission into the European Union.

Note to Times; Balkans = Adriatic and Black Seas. Baltic = Baltic.

Neocon Human Rights Priorities -

Neocon Human Rights Priorities - Minnesota Blogger "Dennis", who runs the Moderate Republican blog, asks a question you hear from an awful lot on the left:

while the neocons can pat themselves on the back for dispatching such a brutal regime as was Saddam's you have to wonder how important human rights really are for neocons. They claim the human rights are important and scorn those who want to take a more cautious approach. Then why have they been so silent on the killing taking place in the Congo? It has been estimated that maybe 3 million have died in the fighting that has taken place. Why are they not shaking their fists about this?

Because if we attacked every nation that brutalized its people, we'd have to pretty much conquer 80% of the world. I don't think we're ready to do that.

Had Congolese been at the sticks on any of the 9/11 planes, or if the Zairian prime minister been developing poison gas with which to conquer Botswana when he was ready, it might be a very different situation.

Don't get me wrong; I wish we could do something about the Congo. Much of the fighting is taking place in the Ituri forest, a place that I've read about since I was in elementary school. It's a place written elequently about by Jean-Pierre Hallet, a man who's spent the last fifty years working with and publicizing the everlasting plight of the Pygmies. Beyond the Congo, I wish we could save the victims of every contest between thugs, ideologues and tyrants.

So how many American lives is that worth to you?

Nose Art, 2001 - As

Nose Art, 2001 - As a military history buff and an aviation afficionado, aircraft nose art has always been a fascination. The paintings on B-17s and B-24s during the Second World War summed up the popular art of its time better than Warhol's did the sixties, I think. Fascinating stuff, the subject of nearly as many books as there were aircraft, it seems.

The last forty years have been hell on nose art, though. The need for camouflage and low-contrast paint jobs have made nose art a generally subtle thing (although the A-10 Warthog can occasionally be seen sporting full-color Flying Tiger sharks' teeth, I'm told.

Powerline has the goods on the most evocative piece of nose art to come from the war on terrorism:

The story is fascinating. And I've seen it reproduced - as I recall, on an F-18 flying off one of our big carriers during the Afghan war.

I'm just glad I have a copy now!

Did He Jump, or Was

Did He Jump, or Was He Pushed - For all of the talk about the potential recall of Gray Davis, it could all be derailed by a simple act; Davis' resignation:

Oakland Mayor (and former California governor) Jerry Brown, in Washington this past week, speculated that Davis could instantly destroy the recall movement by resigning. That would elevate Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to the governorship. Sen. Barbara Boxer has sketched the same scenario in private conversations with fellow Democrats.

I say he fights it out to the bitter end, and Bill Clinton steps in.

War Story - Tommy Franks

War Story - Tommy Franks tells his story. It's an interesting read, and will have to do until the real history comes out...

Shhhhh - Don't tell my

Shhhhh - Don't tell my kids it's here. I don't want to buy the book quite yet.

Boyz of Summer - SCSU

Boyz of Summer - SCSU Scholars go on at wondrous length (by Blog standards) about the poetry that is baseball.

Speaking of which - if you're looking for a great summer diamond-related read, check out my Dad's book from about five years ago, "Common Ground",which is a tour through North Dakota amateur and minor-league ball going back to the turn of the century. Well worth a read.

Who cares about North Dakota minor-league ball in the 20th century? Hollywood, that's who. Well, maybe. "Pitch Black" may, like any Hollywood project about a non-blow-em-up subject, become a movie about the golden age of Negro League ball, much of which played out in the small-town ballparks of North Dakota in the thirties, when Satchel Paige pitched for Bismark and Josh Gibson played for Jamestown. The movie's been underway for years, and who knows if it'll ever be produced, but the website for the project alone is worth a visit. The story, on the page or the silver screen, is a fascinating one, if you're into baseball played the old-fashioned way.

Paging Morgan Grams - Presidential

Paging Morgan Grams - Presidential Candidate Howard Dean's son has allegedly been caught burgling a country club for liquor.

Wonder if the media will pounce on this the way they did President Bush's 20-year-gone drug use, or, locally, Morgan Grams' problems?

Shocked. Shocked, I Tell You

First, I'm glad I live in Saint Paul. There seem to be far fewer of this type of incident here than in Minneapolis (although I admit I've never really kept detailed count).

In fact, while I know lots of excellent cops in Minneapolis from my brief stint as a freelance cop-beat reporter, it always seemed that the MPD was prone to, er, issues.

[Former MPD officer Michael] Olson is charged with second-degree felony assault with a firearm, misconduct by a public officer, reckless use of a dangerous weapon and two counts of driving while intoxicated...

This sort of thing does happen. Remember - everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The fight occurred in the early hours of Dec. 11 after Olson left a Christmas party at a downtown bar that was put on by members of the police department's 5th Precinct. During his testimony, Olson said he drank four mixed drinks, at least three beers, and two "shots" during the party, but still felt at the time that he could drive safely. But when asked by prosecutor Al Harris if he now realizes he was impaired by alcohol, Olson replied, "In hindsight, probably."

Obviously, educating people about drunk driving is the answer. But I digress...

The incident starts:

Olson acknowledged that he drove the wrong way on Fifth Street between Hennepin and Nicollet avenues and that he turned around after another car driven by 27-year-old Willie Lee Cash squeezed by him going in the opposite direction. Olson turned into an alley and backed out on Fifth Street going the right direction, but found himself blocked behind Cash's car, which had stopped in the street.

At that point, Olson said he saw "a tough black male exit his vehicle."

"He was pretty mad … coming toward my car," said Olson, a slightly built Asian officer who said he weighs about 160 pounds.

Olson, who was not wearing a uniform, said he shut off the engine of his car, unlocked his glove box and retrieved a pistol, putting it in his pocket. Olson said he then got out of his car and began arguing with Cash, telling him that he was a police officer and showing his badge.

Olson said he drew his gun after Cash assaulted him and that he was in "police mode" when that happened.

"I knew this was a situation where it was not going to look good either way," Olson said. "But it didn't matter. He (Cash) was going to jail."

Which, of course, he did not. Olson was fired from the police department after this incident, and Cash was never charged.

No, this post is not about the relative merits of Olson or Cash's positions, or about the lawsuit against the MPD. This is about how some local anti-gun activists are spinning the story.

You see - this story is an indictment of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act!

In the ensuing struggle, Olson lost his pistol, which was picked up by a passerby and has never been recovered...Olson was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center, where his blood alcohol level was measured at .24 percent, or nearly 2½ times the legal limit to drive. He initially claimed that he couldn't remember anything about the fight, but said Thursday that detailed memories of it came back over several months.

So. A policeman gets schnockered, scares the bejeezus out of a passerby, who leaves his car to talk to the drunk driver who nearly smeared him. Fight ensues (who knows who started it), cop loses his gun, passerby lifts it and runs and is never found...

...and, according to some on the local left, it's an indictment of the law-abiding concealed carry permit holder?

Does anyone want to place a bet on the legal proceedings the Minneapolis Police Department would take against a carry permit holder who got into a fight while blowing a .24 Blood Alcohol Level?

This story shows two things:

1. Humans make mistakes, sometimes groaningly-serious ones that can kill innocent people, and
2. the local left will stop at nothing to try to find something to use to impugn the MPPA and its constituents.
   Posted by Mitch at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

American Bankers and the

American Bankers and the Local Media - As I said earlier this week, my story on the American Bankers brouhaha will probably kick off Monday, in five parts, more or less daily (one or two parts could get delayed). Things keep popping up here...

Legislative Auditor James Nobles has a guest editorial in the PiPress today which spells out his office's position rather more concisely than his office's report on the subject (warning - Huge PDF file). Money quote:

If you do not know — or accept — that the Attorney General Hatch was being deceptive on Jan. 8, you can reasonably conclude he broke the law. But if you accept — as I do — that he was being deceptive, you would conclude as I did that the attorney general's actions were disturbing, but not illegal.

Disturbing, but not illegal. That's fine. I don't think it's a news flash that Mike Hatch is a political mechanic of the first order, a man that'd fit into any Chicago ward (and I mean that in the sense of admiring people who are adept at politics, at least on some level!).

The real story here is in the coverage.

And we'll be talking about that starting Monday.

Gang Strike Force

The local left is making much of Mike Hatch's op-ed in yesterday's Strib, trying to pin cuts in the Gang Strike Force on Governor Pawlenty.

As I'm discovering, you always need to check behind the scenes.

A source at the Capitol notes that during the negotiations for the Omnibus Judiciary Bill, Senator Jane Ranum (DFL - Minneapolis) insisted that any available money be allocated to battered women's shelters and Civil Legal Aid in preference to the Gang Strike Force.

The Strike Force, by the way, isn't a dead issue; cities can pony up part of the tab, in a deal that (according to sources) works like this:

• Cities will have to pay the salaries of the officers involved.
• The state will pay for overtime and vehicles.

In other words, the Strike Force will continue - but the cities will have to pay part of the freight.

Hatch's op-ed closed with the following admonishment:

The very core of government is its responsibility to protect its citizens. There is no question that taxes must be kept in line, but when government leaders convert a "No new tax" pledge into an unyielding policy without regard to the consequences for the citizens they were elected to serve, their actions become irresponsible.

And yet in this case the DFL's own unyielding policy - that "violence against women" is the most important domestic crime issue - is at least partly to blame.

And the other unyielding policy - Mike Hatch is spinning.

Da Nort Is Red -

Da Nort Is Red - Powerline covers President Bush's visit to Fridley today. Money comment - one which echoes something I've been harping on for a while:

Pawlenty said that he asked President Bush why he comes to Minnesota so often, and Bush replied that it was his love of Spam that brings him back. In reality, of course, Bush knows that Minnesota is rapidly moving out of the Democratic column. He expects to carry Minnesota in 2004, along with a number of other traditionally Democratic states.

The DFL, of course, will dispute that. Some of them even think they're going to win in '04. But the swing to the right is decades-old outstate, and the metro 'burbs have grown to the point where no rational person can doubt that Minnesota's conservative side is ascendant.

The big question - what will it take to have a conservative win in the inner city?

Oh, don't laugh. If Brett Schundler could win the Jersey City mayorship - and Joisey City is at least as myopically Democrat as St. Paul, if not as Berkeleyistic as Minneapolis - then why couldn't a conservative come up with a message that'd sell in the inner city? Leave Norm Coleman aside (and after all, he won both of his mayoral elections as a DFLer) - I think it's possible.

It's going to be a serious topic on this list in future weeks. Have an opinion? Write me. This should be good.

Feeling All DeLorean - Y'know,

Feeling All DeLorean - Y'know, I don't mind getting hype like I'm getting from the Fraters today. Except now I have to make sure this article is a barn-burner, which means burning lots of midnight oil making sure things are as good as they can be - something I rarely do during normal blogging.

Speaking of the Fraters - they've urged us all go to over to the Move On website and register to vote in their straw poll. The poll will be held June 24, among (apparently) those who are registered. The Fraters suggest voting for Howie Dean, and I second the motion (but only because Ed McGaa isn't a contender).

Curse You, Squawkbox - Squawkbox,

Curse You, Squawkbox - Squawkbox, my comment server, seems to be both slowing the loading of my site, and occasionally eating comments. On the other hand, it's free.

Oh, I so wanna get Moveable Type going...

Developments - Busy job-hunting this

Developments - Busy job-hunting this morning, and taking the kids swimming this afternoon. Will post more tonight.

Here's an update: my series on Mike Hatch, American Bankers and the Minneapolis Star/Tribune will start on Monday.

36 - Ohio will probably

36 - Ohio will probably follow Minnesota in enacting a shall-issue law.

When (not if) it passes, it'll be 36 states with shall-issue laws, including several (Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio) with some of our biggest cities.

Does any of the palaver sound familiar?

The issue has crossed party lines and has instead divided lawmakers along urban and suburban-rural lines.

The measure is supported by the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association, whose members would process permit applications. The highway patrol and Fraternal Order of Police have adopted positions of neutrality. The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police remains opposed.

Watch for the inevitable reports of falling skies over Cleveland.

Your "Books" Confuse and Frighten

Your "Books" Confuse and Frighten Me - Elder, over at Fraters, catches the Strib's latest cheapshots in the culture wars.

The Grind Grinds On -

The Grind Grinds On - Another job interview today. Nothing special -just another recruiter. I had a slew of interviews with this type last winter, when I was first on the beach; recruiters and "staffers" were collecting resumes, getting ready for the pickup in hiring...

...that they're still waiting for.

But I'm going, because it keeps my interviewing chops in shape (practice makes perfect), and because you never know which recruiter or headhunter or guy sitting next to you at Khan's for that matter is going to be the one with the job that finally ends the drought. My first-ever good job in software design came from a recruiter that had no idea what a software designer was when we met at a job fair - we barely spoke. But six months later, she had a one-off request for a GUI designer from a client that had been buying nothing but Java geeks and electrical engineers, and she spent a frantic few moments digging for my business card. A month later, and I was off to the races.

I only say that by way of hoping that I get some of that karma going pretty soon here. I've been through most of the stages of unemployment;

1. anger,
2. financial panic,
3. coping,
4. existential panic,
5. existential coping,
6. anger at the gabbling cretins that make so many decisions that affect your life, like the passive-aggressive little twerp at A_____ _______ that showed up an hour late for my interview and then proceeded to spend most of our talk staring at his cell phone, and who will get his spine cut with a bolt cutter if he ever comes into my offic...
7. calming down
8. coping, yet a-farging-gain, and, right now,
9. mild depression.

I'm sure it'll pass soon.

Anyway - back with more later!

Gay Marriage - Canada has

Gay Marriage - Canada has become the first country in North America to legalize gay marriage.

It's no surprise that it's Andrew Sullivan's topic du jour.

This is one of those issues, like the death penalty and commuter rail, where I break with some of my fellow conservatives. I think that we need to:

1. separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage,
2. allow gays to enter into the same sort of contractual obligations that straight couples assume when they get married
3. let churches and other religious groups decide what "marriage" is in their respective faiths, separate from the legal issues, and
4. leave people alone.

I see no legal reason to bar gays from the legal contract of marriage (and the emotional meatgrinder, for that matter). As to the moral issues - that's between me and my church.

Reinforce Conceal - I'm a

Reinforce Conceal - I'm a former McGovern liberal. I used to favor (pro forma) a sweeping civilian gun ban. That was, obviously, a long time ago. But I can sympathize with some of the concerns of some of those who are active against the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.

To a point.

Repeal Conceal is the site that's distributing the "Repeal Conceal Carry" bumper stickers that are popping up on Volvos all over Mac-Groveland and Highland Park. The site is run by Christopher Farley (although WHOIS isn't officially listing the site's owners or anything beyond the fact that local provider Visi.com hosts it), a Grand Avenue businessman whose store I've patronized before, and most likely will again.

The site reads like this:

Almost immediately after its passage in the Minnesota Senate, Governor Tim Pawlenty inked his name on the Concealed Carry bill.

This law permits almost anyone, including non-Minnesotans, to carry a concealed loaded handgun almost anywhere in the state.

That's always the scare line that opponents start with; "Anyone". They never add the part about "...who passes a background check, has no criminal record, and has passed a training course". It's a crucial omission - which is why it's so consistently omitted!

Concealed-carry laws have been passed in 34 other states, but Minnesota's flavor of concealed-carry is particularly extreme. Here are some provisions:

"Not so", I told Farley. "We're about in the middle of the pack, actually". He raised an interesting point in response.

We've all heard the objections on the part of some business owners and churches to the signs that must be posted to warn gun owners that the premises are off-limits. Farley notes that in many other "shall-issue" states, the signage requirements are a lot less onerous; Farley noted Minnesota's font, size and wording requirements, as well as the requirement that each sign include the business name, calling it an imposition on property rights.

And he probably has a point. Now comes the chicken-vs.-egg question: had the Metro DFLers that opposed the bill (in minority for the last three sessions) done the honest thing, and admitted the votes were there to pass the bill into law absent their backroom machinations, and had they worked to bring their constituents concerns to the process rather than scaremongering and trying to terrorize the state into opposing the bill (with a notable lack of success, as it turns out), would things have turned out different? Remember - one of the biggest impetuses to passing the bill, immediately and as it was at the end of April, was the sure knowledge that had the Metro DFLers in the Senate managed to get the bill into conference committee one more time, it would have killed the bill for the whole session, even though the votes were there to pass the MPPA on a floor vote from day one!. By choosing the "Death or Glory" approach, the Metro DFL got "death" (by their alarmist standards, anyway), and we got a law that, strong as it is, could have been better.

So - are the signage restrictions onerous? Perhaps, albeit less so than many other burdens businesses are required to carry (ADA jumps to mind). The metro opposition has itself partially to blame for this.

Although it's good to see the Metro DFL finally developing an interest in property rights!

Onward through the website:

* Guns are allowed in parks.
* Guns are allowed in city hall meetings.
* Non residents can carry concealed guns.

Again, after they pass exactly the same criteria that Minnesotans pass (or if they have a permit from a state whose law is similar to ours).

* Sheriffs may not deny an permit to somebody who has been acquitted of a crime. (This and the above provision mean that someone like O.J. Simpson could come to Minnesota and carry a concealed gun.)

This part troubles me. First, it's untrue: if OJ came to Minnesota and applied for a permit, a call back to the LA County Sheriff would note (for those who've been under a rock) that he'd lost a wrongful death suit, and that he's got a record of erratic behavior. He'd probably get denied, for cause.

Second: It's irrelevant in the real world; anyone, convicted of a crime or not, who is likely to be a problem in the first place is probably carrying a gun anyway, without the nicety of a permit.

* Guns are allowed at the State Fairgrounds.

In discussing this with Mr. Farley, I found myself in one of those situations where you just realize you're approaching an issue from two very, very different sides.

Farley makes a point I've heard many, many others make; that he can't imagine why a responsible gun owner would carry at the fairgrounds. He has a point; shooting in self-defense at a crowded place like the Fair would be a very dicey proposition, legally and technically. And it makes perfect sense...

...if you assume the goal of the MPPA is to kill criminals. But it's not. It's to deter crime. So while I doubt that I'd even carry a pistol at the fairgrounds or in any other large crowd (I doubt I'd be able to use it effectively and safely), I don't necessarily want our city's gang-bangers and thugs to know that I can't. You know the ones that I'm talking about - the ones that have been shooting each other at the Mall of America, despite the fact that the Mall has forbade guns on premises since the day its doors opened.

I'd like to give them the burden of the uncertainty, even if I'm nowhere near my pistol.

* Businesses can not prohibit guns on their private property unless they post signs at each entranceway and verbally notify each customer.

And if Wes Skoglund and Ellen Anderson were less concerned with fearmongering alarmism, this could have been easily fixed. As, no doubt, it eventually will be.

Don't get me wrong - I was into property rights before it was all the rage (just like I was a libertarian before John Ashcroft); if someone can suggest a way to protect property rights that doesn't make permit-holders into unwitting criminals, I'm all for it.

Suggestions, please!

An official legislative estimate states that this law will increase the number of people licensed to pack heat on Minnesota streets by 750%, from 12,000 now to 90,000. Needless to say, gun sales are going to go through the roof. Some portion of those guns will be stolen, and get into the hands of criminals.

In most shall-issue states, only about 1% of those elegible generally apply for permits.

Which dodges the point; if you gave EVERY Minnesotan with a clean criminal record and no chemical or psychological impairment a permit to carry, crime would at worst stay the same. That's not hyperbolic; that's the system they have in Vermont, and which Minnesota had until 1974.

Here's the most important part of this equation: Most Minnesotans feel that this law will make Minnesota a more dangerous place!

And if the Star Tribune, WCCO, MPR and Wes Skoglund were telling them every session that the world was flat, they'd probably say that, too. Facts bear out neither hypothesis...

This law needs to be repealed, and it can be repealed!

But I doubt that it will be - opposition to the law is pretty much a metro thing. And as we've noted in this space before, that ain't what it used to be.

This law circumvented most normal procedures in the legislature. It was tacked on to an unrelated bill. It didn't go through the normal committee process.

It went through committees exhaustively and repeatedly over the course of seven years.

It didn't have very much public debate.

The history of the MPPA is currently in the works. We'll be linking to it when it's written. I contributed a bit to it, and reading the outline, it's amazing just how much debate has gone into this law in the past seven years.

And if you read the story, you see compromise. Lots of compromises, from the beginning of the process up to nearly the day the law was passed. Compromise, that is, on the side of the bill's proponents. The opponents - Wes Skoglund, Matt Entenza, Ellen Anderson, the Strib Editorial Board - bent not a whit, keeping up their campaign of slander and vituperation even past the bitter end.

And the kicker is, I don't honestly think that the majority of Minnesotans, even opponents (for whatever reason) of the MPPA either buy into the infantile scare-mongering or the lying and exaggeration that's passing for so much of the discourse from the left on this issue. As I see it, the bulk of it comes down to a couple of simple issues (the signs being a big one) and a little bit of time for most Minnesotans to see that their law-abiding neighbors aren't the boogiemen that Ellen Anderson seems to think they are.

There are an awful lot of facts to digest when it comes to this issue. Unfortunately, if your sources are the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign or Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, you won't be getting many of them.

Upcoming - Still working on

Upcoming - Still working on "Hatch And the Strib". Getting a few last interviews in, while I'm not job-hunting.

We're also going to address the "Repeal Conceal" website. I've put in a request for a response to a number of inconsistencies on their website. Still no comment.

More later.

Sexy Class' Looks Pave Way

Laura Billings, Pioneer Press Staff Columnist

Minnesota singles who have longed to date lingerie models will no longer be required to do anything inconvenient — like actually attract the objects of their desires.

After Monday's public round-table to discuss the recently green-lighted plan to socialize dating in the Twin Cities, we're speeding closer to the day when homely 40-something guys can demand evenings on the town with those poor undewear models, who spend hours every day keeping themselves in line with the current cultural concept of "beauty".

Now, there are naysayers who claim this sort of law sets up a two-tiered society, where enough persistence allows a schlemiel to cruise past all the quotidian nuisances that come from having to actually appeal, romantically, to the lingerie models. And yet, why should someone who has worked hard for his sore knees, worry lines, mortgage, and kids be forced to date similar women, while two 20-something hipsters cruise by on the way to an evening at Chino and Quest?? It just doesn't seem fair.

A lot of Minnesotans seem to agree. The measure enjoyed bipartisan support in the Legislature this spring. And according to a Minnesota Department of Dating survey of 400 metro residents last winter, 40 percent were in favor of requiring lingerie models to date guys once reserved for women their own age.

If this idea is so popular with people, it makes you wonder why we're not adopting a similar convenience law for all the other annoyances of modern life that force us to deal with reality?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not really Laura Billings. This is actually Mitch. But it was fun taking a little walk through the psyche of a class-warrior like that.

For example, let's look at her next notion:

Say you're at the grocery store after 5 p.m., and every checkout lane is backed up to the bread section, all except for the "10 items or fewer" express lane. For a reasonable premium, you ought to be able to haul your 116-item cart up to that register and speed right through. The folks who actually followed the rules and chose fewer than 10 items will still get to use the express lane — it will just move a little slower now that you're in it. That seems fair.

Well, you CAN already do that one better! For a VERY small fee, you can have the groceries brought to your house; when I'm working, Simon Delivers is one of my absolute favorite conveniences (and I don't even own an SUV). In Ms. Billings' world, this is immoral!

Or how about this:

Or how about when you get to the movies right during the trailers only to find out that the theater is practically full and that there's someone — probably some sad sack who didn't have anything better to do than to get to the movies on time — sitting in your favorite center aisle seat. Well, for a convenience surcharge on top of the regular price, you should be able to bypass the ticket line, have the kids at the concession stand hand you your pre-ordered popcorn and Jujubes, while the ushers move the guy who got there before you over to another seat, right against the wall. If you paid a little more for the privilege, that's fair, right?

Laura! How about the poor people who are kept out of the theatre altogether because they don't have the money to get in in the first place? Isn't that equally disturbing? Why, those fatcat moviegoers should be ashamed!

Billings continues:

Just imagine how wonderful our lives would be if we could store up all of this privilege on a little electronic convenience card.

You could swipe it and bypass the hour-long line for the ladies' room at Dixie Chicks and Norah Jones concerts. You could flash it and move your kids to the head of the waiting lists of the selective colleges they didn't quite make it into.

That's already what happens, Laura.

And if you ever needed a kidney transplant, you could run that thing through the scanner and cut a few years off your wait time. Ah, what a beautiful user-fee world it could be, if we would just give our legislators the chance.

Ipse David Crosby.

After all, if you can afford to pay, shouldn't you be the first to play?

Depends, Ms. Billings.

At the polls? In court? With the police? Before the eyes of G-d? Absolutely not.

But since the subject is an underutilized lane, built at excruciating cost to the taxpayers 15 years ago and which draws only the faintest film of carpoolers (because people just don't work like that these days!), why not make the state a few bucks?

And if you're so concerned, Ms. Billings, by all means feel free to chip in a few quarters so the underprivileged can drive and park easier.

Oh, wait - that'd make it personal, wouldn't it?

Murderers Welcome - The Minnesota

Murderers Welcome - The Minnesota Personal Protection Act allows private businesses to exclude legally-permitted people from bringing their firearms onto the premises. The catch - they have to post a sign at their entrance. For all the caterwauling of the anti-gun left, there's a purpose to this stipulation, and it's not just to make people caterwaul; it's to prevent "oopses", places where the law-abiding citizen can be breaking the law and not even know it.

That bothers some of the left, who'd like the law to be a byzantine maze of nuance filled with dark alleys of uncertainty, as long as it exists at all.

The PiPress covers the conflict over the signs in this article today.

Unscientific observations around the metro area suggest that most companies aren't posting signs. A Minnesota Chamber of Commerce survey also indicates that's the case. In early June the chamber informally surveyed its members. Nearly 70 percent of the 250 or so companies that responded already ban, or planned to ban, their employees from carrying guns at work. But only about a third said they planned to post a "no guns" sign and inform customers of the ban, said Tom Hesse, chamber director of labor management policy.

I've personally been amazed; I've walked down a couple of local business streets, and seen almost no posted establishments, even among those with known DFLer ownership. I've only noticed the signs at the Dome during a Twins game, at the Megamall, and at a little grocery store in Highland Park (a neighborhood in St. Paul that wears liberal sanctimony like a (hand-knit Peruvian free-trade) hairshirt.

It's a fairly simple legal