Shot In The Dark

My Least Favorite Time Of The Year

I hate Halloween.

I mean, when I was a kid and young enough for trick-or-treating, it was fine. And when my kids were between 2 and maybe 8-10 years old, it was kind of fun, in that "remember this forever" kind of way.

But now, Halloween is just a grind; find some damn candy, get something for the kids to wear for their Halloween parties, drive around, stress stress stress...

It's everything that the stereotype says is wrong with Christmas, for crying out loud!

Make It Stop!

Does that make me a Halloween scrooge? Well, humbug it is!

Strib: "Hey! There Was A Reformation!"

The Strib notes last week's media-induced farce over Michnele Bachmann's putative (and false) believe that the Pope is the antichrist:

The labyrinthine doctrine of a theologically conservative Lutheran denomination has wound its way into the Sixth District congressional campaign

Well, let's be honest; here's what really happened:

1. A bunch of liberal bloggers dredged up a baked rumor based on long-obsolesced theological antagonism left over from the Reformation. The Strib even notes it, if only obliquely: "Liberal blogs are abuzz with claims that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the parent of Bachmann's church, holds that the pope is the antichrist...The issue surfaced on the Internet last week at www. faithfuldemocrats.com,". And as we all know, if you read it in a liberal blog, it must be true.
2. So the story, as the Strib says, "got a mention on Saturday's Star Tribune opinion page". What do you suppose the odds were?
3. Made it into last weekend's WCCO debates; as the Strib said, "[it] was the subject of a weekend debate question that WCCO-TV's Pat Kessler put to Bachmann". Again, let's try to be honest here; Kessler stated it as fact, even turning to Wetterling and saying "Assuming this story is true...", keeping the non-theological non-issue in play, allowing Wetterling to exploit it to her benefit before an unwitting audience, and forever dispelling any notion that Kessler, once a great political reporter, is a whole lot better or less biased than Doug Grow or Lori Sturdevant.

Y'see, major media figures, we had this thing called The Reformation, starting about 600 years ago. Protestants split from Catholics, wars were fought, hundreds of years of prejudices and bigotries and animosities formed...

...and eventually faded.

To the point where someone like a Michele Bachmann, a devout evangelical Protestant, can say something like...:

Bachmann replied, "That's a false statement. ... It's abhorrent, religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the pope is the antichrist. That's absolutely false. ... I welcome and have as part of our family many Catholic members as well."

...rather than "what, you're going to vote for a Papist, who takes orders from Rome?", as she might have had to have said 100 years ago in order to not get shunned by her own church.

But Catholics United for the Common Good, an online group based in Massachusetts, demanded that Bachmann denounce any association of the pope with the antichrist.

Really, CLUCG? You'd like it if Bachmann denounce what she, in the paragraph I cited above, denounced?

Tell ya what, CLUCG: has your group denounced Catholicism's long-standing anti-semitism, which was firmly-engrained enough in Catholicism to remain part of the liturgy until the sixties? A strain that caused many devoutly-Catholic Poles to hate the conquering Nazis less than their Jewish neighbors?

No?

Why?

Because the Catholic Church as a whole distanced itself from that historical crime? Because it is not what the Church believes today? Because Pope John Paul spent much of his career reconciling Catholicism with the Jews?

If anything, Catholics and Protestant have been working longer to heal their rifts - and nowhere longer than in the US, where Protestant/Catholic (and Christian/Jewish) rivalry is mainly a matter of private-school football and rantings of the occasional sect of lunatics.

So if I asked you, CLUCG, to denounce that part of the Catholic Church's history, you might reply "that's all been dealt with!". And you'd be right.

We Protestants are protestants for a reason; there are certain areas of Christian theology on which we differ from the Catholics (as they differ from the Orthodox). They are matters of doctrine, not causes for war - at least among non-fringe commentators. As Bachmann notes, she and her church join the vast, vast majority of Protestant Christians in happily co-existing with Catholics.

So why is this an issue?

Because many in the media are no less zealous in their hatred of and fear for Bachmann - and the very notion of evangelicals in society, to say nothing of government - than these freaks - and no less ignorant about what Christians of all stripes really believe.

Of Passing Interest

Ynyuk nyuk)

So who is that team that's choking halfway through the season?

Empty purple seats were abundant with more than 10 minutes remaining. Backup quarterback Brooks Bollinger had replaced starter Brad Johnson. The New England Patriots were still rolling down the field with their rarely used shotgun offense, as if they needed to work on a few more things before the regular season began.

This was no exhibition, however. The Vikings absorbed their worst home loss in five seasons, a complete 31-7 thrashing from the Patriots.

Doh. Bummer.

But - wait? Who is that team that's still undefeated atop the NFC North?

Could it be this team of plucky underdogs?

Er...underursines?

Why, yes - I believe it could be!

Oh, don't worry. I still don't have time to follow football. But if the Bears make it past the first round, expect me to become thoroughly obnoxious.

When I Was 16

...this was what I wanted to be when I grew up.

Complete with the "1" at the bottom of my Les Paul.

Or for me, maybe an "8".

I'd probably wrench my arm if I tried to windmill like that anymore.

I Don't Believe In Karma

But I do believe that what goes around comes around.

Apropos nothing in particular.

We're Number 291! Or 345!

Saint Paul comes in #291 on the list of the safest cities in the US according to the NYTimes.

Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis comes in at 345 - behind stereotypically crime-ridden cities like Philadelphia (#343) and, funniest of all, Houston (#325), the city that Minneapolis liberals tut-tut about turning into if they don't repel the Republican agenda. Minneapolis comes in only five spots ahead of Newark, NJ (#350), and eight ahead of Washington DC (#353).

Detroit can rejoice; the Motor City came in at #370, one ahead of last-place Saint Louis.

Zzzzzz: Strib Crowns A-Klo

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Surprising nobody, the Strib endorses A-Klo for U.S. Senate.

The timing is clearly right for Amy Klobuchar. Long recognized as a rising political talent, Klobuchar has come into her own during this year's high-profile campaign to replace fellow DFLer Mark Dayton in the U.S. Senate.

No, really. The Strib says so. It must be true.

Her message is spot on, her competence is manifest and her direct, upbeat and outgoing personality seems equally comfortable in every small town, suburb and city in Minnesota. The Star Tribune recommends Amy Klobuchar's election on Nov. 7.

Her message is standard-issue DFL, Minneapolis' crime rates and catch-and-releast policy call her competence into harsh dispute, and she has the personality of a politician.

Had Kennedy been campaigning from the private sector or a state-level post, it would be easier to listen to him argue, as he did recently on "Meet the Press," that we can't "TiVo and play replays" on Iraq, that the focus should only be forward. But Kennedy and his fellow members of Congress have yet to be held accountable for their credulous backing of the president, even in light of ever-emerging evidence that the White House misread the situation and misled the public from day one of this shameful war. Kennedy's recent acknowledgment that mistakes have been made seems more a desperate campaign move than evidence of serious rethinking, given that he still supports current administration policy.

Against which we have...

Klobuchar argues for acknowledging reality -- i.e. that "this really is a civil war, sectarian civil war. There is terrorism there. But to solve this, it's going to be a diplomatic and political solution."

Hennepin County attorney since 1999, Klobuchar has spent the past several years focusing on crime and running a large prosecutorial office.

And run it badly, using its various tools for appeasing special interests and self-promotion as a stepping stone to higher office from day one.

Nevertheless, she offers informed opinions on U.S. policy both at home and abroad

Screeeeeeeeech

Informed opinions?

She said we should pull US troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, ready to come racing back if the situation goes south.

In whose world is this "well-informed"? Afghanistan makes a lousy base for starters - what sense does it make to leave a place and "plan" to take it back later?

Why, that makes as much sense as continually releasing convicted criminals to the streets on probation, to re-commit crime after crime!

Are we seeing a pattern, here?

The whole thing reads like...

...I was going to say "PR copy", and it does read like that. But more than that - its like the Strib editors are writing about a friend, not a politician. Almost like it's the daughter of their old pal and drinking buddy.

For whose political career the Strib has been carrying water for the better part of a decade.

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today (or Yesterday), Part XXXVI

It was Wednesday, October 29, 1986. It was time to become a rock star.

After a manic blast of auditioning for bands when I'd first moved to the Cities - in the winter and spring of '85-'86 - I figured I'd take some time off, concentrate on work (which needed quite a bit of concentration, at the time), and work on music in my spare time.

Given my intermittently obsessive nature, that involved getting home from work much of the summer and curling up in front of my Fostex X-15 four-track cassette player (it looked a lot like this), a drum machine, an electronic organ (which when miked properly did a passable Farfisa impression, and after a couple of beers sounded more and more like a Hammond B3), and my guitars and bass, and cutting demo tapes).

And cutting. And cutting.

Over the summer - starting in May, running through September - I must have recorded 60 or 70 songs; a few were covers (I was unaccountably proud of my version of "Skateaway"), most were things I'd written. Of the stuff I wrote, most was crap, and I knew it even then. I'd exhumed a few things I'd jotted down in college (bathetic crap mixed with derivative crap), and wrote tons more crap (a combination of contrived crap and slapdash crap) after I moved to the Cities.

But in and among the crap were a few bits and pieces, maybe five songs, that I was fairly proud of, and that I'd done some decent demos for.

So I took out an ad in the City Pages' "Musicians Wanted" section.

"Musicians Wanted" was pretty much where the whole lower range of the Twin Cities' music scene vented its hopes, desires and fears in those days. Ads from brash bands of teenagers pulsed with desire to rock the entire world; fatigue and smoke wafted from bar-band guitarists looking for a paying gig; synth-pop artistes oozed bemused contempt for whatever mainstream they recognized; punks' ads read like old Replacements records sounded. There was one ad that must have run for two years; I still remember it well enough to paraphrase closely:

NuDu Seeks Keyboardist

NuDu; pure wave, pure noise, pure attitude. Do you DARE? Call 612-555-5555

I don't know if NuDu ever found their keyboard player. I'm loathe to say they passed into unknown band history, keyboardless, and are all working as mortgage underwriters and school principals; I remember reading a listing in New Yorker when I was in high school, in about 1980, for a group playing at CBGB. The name struck me as so relentlessly dumb, I figured they could never make it big.

My prediction was, unfortunately, wrong.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. City Pages.

Me? I'd wanted something different. The previous week, I wrote an ad and carried it down to the City Pages' office.

The actual ad is long lost to history, but I remember trying to write it. The key point to writing a "Musicians Wanted" ad was not so much to say what you were about, it seemed (at least, if you wanted to do your own music); rather, you were about your "influences". Since nobody knew you (or your music, if you were trying to write your own), then "Influences" were sort of a lingua franca; if you listed Brian Ferry as an influence, you were likely not going to joining a bunch of New York Dolls fans in a band. T

Of course, interpretations of influences varied widely. Listing "Bono", for example, might mean you were into raw, passionate delivery, or it could imply artiness (especially if you listed Echo and the Bunnymen or The Cure along with Bono), or perhaps an interest in gleefully bombastic music. And of course, listing any big name - Prince, Springsteen, Paul Westerberg, Bob Mould - was a kid's desperately-uncool mistake, unless you were starting a straight-up cover band (playing nothing but stuff off the radio to, y'know, make real money or something).

Me? I had to be crafty. I took the oblique route. I listed "Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, the Iron City Houserockers, Richard Thompson and Hemingway". My strategy was ingeniously clever; the Jukes and Houserockers would show that I was a Springsteen buff, but knew the genre better than most (or was merely cooler than the average fan); the Thompson reference was a back-door reference to the bombastic Celtic/Gaelic revisionism of U2, the Alarm and Big Country; Hemingway just showed how dang cool I was. And above all - if I found someone out there who'd heard of the Houserockers or the Jukes, I'd be most likely among friends.

That was the theory.

And today - Wednesday - the ad came out.

I stopped at the record store on the way home to see if the ad made it in; it had. I read it dozens of times as I walked back to the jeep and sped home.

I got into the house, and rolled tape on the answering machine.

Weekend Earworm

Earworm, from the German ohrwurm, is the "technical" term for "those songs that drill themselves into your head for hours or days or weeks, and you can't stop thinking/humming them".

I get 'em all the time. In 1991, I hummed "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt" for three straight weeks.

As I noted a couple of weeks ago, I never much liked British art-geek-spazz-pop-wave band XTC. Which didn't stop me from humming Life Begins At The Hop for the better part of a week...

...to be replaced by yet another XTC tune, "Senses Working Overtime".

The catch is, which one do I like best?

XTC's version?

Or the cover by, um, Mandy Moore?

Sort of like hearing the same song done by Elvis Costello and the Patty Loveless.

Absence of Grace

It started so well.

Bob Collins - MPR's webmeister and proprietor of the network's "Polinaut" blog - wrote excellent piece on remembering, in this heated, uncivil political season, what the important things are. The piece was in reference to Learned Foot's wife's diagnosis with cancer.

Collins tried. He really did:

We get wrapped up in politics a lot...Sometimes, it's just a game. But that doesn't stop us from projecting as 'evil' those with whom we politically disagree. We should catch ourselves doing that in the heat of the campaign because when all is said and done, we're supposed to be united and when this election season is over, if we still view others as 'evil,' then nothing good can come of it, regardless of who wins the election.

The next person I meet in the blogosphere who actually is a first class jerk personally, will be the first one...Because some things are more important than politics...

...he wrote, referencing Foot's story.

And then, right out of the gate, the first comment, from Bill Prendergast - one of the more logorrheac nattering nabobs who comments endlessly over at Eva Young's Dump Bachmann obsessionblog - hijacks the entire thread to take a swing at Michele Bachmann:

It is entirely possible that a person you disagree with politically--is in fact "evil."

For example: if a person is a hatemonger who makes false charges against her fellow Americans to further her political career--doesn't that make her "evil"?

Over four or five wide column inches, not a single word about Mrs. Foot or about Collins' point. Simple hijacking.

Loathsome. Simply loathsome.

I try to get along with people. I can even bend an elbow with Mark Gisleson and the MN Publius kids, for crying out loud - because I believe that once the election is over, you still gotta share a country with those people. (I have no idea if Gisleson or the MNPublii believe any such thing; faith springs eternal. Although it was interesting to see a number of leftybloggers, including some fairly abrasive ones, offering Mrs. Foot their best wishes in Foot's original comment section. Why, it's almost like, even though they believe differently than us, they're still human.

Hm.

But that would seem to be more than Mr. Prendergast will allow for those with whom he disagrees.

What must it be like, to be so knotted up with hatred over...politics that one can't take one lousy post's worth of vacation from bile and rage?

Patty Wetterlying - Again

While we've established that the Strib's Eric Black is loathe to use the word "lying" lightly (at all?), he does come pretty close in appraising Patty Wetterlying's latest ad; (emphasis added):

A highly deceptive ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee takes one vote out of context to distort congressional candidate Michele Bachmann's record on crime.

And by "taking out of context", we mean "logical mugging in service of Wetterling's most cynical lie in a campaign where her lying cynicism would have made her at home in the Nixon CIA".

The 30-second ad, which has been airing for about a week, invites voters to infer that Bachmann opposed longer sentences for repeat sex offenders when Bachmann actually voted for tougher sentences..."Who would vote against a bill that puts repeat sex offenders behind bars for life?" The ad asks, then answers: "Michele Bachmann."

The ad also suggests that Bachmann voted against "making operating meth labs close to children a crime" and against "letting police alert parents when sex offenders move to neighborhoods."

The real context?

All three statements rely on a single vote, taken April 12, 2004, when an omnibus bill passed the Senate 35-31 with Bachmann voting no.

The bill did include provisions that would have created a potential life sentence for repeat sex offenders, criminalize the operation of meth labs close to children and strengthen provisions for notification of neighborhoods when out-of-state sex offenders moved in.

But there is no fair or rational basis for asserting that Bachmann's reasons for voting against the bill were that she opposed tougher sentences or more neighborhood notification.

The vote

Earlier in the legislative session, the Republican-controlled House had passed a crime bill that, in many instances, included tougher anti-crime provisions than the version favored by the DFL-controlled Senate...As the crime provisions made their way through the Senate, Bachmann voted in favor of an amendment that would have [drastically tightened penalties for sex crimes]...By the time the bill came up for final passage, the DFL majority had attached substantial spending provisions for health care, education and other functions unrelated to crime. Bachmann and all other Senate Republicans voted no. All Senate DFLers voted yes and the bill passed the Senate.

The DFL, naturally, as a defense all ready - in this case, a bit by DCCC apparatchik Bill Burton that may qualify as the stupidest spin I've ever seen:

"Look, the bottom line is, she voted against the bill," Burton said. "The bill specifically would have stiffened penalties against sex offenders and done a series of things that made penalties tougher. ... If she was for these things, then she would have voted for the bill. ...

Translated: "We Democrats sure hope you Minnesotans are too stupid to think".

No, really. Her last three ads have been, for lack of a more accurate term, cynical lies:

• One ad claimed that the Fair Tax - which Michele Bachmann supports - would raise taxes 23%. It didn't deign to mention that it would also eliminate income and payroll taxes; most working families would see a net drop in taxes.
• Another ad claimed that House GOP leadership had admitted to covering up for Tom Foley
• Finally, this ad.

Patty Wetterling; sorry about your son and all, but that doesn't excuse your turning into a lying scumbag (or letting your people do it for you).

Know Them By Their Actions

Ignore for a moment that Keith Ellison was a member of an antisemitic hate group, that the Strib is in the bag for his campaign, or that he has a fairly self-indulgent sense of ethics.

Why would one not vote for him?

Reason number one, of course, is the reason so many on the left like him; "he's the most progressive candidate out there", where "progressive" equals regression to the thirties.

But, as Swiftee notes, his legislative record needs some examining. For example, in the past session, Ellison:

...authored a bill that would decriminalize making false reports of police brutality. He authored a bill that would make it easier for people to attack the police due to diminished legal consequence. I betting that the Bloods & Crips really appreciated Keith's attention to their issues.
SEE HF 2951 False information relating to police misconduct criminal provision repealed.

Read the whole thing.

Your Roots Are Showing

Ed notes that Rightroots is switching to its two-minute drill:

For the final ten days, we want to focus on the ten candidates that we feel have the best opportunity to win their races. We are asking for one final round of contributions for these Republican challengers:

Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Mike Bouchard (MI-Sen)
Max Burns (GA-12)
John Gard (WI-08)
Thomas Kean (NJ-Sen)
Mike McGavick (WA-Sen)
David McSweeney (IL-08)
Ray Meier (NY-24)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Michael Steele (MD-Sen)

Read the whole thing - and see if you can dig out a buck or two.

People Say...

...that I march to the beat of a different drummer.

It may be true.

My drummer is...

...Keith Moon.

That is all.

Defining Smart Down

The Strib endorses the St. Paul school levy.

This would be the third levy since 2000.

The endorsement is the same old claptrap for the same old tax hike. But some of the "justifications" for the endorsement grabbed my attention:

If the levy is approved, the owner of a $200,000 house would pay an additional $97 per year.

About $17 of that total renews a previous levy that would maintain class sizes and continue essential, proven programs. The expanded funding would support all-day kindergarten, classes for 4-year-olds and Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE). That's smart spending.

Huh?

Classes for four-year-olds and all-day kindergarten are make-work jobs for the teacher's union; outside of their convenience for working families, I'm beggared to think of a single benefit, sort of giving school districts more time to browbeat children into compliant little units of production on the assembly line.

So how is it "smart spending?" The Strib needs to start defining what "smart spending" is, and why a particular cost is "smart".

(Or, if they want to keep their readers dumb and compliant, of course, maybe they shouldn't...).

When I started reading the article, I thought to myself "there's going to be a threat in here".

Sure enough:

If this 2006 request fails, 200 teachers and other staff could be laid off and class sizes would rise. Voters should approve the levy on Nov. 7 to keep the positive momentum going.

Always with the threats.

Every school district threatens to lay off platoons of teachers come election time. By mid-budget-time, the funds are magically found to keep the vast majority working.

Anyone want to lay odds on this time?

Thoughts, Prayers, Wishes

I've met Learned Foot, his wife, Mrs. Foot, and both of their little Feet. They're great people, and a wonderful couple - among my favorite people on the MOB, itself among my favorite people.

So I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach when I read this:

The biopsy results arrived. She has cancer.

What does a guy do, then?

And so the world transforms - obviously moreso for her than for me. Things that seemed bothersome or joyful yesterday fade into the background and our attentions focus on a new, more immediate purpose. Nothing else matters, and it causes one to pause and reflect on whether some of those things ever should have mattered.

It's a profound question.

But some of those things do. If one is to survive and cherish life to its very core, one must also enjoy it's banalities, its annoyances and its simple pleasures.

Please extend your prayers, hopes and best wishes to the Feet.

(Bumped up from Thursday)

Like Raaaaaiiiin, On Your Wedding Day, Part II

I almost missed this: The Strib endorsed former St. Paul top cop Bill Finney for Ramsey sheriff, giving him the nod over Bob Fletcher.

I have nothing against either of them. Both are excellent cops; both have their detractors as well as supporters; everyone has a point.

The Ramsey County Sheriff is officially a non-partisan race. Finney, of course, has been bandied about as a politician with a future in the DFL (he considered running for mayor of St. Paul last year), so the endorsement over Fletcher, who is believed to have GOP-ish sympathies by urban top cop standards, is no shock. Fletcher might be a subtle Republican; Finney - a gun enthusiast in his private life - is probably too moderate to be endorsed for mayor by the St. Paul DFL.

No surprise here.

What is interesting is this bit:

It was also extremely offensive that the sheriff used his office to reopen a 25-year-old suspicious death case involving a friend of Finney's. The sheriff denies any political motives, but the timing speaks volumes.

So let me get this straight; the timing of a story with implications of smeariness...

..."speaks volumes?"

Hm.

I say again, Hm, hmmm hmm-ity hmmm-ity hmmm.

Yes. It "speaks volumes", doesn't it?

By the way, the phrase "speaks volumes" is on my official list of cliches that must be destroyed. "Speaks volumes" is the new scare quotes (you know, when someone is writing about a candidate and describes them as "christian", in quotes, the unstated coda being "or are they REALLY?"), and has become a way for the rhetocially-ungifted to impugn someone's logic, rationale or character without actually going to the trouble of explaining themselves.

Be done with it!

Ed Calls For Mooning

No, actually he calls for a moon shot for energy, invoking the image of John F. Kennedy's visionary launching of the quest to land on the moon:

Most Americans would agree that the US has to move away from dependency on foreign oil. In this election, both parties have made it part of their arguments. So far, though, we have seen little in specific policy to accomplish this.

So I ask CQ readers: is it time for a moon-shot on energy, and if so, what would it take?

I think it's high time we cast off the hard-left's superstitions and returned to generating nuclear power, among other things.

Go over to Ed's blog and leave a comment.

Zzzzzz: Strib Sixth CD Endorsement

The Strib, following a script that would seem to have been written two years ago, endorses Patty Wetterling:

But voters who have taken a good, careful look will recognize that Wetterling is the real moderate here -- a compassionate but sensible voice for mainstream Minnesota values.

Uh oh. It's those "Sensible Minnesota Values" again.

For those of you from out of state, that's the Strib's shorthand for the "Sweden Lite" big-government nannystatism that defined Minnesota from the sixties through the nineties - as if Minnesotans uniformly crave cradle-to-grave welfare and government acting as a surrogate mommy (if there were only smart enough to know it, the Strib might lament).

In fact, who let the strawman into the house? Bachmann has never painted herself - could not paint herself - as a centrist! And that's a good thing!

Bachmann has campaigned on broad strokes of low taxes and patriotic ideals. But her career in the Minnesota Senate was built on the narrowest of agendas, chiefly injecting her religious values into the public sphere.

What's so stupid about that statement?

What isn't?

Bachmann has always campaigned as a visionary, not a policy wonk. She's been a driving force for education reform (but not the kind the Strib approves of), but the fact that she leads with her values is her biggest selling point. You can teach any monkey or Ivy Leaguer to be a policy wonk; you can't teach either to go to Washington to uncompromisingly stump for the principles you agree with.

As, it seems, many in her district do.

Her recent testimony to a Brooklyn Park congregation that God called her to run for Congress -- and win -- is an embarrassment

Only if you carefully cut away all context (or are ignorant of it, or wish you readers to remain that way); the notion of God "calling" one is not in the least inscrutable to most evangelical believers, and isn't foreign to serious believers in almost any faith. These, of course, are the exact people the likes of the Strib and the hard left find so "Scary" and inscrutable; as we all know, the end result of fear and ignorance is the sort of bigotry the Strib displays in that statement.

Wetterling, by contrast, is a genuine centrist. She supports a balanced budget and tax cuts for the middle class;

Presented as if the balanced budget were the sine qua non of virtues (it's a good thing, but only if you achieve it by cutting spending, which Wetterling will never do). She'd raise taxes on capital, which will slow the economy, which is not acceptable.

she wants the troops home from Iraq, but would ask the generals how to do it;

"Cut and Jog"

When asked to cite favorite politicians, she quickly names Rep. Jim Ramstad and former Sen. David Durenberger, both respected Republicans.

And both the kind of Republicans that DFL minions like the Strib trot out when they want to appear less like an arm of the DFL.

Zzzzzz: Strib Fifth CD Endorsement

Hang on to your breakfast; the Strib endorses...

...Keith Ellison

Critics have tried to paint the Minneapolis DFLer as a radical and a divider. That simply doesn't square with the view of people who know him.

Yeah, but it's all of us who don't know him that have the questions...

...that the Strib doens't seem interested in answering. Scott Johnson has spent much of 2006 documenting the things the Strib doesn't think are important enough for you, the majority that doesn't know Keith Ellison, to know.

Colleagues at the Legislature describe a congenial and productive lawmaker. Fellow lawyers say Ellison is a hardworking and talented attorney.

Yeah, but the isn't that Ellison is stupid or unaccomplished. Merely that he's been intensely disingenuous about his past as a supporter of an antisemitic radical group. A simple renunciation of the Nations of Islam might go a long way toward burying the issue - but that's not been forthcoming, and it's not expected.

We are mindful that Ellison has a history of carelessness that is more than personal peccadillo -- unpaid parking tickets, late taxes, missed deadlines for campaign finance documents. He has promised to run a tighter ship, and he will have to if he wants to secure the confidence of Fifth District constituents and survive the brutal politics of Washington.

Unstated; the Strib made damn sure the allegations get in the way of "secur[ing] the confidence" of the voters, just in case.

The real drama in this race is the way Republican Alan Fine has discredited his own campaign with overwrought attacks on Ellison,

No.

The real drama is the way the Strib put away its "journalist" hat to become a tacit arm of the Ellison campaign and the DFL, by:

• Running a defamatory-by-omission hit piece on Fine
• Not deigning to accurately report Ellison's own legal jhistory, to say nothing of...
• ignoring Ellison's history with the Nations of Islam.

Some enterprising reporter, by the way, needs to ask a question or two about Strib reporter Rochelle Olson's relationship to Keith and Kim Ellison. Observers say it seemed a bit...convivial, for a relationship that, supposedly, is supposed to be adversarial.

More on that, hopefully, later.

Market 1, Regulation 0

Not long ago, the left was in a fine panicky froth over Clear Channel's control of thousands of radio stations.

"Relax", said conservatives. "If it's a bad idea, the market will correct it".

It appears we were right:

The hiring of Goldman Sachs brings the Mays family, which controls Clear Channel, closer to a possible leveraged buyout. Chief Executive Officer Mark Mays has spun off the company's live entertainment unit, Live Nation Inc., and sold shares of its outdoor advertising unit, Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc., in an IPO. The stock has been hurt by slow growth in the radio industry...Shares of Clear Channel gained $3.15 to $35.50 in extended trading. They rose 15 cents to $32.50 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading

One of the things Clear Channel reportedly wants to spin off the most is its huge number of small-market radio stations - which was one of the things that most exercised Clear Channel's foes.

So - what was the problem again?

Attention, Rambix Correspondents

When Rambix retired from his essential "Red Star" blog - which covered the Minneapolis crime stories that the Strib just wouldn't - he left some huge shoes to fill. More importantly, he left a small network of informants with, seemingly, no outlet for their information.

Until, we hope, now.

Margaret Martin of Our House and Taxpayers League Live has kicked of the Minneapolis Crime Watch blog.

Says Margaret:

For the time being, I'm probably just going to be commenting on media reporting of crime with a few anecdotes about our own neighborhood crime issues thrown in. I considered just posting on crime on our Our House Blog but crime has become such a factor in our lives of late that I didn't want the blog to degenerate into all crime all the time, since that's not an accurate representation of our lives either.

So here's the big thing; if you're a Rambix informant, or just have information about a crime in the Metro that is under-covered by the major media, drop Margaret a line.

Sign of Reform?

In North Dakota, there's a billboard battle going on between supporters and detractors of "Measure 3", areferendum on imposing a presumption of joint physical custody in cases of divorce , unless there's a compelling, empirical reason not to.

The North Dakota State Bar Association opposes the measure for reasons that sound rational on their face, but don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

But when parents cannot agree on how to share custody, measure #3 mandates a 50-50 division of custody unless one of the parents is declared unfit. The best interests of the child come into play only if there has been a finding of unfitness. How are parents who cannot agree on their own going to make a 50-50 custody arrangement work?

Because the "threat" of a 50-50 arrangement might make some parents into better, more thoughtful negotiators?

Seriously - the lack of faith in parents that the NDBA shows is astounding.

The real effect of measure #3 is to disproportionately shift bargaining power to parties who presently are not good candidates for child custody.

Stated without any attribution or fact on its surface - and worse than that underneath.

The measure would give men - fathers - a place at the bargaining table, and a chance to defend their relationship with their children, a chance they are currently largely denied.

The NDBA is saying, if you follow the statement ot its logical conclusion, that men are just not suited to raise kids.

Is this what the law should enshrine?

It has nothing to do with children’s interests, and everything to do with the unhappiness of some non-custodial parents. Shifting bargaining power to non-custodial parents will not result in fewer contested cases, as the measure’s proponents claim. Family law practitioners estimate the current divorce settlement rate of 85% to 90% will drop to around 50%, increasing the trial load for divorces 300% to 400%.

So says the NDBA.

And let's accept this as a given (which I don't); so what?

The current system has a low "settlement rate" because, in a huge number of cases, men are advised they really have no chance of "winning" in court; just settle, pony up your child support, and settle in to being a part-time parent, at the mercy of your ex-spouse, until your kids are 18.

Given that, an increase in "trial load" might be a good thing.

But I'd love to see the basis on which "family law practitioners estimate" those numbers, since it beggars the imagination.

The second thing measure #3 does is to destroy the present child support system, and deprive the state of $71,000,000 in TANF funds, what used to be called AFDC.

Aaaaah. So after all that yammering about the best interests of children - which many studies have shown is best served by joint physical custody anyway - it really comes down to money?

North Dakotans - reject the misery pimps, and vote for Measure 3.

A-Klo: Puppet

Andy Aplikowski on how completely A-Klo is a DNC puppet.

Just read the whole thing. It's the funniest thing AAA's ever written - and just about the most dead-on.

Deeper Problems

Chris Riemenschneider discovers that Republicans can turn off politics when it comes to entertainment:

[Rod] Oman, 39, of Burnsville, shelled out $250 apiece for two tickets to Tuesday night's [Barbra Streisand] Xcel Energy Center concert, even though he's really not much of a fan of Streisand's music. His wife, Stephanie, is, and she didn't want to miss the first and perhaps only chance to see the superstar diva perform in the Twin Cities.

One other snag, though: Rod is also (gasp!) a Republican. "Throw in a $100 dinner and her dress and pantyhose, and I figure I paid a whole lot to essentially hear someone speak on behalf of the Democratic National Committee," Oman joked on his way into the St. Paul arena.

Gasp?

Look, there's no accounting for taste - I don't like Streisand's music, although I admire her technique as a singer - but "gasp?"

I run into this all the time; liberals amazed (or "amazed") that conservatives can shut down the political center of their minds for art or entertainment - and not being absorbed into the dark side in the process.

[Michael]
Elliott was another Republican who braved the show. "I'm hoping she just keeps politics out of it and just sticks to the music," he said, "but it's her right to do what she wants."

Hm. What a concept.

Streisand did bring out a George W. Bush impersonator for a few canned jokes, but the results were far tamer than her much-publicized, expletive-spiked shouting match with a heckler at a New York concert -- which she coyly referred to Tuesday.

"You can take the girl out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the girl," she said.

What? She's dirty, smelly, loud, vermin-infested, with areas of obnoxioius gentrification?

Question

Has anyone seen Ryan Rhodes lately?

Just curious

Those Gatekeepers At Work

I've read this Lori Sturdevant column a few times. I'm still trying to figure it out.

Is it a shot at the Strib's "Church and State" story about Michele Bachmann's appearance at Mac Hammond's Living Word Christian Center?

At a church not far from the one at which Michele Bachmann declared herself "a fool for Christ" last weekend, religion and politics recently found a very different intersection.

Close to 500 people turned out at St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church in Maple Grove on Oct. 12, for one of seven regional rallies under the all-caps banner ISAIAH.

Is it a paeon to those "Non-conservative evangelicals" for whom the Strib has been doing a rain dance, trying to conjure from the ether this past few months (trying, the cynic might say, to dilute the political and demographic juggernaut that are the conservative evalgelicals)?

But I'm old enough to recognize the intersection at which ISAIAH is trying to set up shop. It's the spot where the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements thrived in the 1960s. Back then, the word "Christian" wasn't automatically followed by "conservative" in political conversations. And those conversations weren't always, or even often, about matters of personal morality.

The peace-and-justice Christians of 40 years ago seemed to go underground, 'long about Ronald Reagan. But many of them kept their faith and bided their time for a comeback. ISAIAH leaders say that time is now, and in Minnesota, they are the comeback vehicle.

Is it a plug for a shopping list of pet causes?

Still, something is stirring when 400-plus suburbanites stream into a church on a school night to talk about the need for more mass transit, battered women's shelters, school funding and chances for immigrant kids to go to college.

Or is it a campaign plug for some candidates the Strib deems acceptable?

Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, a crowd pleaser and big fan of ISAIAH, was there, as was his challenger, DFLer Wendy Wilde.

I know! It was a shill for a party the Strib has been promoting?

But only one of the major-party candidates for governor appeared -- and Peter Hutchinson's presence wasn't enough for a group that's promoting more citizen interaction with public decisionmakers.

But wait...it could just be a bad case of wishful thinking...:

Add that churchful to the goodly number of Minnesotans who've been annoyed this fall by the refusal of GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty and DFLer Mike Hatch to share a stage with Hutchinson.

I don't think a "goodly number" of Minnesotans know who Peter Hutchinson is, or for that matter that the Independence Party exists. I'd be amazed if 30% of Minnesotans knew that Jesse Ventura "belonged to" (hah) the party.

Another possibility - it's a muffled sign that Sturdevant realizes she works for an institution whose relevance and importance is decaying by the decade, and she's projecting that upon a couple of groups that have never been relevant, except in the rarified world of the wonk and the self-righteousness addict:

Understandably, the big boys' debate dodging has Hutchinson in a lather . But it's also ruffling ISAIAH. Hear Sarah Gleason, chair of the group's legislative strategy team, on the gubernatorial no-shows in Maple Grove: "This is what makes people cynical. It gives them the feeling that they don't have an opportunity to be heard or to help shape their future. In a democracy, that feeling is deadly. It's what we're trying to overcome."

Democracy will fall if the major candidates don't trudge out to debate in front of a group of liberal sanctimaniacs?

Finally - maybe it's Lori Sturdevant's homage to the art and craft of liberalblogging:

ISAIAH's organizing slogan this year is "Faith in Democracy: Renewing the Promise." Minnesotans would be seeing a different campaign right now if the two big parties shared that goal.

"Why do Pawlenty and Hatch hate democracy?"

Perhaps Sturdevant is ill, and her editors had to assemble a column from pieces cut out of half a dozen other columns. If so, get well soon!

Other possibilities?

The Other Stakes

Tim "All Foley, All The Time" O'Brien of the Strib's "Blog House" says:

It's looking more and more like Republicans are going to be having a blue election day.

Well, to be fair, that was something the Strib decided on about November 3, 2004, whatever the facts were. They've tailored every aspect of their coverage, from the Minnesota Poll and their selective coverage of the candidates (again) down to...well, Blog House.

But let's discuss degrees of blue. Chris Bowers at the vacuous MyDD writes

"Even the big problems that have pushed Republican chances so low ... are not Republican 'mistakes' as such. They are instead, inherent to Republican governance now that the modern conservative movement has taken over the Republican Party and are finally being exposed by a more capable progressive opposition."

When "more capable" equals "no message", you have a pretty good summation of the Democrat party in 2006. But let's stick with Tim O'Brien's prediction: with talk like that, the Dems are going to have to deliver BIG on November 7.

If on November 8 the Dems control the House by less than 20-30 seats, or the Senate by less than 10, they will have failed. If they don't unseat Pawlenty, turn back Michele Bachmann, and get two of the three other constitutional offices, they will have failed in Minnesota.

Because any less a victory will leave Bush and Pawlenty, both, in a position to accomplish quite a lot in the next two years - and 2008 is a whole new ball game, one the Democrats seem from two years out extraordinarily ill-equipped to do much with.

Blue - the color of oxygen starvation.

Fear Factor

I found this, digging around the Shot in the Dark historical archives:

POINT: WINSTON CHURCHILL: "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

COUNTERPOINT: JOSHUA MICAH GLIBMAN: "It'd be great if Churchill could fight this war without having to resort to all this fearmongering. Like Hitler could really invade England. Doyy! And look at that dumb mustache; you think a guy like that could run a war?

Why does Churchill Hate England?

I did a bit of digging. Here was 1941:

POINT: PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack."

COUNTERPOINT: SARAH JANE VON LUMPEN: "Leave aside that the Japanese offered Roosevelt a chance to end this war, starting an hour after the attack that served as Roosevelt's excuse to start the war (why does Roosevelt hate diplomacy?). Forget, for a moment, that building all those planes and tanks and aircraft carriers does nothing about bringing Emperor Hirohito to justice (he's still running free in Japan!).

My question: Why the blatant appeal to fear?

I flipped ahead to 1987:

PRESIDENT REAGAN: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion.

COUNTERPOINT: LUCAS HAYDEN: "Again with the Soviet Boogeyman! Boo! Be afraid of the Big Bad Ivan!

Criminy - why does Reagan always have to appeal to fear? The Russians had good reason to put up that wall - to defend them from the Nazis!

Ridiculous?

Not compared to the left's current conceit - that calling awareness to the gathering demographic and social storm of Islamofascist radicalism is "fearmongering", or, for that matter, that campaigning using it as a backdrop is an appeal to the constituents' fear.

Beeeej, who is -= sure enough, a liberal New York lawyer, and an old friend of mine - wrote in the comment section about my post on the GOP's "The Stakes" ad...:

The ad and the sentiment behind it are despicable. We need people who are serious about making us safe without relying on fear to hold onto their power.

Well, with all due respect to Beeeej, I have to disagree.

The disagreement, I think, has a lot to do with the way people process threats - and how that translates to their personal politics.

Convenient example: Back during Minnesota's concealed carry debate, one of the media and DFL's convenient tropes on the subject was "carrying a gun is giving in to fear of crime!".

Of course to reform proponents it was about no such thing; it was a prudent means of confronting crime. Given that it was a measure that requires a more-than-fair amount of preparation, investment and training - things not normally associated with "blind fear" - it's seem to be more a matter of transference than actual "fear" on the part of the reformers.

So, too, with the war on terror. To part of America, acknowleding the existance of a war, and a demographic and social time bomb of which the war is currently a symptom, is a matter of prudent, realistic appreciation of a situation. To the other part, it's either a punch line or an imagined symptom of how much smarter they are than the rest of us.

Observing that a fact is a fact isn't a matter of fear; it's a matter of being realistic.

Wanting the rest of the electorate to be realistic isn't fear. It's prudent. We're in this - in theory - together.

Zzzzz: Strib State Auditor Endorsements

The Strib doesn't break tradition, so much, by endrosing Pat Anderson for State Auditor. It merely observes pragmatism.

Pat Anderson's detractors say she's a Republican partisan and a self-promoter, but this strikes us as praising her with faint damns. The state auditor's office is by constitutional design an elected position, and by tradition a venue for generating publicity in quest of higher office (see: Arne Carlson, Mark Dayton, Judi Dutcher). Besides, Anderson seems to be doing the public's work rather well.

Her challengers say she has displayed poor judgment by employing a party executive as her deputy, and by issuing special reports on school funding and local government aids that aligned closely with the politics of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

We tend to agree, but such objections don't offset an overall performance record and management skills that some reliable, neutral observers rate as quite good, really. Neither is her record offset by a personal style that surely ruffles the folks who put too high a premium on niceness.

In other words, "we expect people to use this office as a political platform.

They snub Rebecca Otto, for the stated reason that she...:

seems at least as partisan in her approach to the job. She has brief experience in the Legislature and some school-board service, and is centering her campaign on an irrelevant pledge to help lower property taxes.

...and the unstated reason - Otto is a a dirty-dealing party hack.

I'll "congratulate" Anderson on the endorsement in the same sense that I "congratulated" Nihilist in Golf Pants for winning the City Pages' "Best Conservative Blog" award.

Zzzzz: Strib SOS Endorsements

The Strib endorses Mark Ritchie, predictably, over conservative lightning rod Mary Kiffmeyer for Secretary of State:

It's been eight years since she first won the office (with a 47 percent plurality, a political unknown benefiting from the Year of Jesse), and still she's beating the drum against vote fraud, virtually nonexistent in Minnesota -- while claiming credit for high-turnout trends that long predate her.

But there's nothing amusing about Kiffmeyer's actual record. Her policies and practices have had the steady effect -- some would say the partisan intent, as well -- of discouraging voter participation.

Ah, the mantra of "voter participation".

Voting, like marriage, is a good thing; that doesn't mean everyone should vote. People who don't think about their vote, who spend no time analyzing or learning about the candidates or their issues are a drag on the process. Not to deny their right to vote - far from it - but hauling people to the polls just for the sake of hauling people to the polls is more a matter of political expedience than moral imperative.

And Kiffmeyer's crimes against voting...?

She has opposed voting by mail, proposed to decorate polling places with alarmist warning posters about terrorism, and exasperated local elections officials statewide with changing directives about balloting practices and voter identification requirements. Worst, she continues to advocate for requiring voters to produce a photo ID card -- a move that would directly undercut Minnesota's proud tradition of allowing same-day registration and voting by citizens who are elderly, disadvantaged, new to the state or, well, organizationally challenged.

Finally - a paragraph too stupid to fisk.

Not the last one, unfortunately:

Attentive Minnesotans have learned from disgraceful examples around the country that monkeying with the mechanics of registration, voting and ballot-counting has become the modern method for manipulating election outcomes.

But they would not have learned from the Strib, whose coverage of Democrat voter voter fraud in Milwaukee was less-than-perfunctory, and whose coverage of the Washington state governor's race was ludicrously soft on that state's Democrat-rigged recount system.

Also, that Kiffmeyer's Republican Party is usually the leading beneficiary of measures that discourage participation at the polls.

Or, put another way, that the Strib's DFL is the "leading beneficiary" of policies that encourage participation by the indifferent, uninformed and illegal.

No, they all but say it in as many words:

Remember the black "NOVEMBER 2" bumper stickers that became ubiquitous in 2004? Those were Ritchie's handiwork as leader of National Voice, a coalition of 1,000 nonpartisan groups [Hah!] across the United States that brought more than 5 million new voters to the polls.

So in other words, he's a sloganeering stealth party hack who is dedicated to bringing masses of uninformed, disinterested people (and, apparently, suggestible ones) to the polls.

All the qualifation one needs, in the Strib's world, to be SOS!

But Obi Sium's public service experience is laughable?

Zzzzz: Strib AG Endorsements

The Strib endorses Lori Swanson (we shall call her "Mini-Mike") for Attorney General.

Her experience as solicitor general and as deputy to Mike Hatch makes her the best-prepared candidate in this racehile Hatch has sometimes overreached and unfairly antagonized business interests [Um, no. He's made a career and a national reputation of it.], his office has, on the whole, performed admirably as the law firm for the people and their government.

Of Swanson...:

Swanson, the DFL candidate, strikes us as bright, fair, tough-minded, politically moderate and extremely organized. She seems to have no desire for the grandstand. Ambition for higher office is not apparent. If she is elected, however, and Hatch becomes governor, Swanson must make clear her independence from him.

Really, Strib? She "must"?

And why "must" she? Because of the example you set of holding Hatch's feet in the fire for his excesses? Because the Strib is so dedicated to exposing self-aggrandizing politicians?

Is the ethical imperative, or our trust in Lori Swanson's ethics, enough? It'll have to be - because the Strib won't do any more to back up that imprecation than they did to restrain Mike Hatch's boundless, thuggish quest for power and influence as Attorney General.

Simple fact; When working for the AGO, it was Mike Hatch's way or the highway. To not only work at the AGO, but rise to the position of deputy in that office, meant that she had to become "Mini-Mike".

Which will make it difficult to "make clear her independence from him"; there is none.

Zzzzz: Strib US House Endorsements

The Strib surprises nobody in its "endorsements", which should only further the "perception" that the Strib is an organ of the DFL.

They endorse Tim Walz in the First District...:

this year the Republican incumbent finds himself on the defensive over issues ranging from the war in Iraq (he calls himself "frustrated") to the DM&E Railroad proposal, and there's a good reason: The DFL has fielded a superior candidate in Tim Walz.

A 24-year veteran of the Army National Guard, Walz delivers a blistering but authoritative critique of the Bush administration's missteps in Iraq and treatment of military veterans. But he is not a one-dimensional candidate. A football coach and Teacher of the Year at Mankato West High School, he seems to have a finger on the pulse of the district's needs and frustrations. He has issued sophisticated position papers on balancing the federal budget and reforming immigration policy.

Ah. He's issued position papers. I'm convinced! He's a teacher Teacher of the Year and he writes position papers!

I snark, because not a few grafs later in endorsing Betty McCollum in the Fourth District (by the way, "McCollum of St. Paul has matured rapidly, emerging as a respected voice on education policy, AIDS prevention and international human rights; a trusted protégé of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; and a steadfast opponent of President Bush's upper-end tax cuts and policy in Iraq...[her] growing national stature and ability to deliver for the Fourth District on issues such as transportation and the environment are more than enough to merit her reelection," is longhand for "Sock puppet and pork-producer for the teachers union and the deaniacs"), they mention her challenger, Obi Sium:

a native of Eritrea and a retired state engineer, is a thoroughly decent man with an inspiring affection for the values of his adopted country. But his grasp of public policy is tenuous and his public-service credentials are all but nonexistent.

So - he's worked in government - unlike Walz - and he has definite positions - like Walz; "grasp of public policy" is a term stealth Democrats like the Strib toss about to say "they're not like us".

In other words, "Walz is an amateur - but he's our amateur!".

The Strib endorses Colleen Rowley, saying:Republicans have tried to paint Rowley as some sort of loose-cannon liberal. We don't see itAnd how do we know she's not a "loose-cannon liberal?" Because...:

She would move toward universal health insurance though a cautious strategy of state experimentation, and she would wind down the war in Iraq by following the sensible outline of Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania veteran who has endorsed her.

...she's one of those "not loose-cannon liberals" who follows the leads of loose cannon liberals!

Silly GOP peasants!

Oh, yeah - and while Obi Sium's years of government service are dismissed with the consideration of a dirty diaper, Rowley cops a pass:

While Rowley is short on political experience, she has proved herself a quick study and avid learner.

Ah. Well, as long as she's a "quick study". Sheesh.

Oh, they endorse Jim Ramstad. It's a safe bet for them; he's not that conservative, and he's going to win in a flaming blow-out over former ultra-liberal talk show host WyLd3 w3nDi - about whom it's be hard to deny "loose-cannon" status (no, check that; they do: W3nDi "has mounted a lively campaign that makes her impossible not to like...[she just]...hasn't quite proven that she better captures the district's values." Um, no. Not "quite"). He's the sort of Republican of whom it's "safe" for a DFL organ to be complementary. Can't fault either Ramstad or the Strib for that.

The Strib's congressional endorsements; 3/4 DFL campaign ad, 1/4 plausible deniability.

Half The Story

The mainstream press is gobbling up, at face value, the piece by Brit journalist Yvonne Ridley, "How I Came To Love The Veil. Ridley, after castigating Western liberals for "obsessing" over clothing, says:

Yes, it is a religious obligation for Muslim women to dress modestly, but the majority of Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered, though a few prefer the nikab. It is a personal statement: My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable.

I was a Western feminist for many years, but I've discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women's liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for "representing the victory of women's rights."

Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety -- not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex.

Naturally, the mainstream media omit < a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23059">key elements of the backstory:

Yvonne Ridley is a member of George Galloway’s RESPECT party, and has written numerous essays defending Islamic terrorism. She described those murdered in last year’s terrorist attacks in Jordan as “collaborators.” She wrote, “I think I’d rather put up with a brother like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi any day than have a traitor or sell-out for a father, son or grandfather.” She described Shamil Basaev, the mastermind of the massacre of Russian school children at Beslan, as “a Shaheed,” or martyr. She was fired by Al Jazeera because she was too extreme even for them.

This is mainstream media at its absolute worst, promoting the propaganda of radical Islamists without even a hint of context. If they’re going to publish this crap, at the very least they should tell us who is writing it. What the hell is wrong with the Washington Post?

What's wrong is that, in so many ways, they're on the wrong side.

Halfway to Happy

At halftime, the NDSU Bison are tipping the GoGos 6-3.

Hang in there, Bison! The Strib's Chip Scoggins put it this way:

PREDICTION: GOPHERS 38, NDSU 17

The Gophers are mired in a four-game losing streak and not in very good spirits these days. NDSU will be excited and should have strong support from its fans, but the Gophers have too much talent.

Uh huh. We shall see.

At least the Strib's sports section is allowed to be partisan for no good reason.

A Bison win would be almost as cool as the Bears clobbering the Vikes.

UPDATE AND DAMMIT: One point.

One lousy point.

But not 21 points.

Maybe Chip Scoggins works for the Minnesota Poll...

Fact-Checking The Fact-Checkers For "Facts" That Aren't Facially Actually Factual

Jeff Fecke, a local George Soros employee and longtime blogger, writes in the MN Monitor:

She claims to have co-founded the first charter school in the nation. At best, that’s an embellishment on the truth.

The charter school, New Heights, located in Bachmann’s hometown, Stillwater, was established in 1993, according to Minnesota Association of Charter Schools. The first charter school in the nation, founded a year earlier, is City Academy High School in St. Paul.

Wow.

Of course, it doesn't stand up to serious fact-checking. Learned Foot from Kool Aid Report - who, like every local conservative blogger, does the job for the pure love of writing, barring the occasional bit of advertising jing - counters while quoting Bachmann's original statement (in italics):

During this time Bachmann and other local parents founded the first K-12 charter school in the nation, New Heights Charter School, which is still operating in Stillwater today.

And that other school? The one that George Soros' sock puppet claims was actually the first charter school in the nation? Well it was. But it is a high school (or at least an approximation thereof, since it doesn't believe in grade levels); not a K-12 school.

The math and reading tests are targeted at students performing at an 8th grade level, and because City Academy is a high school, all incoming students should have passed both tests.

So please, Mr. George Soros Well-Researched Ethical New Journalist: please tell me more about "inaccuracies".

Fecke's fellow Soros employee Robin "Rew" Wright from Powerliberal says that Minnesota Monitor, the regional web organ of the Soros-funded "New Journalist" project, says they're better than all of us biased conservative bloggers because they have a "code of ethics".

Does that "code" include correcting factual inaccuracies?

Apparently it doesn't swear them off of snarky context-mangling:

A self proclaimed “Fool for Christ” Bachmann is trailing her Democratic opponent Patty Wetterling outside the margin of error, according to the latest Minnesota Poll.

"Fool for Christ" is a reference from Corinthians - perhaps not something that'd mean anything to a non-believer.

Speaking of non-belief - the Minnesota Poll that Fecke cites has a record of election-year accuracy about as impressive as - well, Fecke's.

So what say you, Soros employees?

UPDATE AND ERROR CORRECTION: The article in question is written by Abdi Aynte - presumably also a Soros employee (or "fellow"), like the rest of MNMon's writers. As this is written, there is still no correction, though.

My mistake; I was reading a different article by Fecke. Which is subject to another round of fact-checking. I'll have to wait for Learned Foot to get into it.

Blog Press Conference

I sat in on a telephone conference with a group of area bloggers with Pat Shortridge, Mark Kennedy's campaign manager.

More later - too much to digest this fast.

Long story short - hang in there. Kennedy's not out of this. But I have to cut and run to get to work, sort of like A-Klo wants to do in Iraq.

Frame This

This ad will, it's rumored, start running in Minnesota, this weekend.

It's about time.

For Those Who Care About Context

The Strib's Eric Black dissects Michele Bachmann's latest ad, which grills Patty Wetterling and her supporters' takes on defense.

There's some interesting fact-checking - which misses Bachmann's overarching, valid point; Wetterling is supported by people and groups who support cutting and running in Iraq; she also is running as a member of a party whose goal is to cut and run.

Black notes what he considers the "most misleading" part of the ad:

Wetterling says she does not advocate cutting military spending and is committed to giving the U.S. military what it needs to win the war against terrorism. The Bachmann campaign did not produce anything to document a suggestion that Wetterling favors military spending cuts.

The ad then says that “one of this group’s leaders even said we should negotiate with the Taliban.” Again, the picture shows Wetterling, while the on screen words read: “PeacePac Leader Said Negotiate with Taliban.”

This is the key moment in the ad, and the most misleading.

Harvard Professor Roger Fisher is a member of the 30-member board of Livable World. He is also an expert on negotiation and conciliation in international affairs.

On Oct. 5, 2001, Fisher wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe titled “Getting to Yes with the Taliban.” I cannot find it online for linkable purposes...Fisher wrote that if the United States really wanted the Taliban to comply, it would be useful to establish high-level but unofficial contacts so that the United States could signal more precisely what the Taliban needed to do to avoid war.

Black follows:

Eric Zaetsch [a desperately logorrheac writer at an anti-Bachmann stalker site] has noted that after a recent trip to Afghanistan, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist concluded that the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, that “people who call themselves Taliban” should be brought into the Afghan government.

“You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,” Frist said during a visit to a military base in the Taliban stronghold of Qalat. “And if that’s accomplished, we’ll be successful.”

Bachmann should not be assumed to agree with this view, just because the Senate majority leader of her party has said it.

Speaking for Bachmann, Parrish said she believes Frist is also wrong. He added that Frist has not contributed to the Bachmann campaign.

Several good points there; Frist exerts no control over Bachmann's agenda, whereas Wetterling's contributors, at least indirectly, do. Frist's view is not even especially popular among Republicans, while cutting and running (or "cutting and jogging, nudge nudge, wink wink") is all but officially the Democrat policy.

But if it was radical for Fisher to write his piece before the U.S. was at war with the Taliban, what is it for Frist to advocate bringing the Taliban into the Afghan government when Taliban fighters are actively trying to kill U.S. and NATO troops?

Odd that Eric Black, so concerned with context when dissecting Bachmann's ad, so completely ignores it now.

In October of 2001, the World Trade Center was still burning. Bodies still lay beneath the rubble. Fighter jets still flew combat air patrol over our cities, including the Twin Cities. The Taliban - with tanks, an air force, an international diplomatic presence of sorts - were in scarcely-disputed control of Afghanistan, nestled in a nation that had defied a thousand years' worth of invaders. Our troops were on their way overseas - we knew this. To negotiate with the Taliban at that time would have been like sending out feelers to Hitler as the D-Day fleet snaked across the channel.

Today, the Taliban is a miserable little rump bandit group that controls a region of mountains known only for exporting heroin and filth. They can never contest control of the nation; controlling a wilderness, however brutally, still leaves them in control of poppies and filth. Negotiating with them today would be...well, wrong. I disagree with Frist, too. But there's some logic to the proposal, and it can't be rejectd out of hand. Negotiating today would provide the possibility of delivering a coup de grace peacefully rather than at the point of a bayonet. Maybe. Negotiating with terrorists is famously dicey.

Negotiating with them in October of 2001 would have profaned, spat upon, the barely-cold and still largely-unidentified dead. It would have abrogated this nation's primary responsibility as a government - protecting our borders and interests.

We see the difference, right? And by "we", I don't mean the logically-vacant zealot Zaetsch, but the smart people, like Eric Black.

The point being that Bachmann's ad, in the great scheme of things, even allowing for Black's criticisms, is accurate. Wetterling's denials, judging by those she associates with, takes funding from, and whose initials, "DFL", she puts after her name, are - to paraphrase another journalist - accurate but fake.

The Good News

While I don't personally subscribe to the argument between evolution and creationism - I personally don't believe there's anything about evolution, at least in terms of empirical fact, that contraindicates the notion of God - there's at least one cool thing about the idea of evolution; I'm apparently ahead of the game, :

volutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge. The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative [6'5, doing fairly well, dates with 100 women in seven years, play ten musical instruments] and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

I hate to brag, but...

The Nih[i]list hastens to note:

OK, it probably isn't fair to suggest that liberals will evolve into ugly trolls while conservatives will be sexy.

The Nihilist is right. It's not fair.

Either is politics.

Oh, relax. It's all in fun.

A Question of Balance

For Keith Ellison, Rochelle Olson delves deeply into Keith Ellison's side of the story:

Last year State Rep. Keith Ellison obtained a restraining order to keep a former constituent away from him and his family. Now Ellison's campaign is accusing the woman of working with a friend to blackmail his congressional campaign at the same time she is seeking a restraining order against him.

No fact is left unturned, including detailed reporting on the motivations of Ellison's tormentors:

Ellison's dismissal request accuses Alexander of harassing Ellison and working with a Minneapolis writer who allegedly tried to extort $10,000 from his campaign.

According to Ellison's motion, his campaign manager received many phone calls from the writer, Mesa Kincaid, beginning in August. The campaign manager, Dave Colling, said in the motion that Kincaid identified herself as a freelance reporter and "recounted vague allegations by Alexander against Rep. Ellison personally as well as allegations that he was having romantic affairs with numerous people."

The motion also said that "in several phone calls, Kincaid demanded that the campaign pay her and Alexander $10,000, in return for which payment Alexander would not 'tell her story.' "

Reached by phone late Wednesday, Kincaid, a Minneapolis freelance reporter and former radio personality, laughed and said Colling's characterization of their conversations was "completely false." She said she called Colling because she wanted to talk to Ellison about a story about Alexander. "I never spoke of money or anything to Dave Colling," she said. "There are no legs to this."

Compare this to Rochelle Olson's coverage of Alan Fine - where not only were the motivations (and future record) of Alan Fine's accuser left unreported, but the fact that there was never a conviction and that Fine was therefore innocent of any form of domestic abuse was, according to Olson, left unstated, and left to the reader to divine for themselves.

Boundless (possibly) exculpatory detail for Ellison, up to the point of providing Ellison a virtual forum for conducting a defense in the media; an incomplete story (whose overwhelming impression was "Fine did something sorta sleazy!") for Fine.

Just observing.

UPDATE/BUMP: Scott Johnson at Powerline sees it the same way:

It provides a striking contrast with Olson's story on Alan Fine's expunged 1995 arrest. Olson leaves no doubt that Ellison's accuser has serious issues of credibility. As I pointed out in "Errors and omissions," in her story on Fine's exupnged 1995 arrest, Olson (and Paul McEnroe) conveniently left out all the comparable evidence regarding Fine's accuser.

Exactly.

So all you Strib defenders - please account for this?

Ellison: Bangers are Political Prisoners!

Katherine Kersten - the Strib's token good columnist - on Keith Ellison's corrosive relativism:

As a criminal defense attorney, Ellison told the crowd, he saw “startling similarities” between Soliah and the gang members he represents: Bloods, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples. He portrayed gang members as misunderstood victims, ordinary folks whose parents “scrimp, save… maybe sell plates of BBQ chicken so Junior can get an attorney.”

Gangs are “stigmatized” and “vilified,” he explained, just as Soliah’s Symbionese Liberation Army was. “Nobody ever knows what it means to BE a Blood,” he maintained, “because they’ve already said this is ‘just evil.’ ”

Speaking as someone who lives not far from where some worthless piece of filth - color irrelevant - murdered a four-year-old girl at a gas station; it is.

In fact, in Ellison’s view, young black men in prison seemed almost to morph into civil rights advocates. “The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of ’60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea of … black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”

Ah. So Tyesha Edwards' killer was a political prisoner!

It's all Whitey's revenge!

Note to Minneapolis; If Ellison wins, you will deserve what they get. Try not to destroy the rest of the metro while you're at it.

Cheap, Inscrutable, Fun

The last time I saw this vid, it was 4AM on a lonely Sunday morning watching "Night Trax" on WTBS, in probably 1984.

I still don't know what it means, but I still love it.

Make Up Your Own Mind

The audio for last Satuday's interview with Rochelle Olson us up on the Northern Alliance page at Townhall.com.

You be the judge.

You Are The Editor

Everything I know about being a news reporter, I learned from two guys: Bob Richardson, the owner, general manager and unquestioned president for life of KEYJ Radio in Jamestown ND, where I started out in radio in 1979, and Jim Smorada, the editor of the Jamestown Sun and the guy who taught my Journalism 101 class during my freshman year of college.

Both taught me how to operate within the restrictions of both media, including restrictions of space (for print news) and time (for radio).

Both also taught me that the most important things were to:

• Tell the whole story - especially in terms of important facts
• Be as balanced as possible
• Be clear.

Another thing; the key details come first. If you run into space and time limitations, at least make sure you get the key details of the story straight and out there.

While I was never enough of a reporter to make a career of it (I freelanced at maybe half a dozen newspapers and did news at three different radio stations), no editor ever threw a story back at me for telling an incomplete, inaccurate, unclear story.

Last Saturday, when Ed and I interviewed Rochelle Olson of the Strib about her October 7 piece on Alan Fine's 1995 arrest for domestic abuse, I asked Ms. Olson - why did one of the most key facts about the case, the fact that Fine was never indicted for or convicted of any crime, go unreported in the front page story on Fine, and only appear after Scott Johnson, and Fine himself, reported on the facts (and then only on Page B7)?

Olson's responses - I'll paraphrase closely, or you can check out the audio on Townhall.com to see for yourself - were:

• She And Her Editors Wrangled About It For A Long Time - like, apparently since last May, when the Strib admitted they procured the information that went into the report.
• Space Constraints - The story, as it ran on 10/7, ran 35 column inches.

Let's discuss both points, shall we?

Journalistic Choices

According to Rochelle Olson, she and her editors wrangled for a good long time about exactly which of the story's various facts to include in the finished product.

When I was a reporter, I used to outline the key facts of a story, to make sure they all got covered. Here are the key facts of the Fine story:

1. In 1995, Fine was arrested (the Strib covered this).
   
2. The case never went to court, and Fine was never convicted. The Strib didn't think this fact was germane enough to include; we'll get back to that.
3. The arrest was finally expunged (the Strib used this as a lede).
4. Ms. Wexler, apparently, has a history of domestic abuse, which caused the courts to reverse their earlier custody ruling. This went uncovered.

And that's it. Every other fact in the story exists purely to support these four facts - or, rather, the two the Strib actually covered.

(In addition, it might help the reader make up their mind about the story to note that Fine's son now lives with Fine, despite the fact that father very rarely get custody from Hennepin County courts - a fact that tends to undercut claims of abuse).

So why would the editors and Ms. Olson leave two of those key facts completely out? What is the journalistic justification for leaving those two absolutely key facts out of the story?

Space Constraints

The story took up 35 column inches; in other words, if you laid the columns out in one long row, it'd be an inch shy of a yard. Not small, not huge.

Newspapers budget their space as strictly as radio stations budget their time.

So the question is - given that a couple of key facts got left out of the article, could we take something out of the original article that would get the basic facts across and fit into the original 35 inches of copy?

The Challenge

The original article ran 1214 words. 1214 divided by 35 inches means about 35 word per inch.

The Addition

I'll keep it short, sweet and clear: "Fine was never indicted or convicted as a result of this arrest. In 2003, Hennepin county courts awarded Fine custody of his and Wexler's child, currently 12 years old, after Ms. Wexler was charged with domestic abuse in an incident involving Fine's nephew". Short, fairly clear, and it gets the facts across. A real reporter could no doubt do better, but it's a decent first take.

44 words. An inch and a quarter, and it plugs the factual gap in the original story.

Can we fit in in there?

The Edit Job

I'm going to select some candidates for things that might have been clipped to make room for the two key facts that were left out. I'll indicate them with a strikeout. Let's see if we can excise a column inch, somehow or another. My comments will be in blue.

Minneapolis congressional candidate Alan Fine was charged with domestic violence in 1995 and nine years later had his record expunged, in a case in which he and his first ex-wife give different versions of the events that led to him ending up in the Hennepin County jail.
His wife at the time, Rebecca Wexler, dropped the abuse charge, and Fine succeeded in having the case removed from Hennepin County court and police records, according to documents recently obtained by the Star Tribune.

Fine, who is the Fifth District Republican candidate, said in a recent interview that he never struck Wexler.

He said he sought to have his records expunged because he was innocent.

Wexler said Thursday that she agreed to drop the charges two to three weeks after the arrest only because Fine pressured her and because he promised to work out their problems in marriage counseling [Fair game? Maybe - but it's also the uncorroborated word of a principal to the story who, the Strib didn't bother to tell us, lost custody of her son due to a bit of an anger management problem, so she just might not be the most reliable source on this subject. 17 words cut!]. The couple divorced the following year.

The Star Tribune learned of the arrest in a routine records check after Fine won the Republican endorsement in May. The newspaper obtained the expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago.

In the interview and in court documents, Fine accused his ex-wife and her father, Hennepin County Judge Thomas Wexler, of conspiring in 1995 to stage a domestic incident and get him arrested for assault in order to make him "look bad" before he filed for divorce. "They wanted to have leverage in the divorce," Fine said. "I'm speculating here. I don't have proof."

Fine stated in an affidavit connected with the divorce proceedings that his then-wife "admitted to me, in the presence of another person, that she had made a mistake in having me arrested and that her allegations were untrue." Fine was asked repeatedly by reporters to identify who that other person was. He said he could not remember.

Thomas Wexler, who has been on the court bench for 16 years, said he and his daughter did not try to stage the incident.

"As a matter of fact, Rebecca had been reporting to me that Alan had been hitting her prior" to the incident, Thomas Wexler said. He said that his wife had advised their daughter to call the police if another incident took place and that his daughter heeded the advice.

Fine was arrested by Minneapolis police and booked into the county jail for fifth-degree assault on June 2, 1995, according to the sealed police report obtained by the Star Tribune. Fine was shown the report and did not dispute its authenticity.

The report states that officers arrested Fine in his home at 3907 Zenith Av. S. after his then-wife told them that Fine had assaulted her. Police noted in the report that Fine had scratches on his face and chest. He was released from jail after several hours.

Fine, 44, who teaches at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, is running for the seat held for 28 years by Democrat Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.

Fine said in an interview Wednesday that he sought to expunge his criminal record because he committed no crime. "I've never struck a woman in my life," he said.

Rebecca Wexler said in an interview that Fine and his brother Bob Fine, an attorney, spoke to her about the charges after the arrest.

"Bob Fine got on the phone with me and basically told me what to do in order to get Alan out of the mess he was in," she said. "I was also receiving calls from the prosecutor trying to get me to testify against Alan. And at the same time, I was trying to save my marriage. Within days after I told the prosecutor that I was not going to cooperate in pressing charges against Alan, Alan filed for divorce." [He said, she said. Everyone has reasons and excuses. Is it news? More importantly, is it more important than one of the dispositive facts that were omitted from the story? Oh, yeah - I just clipped 105 worlds - three column inches!]

Bob Fine, a Minneapolis Park Board member, said he couldn't remember details and even if he could, he wouldn't be able to discuss them. "If I disclose anything, I'm violating attorney-client privilege, and I'm on bad enough terms with him anyway," Bob Fine said, referring to his brother. [So what? More important than the fact that Fine was never convicted? I think not! 35 more words - enough to fit in the crucial omitted facts all by itself!]

According to Rebecca Wexler's divorce affidavit, the alleged assaults started in late 1993 when she was two months pregnant. "In the middle of an argument, [Fine] suddenly slapped me across the face with sufficient force to knock me to the ground," she stated in her affidavit.

The matter came to a head on June 2, 1995. Wexler said in an interview that she was changing her son's diaper and that Fine slapped her across the face after she asked for help.
She said in the affidavit that he "took a few steps away, then turned around and said, 'Wait, let me get the other side,' and slapped me on the side of my face." When he returned to the house that evening, she said she ordered him to leave. When he slapped her again, she said, she called police and Fine was arrested.

In his interview, Fine at first said he couldn't remember details of what happened. Then later, he said Rebecca Wexler broke into a "rage" and scratched and hit him. "I came back from work and Rebecca called the police and I ended up in jail," he said.

Thomas Wexler said Fine had admitted to him that he hit his daughter, according to a 1995 affidavit he signed in connection with the couple's divorce.

But Alan Fine said Wednesday, "I never admitted anything to him," referring to the judge. "I never would. I never did anything like that. He's just lying. He's trying to protect his daughter."[60 words, based on an unsupported, uncorroborated statement by someone with a vested interest in one of the sides - although I'm less likely to omit this bit, since both parties' ongoing record tends to undercut Wexler's story. Or at least give the reader the information they need to figure it out for themselves.]

Asked why he waited until 2004 to have the record expunged, Fine said, "I don't know. I just got around to it and did it," he said.

A person's criminal record may only be expunged after a judge has reviewed a person's statement outlining why the record should be removed from the public eye.

In Hennepin Court, expungement hearings are part of the routine calendar. Judges consider the level of crime committed and the length of time that has passed since the crime when making their decision.

Minneapolis police records show there have been five 911 calls labeled as "domestic" dating from 1995 to April 2005 involving Alan Fine's address.

Information about a September 1995 call is no longer available. In 1996, Fine called police to have them stand by while he picked up his son, the log shows. In 2001, Fine called 911 during an argument with an ex-girlfriend outside his home. [44 words gone. Although the next bit here is interesting...] In 2003, Fine called from his home, saying his son was abused at his ex-wife's suburban home and was advised by Minneapolis authorities to call local police where she resided. [ This bit here kinda begs to be supported by that pesky fact that Ms. Wexler has had domestic abuse problems of her own] In 2005, Rebecca Wexler called, stating that she was not being allowed to see her son at Fine's residence.

During the interview, Fine did not dispute the accuracy of the 911 calls and said he couldn't remember details about the call made in 1995.

Fine said it would be "irresponsible" for the newspaper to publish an article about the arrest because it would hurt his child. "I've done nothing wrong," Fine said.

After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched a persistent attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters." [Surely you jest. This "irony" (undercut by the facts of Fine's story, to say nothing of the Ellison story the Strib refuses to cover) serves only to "spike the ball" - and gives it the appearance of a hit piece. Lose it - all 34 words of it.]

I've managed to clip 281 or so words - a bit over eight column inches - to make way for about 1.25 inches needed to get the two key facts of the story, the kind of thing journalists and editors are supposed to want to get into the story...into the story! I mean, take out any 45 or so of those words, keep the other 240-odd words, and put the two simple facts into the article...the whole story, or at least a more complete condensation of it, is told!

So if a moron like me can take ten minutes to rewrite the article to include the two other facts important for the reader - especially the CD5 voter - to really know the whole story, then why couldn't the Strib editors?

More importantly why didn't they?

That, indeed, is the real question - why did the Strib choose to leave those 30-40 words worth of key facts out of the story, to mention them days later (in a story on page B7), after Scott Johnson came out with the facts?

And by what "journalistic" criteria did a group of journalists and editors - "gatekeepers" - decide those facts just didn't stack up?

Picking and Choosing

I've never been comfortable with the notion of politicians using the pulpit as a stump for political speeches.

So as a general rule I wish Michele Bachmann and Mac Hammond had steered a bit clearer of something that appeared (to those who obsess over finding such things) to endorse Bachmann from the pulpit:

The Rev. Mac Hammond, senior pastor of Living Word Christian Center, introduced Michele Bachmann, the GOP's Sixth District candidate, before speeches she gave at four weekend services.

"We can't publicly endorse as a church and would not for any candidate," Hammond said. "But I can tell you personally that I'm going to vote for Michele Bachmann."

It's a fine line, of course, between private citizen (the First Amendment doesn't exempt ministers) and pastor - a line that those who detest right-of-center people of faith want to drive a tank over:

On Tuesday, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) [ Huh? "Nonpartisan?" What is the standard for the Strib calling something "nonpartisan" these days? You read the CREW website, absent of any "watchdogging" of Democrats, and tell me. Or better yet, ask Pamela Miller, the Strib writer who filed the story!], filed a complaint with the IRS, whose rules say churches are prohibited from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate."

IRS spokeswoman Nancy Mathis said she could not comment on the complaint or reveal whether others have been filed.

CREW attorney Tim Mooney said Hammond and his church "crossed the line and [Bachmann's] appearance was a stump speech wrapped in a sermon."

Hammond "has the perfect right to endorse a candidate on his own time, but he used church resources in making that statement," Mooney said.We'll come back to that.

By the way, when you email Pam Miller, please address this bit here as well:

The speech, taped from the church's live webcast by Minneapolis graphic artist Ken Avidor

Note to the Strib; if Ken Avidor is a "graphic artist", please refer to me in the future as "Mitch Berg, world-class nordic biathlete", "funk superstar" or perhaps "admiral".

But anyway, the lesson from the "nonpartisan" CREW and the Strib is this: If you're a church, don't let politicans use your pulpit as a venue for stump speeches (unless they're DFLers), and don't take political stances (unless they support the DFL).

We all clear on this?

The Minnesota Poll PR Release

King guts the latest Minnesota Poll.

The beef:

• Bachmann's favorable unfavorable ratings are 44/36, with 9% not knowing the name; Wetterling is at 56/35, with 1% not knowing her. Bachmann's advertising therefore has room to make ground, and Wetterling may be capped on her support.
• Along the same lines, # 56% of survey respondents said they had a "great deal" of interest in the race as opposed to 35% who had spent a "fair amount". 8% said they had only a little interest, but somehow are still considered likely voters.
• Comparing demographics of the poll (see the StarTribune's pretty pictures) with the 2000 Census would indicate either many more college graduates vote or respond to polls, or that the sample has too many relative to the district. The poll reported 39% of respondents being either college graduates or having post-graduate education. The Census in 2000 reports less than a quarter of area residents over 25 years old have earned a bachelor's degree or more.
• And lastly, 58% of respondents were female. In all previous polls that Jeff and Larry mention, there has been a female advantage in the poll for Wetterling, so the more females in your sample the more likely you'll find a Wetterling advantage. The Sept. SurveyUSA poll was 49% female, the October SurveyUSA poll was 50% female, and the Majority Watch robopoll was 53% female. Now why hasn't anyone noted this? The only way this can be representative is if you thought that if the election were held today, 58% of voters would be female. Why would you believe that?

Read the whole thing.

All The Options (As Long As They're Meaningless)

The Strib wants us to deal with school violence by keeping all the options - as long as they don't trouble any of the sacred cows of the left:

Any comprehensive strategy to curb school shootings should deal with both subjects. Yet the summit did not address why the administration drastically reduced federal safety resources. While lamenting school violence last week, the president and House Republicans were also outlining a budget that would cut school safety funding by 34 percent compared with 2002 levels.

Between the federal bureaucracy and the union money pit, federal school funding for whatever purpose disappears down one black hole or another.

But let's be clear here; "spending" doesn't lead to safety. Oh, it might succeed in turning schools into medium-security prisons - it's the trend these days - but the underlying causes of school violence will still be there.

More on that in a bit:

Another topic that was given short shrift during the president's summit was access to guns. The president never mentioned the topic and the First Lady, attorney general and secretary of education talked about it only in passing.

It may be that nothing could have stopped the most recent shooters; it is possible that they would have stopped at nothing to get the firearms they needed to commit these evil acts.

Still, any credible discussion of school safety requires raising the question of how and why teenagers can get guns so easily.

But not, apparently, why people who can defend against school shooters can't.

Nor can we discuss the most sacred of the cows; why all of this is happening in schools in the first place.

As Luann Walters and I discussed on her show on the past couple of Saturdays, we need to talk about why the factory school model is such a breeding ground for violence and madness:

• How schools systematically disempower and undermine parents
• How Ritalin, Zoloft and other mood-altering drugs are systematically foisted on our kids by teachers who, while they can often barely teach their own subjects, feel themselves qualified to act as surrogate psychiatrists
• The effect our school buildings themselves - security and energy-obsessed, with ventilation lousy enough to cause oxygen deprivation - have on kids' mental health
• An education model that's smart enough to know that forcing the 1% of students who are gay to stifle their personality will cause untold psychological damage - but stupid enough to demand that boys, 50% of the population prete nd they're girls.
• Schools with thousands of students, where no principal could possibly know every student's name, much less anything important about each and every student.

And on, and on, and on.

Star/Tribune - let us know when the MFT and the state's "professional" administrators want to discuss that, mkay?

Da Bearsss

Given my schedule, only three things will squeeze out any time to spend any time paying attention to sports:

1. The Twins getting to the ALCS (we keep getting oh soooo close)
2. The Cubs getting into the playoffs (not so much)
3. The Bears being contenders.

Well, there goes my schedule:

Down 20-0 at halftime, Chicago returned two fumbles for touchdowns in the second half. Then Hester returned a punt 83 yards for a score with 2 minutes, 58 seconds left to take the lead, and the Bears overcame six turnovers by Grossman to beat the Cardinals 24-23 on a wild Monday night.

Of course, the kiss of death is if Tom Barnard says they are a sure thing. They will exit contention immediately after that.

Stay away, Tom. Stay away.

Like You Couldn't See This Coming

The Minnesota Poll is baaaaack - and this time, predictably, show Patty Wetterling eleventy bazillion points ahead of Michele Bachmann:

DFLer Patty Wetterling leads Republican Michele Bachmann 48 to 40 percent in the hot race for Congress in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.

Independence Party candidate John Binkowski received the support of 4 percent.

The poll, conducted Oct. 6-12, may have been influenced by the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, which brought attention to Wetterling because of her work as a child-safety advocate.

Or it may have been influenced by the fact that the Minnesota Poll is at best worthless, and is at worst a PR activity for the DFL.

When the story of these last twenty years of campaigning is finally told in one convenient place, the thinking Minnesotan will cringe in revulsion.

The rest will hop up and down in glee and continue voting DFL.

Things I Wish I'd Asked

I've had quite a few comments about last Saturday's interview with the Strib's Rochelle Olson (which should be going up on Townhall.com sometime today). Most were positive.

The only negative, in fact, that I've gotten is "Why didn't you tear into her for her various evasions? It's a good question.

There were a couple of occasions where I could have pounced. But as the interview unspooled, I thought that the look into the way the Twin Cities' media approaches these things - the assumptions, the evasions, the values - would be a whole lot more interesting than my ranting. And thrashing about in an interview merely puts your subjects on the defensive - and I thought Rochelle Olson's answers were plenty interesting, and going on the defensive wouldn't have helped.

But there are a few things I wish I'd asked:

• Tell Us About Those Donnybrooks With "The Editors": Twice in the interview, Olson referred to long discussions/arguments with her editors on the exact facts to be included in those "35 column inches" devoted to the A1 story last Saturday, October 7. Who were these editors? And...
• Why Did They Decide To Leave The Most Vital Fact About The Story...Out?: As I said early in the interview, I was never much of a reporter. But Bob Richardson and Jim Smorada - the guys who taught me to write news - were pretty clear on the need to get the facts about a story straight. So I'd love to know by what turn of "journalistic" logic Rochelle Olson and/or her editors decided the fact that Alan Fine was completely exonerated of the charges for which he was arrested wasn't part of completely telling the story.
• There's A Pattern Here: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a pattern, here. Rod Grams was pilloried in the Strib for the antics of his son (whom the Strib didn't see fit to tell the reader that Grams had not really raised); Patty Wetterling attacks Michele Bachmann with an ad tying Republicans to the Foley scandal with statements that Eric Black calls "misleading" (because, he doesn't see fit to tell you, they are utterly devoid of fact, and delivered with a malicious intent to deceive the electorate - which most of us would call a "lie"); and now, the Fine case, in which key facts about Fine's innocence - indeed, his exemplary record as a father juxtaposed with his ex-wife's seeming emotional instability, which utterly undercuts the initial charges - were omitted due to...well, see question 2, above. In the meantime, key facts about Keith Ellison - including accusations of domestic abuse that have yet to go to court - go unreported, as the Strib editorial board goes into Scrupulous Overdrive mode...

  ...I'm just asking, Strib editors and Ms. Olson, is there a reason we should not see a pattern of partisan intent for your stories?

Oh, well. Next time.

Like Raaaaaiiiin, On Your Wedding Day

KSTP-AM's supernaturally-lame afternoon host "Sterling" made it into the Strib:

"I'm fairly new here, but do we have to be whipped into a fervor about the snow? Here in the Twin Cities," he added, "it's going to snow."

Only Sterling wasn't "here" at all. He was sitting in Columbus, Ohio, where the weather was clear and 51 degrees.

Although he mentioned Ohio later, saying he "had worked and lived there," he never told listeners that he was broadcasting his noon-to-2 p.m. show from its capital city, and has done so every day since early September, when he started full time at KSTP.

Advances in broadcasting apparatus and access to local news through the Internet have made it easy to broadcast from almost anywhere. No longer are radio personalities shackled to the station, and many do shows from other locations, such as a home studio across town. And of course, many stations carry syndicated shows that clearly address national audiences.

It's true - it happens,and much more than you think. Disk jockeys will do shows remotely, or even just record the interstitial bits and send 'em to a station via the 'net, to be cobbled into a show by computer, at a radio station where no human hands touch the actual program.

Lately, however, there's been a rise in "local" talk shows whose hosts broadcast from far away -- a development that troubles some industry observers.

Well, what should trouble "industry observers" is quotes like this:

"There's a lack of talent in the industry," [Sterling] said, talking about the shortage of radio personalities that often sends a station looking out of town.

That a host like "Sterling" - who is saved from the title of "worst talk show host in the Twin Cities" only by the presence of Willy Clark, Wendy Wilde and Andrew Colton, but who may qualify as "least coherent" - could get away with saying such a thing should really trouble those "observers".

(Via the Fraters)

A Pack, Not A Herd: Utah

After dozens of school shootings, both famous (Columbine, Red Lake, Nickel Mines, Bailey) and not-so-famous (the shootings at Cold Spring/Rocori, Minnesota a while ago), people are starting to figure out that merely calling a school a "gun-free zone" doesn't necessarily make it so.

I've pointed out the example of Israel, where teachers are allowed to carry legally-permitted concealed firearms in school - a response to terrorist-launched school shootings some decades ago) as one that could help deter the next batch of murderers from preying on our kids.

Others seem to have gotten the same idea. Last week I noted the effort to legalize the same thing in Wisconsin

Now, in Utah, some teachers are responding more directly:More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom — learning how to use a gun.
Clark Aposhian is offering a free class today to public school employees seeking to get their concealed- weapons permit.
"It is self-defense," he told the Deseret Morning News on Thursday. "But because teachers and school administrators and custodians are typically surrounded by students all day, any threat to any individual with a firearm would also be a threat to those students."The responses - well, anyone that reads this blog should know where this is going, right?

The concealed-weapons instructor's offer was met with opposition from some teachers and union representatives at the Utah Education Association's conference in Salt Lake City.
"We've always resisted the idea of arming school employees," said Susan Kuziak, executive director of the 18,000-member teachers union. "Though the intentions may be good, ultimately, the potential for harm is too great."

Although, as usual, that potential is never spelled out.

A handful of teachers interviewed at the UEA convention agreed. Some said the idea of guns in schools, even when toted by trusted colleagues, makes them nervous.
"Who's to say a kid couldn't take a gun from me or another teacher?" said Darren Dickson, a teacher at Altamont High in Duchesne County. "It's too much of a risk."

Who's to say? The statistics, for one, which shows this sort of thing happens vanishingly rarely to carriers who are paying attention.

Aposhian said he does not want teachers to suddenly become "heroes" in the event of a school shooting. In fact, he said, they should continue to follow school lockdown procedures, which include teachers locking doors and remaining in classrooms. "We discourage teachers from roaming the halls looking for the intruder," he said. "We're not trying to turn them into law enforcement in any way."

I'm not sure what Utah's self-defense laws are - but in Minnesota, the law would tend to forbid actually looking for a criminal. But I suspect anyone taking the course would know that, and more of any applicable laws than their detractors.

So far, about 2 dozen teachers and public school employees have signed up for his class. Included with the free class is fingerprinting and photography for the concealed-weapons application. Public school employees will still have to pay a $59 application fee to the state.

Anyone at the MFT listening to this?

We've had two school shootings in Minnesota in the past four years, either of which could have turned out very differently had a citizen with a gun been on the scene.

How Do You Know Patty Wetterling is Lying?

Oh, you know how the joke ends, don't you?

Leo Pusatieri from Psycmeister's Ice Palacecalls a spade a spade:

With the new Majority Watch poll and recent SurveyUSA poll showing improved support for Wetterlying, with Nightline telling the nation that the Foley scandal may have saved her campaign, it’s time to point out with renewed energy that Wetterlying built up this support largely by running ads that are not true.

I'd hoped for better from Wetterling - although given that she's recycling lies from '04, the trashing of that hope was perhaps inevitable.

My question - is it Bachmann Derangement Syndrome, or is it part of a national strategy (as I've suggested elsewhere) to keep telling big lies until the soft-minded believe them?

Teacher Has Two Critics

The good news? Katherine Kersten - the Twin Cities' media's best columnist - has a blog!

The bad news? She's got so much material.

She writes about a protest at a Minneapolis public school:

The scene last Saturday at the Interdistrict Downtown School in Minneapolis was straight out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. A group of black mothers and their supporters stood shoulder to shoulder, demanding what they called a decent education for their kids.But the story has a 2006 spin.

Gena Bounds, a mother of three, described it this way: “On September 15 I gave my kids a big hug after school, but something was clearly wrong.”

Bounds’ 7-year-old daughter, Darriell, explained the situation to her mother. “She told me that her teacher had read the class a book about a girl with two moms,” says Bounds. “Then he told them that he’s gay and that he and his partner are adopting a child, and the child will have two dads. Now Darriell thinks the school is telling her she needs to believe that two daddies or two mommies is the same thing as a mom and a dad.”

Was this just a little detour from reading and math? No. “Asha’s Mums,” the book that Darriell’s teacher, Peter Sage, had read, is part of a diversity curriculum called the “Families All Matter” book project.

And what happens when parents collide with curricula, programs, and the academic-industrial-complex's sacred cows?

FeLicia McCorvey Preyer, who has second-grade twins at the school, was also incensed about “Families All Matter.” Before the school year began, she told Sage and school officials that she didn’t want her children reading books with homosexual themes, she says. “They knew my wishes and they defied them,” she adds.

“Families All Matter” is supposed to teach tolerance. In fact, says Bounds, her daughter has learned that people who believe that a mother and father are best for a family are discriminatory.

After Sage read “Asha’s Mums,” he “told the class that his grandfather had believed that black people are stupid,” she says. “He said that other adults had helped him see that his grandfather was a bigot.” The implication? That parents who don’t share Sage’s views on family matters are bigots too.

Sage touched a nerve by claiming the mantle of the fight against racism for his own agenda, says Preyer. “I’m appalled that he, a white man, would use that tactic to push his views on African-American children.”

But Bounds and Preyer are most upset at the school’s message that kids don’t need to listen to their parents when the school and the parents disagree. “The school is undermining my authority as a parent, at a critical, formative stage of my daughter’s life,” says Bounds.

School officials reacted with indifference, even “arrogance,” to their concerns, say Bounds and Prior. Administrators failed to inform them of their legal right to review the curriculum, and refused to reassign their children to another classroom. Officials told them to consider withdrawing their children or enrolling them in a private school.

Public schools have a lot of problems (as do most private schools); the most galling among them is that parents have to become mini-lawyers to navigate the systems' procesures and policies. And after you spend enough time becoming that lawyer, you eventually wonder why it is that a school district has to adopt such a formal, legalistic approach to everything - and, inevitably, you realize the answer; to keep parents like you stifled, in the dark, cowed into confused inaction.

Kersten comments on the story's irony:

Bounds and Preyer are battling to instill a sense of respect for their authority as parents, and to pass on their sense of right and wrong to their children.

But they say the school does not appreciate that. Preyer puts it this way: “They treat me as if my beliefs are the problem.”

They are!

More - much more - on this later.

Baghdads Sam and Bob

Contest time: Which of the following was said by Baghdad Bob, and which was FrankenNet "personality" Sam Seder?

Quote 1:

Frankly, [Air America's bankruptcy] is good news. Because of a lack of capitalization and a clear business plan Air America has been behind the 8 ball since its launch. Despite these missteps AAR has, as a product, been wildly successful.

Quote 2:

They are not near Baghdad. Don't believe them.... They said they entered with... tanks in the middle of the capital. They claim that they - I tell you, I... that this speech is too far from the reality. It is a part of this sickness of their plan. There is no an... - no any existence to the American troops or for the troops in Baghdad at all."

Not sure if Seder or Bob is the better funnyman.

Rally!

I'm off to the Patriot Radio Rally, featuring Hugh Hewitt, Senator Norm Coleman and many, many more, at the Hopkins Center for the Arts.

Not sure if there are tickets available - not sure, for that matter, where I put mine! But I'll be there, and I hope you will too!

So much to write about today, which will have to wait for tomorrow - especially my takeaways from yesterday's interviews with the Strib's Rochelle Olson, Powerline's Scott Johnson, and CD5 GOP candidate Alan Fine, over the rhubarb about Fine's 1995 domestic abuse arrest that turned out to be much more than the Strib told you.

Oh, there is a lot to write about.

Illusions Shattered

Two simple facts on background:

1. The first music video I ever saw was in the fall of 1979, on some late-night TV show ("Late Night Video" or some such imaginative title, if memory serves, hosted by some guy on some Max Headroom-like set running a fake video switcher console, apparently to show this new video stuff was fresh out of the cameras). I remember parts of the video distinctly; four guys, cardboard guitars and car grills, a catchy vid of four very English guys playing an aggressively catchy pop tune with a four-on-the-floor beat lifted from Stax/Volt and run through a New Wave homogenizer. I remembered, lo these last 27 years, the hook line - and not much else. I didn't catch the name of the band then, and for 27 years I had no idea who'd done the song or video.
2. Second piece of background; I've never cared for XTC. The British art-pop band - who I listened to most often between about 1986 and 1990 - always seemed like what Elvis Costello would have been if he could've cracked the code on how to be even more baroque, picayune and dreary than he got after Armed Forces. Although guitarist/writer Andy Partridge was an interesting guy (or so he seemed after my conversation with him in the restroom at a radio station I worked at when I met him in 1989...), I had a hard time listening to anything by XTC for more than a minute or two.

Or so I thought.

Through the miracle of Youtube and a few moments of free time on a Sunday...the first video I ever saw...

..."Life Begins At The Hop" by...a very fun early version of XTC.

Who knew?

Strib: A Fine Case Of Bias

Nothing about Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe's story about Alan Fine's 1995 arrest for "domestic abuse" passed the stink test for me, from the very beginning. Men - especially in Hennepin County - don't get arrested for domestic violence and then go on to get their arrests expunged, much less win custody of their minor children, if there's anything to the charge. It is a truism that is nearly physically immutable. While much about the Domestic Violence industry beggars common sense, this is one part that adds up.

Which was only the first reason Olson and McEnroe's story didn't add up.

Scott Johnson - as seems to be the case on this story, two days behind me but with the facts - hauls off on the story in a piece in Powerline yesterday.

He has some details about the case, culled from Henco court documents, that imply that my nose was correct:

In 1996 Fine's wife was awarded full physical custody and Fine was awarded joint legal custody of their son. Based on a review of documents provided to me, I have ascertained that Fine's ex-wife was herself subsequently charged with domestic assaults involving her boyfriend in one incident and Alan Fine's son in another incident in July and November 2003.

Fine was granted temporary full physical custody of his son in 2003 as a result of the incident betweem his ex-wife and her boyfriend and a child protection order was issued prohibiting the ex-wife from "acts of domestic abuse against the child." The November 2003 incident resulted in a criminal charge against Fine's ex-wife for assault and for violation of the protection order; the November 2003 incident also resulted in a subsequent court order limiting his ex-wife to visitation only under supervision.

Johnson's summary - and, I'd suspect, the court papers themselves - hint at what must have been a really awful situation for all concerned - including Alan Fine and, especially, the couple's son.

They also hint at something else:

At the current time Fine has joint physical and legal custody and his son primarily resides with Fine under a court order entered in 2004. In short, I believe that the Star Tribune left so many relevant facts out of the story that it cannot withstand scrutiny.

Scrutiny is, indeed, what we'll be trying to give the story tomorrow on the NARN. We are, as this is written, scheduled to interview Rochelle Olson during the 2PM hour.

Johnson adds to the timeline:

The Star Tribune story ot this past Sunday does not cite a single fact other than the word of Fine's ex-wife to support the assault charge against Fine; the only physical evidence cited from the police report fails to support the assault charge against Fine. [If you follow the domestic abuse industry for any time, you realize that any "physical evidence" short of having a Ginsu stuck in his throat isn't going to keep the average guy out of jail when a woman calls in with any charge - real, imagined or tactical. When cops are called to a domestic dispute, they usually have to arrest someone - and that "someone" is almost always the guy, barring beyond-overwhelming evidence that the woman was the attacker, and sometimes even then. It's one of many parts of the system that beg for reform.] In an April 2004 court order involving the divorce of the ex-wife's twin sister, Fine's ex-wife was prohibited from seeing her niece without supervision "because of alleged incidents of domestic violence." For some reason the Star Tribune story leaves out all evidence suggesting that Fine's ex-wife is a woman with a documented history of violence and anger management isssues.

So the timeline looks like this:

1. Fine's marriage was a mess.
2. There was an altercation one evening in 1995. The cops were called. Although Fine was the only person showing any damage, he was hauled off to jail.
3. Fine's ex-wife was, pro forma, given custody of their child...
4. ...which she lost over the next eight years, during which she rang up a record of domestic violence all her own (and during which time Alan Fine's life was apparently fairly tranquil)).
5. The incidents combined to prompt the court to reverse their custody findings - which is, by the way, extremely rare in family court; while the standard for initially setting custody is "the best interest of the child" (a phrase that has a settled legal definition), reversing a custody finding in Minnesota courts requires showing that the change is vital for "the health and safety of the child" (a more stringent and difficult standard). Fine did this.
6. Finally, the evidence in the original arrest was so weak (and yet so damaging to someone's future career, in or out of politics) that Fine was able to get the record expunged.

In domestic court, men are almost always tacitly considered guilty until proven innocent. That Fine was able to keep a job and live a productive life is telling; that he could go on to get custody of his son and expunge the un-charged, un-tried arrest from his record should be dispositive to any reasonable person.

Hopefully on Saturday we'll find out why the Strib didn't think any of this was important enough for you to read.

They Think We're Idiots

I don't mind if people disagree with me, or with policies I believe in.

But I do mind if their arguments are completely incoherent.

Which brings us to Steve Chapman's op-ed in this morning's Strib.

Steve Chapman seems to think that people only think a paragraph at a time:

In recent years, illegal immigrants have become a continuous river surging over our southern border. When water goes where it shouldn't, you build a dam to stop the flow. So recently Congress voted to block this torrent -- by putting up one-third of a dam. In practice, it will amount to far less than one-third of a solution.

Of course, that'd be one-third more than we have today. But let's look at this "one-third of a dam".

The fence, as advertised, simultaneously manages to be both stupendously vast and pitifully undersized. Covering some 700 miles in five segments, it's the equivalent of a structure stretching from Chicago to Washington, D.C. It would have double steel walls supplemented with cameras, motion detectors and floodlights -- everything but an alligator-infested moat.

The fence won't - can't - cover the whole border. That's a problem - but not an insurmountable one.Whatever the total mileage are, it'll be less than the 2,000 it'd take to seal the border shut. That's a given - for now. But those 300-700 miles will be pretty tightly shut - which is 3-700 miles more than we have now.

Now, we'll get into the parts where we see what I can only chalk up to Steve Chapman's contempt for the rest of us:

Congress also instructed the DHS to consult local and state governments on "exact placement" of the wall. But a lot of them reject the idea. Mike Allen, director of the McAllen Economic Development Corp. in south Texas, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "Every single mayor from Brownsville to El Paso is against it."

What'd happen if we let local mayors set national policy?

The mayor of San Francisco would disband the military. The mayor of Boston would unilaterally impose an oxygen excise tax.

You see how wrong Chapman's statement is, right?

Erecting this giant public-works project is easier to do on paper than on rugged desert ground. Lee Morgan, a former federal agent in Douglas, Ariz., near the planned route, told the Reuters news agency, "You can't build a wall across the mountains of southern Arizona, as much of the terrain is inaccessible even on foot."

Ahem.

Einstein - if the terrain is inaccessible on foot, then we don't need a fence there, do we?

Some of the fence is supposed to traverse creek beds that occasionally play host to violent flash floods. "You are going to have to build hundreds of culverts big enough for debris the size of brush and small trees to float through the length of the border," said another former federal agent. "If it is wide enough for bushes to get through, then people can get through."

Save some of the water to splash in Steve Chapman's face - and put a motion detector on the US side of the culvert.

And what will this lengthy barrier accomplish if and when it is finished? It will certainly prevent transient Mexicans and Central Americans from crossing the border in the places where it stands. But it won't prevent them from crossing elsewhere, as they did when fences were erected in the San Diego and El Paso areas.

Right. Because the illegal had to only to 10-15 miles to find an open border near a convenient, friendly urban area.

Most of the crossing takes place in or near towns or cities. If you cut off the easy crossings, you will cut down on the number of people who are willing to try in the first place. Given a choice between dashing a couple of hundred yards across the border to a neighborhing city or trekking across miles of trackless, waterless, oven-hot-by-day, icebox-cold-by-night desert, what would you pick?

Since the government began cracking down in those places, total illegal immigration has actually risen.

Huh?

Of course it's risen - the economic disparity between Mexico and the US continues to widen, and as enforcement rises Mexicans figure that now is the time to get a move on.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Not that Steve Chapman feels it's important to tell you.

Instead of making their way through urban areas, undocumented foreigners have eluded capture by trekking across remote deserts and mountains, paying human smugglers to shepherd them into the United States. Instead of snaring more illegal entrants, we're now arresting fewer.

Does anyone see the omissions and holes in this argument?

Some illegals will make the gruelling trek across the desert - but anything that makes crossing more difficult will, by human nature, whittle down the number that'll try, and in any case will cut down on the amount of space the INS and Border Patrol need to cover.

Research by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey indicates that the chance of being nabbed has dropped from about 33 percent 25 years ago to about 5 percent today -- while the cost to the Border Patrol per apprehension has soared. At the same time, the fatality rate of those crossing has tripled. Not exactly a proud achievement: killing trespassers instead of catching them.

Sad, but a non-sequitur.

A longer, more formidable fence can once again divert illegal immigrants to more dangerous routes and increase the fees charged by smugglers to arrange passage. As long as higher-paying employment beckons to impoverished people on the other side of the border, though, the cost and risk will still look modest next to the potential payoff. The fence can make illegal entry harder, but it won't make it any less popular.

Stated without evidence.

Simple economics dictates that making something harder and costlier will cut down on the pool of people who'll be willing to risk or pay for something.

Of course, we don't expect much literacy on basic economics or law enforcement from the Strib.

Posted by Mitch at 06:02 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

Only The Good Quit Young

Rambix, one of the Twin Cities' essential blog reads, is retiring the Red Star blog:

The challenge is there is no natural stopping point for a blog. I never really had a time frame in mind when I started blogging; I just figured I'd do it until I got sick of it. And frankly, I'm not sick of it at all - I still love exposing things you'll not read about in the MSM, particularly the Red Star.

The reason I'm retiring is that the blogging is encroaching on my personal life, and has been interfering with family time.

I understand the motivation - it's why I do my own blogging before my kids wake up in the morning. I can't blame him one bit.

Rambix did a great service toward making Minneapolis a city worth raising kids in.

Hey, if you're a Rambix informant looking for an outlet, drop me a line!

Oldie But A Goodie

It's bad enough that Patty Wetterling is lying about Michele Bachmann's support of the national sales tax (watch the ad here if you'd like) .

What's worse?

She's reprising a lie I called her on two years ago!

Mark Kennedy even voted for a 23% national sales tax, which would also eliminate the mortgage deduction...".

What does she think we are?

Precursor to the 2008 DFL Convention?

Al Franken's movie, says Brian Maloney, is one of the biggest stiffs of the year, taking in about as much money in limited and general release after several weeks as Franken himself earns in about three weeks at his soon-to-be-late Air America gig.

Maloney:

Last week, God Spoke ranked a mere 60th overall, among films in current release. Even now, it's being shown on just ten screens nationwide, with several additions expected this weekend.

As Michael Phillips notes in his ChiTrib review:

Democrats, especially, may experience "God Spoke" with a growing sense of irritation. So much vamping and noodling and forgettable party footage, so little focus or drive. Until Franken decides to decide something and get his ducks in a winnable row, there's no movie. There's just footage.

Franken; flop comic, flop talk host, flop movie star...

...bring on the Senate campaign!

Wilde Weasel

Chad the Elder catches Wendy Wilde - former WCCO and FrankenNet Minnesota "personality" - in a lie.

Not a corrosive, Goebbels-level lie like Patty Wetterling's, but a lie nonetheless. Wilde, who is running for Congress against Jim Ramstad, claimed in a Strib interview to have been to Amsterdam, and that "she didn't remember smoking the drug, but acknowledged she may have tried it there".

Chad found the goods on a local forum.

I, for one, am ambivalent about the "war on drugs", which has killed more Americans than Vietnam or, as it happens, drugs themselves.

But for heaven's sake, if you went to Holland and drank the bong water, be friggin' honest.

What's The Latin Term for "Non-Sequitur" Again?

The Strib quotes the American Prospect:

"From 1997 to 2002, Republican committee chairmen issued more than 1,000 subpoenas (to the Clinton administration) and the Republican House took 140 hours of testimony on whether Clinton had abused his Christmas card list for fundraising purposes. By contrast, the House spent a total of 12 hours on Abu Ghraib, with one subpoena issued."

Hm. Could it be because the military, the Department of Defense and the executive branch already have investigative services whose job it is to deal with criminal activities by troops? That it's not really Congress' job, unlike, for example, investigating a corrupt President?

Just a thought.

The Wrong Solution?

I've raised questions - admittedly half-formed ones - over schools' process of "locking down" whenever there's any kind of emergency.

In the case of school shootings, I think it's generally a deeply stupid idea, keeping students locked into their rooms like cattle in pens, waiting for a gunman to get around to them (as the shooter at Red Lake did).

In other cases - well, I have to wonder.

Yesterday, there was an explosion at a South St. Paul chemical plant, which sent a cloud of toxic smoke into the air and around the neighborhood - a neighborhood that includes a number of schools. Who promptly "locked down":

About 2:45 p.m., South Washington County Schools began calling back some students who were walking home and kept others inside who had not left school, said spokeswoman Barb Brown. Parents were allowed to pick up their children. The smoke was visible from the southern end of the district.

Cottage Grove police asked the district to hold students awhile to be safe, although a specific threat from the fire had not been identified, Brown said.

Are school airtight?

I don't know what is the right thing to do with a school full of students in a situation like that. But if kids are, by law, supposed to be crammed into schools for six-odd hours a day, they had better know.

After 9/11, I asked a number of school district functionaries about situations like this; what if there was a chemical (or chemical weapon) cloud drifting toward the school? What if there were a shooting? What if there were a Beslan-like incident, where the SWAT team wasn't able to rescue the students, penned into their rooms?

I'm still looking for answers. I just don't think "locking down" the school is the answer nearly as much as our school officials think it is...

The Lie Continues

I see that Patty Wetterling is still running her slag on the FairTax (which would replace the Income and Payroll taxes with a 23% national sales tax). The ad says it'd increase prices 23%, omitting to mention it'd get rid of the other taxes.

I wonder how many voters, the ignorant sort that shouldn't be voting in the first place (and that happen to skew DFL in this state) have been swayed by this extended lie?

Adios, Ragweed!

For yet another season, we met, mano a mano. You tried to get me.

And yet again, I'm still here, and you're all gone:

It was 25 degrees in downtown Minneapolis at 5 a.m., but there were no snowshowers

Til next year, vile weed.

The Mystery and the Downside of Its' Solving

I play guitar. It's still my best, and favorite, instrument.

So much of this post will make sense only to guitar players.

I learned to play entirely by ear. In ninth grade, I'd put my guitar on the floor next to my chair as I did my homework and put KFYR - the closest we had to a rock and roll station in the middle of North Dakota. If a song came on that I wanted to learn, I'd grab the guitar, figure out what key the song was in and the chord progression, and start playing along. I learned hundreds of songs that way.

But over the years, there've been a few songs that consistently eluded me - songs, or parts of songs, that I had to work for years to conquer, practicing madly or merely waiting for a blazing flash of epiphany. Bit by bit, I usually solve any problem that isn't a matter of pure speed (I've never been a "fast" guitar player, so shut up about your Yngwie Malmsteen parts). Frequently, the hard part isn't the overall chords or key or structure of the song; it's the little subtle things; the voicing of that accursed "D" chord in Richard Thompson's Shoot Out The Lights (he reaches his thumb around to hold a low F# under a first-position D) was one that nagged me for a while, for example.

Another was the the dobro part in Romeo and Juliet by Dire Straits. It flummoxed me for years. I thought I'd cracked the code when I started playing acoustic guitar in open tunings; I thought I'd cracked the code by playing the signature line in open "G".

Happy happy happy.

Until I saw this vid of Dire Straits performing (an unnecessarily slow, dirge-like version of) the song live during their commercial heyday.

A capo.

A friggin' capo.

It's like hearing Walter Peyton was on steroids, or that Kirby Puckett threw games, or that Marisa Tomei is a guy.

No, I know - a capo is a perfectly fine technique. I never got used to using 'em.

Blah.

I'll recover.

Let's Make It Official

Here's where school security is going:

Each morning, the 16,000 students in the Spring Independent School District in suburban Houston swipe their ID tags as they climb onto the school bus. A radio frequency tag tracks them, as it does when they arrive at school and as they leave the building.

Nearly 1,000 cameras watch them all day. Every visitor — parents, volunteers, the guy who fills the Coke machine — must surrender his or her driver's license to a secretary who checks it against a national database of sex offenders. This fall, nearly one in three schools literally trap visitors inside a "secure vestibule," a bulletproof glass room, until they're checked out.

Welcome to the brave new world of school security. In an era when deadly school shootings seem to happen like clockwork [Really? What school is scheduled for today? Because isn't the predictability the essence of being "like clockwork"? - Ed.], schools are hardening up, trying unconventional means to deter violence and keep track of students and adults.

Up next:

• classrooms locked down from a central guard station, and opened only to allow passing between classes.
• While passing between classes, students will be searched for weapons, and then secured to the next student in line via Teachers' Union-approved "Freedom Shackles" to prevent kidnapping and molestation, and walked to the next class
• Student "Free time" will take place in a fenced "yard" on the top of the building, surrounded by barbed wire to prevent abuse, shootings and kidnappings
• Finally, to prevent child abuse in the home (statistically the most dangerous place for children to be or to go to or from), students will live in their individual "classrooms" 23/7 (with an hour a day in the exercise yard noted above)

It's a brave new world!

Fingers Crossed

You could perhaps predicted the Strib's exultation over this story, in which an Episcopal dioceses is discussing pulling the diocese out of the marriage business:

The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts is considering a solution to the gay-marriage issue that commends itself to all churches seeking escape from the hot seat this issue has created: It may get entirely out of the marriage business.

Unmentioned by the Strib; the Episcopals - at least the higher-level governmental bodies of the church - are barely better than Unitarians, these days.

But let's ignore church politics and demominational theologies for a moment; why should a church - on that claims to base its teachings on two-millenia-old traditions based on truths Christians consider immutable and eternal - abandon a key observance over an issue that's been front page news for half a decade or so?

They shouldn't.

A church wedding really is two ceremonies rolled into one: a legal, government-sanctioned marriage, in which the presiding minister acts as an official of the state; and a religious ceremony, at which the union is blessed by the priest and the couple is embraced by the congregation. The actual marriage (as opposed to the wedding ceremony) involves simply signing and witnessing the legal documents.

Um...no.

The "Actual Marriage", to (I strongly suspect) a huge majority of believers, is the agreement between a guy, a gal, and God. The contract with the state merely confirms the arrangement in temporal terms.

It is the business of the state to sanction who may legally be married to each other. It is the business of the church to bless a union of any two people it chooses.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I'll grant the Strib this much; the editorial was probably written by someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about faith. The writer makes it sound as if the "blessing" is some feel-good decoration on top of a state contract.

By separating the two, the Massachusetts diocese would be rendering back unto Caesar the authority to legally bind people together, and would be reclaiming wholly for itself the judgment about which unions might be religiously blessed and celebrated.

It's also "rendering unto Caesar" an institution that is, and has always been, a religious one.

That is a healthy separation.

Except, of course, for the institution of marriage.

It has never been wise for ministers and priests to act as agents of the state, as the gay marriage issue has made painfully clear.

Re-read that sentence.

To the Strib editorial board, the entire history of marriage, its entire theological, moral and social underpinning, and the entire validity of society's most crucial institution...

...is being judged by the standard of how or whether it adopts the notion of gay marriage?

Isn't that sort of like suspending the Constitution because you don't like how the Soil and Water Board vote went?

It has thrust churches into the center of a heated, divisive political battle in which the churches lose no matter what.

What do the churches lose by standing up for what they believe (assuming the church believes in anything - which may be a big aggressive for Massachussetts' Episcopals)?

If the Massachusetts diocese, at its annual convention later this month, officially makes the change, then couples (same-sex or otherwise) would be married by a judge, justice of the peace or other state agent. Those who desired a religious ceremony then would seek it through their parish church. To Americans, such arrangements may sound radical, but they are in fact the traditional approach in much of Europe.

Leave aside the fact that gay marriage remains illegal in Europe as well for a moment.

Europe's method of dealing with marriages is neither "traditional" nor is it even homogenous throughout Europe. The Strib is being at the very least overgeneral, and at most deeply disingenuous.

There is deep wisdom in Jesus' admonition to keep separate things of Caesar and things of God, and the Massachusetts proposal honors that wisdom.

Only if you assume that Jesus - or Mohammed, Vishnu, Confucius or Buddha - thought that marriage, one of the most important sacraments in every major religion, were the province of government.

I'll await the evidence.

Churches should seek to bring people together and to minister to all comers. This change would help strengthen those roles.

The Strib writer is describing a support group or a social service agency.

Faiths should, indeed, welcome and unify - behind a set of beliefs.

The Strib supports any Republican who either acts like a Democrat or can't win; by the same token, they love faith, as long as that faith is in nothing concrete.

Bad News For Republicans

The modestly-sensible Rahm Emanuel said:

``If we believed in conspiracy theories, we'd think that only Karl Rove could dream up the idea of a linguistic professor from Berkeley urging Democrats to `practice reframing every day, on every issue.'''

But it wasn't Rove who foisted that "linguistics professor from Berkeley", George Lakoff, on the Democrats.

He was a self-inflicted wound.

Lakoff is a Chomskyite tranformational linguist from Berkeley via MIT who wasted thousands of Democrat man-hours talking about metaphors of terror and framing issues.

And he's on the outs, according to Andrew Ferguson. And that can only be good for the Democrats.

Oh, he was influential:

``Towers are symbols of phallic power,'' Lakoff explained, ``and their collapse reinforces the idea of loss of power.''

And if you think the Twin Towers were symbolically profound, wait till you get a load of the Pentagon: ``Another kind of phallic imagery was more central here,'' Lakoff wrote. ``The Pentagon, a vaginal image from the air, was penetrated by the plane as missile.''

A man who could write such things may be suited to many tasks, but ``counselor to a major political party trying to win elections'' is not one of them.

Yet that is what Lakoff became before the 2004 elections. He spoke at conclaves of Democratic candidates, and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee bought boxes of his book on political strategy (``Don't Think of an Elephant'') and passed them out like party favors.

But a lefty thinker has a half-life like an N-Sync solo project:

But Democrats lost elections listening to Lakoff, just as they'd lost elections before he became their swami. Now the more respectable elements in the party are giving him the heave-ho.

The liberal New Republic magazine trashed his newest book in a brutal review two weeks ago. ``If Democrats take the ideas of George Lakoff seriously,'' said the reviewer, ``they just might succeed'' in losing the election.

Lakoff has become a stock figure of fun in the pages of the progressive magazine the American Prospect. His invitations to speak before the Democratic caucus have dried up.

And in their new book ``The Plan,'' Democratic strategist Bruce Reed and Representative Rahm Emanuel hold up Lakoff as an exemplar of how not to win elections.

Note to Democrats; Ignore Reed! Rebuke Rahm!

Embrace Lakoff!

Counterpoint: Kim Jong-Il

Captain Ed, among Twin Cities' bloggers, is famously well-connected; dining at Michelle Malkin's, partying with George Will, on John "J-Po" Podhoretz' speed dialer - Ed is a guy on the go.

So today's scoop - landing John McCain as a guest writer - is not in the least out of place. The whole thing is worth a bracing read.

But for once, I can top Ed. That's right - an exclusive rebuttal from Kim Jong-Il, dictator of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, responding to Senator McCain's points, who sent me this post earlier today:

Annyeonghaseyo.

Igeoshimweoyeyo? Hwajangshil eodiseyo. Mweoyeyo? Chamkkan kidariseyo chigeum annyonghi kyeseyo ach'im bul cheo ba kang!

Kamsahamnida cheong bok manna boeeo ban gapseumnida. Ichoo sea yo. Bush? Dol dae ga ri. Shibbal nom. Ma Kaine? Go-ja. Shibal nom, Geseki! Um chang se kki! Um chang se kki! "Framework?" Jokkah ji mah! Ko jo ra.

Kon Di Rice? Comiday su su!

Bae go pai yo. Jee guru jer it a ra.

Annyeonghi kyesey.

Questions?

For the benefit of the overly-tightly-wound, the above is not really Kim Jong-Il.

Yet.

The Strib Vs. The Strib

Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson covers last weekend's Strib hit piece on Alan Fine - the one I dealt with on Sunday. Scott's piece holds the Strib to its own historical standard, and finds the paper grossly wanting:

I find Sunday's Star Tribune story by Paul McEnroe and Rochelle Olson on the expunged 1995 arrest of Republican Fifth District congressional candidate Alan Fine to be reprehensible. Under roughly similar circumstances involving Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor Marlene Johnson in 1982, the Star Tribune found such a story to be reprehensible as well. What has changed? Let's revisit a bit of Star Tribune history.

Scott revisits the history - the Dan Cohen case, in which a Republican operative planted a story about a decade-old shoplifting conviction against DFL then-Lieutenant-Governor Marlene Johnson with the Strib (which then turned around and ratted out Cohen, their anonymous source, in a case which the paper eventually lost at the Supreme Court). The paper found the story - which involved a conviction for a crime - reprehensible.

Johnson [emphasis added]:

In their Sunday Star Tribune story, Paul McEnroe and Rochelle Olson blow the whistle on Alan Fine for an expunged arrest that was never even charged by a prosecutor. Star Tribune reader's representative Kate Parry now claims that the Star Tribune has "corroborated" the charge leading to Fine's expunged arrest, even though it has done little more than recycle the underlying allegation [In other words, they regurgitate the charge that was originally thrown out - Ed]. In 1982, the Star Tribune denounced the disclosure of Marlene Johnson's adjudicated shoplifting charge -- a charge that had been tried to conviction before a judge -- as scurrilous...The Star Tribune's judgment of Cohen in 1982 sits in judgment of the Star Tribune itself in 2006, as does the hard-earned perspective of Dan Cohen.

The Strib has two standards; one for the DFL, one for the GOP.

How do they exercise those burdens?

We'll leave that for an upcoming post.

The Virtual Debate

E-Democracy is staging its umpteenth annual "E-Debate" among the six, count 'em, six gubernatorial candidates on the ballot.

This year, the debate joins the 2000s, and is presented in blog format. Check out the debate.

The six candidates, by the way, are

• Tim Pawlenty - Republican
• Mike Hatch - Democratic-Farmer-Labor
• Peter Hutchinson - Independence
• Ken Pentel - Green
• Leslie Davis - American Party
• Walt Brown - Quit Raising Taxes Party

Leave your impressions.

Weekend Plans

Make sure you join the whole NARN crew for the Patriot Radio Rally, Sunday night at the Hopkins Center for the Arts, at 1111 Main Street in Hopkins.

Hugh Hewitt will be hosting; Norm Coleman will be speaking, among many others.

Free in advance, $12.80 at the door. (Take "in advance").

More on this event later...

I Could Soften On The Death Penalty

"Mother" uses baby as cudgel:

A woman used her 4-week-old baby as a weapon in a domestic dispute, swinging the infant through the air and striking her boyfriend with the child, authorities said..."Never, never, never. I can never remember anything like this," District Attorney Bradley Foulk told the Erie Times-News.

Chytoria Graham, 27, of Erie, was charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and simple assault. She was held Monday in the Erie County Jail in lieu of $75,000 bail.

The infant, whose name was not released, suffered a fractured skull and some bleeding in the brain, authorities said. His head hit Graham's boyfriend, the baby's father, police Lt. Dan Spizarny said.

Aaaaaaagh.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh.

Ugh.

Undercover Report

A source inside the Democratic National Committee leaked this transcript of a meeting early this morning to me. This, as far as I know, is a Shot In The Dark exclusive:

HOWARD DEAN: "OK, let's get started. Everybody? OK. Good job on the Foley thing. We had 'em on the ropes. But life is what happens when you're making other plans. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRRRHHHKH. This North Korea thing is big. Real big...

AL FRANKEN: "We were tho clothe!"

DEAN: "...so we gotta HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHRNN figure out a way to trump this Nuke thing before the elections. Floor's open, people. Think!

CINDY SHEEHAN: "We could, like, totally have the president, like, killed..."

MARKOS "KOS" MOULITSAS: "We could photoshop a picture of Condoleeza Rice dancing with Kim Jong-Il..."

MADELINE ALBRIGHT: "Get your own material..."

SHEEHAN: (Giggles happily and incoherently)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: "Dahling! Ve could find a pikchah of Dubya vith an Intern! Let me check my rolodex..."

FRANKEN: "That'th abtholutely fabuluth!"

DONNA BRAZILE: "Um, that didn't work before..."

MIKE MALLOY: "He paid for an abortion! He is a cokehead! Bushitler Crime Family Halliburton..."

DEAN: "Good! Good! Let the YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH creativity flow!"

HUFFINGTON: "Dahling!"

MOULITSAS: "How about we spread the word that he wants to start a draft?"

JERRY NADLER: "But we want to start a draft, punk..."

(cell phone rings)

HUFFINGTON: "Dahlings, I have to take this call..."

DEAN: "Good, good..."

PATTY WETTERLING: "We could run an ad saying that Bush admitted ordering the CIA to cover up the Foley scandal!"

HUFFINGTON: (to phone) "...No, the vegan pate, you incompetent moron..."

FRANKEN: "Oh, thith ith great! We could thpread the word that the Prethident ith a Thientologitht!"

JANEANE GAROFALO: "Oh, you bastard..."

JESSE JACKSON: "I have ears
on both sides of my head.
But I don't know,
what Franken said..."

SHEEHAN: "I found a dollar! Like, totally cool! (Giggles distractedly)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON: "Hey, that's mine..."

DEAN: "YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARGH!"

Last I heard, they're still in session.

Spoiler Alert!

Dale Amon at Samizdata gives away the "cliffhanger ending" of the movie Death of a President. Follow the link to read it.

Hint: It's not really very plausible.

In fact, says Samizdata...:

If I were writing such a script, I would make the killer a Cindy Sheehan follower. There are loads of serious nutcases around - you can find hundreds of them on certain web sites - who no doubt day dream about doing something like this. The attempt on President Ford and the wounding of President Reagan were both done by fruitcakes. It is almost certain the biggest threat to George Bush would similarly be a nut.

Go read DU if you want a glimpse into a world full of people for whom the ends justify the means - as long as they involve the elected Administration of this democracy.

But It's The American Involvement That's the Real Problem

Stuff from Hussein's trial that we already knew...:

The woman said several relatives disappeared during the offensive against the Kurds.

Well, 51% of us did...

Parents Are Obstacles

Granted, this letter to the editor in the Strib about last week's incident at St. Louis Park High is from a "security employee" at a "neighboring" school. The incident - in which the superintendent closed the school due to rumor of a potential student attack, but told parents and the media that it was due to a "water main break" - was indicative of something that's all too common in public schools today; the idea that parents are an encumbrance that all too often get in the way of th experts.

The letter states the case well, in a sick sort of way:

As a security employee of a neighboring school district, I applaud St. Louis Park Superintendent Debra Bowers for making sure that the reported rumor of an upcoming violent act at her high school could be properly investigated without obstruction.

For parents to complain about the original reason given for canceling the school day is ridiculous. Who cares what they originally announced? Their intent all along was not to deceive the public, but rather to state the actual reason at a later time, after the rumor could be dispelled or an actual threat thwarted.

Bullshit.

I mean, who cares what their reasons were?

We, the parents, entrust our children every day to the school system (public, charter or private) - and the law says you have to, whether you want to or not (unless you are able to homeschool, which most of us aren't).

This does not mean I cede to the school the right to do my thinking for me. If my kids are, hypothetically, stuck in a building with a couple of thousand kids, any number of whom think it's a yuk to phone in a bomb threat, I'd like to know about this pattern of behavior.

Because then, were I a SLP High parent, I might reach the conclusion that a school that spends this much time reacting to student threats and practicing making kids sit in nice orderly rows for the convenience of any potential shooters "lockdowns" instead of whatever "learning" they have time for between unfunded mandates and PC indoctrination just might not be the place my kids should be, right?

The most important thing was to give the school and the police the ability to investigate the threat. To possibly obstruct the police investigation by revealing the threat would have been a terrible mistake.

Whoah, Barney Fife.

How is a parent going to "obstruct" the investigation? By charging past the yellow tape and getting arrested?

How in the hell does Barney Fife figure parents' knowing about the incident is going to set the police back?

I'd love to hear his "reasoning".

Parents should be happy that the superintendent took the action that she did. The school system did what was deemed necessary at the time. The school took the measures necessary to fulfill one of its main responsibilities, that of keeping students safe.

Rubbish.

Keeping parents in the dark does nothing to keep the students safe.

More importantly - much more importantly - the school's responsibility to keep the students safe does not, never, ever trump the parents' responsibilities in that area, nor their prerogatives.

Well done, Superintendent Bowers.

IRA GUREWITZ, ST. LOUIS PARK

Wrong.

What the superintendant did was unconscionable. But it was a sign of the arrogance that attends these sorts of people.

Parents are obstacles.

If I Could Cancel Them Again...

The Strib editorial board came out today in favor of of Instant Runoff voting - an idea which has some superficial attractions and some practical problems.

Of course, the Strib missed a few things:

2) Instant runoff voting will inspire candidates to appeal for those important second-choice votes. That should stifle at least some of the smear tactics Minnesota is seeing too often today.

The biggest smearer in Minnesota politics today is the Star-Tribune itself, which is, in effect, a DFL opposition research shop.

How will Instant Runoff fix that?

And their number one reason:

1) If kids can learn to paint by number, grownups can learn to vote by number.

The Strib's condescension is duly noted.

Here's a number the Strib should note: Number of Star/Tribunes in my house (excluding World Series memorial editions): 0.

On Ice

Crime is up 20%...in Duluth'.

In all categories but rape, crime is up sharply in cold, isolated Duluth, Minnesota's fourth-largest city.

The perpetrators?

Much of Duluth's new crime involves turf struggles and carryover bad blood among gang members relocated to Duluth from the Twin Cities and beyond, Chief Hanson said.

Gangs.

And why are gangs flocking to, of all places, Duluth?

It's worth noting that that Duluth is among the most rigidly-DFL strongholds in the state. Duluth's city government makes Minneapolis look downright sane.

Easy pickings.

Speaking of Which...

Happy Fiftieth Birthday, Southdale Center, the world's first enclosed shopping mall!

Without you, tucked away in posh Edina, and your thousands of imitators, the 'burbs wouldn't be anywhere near as 'burby!

Ironically, the mall was intended to be...a socialist icon!

[Southdale's designer, architect Victor] Gruen was a European style socialist; he hated the suburban lifestyle of 1950's America, and wanted to design a building that would bring people together into a community, by providing a meeting place that American towns lacked. They would come together to shop, drink coffee, and socialize. It was never his intention to design what some consider an icon of capitalism.

So there you have it - the commies are at the root of the 'burbs' greatest symbol!

I knew it!

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today, Part XXXV

It was Wednesday, October 8, 1986. It was time for a remote.

A bit of history here: Southdale was the first enclosed shopping mall ever. August 8 1986 was the thirtieth anniversary.

And as part of the mall's celebration, they wanted the Don Vogel show to do a live broadcast from the mall's old atrium.

Live remotes are a big job even today; back then, doing a good remote was a huge job. Engineers had to get the phone company to run special high-bandwidth phone lines (this was a decade and a half before DSL and Broadband were everywhere, so it was expensive) to the remote site, haul a station wagon full of gear to the site...

...and, hardest of all, getting the air talent to come on out.

I'm a mutant in radio - I have always loved doing remotes. I'm a vanishing minority in the business. Most radio people detest leaving the comfort of their own studio.

Vogel was worse than most; it's harder to work a room when you're blind. Don hated remotes. But he was a great showman, and he realized what a great promotion tool they were. So he worked to minimize the impact of his blindness on the show when we went out on remotes.

Which was a big part of my job

I got in to work around 9AM to get some other work done, fix some bookings, and get ready. Don was doing a voice-over job in downtown Minneapolis, and would need to be picked up and hauled out to Southdale. Chauffering Don was a good-sized part of my gig back then. But this was no ordinary pickup; the station was earning a lot of money on this remote, and everything needed to work perfectly. If my jeep broke down, there needed to be a backup to get Don to the site.

The engineer, Norm Paetznick, handed me a big, white brick with an antenna. "Take the cell phone, and call if there's a problem".

I'd seen cell phones - on Miami Vice. This one was about three pounds, the size of a walkie-talkie, had access in a thin little corridor through the metro (including the downtowns and the airport), and cost a ton, plus two dollars a minute for airtime. It was, obviously, for emergencies.

I set out to get Don. It was a gorgeous October day in Minneapolis. As I wheeled down Sixth Street to get to the studio (high up in the Multifoods Tower), I had this brief flash; "I have a talk show, a job that pays the bills, a jeep, a leather jacket...all I need is a band and a smokin' girlfriend, and I'll have pretty much everything I want in life!" Armed with my expense-account, I wheeled into the parking ramp by Multifoods (on my own, I'd have driven around until a meter opened up), grabbed the phone, and walked into the tower. As I crossed the lobby, a small knot of drop-dead attractive (could it be any other kind?) office girls walked past. I took out the cell phone - which, back then, had vastly different implications than it does today - held it to my head, and started a one-sided conversation as I walked past them.

I'm sure they dug me.

===========

I'd never been to Southdale. The whole crew was doing the live show; sports guy Bruce Gordon; John MacDougall with his stack of AP wire copy, Dave Elvin, Don and me, along iwith a couple of engineers (Norm Paetznick and Dennis Nistl, if memory serves). We were set up at a couple of tables in front of an old water fountain in front of the old Donaldson's store.

And, at 3PM, we started broadcasting.

Fact is, I don't remember much about the broadcast itself. We had a rep from an online dating service on the air. Vogel chuckled "Let's fix you up with a challenge - fix Berg up with a date!". They accepted the challenge.

We'll get back to that.

Also - Don had lost a bet with Gordon on a football game. The stakes? He had to wriggle like a strip of frying bacon on the floor. I escorted him out to the middle of the floor in front of the table for the ceremony. (The next day someone called up and asked "I thought you guys always said he was blind! I saw him! He's not blind! There's just no way he could get around like that if he was blind!" I must have done a good job...)

The highlight of the show was our regular bit, "Dare Line", where we'd dare people to do stupid things for lame prizes.

The highlights:

• The Dare: Jump into the water fountain. A guy in a brand-new cashmere sweater took the dare, and did a bellyflop into the fountain's twelve inches of water. The Prize: a tube of Plasti-Dip.
• The Dare: Walk into Donaldson's and demand that everyone tune in Don Vogel. A young woman volunteered. Bruce Gordon, with the mobile mike, escorted her to the store - where she not only bellowed the demand to all and sundry, but grabbed a few passersby and made the demand in person. The Prize: Another tube of Plasti-Dip.

The other memory - it was about as much fun as I'd ever had doing radio. We had an audience of a couple of hundred people gathered around in the mall by the time we were done. It was a huge hit.

After the show, Don offered to take the crew out to dinner - provided we could find a greasy-enough greasy spoon. We - Don, Dave, Mac, Gordo and executive producer Rob Pendelton and I - adjourned to Doyle's, an old greasy-spoon diner at 38th and Bloomington in south Minneapolis, for the best pork tenderloin sandwiches and onion rings in the world, then and now.

I had a jeep, a leather jacket, a talk show, a gig that I loved that paid the bills, and that glowing sensein the pit of my gut that I really belonged somewhere.

Alan Fine Vs. The Strib

Alan Fine answers yesterday's Strib article with a news release which raises serious questions about the Strib's story and, if true, the character and "journalistic ethics" (if, indeed, such a thing truly and significantly exists) of Strib reporter Rochelle Olson . I've added emphasis as needed:

Minneapolis, MN, October 7, 2006--This is a response from the Fine for Congress campaign regarding the current StarTribune article "Candidate had Record Expunged" written by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe on October 7, 2006. The Fine campaign does question the use of certain language and feels that there is strong misrepresentation of Mr. Fine's marriage and relationships and character by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe. Specifically, the misrepresentation of the use of an expunged document and at least 25 additional court documents provided by Mr. Fine to the StarTribune on July 10, 2006. The statement by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe in the article citing "The newspaper obtained the expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago" is false.

The news release [which I'll reprint in its entirety in the extended entry] relates the various interviews between Fine and the various Strib reporters.

It was Mr. Fine's understanding in statements made to him by writer Rochelle Olson that the StarTribune was already in possession of the documents that Alan Fine presented to her. The Fine campaign is calling for a retraction of the entire article based on the vast number of inaccuracies and the misleading nature of the article which is a defamation of Mr. Fine's character and a misrepresentation of Alan Fine's previous campaign comment that "character matters." Further proof of their intent can be found in their quote at the end of the article, "After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched an attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters.'" Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe, StarTribune, October 7, 2006.

The cynic in me says it was payback for actually going against the Mother Party and the Father Paper, and for dissing the Strib.

The idealist in me is finding harder and harder to shush the cynic.

The following statement was issued by Alan Fine earlier today, "The StarTribune failed to report in this article that I have primary custody of my 12-year-old son."

Snap!

As a general rule, an average guy in Hennepin County has as much chance of getting primary custody of his kid as he has of getting a called third strike past Joe Mauer. Having an abuse rap on their record makes it well-nigh impossible. Which is, indeed, why so many women bring false charges of abuse; it is the nuclear option, the trump card in custody cases. And fraudulent charges are never prosecuted, because women's advocates claim that to prosecute a cynical fraud committed to destroy a father would cause a "chilling effect", so they say, to women who are being abused.

Mr. Fine continued to state his concerns regarding the truthfulness of the article overall. "The StarTribune has mislead the public about my campaign, my personal relationships, my character and about my relationship with my son. It is disappointing that the StarTribune shows a blatant disregard for the truth. This should be a 'red flag' of caution for readers of the StarTribune."

Given the Strib's "go-soft" policy on DFLers and their "no-quarter" tack against Republicans (who have any chance of impacting DFL control), the readers' "red flag" should, in fact, be the Star/Tribune masthead.

In fact, if you read the Strib, your policy should be to assume anything the Strib writes about Republicans is a lie until proven otherwise.

Alan Fine also said, "As a candidate in the 5th District, I am campaigning against Keith Ellison and Tammy Lee... not the media, specifically, the StarTribune newspaper."

Idealism? Naivete? Bad advice? We don't know. I'm sure Alan Fine will never make that mistake again.

Alan Fine also said, "My divorce occurred in 1995. I don't dismiss this as old news. This is a part of my life and my past and I believe that if the public were to know the truth of the whole story, they would see a story of strength and triumph and not one of abuse and disregard." Alan Fine also said, "I value my former wife as the mother of my 12-year-old son, who we both love dearly."

This story needs to come out - both to vindicate Fine (assuming he's telling the truth - and I do) and to repudiate the Strib's claims of objectivity and fairness (again, assuming Fine is telling the truth - and again, I do).

But why would the Strib - whose motivations Eric Black so eloquently and capably defended on the Hewitt show on Friday - do something like this?

Fine has a theory:

In closing, the Fine campaign calls to remove falsehoods by retracting the entire article immediately and issuing apologies to the Fine for Congress campaign and to Alan Fine, candidate for U.S. Congress in Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District. We are deeply concerned about the apparently strategic release of this story due to the close proximity of the general election on November 7 and following the critical campaign mailing to 100,000 voters in the 5th district regarding factual information which specifically connects Keith Ellison to a questionable organization. We also feel that this story was written in retaliation to Alan Fine's making public his displeasure that the StarTribune refused to publish his recent Op-Ed submission (which can be found at www.fineforcongress.org) and to mute the claims made in this latest mailing piece. It is our hope that we will have a response from the StarTribune in a timely manner regarding this demand of apology and retraction. "It is my hope, that this kind of abuse of the power of the Minnesota media would not become the norm or politics as usual fof future candidates."

But it is. And it will be. IIt's the DFL's last, best hope for maintaining its stranglehold in the metro, which is the only thing keeping it relevant in Minnesota politics.

Let's talk about the Strib for a moment. Their coverage of Fine has been...enigmatic? No - predictable. Up until about a month ago, Fine was the sort of Republican that every DFLer loves; moderate (Fine is a mild-mannered fiscal conservative and a social moderate), conciliatory, personable, and heading for maybe 40% of the vote. The kind of Republican the Strib just loves.

And they showed it; the Strib's Lori Sturdevant, as reliable a DFL flak as the Strib has, wrote an article entitled "GOP Might Learn From 5th District Candidate Fine" last June.

Then, two weeks ago, Fine started getting uppity, questioning the Strib's policy of passing Keith Ellison's evasiveness on his Nations of Islam past off as truth, with nary a followup question. And then the gloves came off.

Rochelle Olson, one of the writers of yesterday's October Surprise hit piece, now seems to be either working as a tacit adjuct to the Ellison campaign, or at least have a dog in the race. Fine related a story this past Thursday at a campaign event in which Olson called him (according to Fine) after Fine direct-mailed a stack of proof about Ellison's Nations of Islam connections to the voters. According to Fine, the conversation went like this:

Olson: "You're a hatemonger, aren't you?"

Fine: "Why?"

Olson: "Because you're trying to blacken Keith Ellison"

Again, that was taken from Fine's account. But nothing in the account is against type...

...for the past month, anyway.

Rochelle Olson - I'd love to talk with you on the NARN next weekend. We have so much to discuss.

UPDATE: Elder notes:

Saturday's Star Tribune slag piece on Alan Fine? Front page of course.

Sunday's story on how Fine is demanding a retraction of the story? Page B7.

And Swiftee tees up what promises to be an interesting couple of day's coverage.

Here's the entire press release:

Minneapolis, MN, October 7, 2006--This is a response from the Fine for Congress campaign regarding the current StarTribune article "Candidate had Record Expunged" written by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe on October 7, 2006. The Fine campaign does question the use of certain language and feels that there is strong misrepresentation of Mr. Fine's marriage and relationships and character by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe. Specifically, the misrepresentation of the use of an expunged document and at least 25 additional court documents provided by Mr. Fine to the StarTribune on July 10, 2006. The statement by Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe in the article citing "The newspaper obtained the expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago" is false. It is the understanding of the Fine campaign, that Mr. Fine presented these documents voluntarily to the StarTribune upon their request on July 10, 2006 in an extensive interview with Erik Black at the request of the editorial staff of the StarTribune regarding this issue. In attendance at this interview was also Fine for Congress Campaign Director, Jenny Sliwinski. This was a follow-up to an extensive interview with Eric Black in May following Alan Fine's endorsement in which Erik Black raised questions about these same issues. Following this interview, Erik Black released an article on May 16, 2006 in the StarTribune titled, "In DFL-dominated Territory, GOP Candidate Sees Opportunity." Again, Jenny Sliwinski, Campaign Director for the Fine Campaign was witness to this interview in which the issues raised were fully discussed. These documents were also presented to Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe this past week. Joe Weber, Fine for Congress campaign consultant, was in attendance at that meeting. It was Mr. Fine's understanding in statements made to him by writer Rochelle Olson that the StarTribune was already in possession of the documents that Alan Fine presented to her. The Fine campaign is calling for a retraction of the entire article based on the vast number of inaccuracies and the misleading nature of the article which is a defamation of Mr. Fine's character and a misrepresentation of Alan Fine's previous campaign comment that "character matters." Further proof of their intent can be found in their quote at the end of the article, "After state Rep. Keith Ellison won the DFL nomination, Fine launched an attack on his character, focusing on his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Fine has repeatedly said "character matters.'" Rochelle Olson and Paul McEnroe, StarTribune, October 7, 2006.

The following statement was issued by Alan Fine earlier today, "The StarTribune failed to report in this article that I have primary custody of my 12-year-old son." Mr. Fine continued to state his concerns regarding the truthfulness of the article overall. "The StarTribune has mislead the public about my campaign, my personal relationships, my character and about my relationship with my son. It is disappointing that the StarTribune shows a blatant disregard for the truth. This should be a 'red flag' of caution for readers of the StarTribune."

Alan Fine also said, "As a candidate in the 5th District, I am campaigning against Keith Ellison and Tammy Lee... not the media, specifically, the StarTribune newspaper."

Alan Fine also said, "My divorce occurred in 1995. I don't dismiss this as old news. This is a part of my life and my past and I believe that if the public were to know the truth of the whole story, they would see a story of strength and triumph and not one of abuse and disregard."

Alan Fine also said, "I value my former wife as the mother of my 12-year-old son, who we both love dearly."

In closing, the Fine campaign calls to remove falsehoods by retracting the entire article immediately and issuing apologies to the Fine for Congress campaign and to Alan Fine, candidate for U.S. Congress in Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District. We are deeply concerned about the apparently strategic release of this story due to the close proximity of the general election on November 7 and following the critical campaign mailing to 100,000 voters in the 5th district regarding factual information which specifically connects Keith Ellison to a questionable organization. We also feel that this story was written in retaliation to Alan Fine's making public his displeasure that the StarTribune refused to publish his recent Op-Ed submission (which can be found at www.fineforcongress.org) and to mute the claims made in this latest mailing piece. It is our hope that we will have a response from the StarTribune in a timely manner regarding this demand of apology and retraction. "It is my hope, that this kind of abuse of the power of the Minnesota media would not become the norm or politics as usual fof future candidates."

Note that I provide this not to serve as a press outlet for Fine - I'm not - but to ensure the reader can get the entire context of his response.

Paint It Black

Hugh Hewitt interviewed the Strib's Eric Black yesterday, in a wide-ranging, hour-long donnybrook.

You should read the whole transcript (or listen to it) - it's a fascinating look into the intricacies of reporting politics, as well as how the mind-set of a reporter differs from that of most everyone else.

Black is, by the way, one of the Strib's better reporters, and one who is at least openly analytical about the media's biases. I'll credit him for that.

To me, this was the most interesting part of the interview. Black says... (emphasis mine):

And one of the reasons that I was reluctant [to do the interview] was because of a dynamic that’s very much evident in this discussion, which is that my job does require me to maintain my own…maintain silence about my political and ideological beliefs. And you’re under no such obligation, and of course, you think it’s ludicrous that anyone should. But it nonetheless is the system that I’ve worked in during my working life. I’m troubled by it, and I’m admitting that to you. But I’m still working at it, and I’m thinking out loud about ways to improve it. I don’t believe the way to improve it…

HH: Does the Strib really require…

EB: I don’t believe the way to improve it is to have biased coverage with the biases admitted.

HH: Well, you’ve just admitted that everyone in the newsroom has bias. Every single person has a bias, right?

EB: Right. There’s a tension in my mind. I know you don’t think this is reasonable, but I’m trying to frame this in the way it appears to me. The tension in my mind is whether it’s better to have a system in which people are attempting to overcome their biases, are striving for some sort of a definition of fairness, which I agree is largely in the eye of the beholder, and very difficult to obtain, and as a result of that strategy, let’s call it a strategy or goal or a norm…as a result of that, our not disclosing their biases, or whether it’s better to just have open bias disclosed, but filtering and coloring everything that comes through.

Black is commenting on the conflict between two different views of journalism:

• The way it's been practiced through much of the history of journalism, and the way it's practiced in much of the world today, in which journalists are honest about their biases, which allows the consumer to account for bias in their perception of the news.
• The way it's been done in the American mainstream media since the middle of the last century, in which reporters strive to eliminate all outward signs of bias, and remain "objective" (or, more realistically, detached) from the story. This, of course, is predicated on jounalists having an almost-superhuman level of altruism.

Black doesn't believe that acknowledging bias is the way to go:

The tension in my mind is whether it’s better to have a system in which people are attempting to overcome their biases, are striving for some sort of a definition of fairness, which I agree is largely in the eye of the beholder, and very difficult to obtain, and as a result of that strategy, let’s call it a strategy or goal or a norm…as a result of that, our not disclosing their biases, or whether it’s better to just have open bias disclosed, but filtering and coloring everything that comes through.

I can understand Black's point - it's the way I was taught to do reporting, way back when.

But the effectiveness of that system is entirely predicated on trust. Do people trust journalists to squelch their biases (which remain unknown to the public) and at least be genuinely balanced in their coverage?

People trusted Ernie Pyle to be balanced. Ditto Edward R. Murrow.

They trusted David Brinkley (apparently with justification) and Jack Anderson and Walter Cronkite (less so) and Dan Rather (no, no, no).

I'd suspect that a fair chunk of the public (a chunk of which I am a member) do not trust the Strib of Jim Boyd and Joel Kramer to be fair; the case of at the very least circumstantial evidence to the contrary has been building for decades.

It's a shame; Eric Black is a good reporter, as a general rule. But the Strib, as an institution, has squandered whatever trust that the institution of journalism as practiced for the last 50-70 years might have built up. They're hardly alone, of course - but when the editorial board and newsrooms' biases are revealed in incidents like the Wetterling Ad scandal, it's not a legacy that inspires confidence in their balance, detachment or fairness.

Ellison's October Surprise

The DFL/Strib plunge yet again into the dirt in today's October Surprise swat at 5th CD underdog Alan Fine over a "domestic abuse" arrest that has been expunged due to Fine's innocence.

The headline says "Fine Had Record Expunged".

Minneapolis congressional candidate Alan Fine was charged with domestic violence in 1995 and nine years later had his record expunged, in a case in which he and his first ex-wife give different versions of the events that led to him ending up in the Hennepin County jail.

His wife at the time, Rebecca Wexler, dropped the abuse charge, and Fine succeeded in having the case removed from Hennepin County court and police records, according to documents recently obtained by the Star Tribune.

So in the lede, we learn that Fine has a "domestic abuse" record, that the stories differ, and that it was expunged.

How long until we learn why?

Fine, who is the Fifth District Republican candidate, said in a recent interview that he never struck Wexler.

He said he sought to have his records expunged because he was innocent.

The fact that the record was expunged might lend some credence to that idea.

Wexler said Thursday that she agreed to drop the charges two to three weeks after the arrest only because Fine pressured her and because he promised to work out their problems in marriage counseling. The couple divorced the following year.

Domestic abuse charges are a common tool to gain leverage in during divorces and other breakups; they are the nuclear option for getting one's way in a divorce case. As many as half of all spousal and child-abuse cases brought during divorces are false, intended to manipulate the legal process.

In the interview and in court documents, Fine accused his ex-wife and her father, Hennepin County Judge Thomas Wexler, of conspiring in 1995 to stage a domestic incident and get him arrested for assault in order to make him "look bad" before he filed for divorce. "They wanted to have leverage in the divorce," Fine said. "I'm speculating here. I don't have proof."

Fine stated in an affidavit connected with the divorce proceedings that his then-wife "admitted to me, in the presence of another person, that she had made a mistake in having me arrested and that her allegations were untrue." Fine was asked repeatedly by reporters to identify who that other person was. He said he could not remember.

The fact is that, while women commit much more domestic abuse than they are normally held responsible for (some studies say over half), men are considered guilty until proven innocent when accused of domestic abuse.

Once accused/convicted, it's very difficult for a typical guy to clear his name. And yet Fine's record was expunged.

Fine was arrested by Minneapolis police and booked into the county jail for fifth-degree assault on June 2, 1995, according to the sealed police report obtained by the Star Tribune. Fine was shown the report and did not dispute its authenticity.

The report states that officers arrested Fine in his home at 3907 Zenith Av. S. after his then-wife told them that Fine had assaulted her. Police noted in the report that Fine had scratches on his face and chest. He was released from jail after several hours.

Unstated - did Ms. Wexler have any damage?

No?

This is pretty typical for this sort of case. If there's a call - from either spouse - and the cops come mto the door to find a guy who does not have a knife sticking out his back, or a gunshot wound, then they frequently assume the man is the perp. Many police department are instructed to always arrest someone if they're called to a domestic - and that someone, assuming the guy isn't about to bleed out, is almost the man.

Fine, 44, who teaches at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, is running for the seat held for 28 years by Democrat Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.

Fine said in an interview Wednesday that he sought to expunge his criminal record because he committed no crime. "I've never struck a woman in my life," he said.

The domestic situation between Fine and his ex-wife sounds like a mess, as described in the article.

But that's not the issue. The issue is, yet again, the Strib's slanted coverage of this story.

The Strib briefly notes their reportorial process:

The Star Tribune learned of the arrest in a routine records check after Fine won the Republican endorsement in May. The newspaper obtained the expunged record detailing the arrest two weeks ago.

wow. Isn't that convenient!

The Strib "obtained" the report two weeks ago...from whom?

If it was expunged, they couldn't have received it (as I understand it) from anyone official. So who could have had this record?

A party to the divorce? Oooh, that'd be opening up a world of legal hurt when and if it came out.

Who else could have had access to this report?

Stop me if I'm wrong (and I'll stipulate in advance that I could be), but as I turn this story around in my head, all roads lead back to someone in the Minneapolis or Hennepin County law enforcement or prosecutor's community. Which happens to be controlled by the same DFL party that Fine is running against.

You Got To Learn To Do As You Are Told

Big doin's in the local radio scene this weekend.

David Strom, Margaret Martin and their Taxpayers League Live show return to AM1280 starting tomorrow morning - and not a moment too soon. Welcome back Margaret and David!

And I start a new project tomorrow - co-hosting the Dr. LuAnn Walters show on AM1570. Tune in at 11AM!

Patty Wetterling's Next Ad

A little bird in the DFL got me this [*] - it's the script for the next TV ad from the Wetterling campaign.:

OMINOUS MUSIC

FAT PIC OF HASTERT

NARRATOR: "On Thursday, October 5, Dennis Hastert resigned over allegations he'd not only covered up cases of molestation of pages, but enthusiasatically participated.

KENNEDY SWEATY PIC

NARRATOR: "Also, GOP Senate Candidate Mark Kennedy was convicted for his role in the Enron scandal, and sentenced to ten years in prison."

DUBYA PIC

NARRATOR: "And President George W. Bush confessed to blowing up the World Trade Center on September 11, a tragedy that killed thousands of congressional pages."

Republicans; they steal money and kill children. That's a fact.

It's time for a change in Washington.

WETTERLING: "I'm Patty Wetterling, and I approve this message"

Seems pretty harsh to me.

No, not really. For the benefit of the overly-tightly-wired community, this is a "parody" satirizing Wetterling's deeply unethical ad campaign.

Wages of Greed

The first indictments in the Gloria Wise scandal came down yesterday.

Don't know about the Gloria Wise scandal? Not a problem - the major media kept its mitts off the story, which involved an Air America (AKA "Frankennet") board member "borrowing" money from a charity on whose board he also sat, to pay Air America bills.

After over a year of damning revelations regarding the fishy 2004 transfer of $875,000 in taxpayer funds from the former Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club to the liberal Air America Radio Network, the New York City Department of Investigation has announced the first two indictments in this case.

According to news reports tonight, two former club executives, Charles Rosen and Jeffrey Aulenbach, have been busted for allegedly misappropriating $1.2m in public funds, with the lion's share related to the Air America scam.

Read the whole thing - including the very, very long indictments themselves - over at Brian Maloney's Radio Equalizer, which was on the story before it became unavoidable.

Who's Spinning?

I, like a lot of conservatives, have been writing a bit about the Foley scandal. Like every credible conservative, I've condemned Foley's actions. I've taken a certain amount of the usual gratuitous abuse one takes for defending a Republican in this state, including a droogalanche from the Daou Report (side note; boy, was that an eye opener. I'd always figured Salon was like the NPR of the leftyweb. So - was I wrong about Salon? Or do all lefty sites attract packs of drooling philistines?).

So let's get this straight (since so many of my critics have been unable to):

1. Mark Foley sent one or more pages a number of emails starting up to three years ago. These emails were unethical, harassing and disgusting - but not illegal. House leadership learned about them.
2. IMs were going on at the time - but House Leadership didn't know about them. There is no credible evidence that the House GOP leadership knew anything about the IMs.
3. The emails made it to the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald nearly a year ago - and they didn't run the story.
4. The House leadership dealt with the emails by reprimanding Foley - last November.
5. The IMs "somehow" found their way to ABC and others news outlets just in time to come out in time for the election, at a time when the Democrats were starting their traditional home-stretch fade.
6. The IMs later turned out to be a prank.

Patty Wetterling's ad notwithstanding, there was no coverup. Wetterling's lies notwithstanding, the story begins and ends with Foley.

Dean Barnett says it well:

At the end of the day, Foley will be revealed as one very weird guy. And the Democrats will look more bilious and impotent than ever, spewing anger at Republicans about deeds done in the past while having no plans they’re willing to share about the future.

Let's just...moooooove on.

Moooooooooooooooooooooove on.

Common Sense Erupts

From myh keyboard straight to the halls of power; a Wisconsin legislator suggests allowing teachers to serve as protectors, rather than abattoir minders, when under attack:

State Representative Frank Lasee says teachers and principals should be armed with guns.

Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons with strict training.

This idea, which has decades of proven success in Israel (where terrorist violence in schools was much more constant and proportionally bloody than in the US), has two major handicaps; it would turn decades of assumptions on their heads, and it'd run afoul of a faith in disarmament on the left that verges on liturgical:

He will have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.

Right. And that has worked so well.

Some Wisconsin school officials are already shooting the idea down.

Yeah, you can espect the usual suspects to herniate themselves over a proposal like this. From the Des Moines Register:

Let's repeat: School violence in the United States is rare.

Really? Is it?

I mean, statistically, sure. Fewer kids are murdered in school than out. But if you count assaults and rapes as well as shootings, I have to wonder how safe it is anymore...

Arming teachers with weapons, no matter how well the teachers are trained in self-defense and gun safety, is a recipe for disaster.

It's an easy, ofay statement - but not supported by any sort of fact. Training helps make concealed firearms in the general public extremely safe.

It could give students direct access to guns.

Oh - as opposed to the "direct access" that they get in their dysfunctional homes, from their gangs, from their miscreant classmates?

By the way, that's why you carry your weapon concealed; nobody knows that they can take it from you.

Who is the Des Moines Register kidding?

And when a student tries to take a gun from a teacher, will the teacher then shoot the student?

See your state's self-defense law. Teachers are human too; their lives deserve defending.

And what about federal law that bans guns on school grounds?

We are best rid of it.

It's worthwhile, again, for Americans, individually and collectively, to look deep into our soul and ask what other steps can be taken to keep America's schools safe. But bringing deadly weapons into the classroom isn't one of them.

Why?

The editorial gave us bromides, platitudes and other three-syllable words - but no answers.

One needn't "look deep into ones' soul" to get their answer; it's in Israel. It's in a school system that allows teachers to defend themselves and their students - and went from constant carnage to safety with the stroke of a pen.

Until this nation's criminals and lunatics realize that a school isn't a soft target, there really is no other rational answer. Turning schools into prisons, and imposing "zero tolerance" policies that only reinforce absurd bureaucracy, aren't working, never have worked in any context, and can not work.

It Could Work...

Paul "Wog" Kuettel, from Wog's Blog, might have figured out how to arrest the Twins' play off skid:

Tonight at dusk I will do my part to help the Minnesota Twins sweep the next three games from the Oakland Athletics by making a burnt offering of a very nifty liquor store display prop.

The canister of Jesse Ventura Minnesota Fireworks will be lit as the base of newspaper and cardboard begins to be consumed as it works its way toward the remains of another Budweiser prop, an 8 foot tall wooden lifeguard chair which was hacked to small timbers earlier this evening in preparation for the sacrifice.

It's a handsome structure...

Or...was...

Keep your fingers crossed.

And if it works, Wog, I hope you have a bunch more fireworks and memorabilia saved up...

Sock Puppets For Justice!

Learned Foot and Drudge learned about this sock-puppet anonyblog, which seems to have broken the Foley story in the first place.

As Foot notes:

The (still) anonymous blogger who first published those emails, had one post in July, 3 in August and before the big bombshell, twice in September.

In fact, the only Technorati love this DCCC operative blogger gets is from the last 5 days. The earliest link to this blog shown by Technorati is from 9/26/06.

So why would the "person" who divulged the emails go to "Stop Sex Predators (dot blogspot)". Why not some other, bigger blog (Kos?) or maybe an NGO child protection agency?

Did this "go-to" blog even exist before a few weeks ago?

Even with all the links [the blog] has gotten in the past 5 days, its [ranking at the Technorati blog-ranking site] is still1,755,083...How did Stop Sexual Predators' tipster(s) know about that blog? It took months and several gratuitous links from Fraters to get KAR out of the 15-hit per day ghetto. Yet this loser, posts -what?- 5 times since July, and all of a sudden s/he's the go-to guy/gal. Why not Wonkette?

How did the "tipster" know about this blog?

The explanation at Stop Sexual Predators sounds all-too-convenient:

I'm not interested in media interviews. Thank you for your interest, but if you were doing your job to begin with, Mark Foley would have been exposed a long time ago. Instead of wanting to do a story about this blog, how about covering the fact that the media sat on this story for over a year. You're as bad as the Congressional Leadership that covered for Foley....here are the answers to some questions that have been posed. I am not Karl Rove, Mark Foley, or John Boehner [Whew. Glad you settled that]. I am not employed in Democratic politics. I am not 'funded' by George Soros. I'm nobody that anybody should care about. So, please, go about your day as if I don't exist.

S/he posts maybe a couple of dozen times, ignites a political s***storm, and then sends an anonymous wedgie (to Karl Rove, and then the rest of the suspects?), and departs the scene?

If this passes the stink test for you, please tell me why?

Wetterling: Fraud

Hugh Hewitt on the Wetterling "Molester!" ad.

Combined with her "National Sales Tax" ad - which, as mentioned earlier, is also chock-full of lies - I have to wonder; since Patty Wetterling is not known as a morally-depraved person, who on earth is calling the shots at her (failing) campaign?

Goebbels

In a piece yesterday that drew the attention of a legion of poo-flinging comment-monkeys, I reiterated a theme that I've been hammering on the show and in this blog; the Democrats, devoid of any strategy of their own, are resorting to the most cynical of all political ploys - the Big Lie (or, more accurately, a series of Big Lies).

The Big Lie invokes the spectre of Joseph Goebbels, who famously said that if you repeated a Big Lie often enough, people will eventually believe it. On issue after issue, the Democrats are - there is no way to sugar-coat this - lying. A partial list, gathered from skimming blog posts:

• WMDs were the administration's only rationale for going into Iraq (never mind that that noted conservative tool, Nick Lemann in New Yorker, noted otherwise in the weeks leading up to the war).
• Iraq is just like Vietnam
• "If terrorists attack us, ever again, it proves that the Administration's policy on terror is a failure
• Tora Bora was proof that the Administration doesn't really want to win the war!
• Difficulties in instituting democracy in Iraq prove Iraqis aren't amenable to democracy.
• The Burkett files are fake but really, really accurate!
• Bush dodged military service.
• Pay no attention to the low unemployment rates and rising incomes; the economy is really bad!
• Republicans play dirty; Democrats are their squeaky-clean victims!
• The Swifties were liars in every particular!
• The media is really conservative!
• Public broadcasting is balanced and unbiased.
• The Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq rather than home dealing with Katrina
• The disaster in New Orleans was the Feds' fault! George W. Bush hates black people!
• Liberalism is the the philosophy of progress.
• Michele Bachmann supports higher taxes! Look at this National sales tax! (unmentioned; the national sales tax would involve dropping income taxes).
• The Democrats are the party of healthy deliberation.
• Since Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11, he was unrelated to terrorism!
• "International Law" gives terrorists rights like civil defendants.
• Abu Ghraib was one of the most horrible examples of abuse in all of history!
• Talk raido fosters a climate of hate.
• The Gold Star Parents - who took out a pro-war TV ad last year - are really liars! Liars! Liars!
• Terrorists are just like criminals, and deserve trials and lawyers and miranda rights!
• Congressional leaders have admitted to a coverup with Mark Foley!

And on and on and on.

Some of these might qualify as opinion - until they're roundly debunked. And yet Democrats keep bringing many of them up, over and over and over again. What possible reason could they have for that?

To sway the ill-informed, or those who still get their information from the mainstream media (pardon the redundancy).

Patty Wetterling: Pattern of Deception

As Margaret Martin noted, Patty Wetterling's ad on the National Sales Tax is conspicuous in its omission.

Watch it yourself. If you can't find the key hole in its "logic"...no, if your dog can't find the key, vital omission in the ad, then please, please, don't vote.

That Was Fast...

Via Dean Barnett over at Hewitt's site, this pullquote from Patty Wetterling's latest ad:

“It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children.”

Really?

Foley "molested" children?

His attentions were repugnant and grounds for ending his political career. But "molesting?"

As to the notion that the GOP "covered up" anything - we're thoroughly into Goebbels territory. The Dems take a big lie and repeat it until the dimmer or less-informed minds and the media buy it without question.

And my, did that ad get rolled out in a hurry.

Trust Nobody Official

When counting on government officials for information about emergencies, remember; their first order of business, always, is to keep order, rather than protect you or your family.

Earlier this week, Saint Louis Park high school closed down, ostensibly due to a water main break:

Superintendent Debra Bowers said, "I want to apologize,'' after spending 24 hours thinking about her decision to put out the story that the school was closed due to a water main break, when actually there were rumors that somone wanted to commit violence.

School administrators said last week's school killings in Colorado and Wisconsin played a part in their decision to put out a cover story.

Bowers and Principal Robert Laney said a student notified administrators around 8 p.m. Sunday about a rumor of violent intentions against the school.

The school's police liaison officer was called in. Seven students were interviewed and officials concluded some words had been misinterpreted.

"We were pretty comfortable about 10:30 that there wasn't a foundation to this,'' Laney said.

But a half hour later, police informed Laney about a call from a different student making similar allegations. At 11:30 p.m. they decided to close the school.

Instant day off! Yaaaay!

(Point of order: The "zero tolerance" policies that cause school to call in the cops whenever a kid whispers "gun" have stopped no violence, but are teaching students that authority is really stupid. Which, in some ways, might be the best lesson the public schools can teach anymore).

"I think you have to take every rumor and you have to investigate it because the potential is always there, unfortunately, in this day and age,'' the principal said. "Students often take actions where they don't think first. And with this type of a situation it can be deadly.''

But - this past month's violence aside - it almost never is...

...but never mind. The point is, if the school district's policy is to accept every "rumor" of "potential" violence as a full-blown mortal threat, don't parents and the community have a right to know either the danger their kids are in, or the madness that's swept their school system?

Ill-Advised

The Strib says someone's acting suspicious in my 'hood:

The warning comes after a man knocked on doors in the area and made non-emergency requests of residents. In some cases, the man asked for a glass of water, or to use the phone.

Police say a known sex offender in the area has used similar behavior in the past to attack his victims. The suspect has been described as a white male, in his late 20s or 30s. He is about six feet tall.

I know one little corner of the Midway he'd better avoid...

Foley

Along with every significant Republican, Ed and I tossed Mark Foley under the bus on the NARN show this past Saturday. He's out of office, and the law will take its course with him. Good riddance. You will find not one significant Republican who says anything different.

And there is no evidence that House GOP leadership knew about anything other than the emails, for which the leadership disciplined Foley last year.

Now - given that the St. Petersburg Times sat on this story for a year, and that some of the IM messages go back three years, I think it's time for Democrats to join in the fun. Why did this story get to ABC's Brian Ross a month before the election - a textbook "October Surprise"? How many other pages were exposed, as it were, to Foley during the months, maybe years, that it appears someone sat on this story?

Because if it turns out that some pinhead Democrat staffer sat on this information for political purposes, it's despicable; the Democrats will deserve every bit of blowback that they get from it.

Mike Foley's career is over. Justifiably so. And if anyone covered this up until it was politically useful, it'll be just as justifiable for theirs to be over, too.

The Last Refuge of Flaks

Doug Grow isn't a bad guy.

What he is, though, is a columnist whose output has been as consistently pro-DFL as that of any party communications director.

Jim Klobuchar was a long-time sports and news columnist at the Strib. He wrapped himself in Iron Range populism, but at the end of the day he was another DFL flak. He is the father of Amy Klobuchar, who's benefitted (as do all DFL candidates) from a sudden laziness on the Strib's part in "afflicting the comfortble", at least when the comfortable are DFL candidates.

Doug Grow's response? A puerile giggle worthy of the Twin Cities' dumbest leftybloggers:

"Why didn't you tell us you have power at the Star Tribune?" I asked former colleague Jim Klobuchar.

Klobuchar, who never lacked for strong opinions or ego, sighed deeply.

"I always wanted to have a position of influence," the retired Star Tribune columnist said. "But in all the years I was there, nobody even ever asked me to apply for one of those."

Right. Because being a Strib columnist doesn't give one a ton of power. Chuckle chuckle.

Word of Klobe's clout at the Star Tribune is coming from the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Mark Kennedy. Kennedy is running against Amy Klobuchar, the DFLer and daughter of the old newspaper guy.

Kennedy's people are saying that Amy Klobuchar had a large lead in the Star Trib's Minnesota Poll, which was conducted in mid-September, because of Jim Klobuchar's influence at the paper.

Actually, Grow has it sideways. Republicans say the Minnesota Poll's built-in left-leaning error makes it effectively a campaign too, and that the Strib refuses to cover Amy Klobuchar's shortcomings as a prosecutor or her history as a lobbyist; her connection to the institution of the Strib via her father makes things look all too convenient.

Seems fairly simple - but then, I'm not a Strib columnist. What would I know?

If I was a Minnesota voter who for whatever reason trusted the Strib, I'd know nothing, of course. Except that Doug Grow is giggling theatrically:

In addition, Joe Pally, Kennedy's communications director, says on the campaign's website that it is Father Jim's influence that has caused the Star Tribune to fail to "provide basic scrutiny" of Amy Klobuchar.

Charging a newspaper with fraudulent polls and manipulating coverage is fairly strong stuff.

Doug Grow is finally figuring this out?

It is a fact that Jim, now 78 years old, worked at the Tribune, then the Star, then the Star Tribune from 1961 to 1997, with a six-month break at the St. Paul newspaper in the 1960s.

Perhaps that brief interlude at the Pioneer Press explains why that paper's September poll also showed Klobe's kid with a big lead over Kennedy.

In the 1950s, Klobe taught a few classes at the University of Minnesota, which probably explains why a recent university poll showed Kennedy trailing badly.

Klobe never worked for the current owners of the Star Tribune. He left this paper -- to a standing ovation from his colleagues -- the year before the Cowles clan sold the paper to McClatchy of Sacramento, Calif.

Ah. A standing ovation. Well, it must be OK, then.

Unaddressed by Grow - why is the "Minnesota Poll" so consistently yet reliably wrong?

Why does the Strib soft-pedal coverage of inconvenient facts about the likes of Amy Klobuchar and Keith Ellison, while making irrelevancies about, say, Rod Grams' son into front-page news?

Doug "Laughing Boy" Grow never answers that.

The Coming Repeal of the First Amendment

The Democrats want to protect free speech...

...as long as you're an "artist" who works in the medium of religious icons suspended in urine. Or a pr0n merchant whose market is web-surfers in public libraries. Or an American who regularly converses with terrorists overseas.

But if you're a conservative who dissents from the official worldview?

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

In Washington State, according to George Will, Democrats are leading a crackdown on conservative talk radio, under the guise of "campaign finance reform":

When the state's government imposed a 9.5-cents-per-gallon increase in the gas tax, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur of station KVI began advocating repeal by initiative. Proponents of repeal put up a Web site, hoping to raise 1,000 volunteers and $25,000. In two days they had 6,500 and $87,000. Needing 224,880 signatures to put repeal on the ballot, they got 400,996.

Isn't that what the First Amendment is all about? Reaching people? Providing a vibrant dialogue?

Or are "vibrant dialogues" only for people who agree?

Appalled by this outburst of grass-roots democracy, some local governments, which stood to gain many millions from the tax, unleashed a law firm that would gain substantially from handling the bond issues the tax would finance. The firm set out to muzzle Carlson and Wilbur, using the state's campaign regulations.

It got a judge to rule that the broadcasters were not just supporters of the repeal campaign, they were agents of it. Why, they had even used the pronoun "we" when referring to proponents of repeal. Their speech constituted political advertising, and their employer was making an "in-kind contribution" to the repeal campaign. The judge said a monetary value must be placed on their speech (he did not say how, he just said to do it that day). The law says reports must be filed and speech limits obeyed or fines imposed.

This, of course, is the ultimate goal of campaign finance "reform"; silence unapproved voices. Including yours.

State law restricts to $5,000 the amount a single giver can contribute in the three weeks before an initiative. If Carlson's and Wilbur's speech were monetized at radio-advertising rates, they would be silenced for all but about 15 minutes in each of the campaign's crucial last three weeks. They continued to talk (the repeal campaign, outspent almost five to one, lost 54.6-45.4) and, aided by the libertarian litigators of the Institute for Justice, have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court.

What has happened in Seattle prefigures what a national Democratic administration might try to do—perhaps also by reviving the "fairness doctrine" (an "equal time" regulation)—to strangle conservative talk radio. And what has happened here—the use of campaign regulations as weapons of partisanship—is spreading.

It is, in fact, a current bubbling under the surface of the Democrat party's campaign. Amazed at the power of the conservative alternative media, the left's been fiddling at the edges of the First Amendment for years; last year, stung by the effectiveness of conservative bloggers, they flirted with trying to classify partisan blogging as "campaign contributions".

This is the America produced by "reformers" led by John McCain. The U.S. Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold speech restrictions, advocated deference toward elected officials when they write laws regulating speech about elected officials and their deeds. This turned the First Amendment from the foundation of robust politics into a constitutional trifle to be "balanced" against competing considerations—combating the "appearance of corruption," or elevating political discourse or something. As a result, attempts to use campaign regulations to silence opponents are becoming a routine part of vicious political combat.

The ironic thing, of course, is that it's the left that caterwauls constantly about the civil liberties the Bush Administration is attacking (hint: nobody has lost a single civil liberty under the Bush Administration), while at the same time aiming their jackboots at the necks of those who disagree with them.

Maybe if we suspend a model of the Green Bus in a jar of urine, they'll get the point?

Meet The New Boss

Some people have a hard time accepting change.

I've said it in this blog and on the show; Minnesota, as far as Republicans are concerned, is where the national party was 20 years ago. The Reagan Revolution skipped Minnesota, where the Republican Party had largely split with the national party after Watergate and skittered off to the left. James Lileks once joked to his friends in DC that Minnesota was a state where the gubernatorial race was between the pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-tax candidate, and the Democrat - and in the MNGOP of Arne Carlson, that was the truth. Minnesota Republicans in the eighties and most of the nineties were like national Republicans in the sixties and early seventies; like Democrats with better suits, down to the broad approval for big government, big intervention, big spending.

The national GOP of course still fights with its past - George W. Bush is hardly the prototype Reagan conservative. But here in Minnesota - especially the Twin Cities - we still fight the battle daily. And nobody fans those flames like the Minneapolis Star/Tribune - which represents a DFL that benefitted from having a GOP that was basically a pale imitation of itself, in a Minnesota that fell meekly in line behind the Strib's lead on most things.

Nick Coleman is a symptom of this:

Republicans helped build these beautiful cities, of which we are so proud. Contrary to the propaganda, Democrats have not always ruled here. Only one Democrat (Rudy Perpich) has been governor in the past 30 years.

To be accurate, Arne Carlson (and Jesse Ventura) was a Democrat in all but name.

Which is, of course, the kind of Republican the Strib likes the most.

There's this bit of local mythology that's crept up ever since the Republicans started acting like Republicans, starting in the mid-nineties and switching to fever pitch when neo-conservative Tim Pawlenty won the governor's race in '02; "Minnesota was built on cooperation!". Supposedly, in the Minnesota of the sixties and seventies as in the America of the forties through the mid-seventies, everyone worked together with a utopian vision of a better Minnesota (that conveniently was exactly the DFL's high-tax, high-"service", high-intervention vision. And the "visions" came from the same exact place; Democrat control of the White House, Congress (and Saint Paul) from the thirties through the sixties (with an eight year break under Eisenhower, who we'd call a "RINO" on most fiscal issues today).

The Strib, like so much of the Minnesota establishment, pines for the good ol' days:

Rather than turning the Midwest "redder," we'd like to see the Republican Party, perhaps by osmosis, take on our shade of Minnesota purple. The party has lurched far to the right in recent years. Maybe a visit to the Twin Cities can inspire moderation and a regaining of equilibrium.

Where "equilibrium"="comfortable stagnancy for the nannystaters who long for the days when the Strib Editorial Board had genuine power in this state".

Zzzzzzz

As noted elsewhere in this blog, I moved here in large part because I wanted in on the music scene. Of course, in 1985 the music scene in the Twin Cities was worth moving to; the Prince, the Time, the Replacements, the Huskers, Soul Asylum, Run Westy Run and the Clams were the frothing top of a scene that was almost superheated, at its peak, with talent, venues, markets.

And even at its peak, the "Minnesota Music Awards" seemed kind of...pathetic. None of the big stars ever showed up (beyond perhaps the first couple of events). The unknowns were always...very unknown, and generally stayed that way. The MMAs, it seemed, were nothing more than an attempt by local critics and other useless hangers-on to get themselves into more and better parties.

I see not much has changed (emphasis added):

A crop of new acts split many of the top honors at the Minnesota Music Awards, the music scene's 26th annual excuse to dress up and act like real rock stars.

Held for the second-straight year at First Avenue nightclub in Minneapolis -- after several years of a vagabond existence and vanishing attendance -- the MMAs drew a crowd of about 700 to toast newcomers such as Tapes 'N Tapes, P.O.S. and Tim O'Reagan.

This year's greatest local success story, Tapes 'N Tapes won as artist of the year in both the public MMA vote and the critics/industry ballot. The nods put an end to all the hubbub about the blogger-buoyed band not getting props in its hometown.

"We're definitely feeling the support now," said Tapes drummer Jeremy Hanson.

As to Tapes 'n Tapes - that'd tend to confirm my thesis. I loved T'nT the first time I heard them - when they were called Something Fierce. No, they're not the same band - SF and T'nT existed about fifteen years apart - but their career bell curves seem to share the aspect of being the sort of really arid, dreary art-pop that grabs fifth-tier critics and clubland hangers-on, and leaves the rest of us me utterly cold.

But the big question: how long will the MMAs go through the charade of honoring the achievements of a music scene that just isn't achieving all that much?

Savoy

Let's establish something here: I have nothing against unions. Unlike the vast majority of Democrats (especially lefty-leaning bloggers), I have actually been a union member; I have seen both the pluses and minuses of being in a union.

I need also to say for the record that Red's Savoy Pizza in Saint Paul is in the top five for pizza in the Twin Cities. Amazingly yummy stuff, and the best sauce anywhere.

They're a near-East-Side institution, a divey little place on East Seventh Street just off the south approach of the Lafayette Bridge. Now, the East Side is a pretty insular place, in a lot of ways; big market trends take a lot longer to overwhelm the East Side, partly because the locals are pretty loyal to their local merchants, partly because so much of the East Side is so hard to get into and out of, and partly because convenient suburban shopping is still a fairly recent development in the East Metro (until ten years ago, Maplewood was pretty wan, and Woodbury has only become hyperdeveloped in the past 10-15 years).

Still, it has to be hard for a little local chain (there are actually three Savoys) to survive against Pizza Hut, Papa John's, Papa Murphy's, Dominos, Carbones...

...especially when Savoy voluntarily took on a ton of extra expenses - in this case, being unionized.

That has got to get hard to support after a while.

The left-leaning Daily Planet e-newspaper covers on upcoming union boycott of Savoy:

The Savoy, with about 44 employees, has been unionized since at least the early 1970s, the union said. Over the years, employees have come to enjoy benefits rare in the restaurant business, including higher pay, guaranteed pensions and good health care coverage.

"What other pizza place do you know that pays holiday and vacation pay?" asked Goldman.

Most of them - if you're a full-time employee. Which is rare in the chain pizza business, of course; most people don't go into pizza for a career.

The Savoy, located on E. Seventh St. at the edge of downtown St. Paul, has prospered over the decades, thanks in large part to the many unionized state employees who eat lunch there and the patronage of unions across the metro area.

It's true. It could be hard to find a seat at Savoy, sometimes, because one union or another was having its' local meeting in the restaurant. In fact, the place had a rep for bieng a union-guy hangout.

It's not unusual for a union that's holding a meeting or other event to order dozens of pizzas, noted Martin Goff, Local 17's director of organization.

When the most recent contract expired this spring, Local 17 bargained in good faith with management and employees ratified the agreement. But then Savoy balked and refused to sign the contract. A drive was begun among employees to decertify the union. Despite efforts to shore up support among employees,

Let's stop there.

The "Daily Planet" has advertised itself as "Citizen Journalism" , as in "all of the passion and commitment of blogging, within the infrastructure of traditional institutional reporting". So Why did any of this - Savoy's bailing on the deal, the employees petitioning to decertify, and so on - happen?

The story reads like a union press release!

the union recently decided that the best thing to do was to disclaim interest – ending its representation – and launch the boycott.

It's been a frustrating situation, Goldman and Goff said, who noted they believe the workers have "been sold a bill of goods" by Savoy, who brought in a lawyer from a union-busting law firm.

"Sold a bill of goods"? Savoy paid benefits for three decades that only a tiny minority of restaurant employees ever see - and that's a "bill of goods?"

The owner recently instituted a higher cost health plan for the workers and no longer provides any retirement plan.

Right. Just like all the rest of us, including many union employees, got.

Unmentioned; did all of the existing pensions disappear? Why did the employees petition for decertification? Who are these "Union-busting" attorneys, and why did Savoy bring them in after nearly four decades of paying for benefits that you don't find at any other pizza joint in town?

What, in fact, is Red Savoy's side of the story?

You can search the story in vain for that one.

"He's putting the $26,000 he had been making in pension payments per year into his own pocket," said Goff.

Really, Mr. Union Organizer?

We know that...how?

Is it in Savoy's pocket? Or is it in the pockets of his creditors? Or perhaps in the foundation and ovens of a new Red's, assuming Savoy realizes the chain has to grow or die (as may, indeed, be the case)?

We don't know - and the "Daily Planet" apparently deem it worth us knowing.

Maris

Growing up in North Dakota, you didn't have much to go on. We grew 80% of the world's durum (hence, controlled 80% of the world's pasta). If we seceded and took "our" missiles and bombers with "us", we'd be the world's #3 nuclear power.

And Roger Maris, from Fargo - against whom my Dad played American Legion ball in the early fifties, if memory serves - broke Babe Ruth's record for home runs in a season.

And, as Red notes, he did it 45 years ago today.