Judge Doom

News you can use, and trust me, it will be used:

More than two dozen Wisconsin judges from 16 counties were among the tens of thousands of people who signed petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker, according to a newspaper analysis.

The review by Gannett Wisconsin Media found that 29 judges, or about 12 percent of the state's approximately 250 county-level judges, signed the petition, the Sheboygan Press reported Sunday (http://shebpr.es/y8R8Pk ). Milwaukee County had the most judges sign the petition at 11, or about one-fourth of judges in the county.

So why would you do that? If you're supposed to be seen as impartial, what's the justification for being a partisan? Here's one explanation:

"What I did by signing the recall petition is say that the people of Wisconsin should be allowed to vote again for governor," said Milwaukee County Judge Charles F. Kahn Jr. "I did not support any candidate and I did not support any political party. This is a substantial and important distinction."

No, actually it's not a "substantial and important distinction." Kahn knows that the governor serves a 4-year term and will certainly face the voters again in 2014. The reason governors get a four-year term is precisely because they need to be able to do the job without facing imminent re-election campaigns. And let's be blunt here -- only one political party wants the recall, so for Kahn to claim he's not supporting any political party is baked wind.

And if you've been following the case, you also know this:

Still, at least one judge has been under scrutiny. Dane County Judge David Flanagan has been under fire for not disclosing his support of the recall before he issued a temporary restraining order against a Walker-backed voter ID law. The Wisconsin Republican Party has filed a complaint with the state Judicial Commission, arguing that Flanagan should have revealed that he signed the petition.

It should be obvious what the problem is here. In a world where everything is politicized, if the judiciary is seen as politicized, it loses legitimacy. To the extent that at least these judges were honest enough to admit their partisan nature, it's useful information. What's maddening is sophistry of the sort Kahn provides for a justification for his actions. He understands that, as a Milwaukee County judge, there's little chance he'll have to account for his partisanship, but frankly he shouldn't have the chance to rule on anything political on a going forward basis.

Another judge had a better take on the matter:

"When you sign up for this job, to some extent you compromise your ability to express your own political beliefs one way or the other," said Brown County Judge Marc Hammer. "I think if you're asked to judge the conduct of others, you need to be mindful of what your conduct is."

Don't Mess with Rutherford

Don't know if you caught it, but President Obama took a shot at ol' Rutherford B. Hayes, our 19th president and the the guy with the most impressive beard of all the bearded presidents. Our President said:

"One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'" Obama said. "That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore."

"He's looking backwards, he's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something," Obama said. 

Of course, like many things Our President says, it wasn't necessarily true. Cue New York Magazine:

We thought it was a bit unsporting of Obama to attack President Hayes, who is quite unable to respond. So we called up the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio, where Nan Card, the curator of manuscripts, was plenty willing to correct Obama's ignorance of White House history. Just as soon as she finished chuckling.

"I've heard that before, and no one ever knows where it came from," Card said of Hayes's alleged phone remark, "but people just keep repeating it and repeating it, so it's out there."

Wait, so Hayes didn't even say the quote that Obama is mocking him for? "No, no," Card confirmed.

So what did Hayes actually say?

She then read aloud a newspaper article from June 29, 1877, which describes Hayes's delight upon first experiencing the magic of the telephone. The Providence Journal story reported that as Hayes listened on the phone, "a gradually increasing smile wreathe[d] his lips and wonder shone in his eyes more and more.” Hayes took the phone from his ear, "looked at it a moment in surprise and remarked, 'That is wonderful.'"

And there's more:

In fact, Card noted, Hayes was not only the first president to have a telephone in the White House, but he was also the first to use the typewriter, and he had Thomas Edison come to the White House to demonstrate the phonograph. "So I think he was pretty much cutting edge," Card insisted, "maybe just the opposite of what President Obama had to say there."

Other than that, nice job, Mr. President. These pictures are from the Rutherford B. Hayes Meme Generator, and there's a bunch more that I found quite amusing. And some that make important points:

Of course, I fully expect that the jokes our president tells in 2152 about Barack Obama will be pretty darned funny, too.

Breaking News from 1858

I really don't want to write about Michael Brodkorb, but since he's not going away quietly, apparently we're going to have to discuss the matter. For those of you who don't know, Brodkorb is a longtime Republican operative who went to work for the Republicans in the state senate in 2011, serving as the communications director for the caucus. At some point during the past year, Brodkorb began an affair with Sen. Amy Koch, who was serving as the Majority Leader.

By the end of the year, the other Republicans in the caucus had enough of this situation and took action. Koch was forced to resign her leadership position and Brodkorb was ashcanned. Now Brodkorb is back with a retinue of lawyers and wants money. And he's willing to expose the Peyton Place that apparently is St. Paul:

Fired Minnesota Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb is threatening to seek sworn statements from legislators and staffers who may have had trysts to prove he was treated differently for having an affair with former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch.

Brodkorb is a longtime GOP operative whose work as a blogger and strategist played a role in bringing Republicans to power at the Capitol. His attorneys say they are prepared to take sworn depositions from romantically linked legislators and subordinates in order to help his potential gender-discrimination lawsuit. Brodkorb is seeking more than $500,000 in damages and legal costs, and his suit is based on what his attorney called "new and creative" legal reasoning.

Just what we need, "new and creative" legal reasoning. So what are we looking at?

The Senate's private attorney dismissed the former staffer's claims as a fishing expedition. But the allegations got the Capitol rumor mill buzzing over whom, precisely, Brodkorb could identify.

Neither Villaume nor a legal document from Brodkorb's side provided any hint of which lawmakers might face deposition, which would be done privately.

Privately, eh? Yeah, sure. Meanwhile, the grey eminences from both parties would rather not go there:

"Not me," said Steve Sviggum, who replaced Brodkorb. Sviggum served as the House Republican leader and then speaker for more than a decade, until 2006. Asked whether he knew of a single lawmaker other than Koch who had an affair with a staffer, he said: "We are going to let the attorneys handle this. You are pushing me in a way I don't want to go."

As for Sviggum's old DFL sparring partner, Roger Moe?

Roger Moe, a DFLer who served as the Senate majority leader for two decades, also demurred about whether he knew of lawmakers who had sexual relations with staffers during his time.

"If I did, I wouldn't tell you," said Moe, now a lobbyist.

Roger that, Roger. I've seen your caucus and I'd rather not think about the implications of knowing such things. So what is the "new and creative" legal theory behind this walk on the sordid side?

At its heart, Brodkorb's legal case is that he was fired even though female staffers who had affairs with lawmakers were kept on or transferred to other state jobs. Brodkorb said he was treated differently, a case of gender discrimination.

"Similarly situated female legislative employees, from both political parties, were not terminated from their employment positions despite intimate relationships with male legislators," his attorneys said.

Well, that's unfortunate if it's true, but you know what? I don't care. I don't know Michael Brodkorb but he has been a major player here for a long time now. His old blog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, was very effective in rooting out malfeasance and for that, I am grateful. But it's become evident that Brodkorb has lost his perspective here. The reason he went to St. Paul in the first place was to be a reformer. You can't be a reformer with your pants around your ankles.

We've dealt with louts for as long as I can remember. I'm old enough to remember the fates of Wilbur Mills and Wayne Hays, to say nothing of more recent examples like Gary Hart, Anthony Weiner, Mark Foley and countless others. The problem has never been the shtupping per se -- the problem is the abuse of power involved. I suppose it's a measure of progress that we now have female politicians behaving as badly as their male counterparts, but it doesn't excuse any of it. And rather than find out who else has been making the beast with two backs, I'd rather that those involved would just go away.

Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome IV -- He Said, She Said

Orphans rarely have so many parents as the Vikings stadium seems to have. Or not have. One thing is certain -- neither party seems to want to own the vote to move the project forward:

Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, the lead Senate stadium author, said a Senate panel Wednesday could not pass the proposal because DFL senators changed their votes at the last minute.

In a new twist on the politics surrounding the stadium project, Rosen said it was DFLers on the panel who had suddenly switched their votes. “People changed their votes. [It] came down from leadership – wasn’t on our side,” she said.

That darn DFL. But on the port side of the aisle, Tom Bakk says nyet:

But Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk disputed what happened. Bakk said he was willing to pledge four DFL votes on the 14-member Senate Local Government and Elections Committee for the proposal. Republicans, who hold eight seats on the panel, were only willing to put up three votes, he said.

“I have six members of the committee. I was willing yesterday to put up four votes – half of what it would have taken to pass the bill along,” said Bakk.

“They were only willing to put up three votes [out] of their eight committee members,” he said. “They have eight members, and they can only find three?

“Why would I put up the majority of the votes? I didn’t write the bill,” said Bakk. “If I’m going to put up the majority of the votes, then I want to write the bill.”

Which leads to the question that never gets asked in these situations. What's stopping you from writing the bill, Senator? Go ahead and write the bill.

What we have here is a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Politicians on both sides of the aisle might think it desirable to have a new Vikings stadium, but neither side wants to own the responsibility for it, from a political standpoint. Which leads to yet another question -- why wouldn't you want to own the bill, if you think it's desirable?

It's not that complicated, really. Either we value the bread and circuses enough to fund them, or we don't.

Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome III - False Start

It didn't go so well for Vikings stadium supporters at the Capitol yesterday:

Negotiators for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium scrambled to rework the plan Wednesday after it stalled in a crucial first committee hearing amid bipartisan complaints that the proposal remains deeply flawed.

The setback came days after the nearly $1 billion project's highly anticipated unveiling, leaving DFL Gov. Mark Dayton -- the stadium's biggest State Capitol backer -- blasting Republicans and stadium opponents for doing "hatchet work" on the legislation and not saying what they would support.

Well, that's what tends to happen when you roll out an incoherent project, Governor. So what to do? Turn Kurt Zellers into Emmanuel Goldstein, that's what:

The proposal's swift struggles shifted the spotlight to Republican House Speaker Kurt Zellers, who now could single-handedly scuttle the legislation if he does not approve a procedural exemption by late Friday. Zellers has said he would not grant the stadium proposal any special legislative favors in the House, where it is sitting with no committee hearing scheduled.

Zellers said he would wait until Friday to decide the stadium's fate.

By not acting, Zellers could slam the door shut on a stadium deal this session, likely renewing speculation that the Vikings owners could push to move the team.

We need a photo opportunity, we need a procedural exemption, or else we'll end up in a cartoon graveyard, apparently. And Dayton doesn't find this stuff amusing:

"It gets to be, really, the theater of the absurd," said Dayton, who appeared visibly frustrated.

No, Governor. What's absurd is rolling out a project without a reliable funding mechanism or even the buy-in of others who need to support it to go forward. The electronic pulltabs are not going to be a panacea, which led to a classic "dog ate my homework" moment during the hearing:

Sen. Julie Rosen, the chief Senate stadium proposal sponsor, conceded that negotiators were scrambling to come up with a backup plan in case charitable gambling revenue fell short. The financial uncertainty came amid criticism from charitable gambling organizations that want more tax relief in the legislation, which could further reduce the state's take.

"In the event that not enough people gamble, what is the backup plan?" asked Sen. Pam Wolf, R-Spring Lake Park, who has co-authored a rival proposal to give the Vikings only a state loan for the project.

"We're working on that," said Rosen, R-Fairmont.

She said perhaps a sports memorabilia tax or a special state lottery game for the stadium would "blink on" in case new gambling revenue falls short.

So the revenue fairy and the magic unicorns need to take the field. Meanwhile, R. T. Rybak is having trouble getting the votes he needs on the Minneapolis City Council:

In a sign of the multitude of problems facing the project, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak acknowledged that he also did not yet have a majority of the City Council supporting the project.

"We have some support," the mayor said. "We need a little more support."

Yep. And John McCain needed a little more support in 2008, too.

This is getting embarrassing. There's a lot more at the link.

Take it to the bridge

It's a done deal:

President Obama signed legislation Wednesday authorizing construction of the long-awaited St. Croix River bridge, ending decades of debate, planning and litigation with the stroke of a pen.

The president's signature comes two weeks after Congress gave the needed environmental clearances for the $690 million project, the largest public works project in state history.

Not that there wasn't some heartache involved, especially on the DFL side:

"Basically, the bill is done, and the bridge will be built," said U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democrat who authored the final legislation granting the project an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a landmark environmental law authored by her political mentor, former Vice President Walter Mondale.

The strange tag team that brought this thing to fruition consisted of Klobuchar, Al Franken and Michele Bachmann. Among those opposed were Mondale, Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison. A few thoughts:

• I came to Minnesota at the end of 1992. Throughout those 20 years, this bridge project has been an ongoing debate. Had the bridge been built at any point before now, the project would have cost significantly less than it will cost now.
• The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was the main bulwark for the environmentalists who have been blocking the project. It's always struck me as strange that this law would even apply here. If you look at the artist's rendering of the bridge that accompanies the Star Tribune article, you'll note a feature on the Minnesota side of the river -- the giant smokestack that accompanies a power plant. You can see that smokestack in Stillwater and you can see it when you cross the I-94 bridge, some six miles to the south. The St. Croix has always been a working river -- millions of logs were sent down the river to Stillwater in the late 1800s and early 1900s, so it was passing strange that this law even applied to the St. Croix.
• Life will improve immeasurably for people living in Stillwater. The Lift Bridge has been antiquated for at least 40 years and it pulled massive traffic through the downtown area, much of which was bound for the Twin Cities and beyond. The new bridge will take the huge trucks out of Stillwater.
• Some are grumbling that the primary purpose of the bridge is to make development in western Wisconsin easier. Certainly it will, but it doesn't mean that Minnesota necessarily will lose business or population to Wisconsin. We can do rather a lot of things to keep businesses and people on the Minnesota side of the bridge, but it will mean improving the business climate so that Minnesota can compete. Competition is a good thing.

More tomorrow

Three things to mention:

The St. Croix bridge is on the way.

The Vikings stadium is going nowhere.

Breaking news from December, 2011.

I'll probably write about one, or maybe two of these tomorrow. The two things that actually matter, that is.

Deep South

Rick Santorum wins Alabama and Mississippi. What does it mean?

• It should mean that Newt Gingrich is out. He's enough of an egotist that he might want to stick in there for a while longer, but there is no way he can win and I assume he realizes that.
• Mitt Romney hasn't clinched the deal yet by any means. Some people argue that a Mormon can't win in the South, but not that long ago many of the same people argued that a Catholic can't win in the South, either. In my experience, southerners are a little more (ahem) nuanced in their thinking than they get credit for, especially among northerners. We all have our biases; some biases are more socially acceptable at cocktail parties. Northerners, especially northern liberals, prefer to ignore their biases, but that doesn't mean the biases aren't present. All other things being equal, a southern conservative might prefer a Catholic candidate to a Mormon candidate, but in this instance I think the difference is that Santorum is a lot closer to social conservative issues than Romney is. And if Romney eventually wins the nomination, the notion that conservative southerners would not vote for him is ludicrous, especially given the alternative.
• Since the general election is going to turn on economic issues, Romney still has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination, and the election, than Santorum does. Although I would say this -- if this gets to be essentially a two-man race, Romney could be in trouble.
• Santorum has turned out to be a much better candidate than I ever thought was possible. About my only exposure to him in the past was occasionally hearing him as a guest host on Bill Bennett's morning radio show. He was terrible at it, so I assumed he wouldn't be able to connect with voters out on the hustings. That has not turned out to be the case.
• Ron Paul will keep plugging along, because it's about all he has to do at this point. He'll keep collecting delegates here and there and will eventually extract something from the nominee. To my mind, that's a good thing, because the issues he raises need to be part of the conversation.

Shoo-in

I've been told rather a lot lately that President Obama is cruising to re-election, so this seems a little, ahem, counterintuitive:

(CBS News) President Obama's approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Mr. Obama's approval rating was 50 percent last month.

Considering how we've spent the better part of two weeks learning that the greatest threat to the nation is what Rush Limbaugh says about law students, there must be another reason: And it's the obvious one:

The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 12 cents over the past two weeks. The poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, believe gas prices are something a president can do a lot about.

Americans have historically felt that a president can control gas prices, though experts attribute changes to a variety of factors, many outside of a president's control. They also felt this way when gas prices spiked during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

I believe this is what they call being hoist on one's own petard. A few guesses on what is happening:

• In large measure, people decided what they thought about Barack Obama a long time ago. This is why his campaign has largely been about demonizing the other guys.
• I agree that gas prices are largely beyond a president's control, but symbolically Obama has made some bad decisions. Scuttling the Keystone XL pipeline was stupid, because it reinforced a lot of other messages, especially concerning energy policy generally. Much of what we thought we knew in 2009 turns out to be not so true, especially concerning (a) the promise of "green jobs" and (b) the available supply of oil.
• While the folks screaming about the supposed "war on women" are loud, they don't necessarily speak for as many people as it might appear. The recent discussions about forcing Catholic employers to provide contraception is a reminder to people that Obamacare is coming. People may not talk about it on a day-to-day basis, but they haven't forgotten about it, either.

Not even a Jackson on the nightstand

Will you still love me tomorrow? Arlen Specter found out:

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.

Specter also claims that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not uphold his promise to grant him seniority accrued over 28 years of service in the Senate as a Republican.

Well, once they had your vote, Arlen, you were just another backbencher. The article we quote is from The Hill and it is comedy gold. You should read the whole thing, but here are the two key things. First, here's what Specter got for switching parties:

Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it.

Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list.

Specter found out about it after his press secretary emailed him a press account of the switch. Specter was floored that Reid had “violated a fundamental Senate practice to give personal notice to a senator directly affected by the substance of a unanimous consent agreement.”

What fun would that have been? Meanwhile, there's this jaw-dropping assertion concerning conversations Specter claims to have had with Bob Dole:

Dole, who served as Senate Republican leader from 1985 to 1996, was initially angry with Specter but then told him he made the right decision.
Specter recounted a long conversation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center 18 months after the switch.

“Dole told me I had done the right thing, that I had done a terrific job as a senator, been involved in a lot of projects, been very active, and hadn’t gotten credit for a lot of the stuff I had done,” he wrote.

“I said, ‘Bob, I think that it’s very meaningful when you say that I did the right thing, in the party change.’

“He said, ‘Well,’ and then paused and thought for a few seconds. Then he said, ‘I probably would have done the same thing.’ ”

Sure he would have, Arlen.

Bensterology -- Benster and D Pick Your NCAA Brackets, Baby!

Okay, so we've all heard of "Bracketology," the made-up term for professional dorks who spend their lives analyzing college hoops for a living. This is an exciting development for socially challenged dudes who now get out of their parent's basement and onto ESPN. Well, I'm not a professional dork. As a high school superstar, I'm still a dork in training, but let me tell you this, old dude -- I can pick the games with the best of the dorks!

That's true. You did win the office pool last year. Stunned and amazed my coworkers, as I recall.


And I hear they are really bitter about it. Enraged, even. But this time, because I'm such a good and giving person, I'm going to share a little bit of wisdom with the vast Dilettante Nation audience! Why? Because I can. Watch me work!

South Region! This is the region where the University of Kentucky "Cheating" Wildcats are the #1 seed. John Calipari is well known for leaving programs about a half-hour before they go on multi-year probation for recruiting violations. Of course, by going to Kentucky, he can continue a proud tradition of cheating weaseldom, dating back to that old racist dude, Adolph Rupp.

You keep ripping on Kentucky that way and they won't even let you eat Kentucky Fried Chicken any more, young fella.


Oh, I'm not done with them yet, Geritol Fan! This year's Kentucky team has a stellar 32-2 record, with almost all underclassmen playing the key roles. And that is where the problem is. Anthony Davis is a stud. There's no question about that. But can he handle the pressure of leadership with so much youth on the team? And how about their 7-man rotation? Will that be able to hold up against deep teams like the hated Dukies? And look who is waiting for them, potentially, in the second round? An athletic Iowa State team, featuring former Hopkins stud/Dinkytown Police favorite Royce White, with a potential matchup against Indiana following that. You might recall that Indiana dealt the Fighting Caliparis a loss earlier this season. And if they get through all of that, it's the Dukies or perhaps a freakishly athletic Baylor team. Can Kentucky run that gauntlet. The word here is NO. My pick to emerge -- DUKE.

I don't like Kentucky much, either. But I think they have more talent than anyone else in the region. I'll go with Kentucky.


West Region! Hey look, it's our old pal Sparty! And the Spartans are playing very well right now. They steamrolled through the Big Ten tournament and got a #1 seed. There are some tough teams in this bracket, including some teams that will be tough matchups for the Spartans. The #2 and #3 seeds are Mizzou and Marquette, both very tough, guard-oriented teams. The Tigers come at you in waves, with four guys who score in double figures and approximately 7 members of the Pressey family. The old dude tells me that Paul Pressey, the father of the various Presseys who play for Mizzou, was a heck of a player in his day. So you have to worry about the Tigers. As for Marquette, they have the Big East Player of the Year in Jae Crowder and a really tough, smart lead guard in Darius Johnson-Odom. This is the best team that Buzz Williams has had at MU and compares well to the Dwayne Wade team that made the Final Four in '03. Sparty is rock solid, as always, and Draymond Green has been a special player this year, but I'm not sure they match up well enough with my pick. My pick to emerge -- MARQUETTE.


I could see my beloved MU squad pulling it off, too, but I like Missouri in this region. If Sparty has a weakness, it is at guard. Mizzou is loaded with guards. And in the tournament, guards can carry a team to a championship. See Kemba Walker for an example. I'll go with Mizzou.


East Region! The #1 seed here is Syracuse, which has had a very good season while dodging various scandals that mostly relate to events that happened there years ago. I don't think Syracuse can make it out of their region this time, because while their defense has caused problems for most of their opponents this season, the team I favor will have the skills to deal with the matchup zone. That team would be Florida State. I've seen the Seminoles in action a few times this year and I've been impressed. Not too many teams stroll into Cameron Indoor Stadium and face down the Dukies, but the Seminoles did it. Not too many teams beat Carolina. But the Seminoles did that, twice. You might notice some similarities between this team and the team I picked to win it all last year, the UConn Huskies. They both played really tough down the stretch and have a player who is insanely clutch. Last year we saw Kemba Walker own everyone. This year, meet Seminole star Michael Snaer. This dude is a cold-blooded assassin. He shot down the Dukies at the buzzer and had the game of his life against North Carolina. This kid should make every coach shake in their boots. Or at least their really expensive suits. This team is dangerous and I can see Snaer launching a game-winner right over the top of the Syracuse matchup zone. My pick to emerge -- FLORIDA STATE.


This the region where the Badgers play. This is not the best Wisconsin team but I could see a potential run because Jordan Taylor can take over games. The problem for the Badgers is that they run into Vanderbilt early and might not make it past the Commodores. I can see Florida State getting to the regional final, because the #2 seed Ohio State has been up and down this year. In the end, though, I like Syracuse, although the young fella makes a pretty good argument. I'll go with Syracuse.


Midwest Region! This region, to me, looks like the weakest of the four. North Carolina is the #1 seed and is a quality team with a solid front line, but the rest of the top four seeds are suspect. I have not been convinced that Kansas is that good and Georgetown is the weakest #3 seed in the field, while Michigan might be a #6 seed cleverly disguised as a #4. Ordinarily, with a field like that, you might expect upsets in this region, but I'm having a hard time finding them. If you're looking for a big upset, watch out for Belmont against Georgetown. That could happen. I also wouldn't be surprised to see San Diego State get to the Sweet 16. I'd also warn Kansas not to sleep on St. Mary's. But realistically, none of that is going to matter much, because Carolina is clearly the class of the region. My pick to emerge -- NORTH CAROLINA.


Hard to argue with any of that. Carolina is the best team here and it's not close. I'll go with North Carolina.


So here you go -- the Benster Final Four goes like this:

DUKE
MARQUETTE
FLORIDA STATE
NORTH CAROLINA

Meanwhile, Decrepit has picked:

KENTUCKY
MISSOURI
SYRACUSE
NORTH CAROLINA

We'll come back and take another look at things after the weekend, including actual picks of Sweet 16 games and more wisdom from yours truly. But for now, Ben out!

Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome III -- Charters and Their Discontents

One of the primary hurdles concerning the attempted stampede going on for a new stadium is a provision in Minneapolis city charter, which states that the city cannot commit more than $10 million to a stadium project without a referendum. Writing for the Star Tribune, reporter Eric Roper finds the original sponsor of the provision in an unusual place:

In his backwoods sanctuary more than 200 miles north of Minneapolis, Bob Greenberg was rousted from his hunter-gatherer lifestyle earlier this month when politicians announced plans to subsidize a new Vikings stadium without a vote of the people.

The news brought Greenberg back to his former life, when he wrote the city charter amendment that now poses the greatest hurdle to supporters of a Vikings stadium in Minneapolis -- mandating a citywide vote on stadium subsidies of $10 million or more. Seventy percent of city voters approved that language in 1997 during talks of a new Twins ballpark, but it now faces its first real test as the Legislature considers a bill to ignore it altogether.

"I did not write this charter amendment to prevent the building of a stadium," said Greenberg, a former Twin Cities activist who moved into a woodland tent two years ago and lives off the land, including roadkill. "But only to force the city to put it before the voters."

Now, fifteen years on, R. T. Rybak wants to turn this charter provision into roadkill.

Can the city simply bypass the provision? Some argue it can be done and cite a path. Back to the Star Tribune:

City voters have resisted stadium subsidies before. In 1973, they approved a charter amendment meant to prevent city funding of what would become the Metrodome.

The prohibition of city bonding for more than $15 million on infrastructure projects without a referendum -- which remains in the charter -- was later skirted by issuing the bonds through separate agencies.

The ineffectiveness of that 1973 amendment arose during a committee discussion of the 1997 proposal, according to meeting minutes. Carlson felt politicians were circumventing the 1973 amendment and was unhappy to hear the state could override the wishes of city residents. "Carlson was surprised that it seemed to make no difference what the residents want," the minutes said.

The Carlson quoted in this instance is Barbara Carlson, the ex-wife of former Governor Arne Carlson, who ran a gadfly campaign for mayor back 1997.

This is all a useful history lesson and explains, in large measure, the difference in the disparate treatment Ramsey County got concerning their financing proposals. Since the Minneapolis City Charter is apparently written on Charmin, it can be ignored or bypassed, while the need for a referendum in Ramsey County, it would seem, could not be ignored. You can draw your own conclusions about the larger meaning.

Annunciation and the Altered Scale

It's been a stunningly beautiful weekend in Minneapolis, warm and sunny, the sort of weather you hope to have on Mother's Day, only arriving two months early. It's the sort of weekend you cherish later on, one that you must take advantage of. These early spring days are often a tease, only to be followed by rain, cold, snow and general misery.

So, of course, I spent this afternoon in a conference room at the Southdale Library. It was the wise choice. We'll get to that in a moment.

We began the day attending Mass at Annunciation, a parish in South Minneapolis a bit east of Lyndale on 54th Street. As you may know, Mrs. D grew up in South Minneapolis and this was the parish of her childhood, the parish where she received First Holy Communion and where she was confirmed. The church itself was built in 1961 and it has that late mid-century look to it. It's a good sized church but it's not a suburban megaparish like the one we normally attend, St. John the Baptist. And because it's not a huge parish and the Archdiocese is retrenching, Annunciation is in the process of merging with another smaller parish, Visitation, which is located about a mile north on Lyndale. Annunication is a lively place and the Mass we attended had a lot of younger families with children. That's a good sign for a parish and a good sign for the mostly middle-class neighborhood that Annunciation serves.

It's always interesting to see the differences in how varying parishes in a diocese handle the liturgy. If there's one misconception about Catholicism, especially among non-Catholics, it's that there is a great uniformity from parish to parish. That may have been true at one time, but it hasn't been true in my lifetime, which has been post-Vatican II. Individual parishes in a diocese can vary greatly, depending on the desires of the parishioners and the proclivities of the pastor. The most famous parish in South Minneapolis, or most infamous depending on your perspective, is St. Joan of Arc, which is about a mile and a half northeast of Annuniciation. St. Joan is one of the most liberal parishes in the country and is usually on double-secret probation with the Archdiocese.

Annunciation isn't much like St. Joan -- while the Mass had modern touches, it was obvious that the liturgical approach was closer to what Archbishop Nienstedt would want, although the feel was less traditional than what you encounter at St. John's these days. In a time when many Catholics struggle to find a place that feels like home, the Mass at Annunciation was mainstream, in a good way.

After Mass, we had a nice brunch at Q Cumbers in Edina, which in our experience is one of the best places to get Sunday brunch in the Twin Cities. Then we went to the conference room at the Southdale Library.

We were in the conference room to attend the launch of a new online arts journal, Altered Scale. The editor of Altered Scale is Jefferson Hansen. Jeff is an old college friend of Mrs. D and me and he is attempting something that is different. Jeff has had an interesting career as a teacher, writer, poet and critic and with Altered Scale he has created something that brings a variety of voices and approaches to bear. In music, especially jazz, an altered scale is achieved by raising a normal scale by a half tone -- this link provides an example.

I could try to explain what Jeff is doing in the journal, but I'll let him explain:

I welcome performers, visual artists, and writers to submit to this journal. I have an eclectic—I don't consider that a bad word—taste. I want to see work on any topic, not just on music. As with any editor, I will make choices as to the ordering and arranging of the pieces. I will do this with an eye toward highlighting the musical aspects of works—tone, rhythm, harmony / disharmony, and improvisation—through comparison and contrast, not any explicit commenting on them. My editorial hand is light.

Today was the launch. A number of area writers performed their work, including poetry and fiction. It included poets who regularly read their work at coffee houses around town, including some with a fairly large footprint in the local literary scene. It was an enjoyable afternoon, watching and listening to people who spend their lives trying to find ways to alter the scale. And for Fearless Maria, who is an aspiring poet herself, it was a great chance to see how poets perform and think about the work they do.

I haven't spent a lot of time in recent years swimming in these waters. It's easy to become detached from the worlds of art and performance, especially when your professional writing is anonymous and necessarily geared to selling merchandise. My customers are more interested in metrics than meter, lithium-ion batteries over lyricism. It also takes an effort to get out of the suburbs and connect with the literary scene, especially when other duties call, as they inevitably do. It's an effort worth undertaking, though, and one that I take seriously. I commend Altered Scale to your attention, especially if you find yourself reading more Mark Steyn than Mark Twain these days. It's always worth it to expand your horizons. Or to alter the scale, so to speak.

Vikings to Plot of Land East of Metrodome II -- Hey Man, Pull My Pulltab Redux

A few days back we learned that the plan to finance the state's "portion" of the Vikings stadium would be to use electronic pulltabs. I know it's bad form to quote your own work, but at the time I said this:

So in other words, we once again are relying on projections from our old friend Rosy Scenario.

Yesterday, we learned that, as always, Rosy Scenario is likely to be a no-show:

Standing with State Revenue Commissioner Myron Frans, Dayton said that allowing electronic bingo and pulltabs in the state's bars and restaurants would produce $62.5 million annually to finance the state's total $398 million stadium contribution.

That figure is $10 million a year less than a previous calculation. It was revised to satisfy charitable gambling officials who want tax relief for their industry as part of any Vikings stadium deal. "We feel confident that this is a revenue stream that we can rely on" for the stadium, Frans said.

And even that figure might be Rosy, but we'll leave that aside. The larger point is that there is no Plan B:

Frans said he was confident about this latest pulltab revenue estimate, but conceded that if electronic bingo and pulltabs failed to generate enough money, the state would have to look at a backup plan more directly supported by state money. "That's something we'll have to look at," said Frans.

State officials said that while $38 million to $40 million a year would be needed for debt service on stadium borrowing, bond houses might require twice as much because gambling is seen as an unstable funding source.

"That's something we'll have to look at" really means, "uh, we have no idea." How do I know this? In addition to the news conference that the Star Tribune article references, Dayton made the rounds of local radio shows. I heard Dayton's interview with KFAN's Dan Barreiro on my drive home yesterday. While I can't find a transcript of the conversation, Barreiro asked Dayton directly if there was a Plan B and Dayton admitted there wasn't. You can listen to the interview here.

So what happens if the funding source is vapor, as it appears to be? Cue Dave Senjem:

"If the electronic pulltabs just [don't] work why, then, no one can probably vote for it," said Senate Majority Leader David Senjem after his Friday meeting with Dayton. "We have to be assured there's a financing mechanism that works," the Rochester Republican said.

On whether the Vikings stadium legislation would pass the Legislature this spring, Senjem said: "We'll do the best we can. If it's not good enough, why, we'll have to, I suppose, set it aside and [do it] at a different time."

And of course, the money that Minneapolis is supposed to pony up won't likely be forthcoming, either.

It's been a fine run of kabuki theater for the past year and it's been very good for business on this blog, but after a while it's time to face reality. The stadium only gets built if one of two things happen.

1) Zygi Wilf pays for it himself. And he won't.
2) The state bites down hard and votes to pay for it out of state revenues. That's likely a non-starter, but it would be far more honest if the various politicians who have been spinning like Iranian centrifuges on the matter would just admit that's what it is going to take.

Tarryl Clark, Nomadic House Candidate

Remember Tarryl Clark? She ran against Michele Bachmann for the 6th District house seat in the last cycle and got crushed. Since she's deemed herself indispensable, she decided to move to Duluth to challenge Chip Cravaack in the 8th.

It hasn't worked so well for her up to this point, as she didn't get the endorsement, which instead went to Rick Nolan instead. Never mind that -- Clark won't take no for an answer:

Former state Sen. Tarryl Clark told supporters in a letter Thursday that she wouldn't abide by a spring endorsing convention's decision. That means Democrats won't know until August who will challenge freshman Rep. Chip Cravaack in the northeastern Minnesota district.

Clark says "the stakes are too high" to let a small group of activists pick the nominee. Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin says he's disappointed in Clark because a primary will sap candidate resources.

I don't know what Clark will do if she loses. She's running out of congressional districts.

Love Train

It's a train you could have seen coming for miles:

Limbaugh, through his spokesman Brian Glicklich, turned aside Sleep Train's attempts to resume advertising on the show.

"Unfortunately, your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh's character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the Future."

Lessons learned?

• What makes Rush Limbaugh so valuable? His huge, loyal audience. Emphasis on loyal.
• As Allahpundit rightly points out, this is a variation on the Susan G. Komen kerfuffle of earlier this year. You can't switch sides and expect to come out ahead.
• People who have the time to mount a noisy public relations campaign/boycott might not buy your products, even if you respond to them.