San Juan Williams Bueno, Mártir

Everyone is taking a whack at the Juan Williams situation, so I might as well, too.

The story, in case you hadn't heard, is this: Juan Williams is a fairly well-known commentator who primarily worked for National Public Radio. Williams has also been a commentator on Fox News for a number of years. Williams would often find himself on Fox participating on roundtable panels, where he had the job of presenting the liberal view. That can be a thankless task on Fox, but Williams always did so with grace. He's a very thoughtful man.

He appeared on Bill O'Reilly last night and committed the dreaded Kinsleyan Gaffe, which means he said what he actually thought:

On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr.
O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

Well, that's not entirely true. One way to get away from these facts is to fire the guy who says they are facts. Which is what National Public Radio did.

Of course, that's not all Williams had to say. Matt Welch at Reason has this exchange with O'Reilly, from the same appearance:

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here's a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck and says he's attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero --
[...]
WILLIAMS: I don't know what is in that guy's head. But I'm saying, we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy. We've got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.
O'REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida -- who wanted to burn the Koran. I came down on him like crazy.
WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.

Would those sentiments, urging tolerance and caution, be enough to save Williams? Apparently not. Meanwhile, in lieu of an exit interview, NPR majordomo (or is that majordoma?) Vivian Schiller offered this career advice:

Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist,"the network's CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.

That little bon mot got walked back pretty quick:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller just released this statement:

"I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark."

The good news for Schiller is that she didn't say it on Bill O'Reilly's show.

Meanwhile, Juan Williams came out looking pretty good, as Fox News gave him a $2 million contract. We should all have such problems.

So what do we make of all this?

First, let's say the obvious: this isn't a First Amendment issue. I would assume that Williams was an at-will employee of NPR and they were within their right to fire him for whatever reason they saw fit. That's how it goes. We can criticize NPR's reasoning -- oh my yes, we should -- but they were entitled to ash-can the guy.

Having said that, it was a stupid, knee-jerk reaction on NPR's part. It's possible, even likely, that what Williams said was offensive to someone, somewhere. The thing was, he was making the observation in a larger context, which completely changed the meaning of what he said. Williams was talking about a very human thing -- fear, especially of the Other. And he gave the context for why that fear arises. You might recall a few years ago when Jesse Jackson said this:

“"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Jesse Jackson”

No one thinks that Jesse Jackson is prejudiced against African-Americans. We fear because we are human. The Anchoress makes the point in a very astringent way:

Kind of like when someone is listening to NPR while driving their BMW, and discreetly making sure their doors are locked when they spy a homeless man moving too close to their car. That’s revealing doubt. And it’s human. It may not be the best part of being human, but it is a common thing. Or it is common to people who are honest. There are a lot of people who would prefer to pretend they’re ‘way too evolved to think as Williams admits he does.

It comes down to prudence, which is–or was, last I checked–a Virtue. It is inarguably bigoted to see every Muslim as a terrorist, but I frankly don’t think there are many people like that in America.

But it is prudent to at least be aware of one’s surroundings, and to make note of one’s fellow-travelers, in all circumstances, whether one is on a plane, or going to the movies, or playing in the park with one’s children. We are not meant to traipse through life like naive bumpkins, with our eyes paradoxically shut as we wander about wide-eyed saying “golly, I and my children are perfectly safe because the authorities are regulating and overseeing my air travel, my movie-going and our park safety and therefore I don’t have to think about it!”

Is that an unreasonable way of viewing the world? I don't think so. We may not want to admit to our fears, but we all have them. We all imagine ourselves to be rational, but chances are we are irrational at least once or twice a day. I'm always amazed at how easy it is to lose rational thinking on 35W during a typical commute.

The thing is, those moments pass. What is more problematic is when irrational behavior becomes a matter of policy. What Vivian Schiller said about Juan Williams was nasty and in my view pretty irrational. It is to Schiller's credit that she recognized that and apologized. It didn't give Williams his job back, though.

In the end, my guess is that Williams doesn't want the job back. Here's what he said later today:

Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

That's going to leave a mark. Is there anger there? Hell yes. Is comparing NPR to a gulag over the top? Yeah, I think so. But no more than Schiller suggesting that Williams needs to talk to a psychiatrist when he expresses a fear that is normal. We owe it to ourselves, and to each other, to be honest about such things. When honesty is punished, we're in a dangerous place.

Don't Go Quietly

News from France:

A woman pronounced "very certainly clinically dead" at a French hospital woke up hours later after her sons refused to turn off her life-support system, medics and the woman said.

Doctors were preparing cancer patient Lydie Paillard, 60, for a chemotherapy session when she passed out, the director of the Bordeaux Rive Droite private hospital Yves Noel told AFP on Wednesday.

A doctor managed to resuscitate her and put her on a ventilator but then, having consulted other doctors, called Paillard's sons to break the news that their mother was "very certainly clinically dead."

We never know what's going to happen in such a case. We think we know, but we are wrong. So when someone like our ghoulish Senate candidate, Barb Goodwin, tells us:

So it’s not like – a lot of people are mistaken in thinking that “I don’t want to starve, I don’t want to be thirsty.” But that’s not the situation when you’re in critical condition, your body is shutting down. When you give or force feed a body that is shutting down, that can be extremely painful.

and

Because the body, it’s uh, it’s a quieter way of the body dying.

Remember -- don't go quietly. As Lydie Palliard explains:

"My sons, whom I saw yesterday, explained to me that the hospital wanted to turn off the life support system because it was over and as they refused, I was taken to the university hospital," Paillard explained. "I haven't really realized what's happened but I think my three sons are the most shocked."

The hospital's management said it would suggest the family meet the medical team responsible for Paillard to discuss the "communication problem."

Don't go quietly.

An exceptionally important point, snarkily rendered

Frank J. Fleming lays it out for you:

Now let’s look at what led us to the political situation we’re in. During the second term of the Bush presidency people just got fed up with Republicans. They were idiots, they were no good at the whole fiscal conservatism thing (which is sort of the whole point of them), we had these wars that seemed to be going nowhere, and the economy was beginning to fail. They sucked, and people were sick and tired of them.

Thus people turned to the Democrats. And Obama.

Let’s just say they also sucked.

AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”

DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”

AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”

AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”

AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”

AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”

DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”

AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”

AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”

AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”

DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”

So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analogue in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude. It was sheer incompetence plus arrogance — and those things do not complement each other well. We’re talking sucking that distorts time and space like a black hole.

Yep. Read the whole thing.

Ballad of an 18-Term Congressman

But something is happening, and you don't know what it is,
Do you, Oberstar?

Watch this video from KSTP from yesterday's 8th CD debate and tell me -- do you think Jim Oberstar is confident?

If there was ever a walking advertisement for term limits, it's Oberstar. If he loses, it will have implications in a lot of other ways in this election.

Lightning Round - 101910

A non-political version, too!

• Although I do root for the Wisconsin Badgers, it's better for the Big Ten if the local Gophers are a competitive team. Right now they aren't and that's why Tim Brewster had to go. The question around town has been this: why can't the Gophers compete with their two traditional rivals, the Badgers and the Iowa Hawkeyes? I've wondered about that myself. I think the primary issue is location, but it cuts both ways. Having the University in a major metropolitan area should be a huge advantage, since there are ample post-career football opportunities for players. The new stadium is beautiful, too. I think the one major difference for a student is this: the experience is different here. Much more than Wisconsin or Iowa, the "U" is a commuter school and the campus experience is more fragmented as a result. That doesn't matter in the long run, but as you live the experience it plays a role.
• It wouldn't bother me that much if the Texas Rangers beat the Yankees in the ALCS. Yesterday's performance also drives home the point about what the Twins are missing: a legitimate #1 stud pitcher. Do you think Cliff Lee would have made a difference for the Twins?
• The Packers are struggling because of the unbelievable string of injuries they've suffered. They'll get no sympathy of course, but to put this in perspective -- how would the Vikings do if they lost Adrian Peterson, Visanthe Shiancoe, Jeff Dugan, E. J. Henderson, Jared Allen and Antoine Winfield? If you give the Packers back Ryan Grant, Jermichael Finley, Donald Lee, Clay Matthews, Nick Barnett and Al Harris, do you suspect they'd have fared a little better the last few weeks? I suspect they might.
• In my 4 years of high school, my beloved Xavier Hawks won a total of 8 games. If the Hawks beat hated Fox Valley Lutheran this week, they will have won 8 games this season. It's amazing what a good coach can do for a program.

Barb Goodwin in Her Own Words -- Part 2

Part 1 of this post appears here.

Back in 2006, then-Rep. Barb Goodwin did an interview with Marie Castle, Communications Director for Atheists for Human Rights, that appears on the Atheists For Human Rights website. The link will open the 23-minute interview in your media player. If you'd prefer to read a transcript, you can read it here.

In the previous post, then Rep. Barb Goodwin, now a candidate for the State Senate in District 50, and Marie Castle discussed why, in their view, it is actually more humane to remove a feeding tube and dehydration from certain patients in critical condition, along with the ethics of pharmacists and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). As we pick up the conversation (at about the 17:30 mark on the video), Castle and Goodwin share their views concerning what goes on in a Catholic hospital:

Castle: We could go in for, uh Catholic hospitals too, where they deny uh, certain services to people because it has to conform to uh, Catholic doctrine, and that includes the end of life care, and uh, there’s a lot of that where they just think uh, they have this theological position where they just think that suffering is good for your soul. Well, if you don’t believe you’ve got a soul, or if you don’t believe it’s supposed to suffer, why should you suffer because of somebody else’s religious beliefs?

But they have this thing about, uh the meritorious nature of suffering, and that only God can decide when you’re going to die. And uh, well, then, medical care just keeps you alive – you shouldn’t have medical care? So uh, there’s all that and uh, it really conflicts with reality, that the reality is that people suffer and we have to stop people from suffering and that we have to relieve it and we don’t make it worse.

Goodwin: Right, exactly —

Castle: And they’re making it worse.

Goodwin: They’re making it worse.

A few comments are in order. First, I'm unaware of Catholic hospitals deciding to not provide medication that would relieve suffering. Catholic hospitals are foursquare against abortion, but that would be the only "service" a Catholic hospital would typically avoid.

Second, Castle seems to think that the Catholic view on the meritorious nature of suffering somehow means that the Church, through its hospitals, would want its patients to suffer. This is absurd on its face. Any hospital that acted in such a manner would be out of business. You sense that Goodwin knows this set of assertions is a problem, but is too polite to mention it, so she changes the subject back to a more conventional problem, what "they" (presumably nasty Republicans) are doing:

Goodwin: They’re making it worse. Because on the same token, last year they tried to cut 40,000 people off health care – Minnesotans – this uh, uh, isn’t an immigrant population, this is uh, working Minnesotans who have Minnesota Care and pay a premium to have that – they’re not getting it for free. It’s not government sponsored, it’s sponsored by a provider tax and it’s sponsored by their own premiums, their own premiums. They tried to cut 30, uh, they tried to cut 40,000 off last year – they managed to cut 38,000 off the year before, so that’s almost 80,000 people that would lose health care entirely. And we managed to fight off – Democrats managed to fight off the cuts last year and now we have work through to try and reinstate some of the cuts because we’re finding out that it costs a lot more to eliminate that, uh that, because then you end up with a lot more people in the emergency room, you end up with more uncompensated care in the hospital, Hennepin County, I don’t want to, but I think Hennepin County Hospital had something in the neighborhood of $20 million in uncompensated care. That just gets passed down to the people that do have insurance – nobody’s eating those costs except the public. The public is eating those costs. And so you’ve got people without health care, and you’ve got the rest of us, who, our health care has become so expensive that a lot of people can’t afford to pay the premiums.

Now, remember that this discussion was taking in place in 2006, and since that time the DFL has used its control of the legislature to solve all of these problems, or perhaps not. But since the matter of saving costs is now the topic of conversation, Castle offers a solution. This discussion begins at about the 19:40 mark:

Castle: And then they were, then they were trying to, I think there’s a bill somewhere in the Legislature to stop, to rescind the state law that the state has to pay for abortions as well as child care, uh child birth, that if they have to pay for child birth they have to pay for abortion care, so they’re trying to change that.

Goodwin: Well uh, that—

Castle: So what that does is that it increases the number of births and then that increases the number of welfare cases – they don’t want anybody on welfare, but they’re guaranteed to have that.

Goodwin: But they don’t want to provide anything for those in the most need if they do carry their child—

Castle: Oh, they’ll give them some diapers.

Goodwin: (Laughter)

Castle: They’ll give them some formula, too—

Goodwin: If they do, I don’t even know where they do that.

Castle: I mean, you talk about, for 18 years you’re raising a child.

Goodwin: Right.

Castle: At least 18.

Well, if it were a certainty that a child born to a mother on welfare was going to remain on welfare for the next 18 years, it certainly would be more "cost-effective" to abort the child. It would save money, no doubt. The underlying assumption is this: the child, and its mother, will remain infants, or rather infantilized, for 18 years or more. There's no chance that the mother would ever find a way to raise the child on her own, or that a father might take responsibility for the child. There would be no possibility that these individuals could ever be anything other than wards of the state.

That's not a fait accompli, though. Many children born in poverty or other problematic circumstances find their way in the world and accomplish great things. A certain baby born in Hawaii in 1961 springs to mind. But we'll leave that aside for now.

Goodwin and Castle, ever cost-conscious, continue to discuss the matter:

Goodwin: Well, and uh, the problem with that bill is uh, that already was tried in Minnesota and was uh, the courts ruled it unconstitutional. So they couldn’t do that and yet uh, they’re trying it again and they know they’re facing another court challenge. And so they’re putting this like uh, South Dakota, did with their uh, basically no choice bill that they had and, uh, now they’re putting it up and uh, the people of South Dakota are going to have to pay for it all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the people of Minnesota are going to have to pay for these bad decisions when they know that once again, it’s going to be ruled unconstitutional. The constitution hasn’t changed.

Castle: And, uh, the people when they go and vote think that, well, uh, I’m never going to have an abortion or I don’t have this problem and this or that, and so it doesn’t affect them directly or personally. And uh, I’ve got a living will and all that, so they don’t consider that when they vote. They don’t realize that they have to pick up the costs of all that.

Goodwin: Absolutely. And the same is true of the starvation and dehydration bill. If you’re going to make people have feeding tubes and hydration way past the point where their body will, uh, easily accept it, you’re going to again cause huge costs to the system and again, you’re trying to take away basic health care. Some of those same people that you want to keep on a feeding tube, and hydration, long past the time when their body is uh, willing to accept it. So, uh, so it’s so convoluted that it doesn’t, that there’s no, there’s no ideology there that’s constant, that’s connected.

Emphasis mine. Goodwin's assertion about the constitutionality of abortion is true, for the moment at least. As for the rest of this discussion -- it's worth considering what's being proposed in light of the federal legislation that was passed earlier this year. There's a pretty big breach between the notion of family control in the Schiavo case and the idea that Goodwin proffers, that keeping someone alive via a feeding tube is not cost-effective. Can you place a monetary value on human life? And is Goodwin's idea of when the body is willing to accept a feeding tube the right one?

If you want to understand why so many conservatives, social and fiscal, opposed Obamacare, this portion of the discussion explains it. Earlier in the video, Goodwin asserts that she doesn't want people making decisions about her life, but she seems utterly blithe about the notion that she and her colleagues might make decisions about other people's lives. And then she decries the convoluted ideology of those who would oppose her.

Castle has an explanation for this convoluted behavior of critics, which she discusses with Goodwin as the video concludes:

Castle: However, there is a theology. It all goes back to their basic religious beliefs that they don’t talk about publicly because, frankly, I think they’d be laughed at, about the ensoulment, and about the merits of suffering and a few things like that, and their views about sex and who can have it and when and under what conditions and all that, so there’s a whole theological justification for that.

Goodwin: That’s true.

Yep -- ensoulment is ludicrious if you don't accept the idea of a soul, as an atheist like Castle might not. But a politician rejects that notion at his or her peril, especially a politician who lives in a senate district with a lot of Christians. But there you go. Castle and Goodwin conclude their discussion as follows:

Castle: And so that’s why they need their so-called secular justifications to get it past the public.

Goodwin: You’re right.

Castle: And so it doesn’t work. But so, and, well,thanks for being with us and talking about this, a really important subject.

Goodwin: It is—

Castle: And I hope that the general public pays a little more attention to what their legislators are doing, because whether it affects you personally, it’s going to affect you financially for sure.

On this last point, I agree wholeheartedly. The public should be paying attention to what their legislators, or would-be legislators, are doing. That is why I've posted the information here.

Barb Goodwin in Her Own Words -- Part 1

The candidate's name is Barb Goodwin. She holds the DFL endorsement and would like to represent District 50 in the Minnesota State Senate. She has previous experience in the Minnesota House, representing the western portion (50A) of the district. She has a website in which she says most of the things a candidate would typically say.

There are things she doesn't put on her website, of course. Things you should know about.

Back in 2006, then-Rep. Goodwin did an interview with Marie Castle, Communications Director for Atheists for Human Rights, that appears on the Atheists For Human Rights website. The link will open the 23-minute interview in your computer's media player. If you'd prefer to read a transcript, you can read it here.

The discussion between Goodwin and Castle is on the topic of "anti-human health care." What exercises the two women is the Terry Schiavo case, in which a comatose woman had her feeding tube removed and was no longer provided hydration, at the behest of her husband and against the wishes of her parents. Goodwin felt that keeping Schiavo alive was cruel. The discussion begins about 4 minutes into the interview:

Goodwin: Well, just recently in the House we heard a bill in the Health Care Committee, which I’m on, that would require that a person get feeding tubes and hydration, whether or not they wanted it, if they didn’t have it specifically written in a health care directive that they didn’t want it. So that is a result of the Terry Schiavo case. It was brought to the House, the bill was, it was introduced by Representative Tim Wilkin, and he was, he is part of the right-wing extremists that are part of the Minnesota legislature and unfortunately the leading part of the Minnesota House of Representatives. They are in control right now and their health care legislation over the past few years have qualified for what you’ve termed, anti-human health care.

Castle: Yeah, it hurts people. Everything they suggest doesn’t help people, it hurts people, it causes pain and suffering, like it’s like the Schiavo bill, the families have no say in anything.

Goodwin: Yeah, yeah.

That the crux of the Schiavo case was the conflict among Schiavo's family members about her care doesn't seem to matter. What does matter is that people understand something that Goodwin believes to be true: that removing a feeding tube and hydration is humane. A minute or so later, Goodwin explains why, using the example of her incapacitated brother-in-law.

Goodwin: So it’s not like – a lot of people are mistaken in thinking that “I don’t want to starve, I don’t want to be thirsty.” But that’s not the situation when you’re in critical condition, your body is shutting down. When you give or force feed a body that is shutting down, that can be extremely painful.

After more discussion of the particulars of her brother-in-law's case, she sums up the reason death by dehydration is better:

Goodwin: Because the body, it’s uh, it’s a quieter way of the body dying.

Interviewer Castle, for her part, agrees with Goodwin's assessment:

Castle: This is their loved one and it doesn’t allow them to uh. . . . You know, they lie a lot, because you know I heard some of this testimony they had at the state legislature and they talk about this starvation and they say, “you know, they’re dying of thirst and they’re starving to death.” These people, they’re pretty much in a coma and they can’t feel anything and they don’t starve to death, they actually die of dehydration and it’s a slow wasting away and they don’t feel pain.

How Castle and Goodwin know these things is not disclosed. What is clear is that the concerns that Rep. Wilkin and his colleagues had regarding the matter are easily dismissed:

Castle: Well, they know better than the family.

Goodwin: Absolutely.

Castle: What the person wants.

Goodwin: Yes.

Castle: Oh, they’re much more caring than the family.

Goodwin: Exactly.

Castle: Yeah, sure they are.

Goodwin: And they know better than the doctors. They know better than anybody what we all need at the end or what we all need at the beginning of our lives. I just um, I’ve really been uncomfortable with what’s been happening at the House of Representatives because it seems to me that this party, that sold themselves as the party of individual rights and freedoms –

Castle: Oh, yeah!

Goodwin: Are getting into the most private and personal parts of our life. And I said uh, I don’t want government in my marriage.

Castle: Yeah.

Goodwin: I don’t want government in my uh, reproductive choices and I certainly don’t want Republicans in my death bed with me.

Castle: Yeah.

Never mind that the Schiavo family was split on the matter in her case, and never mind that, by advocating the cessation of feeding and hydration, they are getting into a very personal matter as well. The important part is that Republican lawmakers have no say in the matter.

The discussion then turns to other matters, including abortion, always a hot button issue at the legislature. After talking about the merits of providing prenatal care to women who are in the country illegally, their focus turns to the efforts of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, who are tireless advocates on behalf of the unborn. Let's just say that Goodwin and Castle aren't impressed. This discussion takes place at about the 12 minute mark:

Goodwin: Yes. Absolutely, absolutely. So it doesn’t make sense and, in fact the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life – I’m sure you’re familiar with that group —

Castle: Oh, yes, in fact those initials spell out a year in the Middle Ages.

Goodwin (laughing): Yes, they do! That’s delightful.

Castle: In fact my friend the late Sue Rockne used to say that it spells out a year in the Middle Ages.

Goodwin: Well you know, what’s interesting is that the people who contribute to that group need to be careful about what they’re contributing to because I don’t think they know for sure, uh the MCCL took a neutral stand on that bill.

Castle: Ohh.

Goodwin: And I said uh, I said that I always was concerned about MCCL anyway, because my motto for them was, “life until birth.”

Castle: Yeah—

Goodwin: But, uh- [CROSSTALK]

Castle: Yeah I know because they don’t want to uh, fund welfare programs.

Goodwin: Yeah, but it’s – right. But it’s not only “life until birth,” it’s not even “life until birth” in this case because they didn’t even support allowing people to get prenatal care so they have healthy babies, which then society doesn’t end up having to take care of. So, it’s like what I’m saying, it’s a real conflict in thought, it’s not a clear and concise position that they have.

Castle: Yeah.

Goodwin: It’s situational ethics.

Again, never mind that the idea of providing prenatal care to women who aren't supposed to be in the state might encourage such women to come to, and remain in, Minnesota. There's no thought that the women, being rational human beings, might respond to incentives, or disincentives.

Castle offers a theory as to why the MCCL might hold the views it does, which leads to the following discussion:

Castle: It is clear when you consider that it comes from their religious beliefs, their doctrine.

Goodwin: Right.

Castle: Which says, you don’t have sex unless you intend to have babies and, it’s like the whole thing with same-sex marriage, you know, they’re working that one over, and so it’s only sex between one man and one woman and only when they’re married and if you can’t or don’t or – MCCL is against any program for Planned Parenthood—
Goodwin: Yes they are.

Castle: To prevent unplanned pregnancy. If you try to, say, let’s try to prevent this, they will not support a program that actually, uh, prevents pregnancies.

Goodwin: Absolutely.

That is hard to figure out -- why would a group that opposes abortion not want to work directly with the largest abortion provider in the country? Hard to imagine. Goodwin has an issue with it, though:

Goodwin: That’s a conflict. I would have actually more respect for them, in the 20 years I’ve been around the legislative process, because I worked at the House for several years and I’ve been in office for six. When uh, I never once, once not once, seen them come to the Legislature in support [of] child care, support anti-abuse, domestic abuse issues, support um, education, support health care for children. Not one time in 20 years. It’s all about abortion. And I would have respect for them if I could see some consistency in their thought, but I don’t see any consistency in their thought. In fact, they have fought against things that will uh, help people.

That there might be conflict among the MCCL membership about the proper course of action on any number of these issues seems not to occur to Goodwin. Of course, even if the MCCL signed on to the entire litany of issues that Goodwin wants them to, the MCCL wouldn't gain her support on abortion anyway. They would have her respect, though. That counts for something.

The discussion then turns to laws concerning the conduct of pharmacists, where a certain legislator who has been in the news lately makes an appearance:

Castle: Well, even the “morning after” pill, you know, I don’t even know if they’re doing much at the state level but even at the federal level they’re trying to prevent that from being an over-the-counter, uh, prescription.

Goodwin: Well absolutely, and that’s another health care issue that you’ve brought up – that’s a good one that’s also in the Minnesota Legislature this year and that is uh, whether or not pharmacists should be required to dispense medications that
physicians—

Castle: They got that one in the legislature, too?

Goodwin: Yes. What happened is that Representative Tom Emmer introduced a bill that would say that pharmacists can deny, they can, not sell prescriptions for any moral, ethical—

Castle: Ohhh!

Goodwin: And a whole slew of reasons. I had the opposite bill. I had a bill that said pharmacists, uh, pharmacies, I didn’t put it on the pharmacists, I said pharmacies, so if there was one pharmacist in there that had an objection, they could get some other pharmacist to fill the prescription, that they would have to fill the prescription.

Castle: Well, who’s gonna ring up these things? What if you come up to the cash register and you’ve got a package of condoms or something and then that person uh, doesn’t believe in that? “I refuse to ring that up”—

Goodwin: Exactly – where does it stop.

Castle: Oh, let’s bring another cashier up and – this is ridiculous. You’re hired to do a job and you go and do the job or else you go and—

Goodwin: Well right.

Castle: You go and find a job where it doesn’t conflict with your beliefs.

And where would that be? Castle has a suggestion:

Castle: No, Yeah, you know that people, they have their religious beliefs and when I say you have a right to your beliefs, but you have no right to force them on other people.

Goodwin: Absolutely not.

Castle: And if you’re at a job that requires you to serve the public and you have to do things that you don’t believe in, then find a different job.

Goodwin: Yes.

Castle: Or uh, just work in a Catholic hospital or something like that.

Goodwin: Exactly.

So what is life like in a Catholic hospital? Goodwin and Castle explain all that, and more, in Part II.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Bye Bye Brewster Edition

Sorry we're a little late -- I was out last night watching an Irondale football game.

So how did that go, grasshopper?

We lost to North Branch. What is up with that? But that's in the past now, and I look to the future. Even though certain coaches may not have much of a future, if what we're seeing in the papers this morning is true. So let's pick the games before anyone gets fired.

Minnesota Golden Job Openings (+5 1/2) vs. Purdon't Boilermakers. Rumor has it that Tim Brewster is going to get fired if he doesn't pull out a win today. Purdue is about a middle of the pack Big Ten team, but the Gophers haven't proven they can win at home, much less on the road. Be on the lookout for a guy looking through the classifieds. Purdon't 35, Fire Brewster 10.

Here's an idea -- Brewster and Glen Mason should change seats. Mason can go back to the Gophers and Brewster can be an analyst on the Big Ten Network and take veiled shots at Bret Bielema the rest of the season. I had a bad feeling about this hire when it was made and it's turned out even worse than I thought it would. You should be able to win at Minnesota, especially with the beautiful new stadium. Someone will, but it won't be Tim Brewster. Purdue 34, Gophers 28.

The Ohio State University Buckeyes (-4) vs. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers. Meanwhile, in Madison Bret Bielema doesn't have to worry about joining Brewster on the unemployment line. The Badgers are facing their toughest game of the season. I'm going to play devil's advocate about Ohio State. I don't think they're the best dang team in the land because they don't have that good of a non-conference schedule and it's about time the team that plays on Smurf Turf is ranked #1. Terrelle Prior is like Art Schlichter, who had talent but was overrated and can easily be stopped. It's going to be close, but Wisconsin is going to pull it off. Badgers 24, Craig Krenzel Nation 20.

We'll leave the discussion of Boise State aside for now. As for the game, the Badgers will have trouble with Prior, especially if the Buckeyes can keep J. J. Watt blocked. The key of this game will be keeping Prior off the field. If the Badgers can run the ball well, they'll pull the upset. I'm not convinced they will, though. Ohio State 28, Wisconsin 23.

The Eyes of Texas Are Upon YOU (+9 1/2) vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers. During the Mack Brown era, Texas has been one of the best teams in the nation. They've won national championships and are always high in the polls. However, Texas would want Colt McCoy back. Uh, no. You can't have him back, Mack Brown. Muahahaha! Nebraska comes into the game led by Taylor Martinez, who is doing his best impersonation of Michael Vick in his prime, minus the dogfighting. Nebraska absolutely manhandled Kansas State last week and Texas has never lost 3 straight since 1999. Cornhuskers 73, Texas 0.

Whatever you say, young fella. The interest here is that these schools were the antagonists who essentially punched holes in the Big XII. Nebraska felt that Texas was too dominant in how the league was run and resented it, which made it easy for them to leave for the Big Ten next year. The two schools really dislike each other, so this will be a nasty game. I do think Nebraska will win. Maybe not by 73 points, though. Nebraska 31, Texas 20.

Dallas How 'Bout Them Cowboahs (+ 1 1/2) vs. Minnesota Vikings. This is basically an elimination game for both teams. Whoever loses probably won't make the playoffs and won't be playing in the House That Jerry Built in a few months. If you're a regular reader, you know how much I dislike Tony Romo. However, the Cowboys have the most to lose and will play incredibly desperate against a Viking team that's dealing with Textgate. I need not explain what's going on. Look for Romo to have a career day against a depleted Vikings secondary. Cowboahs 42, Vi-Queens 10.

Is it just me, or does Favre look like Willie Mays did in a Mets uniform right now? He made some great throws against the Jets, but every time he did he held his arm like it was going to fall off. I think the Vikings are the better team, but I really wonder about the psyche of the team right now. I've said it before: live by the Favre, die by the Favre. Cowboys 31, Vikings 27.

Miami Tuna Net Victims (+3) vs. Glorious but Depleted Green Bay Packers. Things aren't much better on the other side of the St. Croix. It seems that half the Packers are currently splitting time between the practice field and St. Vincent Hospital in Green Bay. And of course, the hospital in Green Bay had to be named St. Vincent. Thank goodness that Aaron Rodgers can suit up and can those Dolphins, who are starting to look like a magician that uses his best trick way too often. The Wildcat isn't really fooling anyone these days. St. Vincent 24, Sorry Charlie 10.

I really wonder about this game. Rodgers looks to be fine, but the problem seems to be on the other end of his passes. The Packers dropped a lot of passes last week and that has to stop. Losing Jermichael Finley is a huge blow, too. It sounds like Clay Matthews may not play either. I still think the Packers have enough to win this week, but they'd better get healthy soon or this season will disintegrate. Packers 24, Dolphins 20.

Seattle Seabags (+6 1/2) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. It looks like Cold Cut Cutler is going to take over for the ever-present Todd Collins, who compensates for his lack of talent by being indecisive and very, very old. It's amazing that he's still in the league. What's even more amazing is that the Seabags are starting to be respectable under Pete "Fun and Gun" Carroll. I will agree with Gino and say the Bears will win. Da Bearz 20, Seabags 0.

The Bears are resourceful. There's no way in hell that they should be leading the division, but there they are and my guess is that they will be the team to beat the rest of the way. Cutler's health will be a key factor, but right now the Bears are going through a stretch where they play a lot of weak teams. If they can hold serve, the Packers and Vikings may not be able to catch up down the line. Bears 24, Seattle 17.

Next week it's the return of Grandpa Text Message to Green Bay. Hopefully he doesn't send any more text messages, or else he's going to get a lot of angry signs. And that endorsement deal with AT & T? Forget about it! Ben out!

Are You Happy to Pay for Mark Dayton's Better Minnesota?

Mark Dayton claims that he wants a Better Minnesota. His campaign echoes the message posted on signs that many liberals have displayed in their yards for years, next to the dog-eared Wellstone signs. These folks claim that they are Happy to Pay for a Better Minnesota.

Perhaps you are Happy to Pay, too, or at least believe that you are. There are a few problems with the scenario and you won't be paying for this Better Minnesota in a vacuum.

You must remember this: unless Congress acts in the lame duck session, the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of the year. If you make enough money to pay federal income taxes, your taxes will go up. There's an excellent tool here that can help you understand the impact. Go ahead and test it out. Meanwhile, here are a few examples of what will happen if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire:

Scenario 1: Amber and Jason Smith, a young family of four, makes a combined income of around $60,000 a year. Jason is a mid-level office worker and Amber works on the weekends. With typical deductions, their taxable income would be about $38,000 a year. If the Bush tax cuts are extended (or better yet, made permanent), their federal tax burden would be $4,716.00. If the tax cuts expire, their tax burden would be $5,435.00. That's an increase of $719, or 14%. Would losing $719 hurt this family? I think so.

Scenario 2: Steve and Lisa Jones are a middle-class family with two teenage kids. Steve is an actuary and Lisa is the part-time office manager of a small company. They make a combined income of $110,000 a year. They might have a few things that help shelter their taxable income, so their deductions would bring their taxable income down to about $75,000.00. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, their federal tax burden would be $17,266.00. If the tax cuts expire, their tax burden would be $19,202.00. That's an increase of $1,936.00, or 11%.

Scenario 3: Lance and Maria Miller are a financially successful family with two kids in college. Lance owns and operates a small internet-based media company that essentially markets Lance's web design services. Maria spends her time either helping Lance with the business or doing volunteer work. They operate their business out of their home in Plymouth. Their income is $275,000 a year. With deductions and the services of a savvy accountant, they might have a taxable income of, say, $210,000 a year. If the Bush tax cuts are extended, their federal tax burden would be $75,333.00. If the tax cuts expire, their tax burden would be $82,817.00. That's an increase of $7,484.00, or 10%.

I don't think we need to play any violins for a family making $275,000 a year generally, but think about that -- do you think taking an extra $623 a month would affect the Miller Family's cash flow?

That's not the end of the story, though, since Mark Dayton wants a crack at the Millers, too. Currently at the top state income tax rate of 7.85% they'd be paying about $16,485 in state income taxes. Under Dayton's new plan, with a rate of 11.95%, they would be on the hook for $22,995, or $6,510 in new taxes. That works out to an additional $542.50 a month.

Now let's think about this in total. The Millers, evil rich people that they are, would be on the hook for $105,812 in taxes. I would wager that a large number of people who read this feature don't make a combined gross income of $105,812, to say nothing of having a tax bill of that size.

Perhaps Mark Dayton and his friends could spend this $22,995 of the Millers's income -- don't pretend that Dayton et al. would "invest" the money, because they will spend it -- in a more productive way than the Millers would. After all, Dayton aims to hire a lot of government workers to provide services and that $22,995 he gets from the Millers would help to pay at least part of the salary of a deputy undersecretary of something or other.

The thing is, families like the Millers are rare. The median household income in 2008 in Minnesota was $57,318, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Given that salaries have been essentially flat for the past few years and the unemployment rate has increased, I would wager that the median household income for 2010 will be about the same as it was in 2008, and that's the best case scenario. This is why Dayton is having such trouble balancing his proposed budget -- there simply isn't the money to pay for what he wants to do.

Here's the other thing -- it would be a tough thing financially for the Smiths or the Joneses to pull up stakes and move, because they work for other people. The Millers, because they run a business that can operate anywhere, can leave any time they'd like. And if the Millers decide that they don't want to Pay for a Better Minnesota and move elsewhere, Dayton is out of luck. And since Lance Miller's company is basically himself, he and Maria can easily pull up stakes and move to South Dakota, or Florida, or someplace else, and save a lot of money. In the case of South Dakota or Florida, which do not have a state income tax, they would save somewhere in the neighborhood of $22,295 off the bat, if I'm not mistaken. They might pay more in sales and property taxes and other fees in those other states, but they are currently paying sales and property taxes in Minnesota. And the sales tax rate in Minnesota is higher at 6.875% (and more than that in Plymouth because of the additional taxes Hennepin County adds) than it is in either Florida (6%) or South Dakota (4%).

You can support Dayton and hope that he figures all this out. But he's not going be able to balance the budget or supply half the things he's promised if he drives out people like Lance and Maria Miller. Would the Smiths and the Joneses be able to make up the difference? I'm skeptical. Maybe a Minnesota with a Governor Mark Dayton and without Lance and Maria Miller would be a Better Minnesota. That's not the way to bet, though.

Home Truth

Sheila Kihne runs the outstanding blog The Activist Next Door and she has a fantastic piece that amounts to a very unauthorized biographical sketch of Mark Dayton. It's chock full of history about the candidate that a lot of people would prefer you not know. There's just a ton of things I could excerpt, but I do want to call attention to this section:

Here are two facts:

1. During his very first job out-of-college as "a teacher"-Mark Dayton couldn't handle the pressure- he took time off to protest and he quit in the middle of a school year for "personal reasons."

2. During his last job as U.S. Senator- He couldn't handle the pressure in D.C.-- he shut down his office and started drinking to deal with the stress.

The media has covered for him, but worse than that they've actually lied for him. For years every profile has perpetuated the myth that Dayton is hard-working. He may be a hard-campaigner (who isn’t?), that doesn't mean he's a hard-worker. I know people who are great at getting jobs, but once that goal has been met—they get bored, complacent, or overwhelmed. He reminds me of Obama in this regard. He'll work his butt off to accomplish a goal that involves some self-fulfillment, but when reality doesn't match his expectations, he simply can't handle it.

With a $6 Billion budget deficit...we need somebody who can handle it.

Damn straight. We've elected some really odd people in recent history, but for all their faults, neither Jesse Ventura nor Al Franken were mentally ill. Dayton is a perennial candidate with a trust fund, an Ole Savior or Edmond Hou-Seye with nearly limitless resources and no brakes. It would be madness to elect this man Governor.

And don't forget to read the whole thing -- there's more, a whole lot more, that you need to know about Mark Dayton.

Different Issue, Same Complaint

I did not serve in the military, so I don't presume to know about the wisdom of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But I would suggest four things about yesterday's ruling by federal court judge that throws the policy out:

• We have an all-volunteer military, which erodes some of the constitutional imperative in this case.
• While times have changed since the policy was implemented in the 1990s, the military has eminently practical reasons for wanting to control the behavior of individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc. There are plenty of ways to run afoul of the UCMJ for heterosexual behavior. This federal judge apparently doesn't care about any of that.
• It's also worth remembering that the status quo ante of DADT was that the military would actively pursue any homosexuals within its ranks and get rid of them. It would be a hell of an unintended consequence if that's how things now happen.
• But as always, my biggest complaint is judicial overreach. This judge is substituting her own policy preference for the wisdom, such as it is, of a former President and the entire military establishment. As a federal judge, she is unelected and unaccountable. While her decision can (and probably will) be appealed, it remains a real problem that she can wield this sort of power.

Just a few questions

Unless Congress takes action in the lame duck session, the tax cuts passed under the previous administration will expire. That means all Americans who make enough money to pay income tax will see their taxes go up in 2011. In fact, those in the lowest bracket (10%) will see their federal taxes go up to 15%, a 50% increase.

So, do you have the extra money? Will this affect your cash flow? Your ability to save or invest? Now, ask yourself the following question: do you really think that Mark Dayton is going to be able to close the budget gap his proposals engender without clawing after your wallet? Really?

One last question: how well do you suppose that a guy who was treated for mental illness within the last five years will handle the stress of being governor?

You might really want to think hard about that last question. Just sayin'.

Seeing and Denying the Light

It's an interesting thing: because of the earth's rotation, the sun comes up on the Eastern Seaboard before it does in the Midwest. Yet only now are some denizens of the East starting to see the light:

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Well, Mark Halperin is a little late to the party, but glad that he's figured all that out. Or has he?

Most of Obama's private (and sometimes public) rebuttals to the voices slamming him on all sides are justified or spot on. He did inherit a lot of problems from the Bush Administration. He did act quickly in the initial weeks of his Administration to stave off a worldwide depression. His efforts at job creation have been obstructed by Republicans (even the proposals based on policies supported by the GOP in the past). His opponents haven't put forth specifics of their own, nor offered genuine compromise, while the media have allowed the right's activists and gabbers to run wild with criticism without furnishing legitimate alternative solutions.

Most of this litany is crap, of course. Republicans haven't been a position to obstruct anything -- they have been unified in opposition, but the House and Senate have strong enough majorities that they have been able to bull through plenty of things, at least until the congressional Democrats who are going to face the voters in this cycle realized that many of their consituents wanted no part of what they were offering. Halperin also knows that there are a number of GOP alternatives available, some quite specific. I'd also ask what specific compromises he'd suggest the GOP make. Specificity cuts both ways, no? And don't you wonder when the media were given the power to decide whether or not "the right's activists and gabbers" were allowed to run wild with criticism? It's hard out here for a gatekeeper, I guess.

So how do you square Halperin's complaints with these observations, also from the same piece?

On Friday, after the release of the latest bleak unemployment data — the last major jobs figures before the midterms — Obama said, "Putting the American people back to work, expanding opportunity, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class is the moral and national challenge of our time." But elites feel the President has failed to meet that challenge and are convinced he will be unable to do so in the remainder of his term. Moreover, there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.

Guess what, Mr. Halperin -- you said the secret word. It's uncertainty. No one can plan for the future if there's a sense that what you are working on might get confiscated by the state. I don't know whether my taxes are going up next year or not, although they will unless the current Congress takes action, because I do make enough money to pay income taxes. My employer, a privately held company, faces uncertainty on any number of fronts for the same reason. And there's a reason for why we are uncertain. Too bad Mr. Halperin doesn't quite want to see it.

Couldn't be more proud

Behold the great thoughts of David Axelrod, who was given an honorary doctorate from my alma mater, Beloit College, this year:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.

Axelrod was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”

“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.”

It's always great fun to prove a negative. Let's demonstrate the technique on Mr. Axelrod.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that David Axelrod has the burden of proving false the charge by agribusiness groups that the White House senior advisor is having carnal relations with sheep.

USCC spokesman Billy Sol Estes was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that Axelrod's noctural overtures toward ovines is more than “voyeurism.”

“Do you have any evidence that he isn't, Bob?” Estes said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that Axelrod has asserted that, but he won’t release any information about why one of our representatives saw wool on his trousers. And that’s at the core of the problem.”

Now everyone knows that Axelrod hasn't actually been having sex with sheep, since sheep generally won't return his phone calls. There are a lot of people who supported Mr. Axelrod's boss who are now feeling sheepish, though.

I have not been able to verify if Beloit College gave Joseph McCarthy an honorary doctorate in 1951, but we'll be checking on that.

Memo to Tim Brewster

Stop whining. The Badgers ran up the score on your Gophers because your team wasn't able to do anything about it. Win a few games and maybe you'll get a little more respect.

That is all.

Mysteries

A while ago, the D's were at dinner and we started talking about an unsolved case that was in the news again recently. A couple of decades ago Jacob Wetterling, a young boy here in Minnesota, was abducted and has never been seen again. You can read about it here.



Anyway, the conversation turned to other mysteries. We came up with this list.

Who turned Anne Frank's family in to the police?

Where exactly did Amelia Earhart's plane go down?

Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone or were there other participants in the shooting of President Kennedy?

What happened to D. B. Cooper?

What happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

Do you have any other mysteries to add to the list? Do you think any of these will ever be solved?

Eight is enough

Nate Silver projects that Steve Kagen is going down in WI-8. Aside from perhaps Alan Grayson in FL-8, this couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Border Battle Edition, Y'All

Welcome back my friends, to the HYYYYYPPPPE!!! that never ends. You'll get your 100% dosage of doctor-recommended HYYYYYPPPPE!!! right here, pal.

Not that there was any doubt about that. But a simple, honest question, young fella -- what if our readers want a gentler approach to their picks?

Not. Going. To. Happen. If they want it, they can listen to Hank Goldberg mumbling about some stats on ESPN. They might call Hank "Hammerin' Hank," but I, Benster, bring the Hammer of the Gods. I'm wailing like a Valkyrie right now! Take your Lawrence Welk and go home, old dude!

Your YouTube-fu is strong, youngblood. Best we pick the games before something really bad happens.

I'm not done, because this is going to scare you.

Wow, that's some really old cheese. Okay, pick the games before this gets any worse.

Minnesota Golden Job Openings (+22) vs. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers. Is Badger AD Barry Alvarez paying Vegas for this point spread? That's even more insane than some of my scores. I fully expect the Gophers to actually show up and play like they're supposed to. However, the Gophers haven't won in Madison since before I was born and the Badgers have won a lot recently in this rivalry, no matter the venue. And they want to forget what happened in East Lansing last week. Badger Badger Badger 100, Fire Brewster (and Maturi) 0.

Uh, no. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Adam Weber is the master of garbage time scores and he's wrecked more than a few point spreads in his career. He deserves much better than he's had to endure in his career. But he doesn't have a lot of help right now. Badgers will win, but they won't win by 22. Wisconsin 37, Minnesota 20.

Sparty the Spartan (+4 1/2) vs. Meeshegan Wolverines. I'd like to tell you about Denard Robinson, but he runs so fast I'm having a hard time seeing him. Rumor has it that he could be the next Michael Vick, except he's been fully investigated by the Humane Society and there's no trouble. Also, Sparty Coach Mark Dantonio should be at the game this week. We all wish him the very best. Meeshegan 70, Sparty 20.

I'm not sure Robinson is quite that fast, Ben. The Spartans impressed me last week in the way they were able to ram the ball down my the throats of the Badgers. This could be a really herky-jerky kinda game, but I'm sold on the Spartans. Michigan State 31, Michigan 27.

LSU Bayou Bengals (+7) vs. Florida Gators. Time to break out some SEC footbaugh, as those grits-filled Johnny Rebs would say. Florida is trying to find out Tebow can come back and have his 16th year of eligibility. The Gators need to right the ship after losing to Alabama last week. I think Alabama is overrated, but we'll leave that aside. LSU won last week because Tennessee seemed to have a little trouble with math. Maybe we could have Fearless Maria take them to her GEM program. So when I do the math on this game, I see it this way: LSU 31, Florida 30.

I haven't seen LSU play this year, so I'm not sure what to say about this one. Florida seems to be a little down this year, though, so the opportunity is there for LSU to steal one. But since they already stole one last week, I think the law of averages catches up to them this time. Florida 24, LSU 17.

Minnesota Mossbacks (+4) vs. New York J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS. Randy Moss is back and he's ready to ball. We hear that he doesn't even get a bye week. That's enough justice for what happened all those years ago in the end zone at Lambeau. I would actually put Percy Harvin on Revis Island instead of Moss. Why? Because Benedict Brent will still be getting used to Moss. Also, Harvin is way more dangerous and then you can focus on stopping Adrian "Fumble Man" Peterson. J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS 20, Mossbacks 17.

Wow, that almost made sense! The Vikings have some issues to deal with, especially if some of the weird stories currently circulating about Favre turn out to be true. I did love Moss's comment about "what if I'd been on that boat?" He wasn't, but the question is now whether he's on a sinking ship now. We'll find out a lot on Monday night. Jets 24, Vikings 20.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (-2 1/2) vs. Washington Out-of-Control Federal Spending. I believe this is a no politics zone, but we couldn't resist that one. Are you reading this Mark Dayton? Anyway, back to the game. The Packers desperately need a running back and they didn't get one this week. I would recommend Julius Jones, who is out there because of Marshawn Lynch taking his job away in Seattle. Meanwhile, the Packers will plod along with Brandon Jackson and Jon Kuhn, the modern-day Barty Smith. However, Dom Capers has to deal with Donovan McNabb and my Fantasy Football Stud Santana Moss. I would recommend either a combo man zone or a big dose of Woodson. Acme Packing Company 35, Federal Debt 7.

This won't be easy. I don't think the Redskins are that good, but the Packers have a lot of injuries and McNabb has been a thorn in their side. Fortunately, he's not with the Eagles any more. Packers win, but it will be close. Packers 21, Redskins 17.

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+1) vs. Sweet Carolina Panthers. Sing along with me, old fella! Sweet Caroline (duh duh duh), good times never seemed so good! Nothing like breaking out 40-year old songs completely out of context. Good times, all right! Anyway, back to the game. Justice has been restored, courtesy of the New York Football Giant defense, which sacked Jay Cutler approximately 4,326 times last week. Cutler won't play this week and that means it's yet another appearance from 84-year-old Todd Collins, who was the quarterback at Michigan before Tom Brady and Rick Leach, I think. I was thinking about making a Rex Grossman reference, but that's like linking to Justin Bieber. Which I will not do. Never. Ever. Got that, old dude? Also, it's the return of Julius Peppers to Rome, I mean Charlotte. Jimmy Clausen, better watch your back. Sweet Carolina 10, da Bearz 7.

I don't see a lot of offense in this game, either. In fact, the game should be downright offensive. I hope I'm wrong about this pick, though: Bears 16, Panthers 13.

Randy Moss -- better not even consider doing anything in the end zone. Then again, maybe he'll never make it to the end zone this time around. Ben out!

il miglior fabbro

Doctor Zero on the 10:10 video:

Was this film an expression of radical environmentalism’s murderous id, as James Delingpole of the Telegraph suggests? It certainly has an aura of savage, juvenile wish fulfillment. I prefer to view it as a graphic illustration of the Left’s hollow inability to deal with dissent. The film is designed to enforce groupthink by portraying dissenters as contemptible jokes. They’re organic garbage, easily disposed of with the push of a red button. The kids who get blown up are apathetic, a few seconds away from falling asleep during their teacher’s important lecture about reasonable steps good people can take to reduce their carbon emissions. The office workers in the second skit are pathetic losers with sunken eyes. The soccer coach in the third skit is a self-absorbed jerk. In a perfect world, the elite would be able to sweep these useless people aside. They’re so disgusting they should be squashed like bugs.

To the global-warming fanatic, doubters have already thrown their lives away. If they insist on their lavish capitalist lifestyles, and thwart the efforts of all-knowing environmentalists, they’ll drown in the rising seas, or get flash-fried when the ozone layer peels back. There is no need to engage the arguments of such traitors to the biosphere, or respect their “freedom.” Note the recurring “joke,” repeated mindlessly throughout the video, in which the victims are assured they have complete freedom to make up their own minds, and should feel “no pressure.” This is the idea our filmmakers find so absurd they dismiss it with a geyser of adolescent blood. The point is made repeatedly: you’re a contemptible idiot if you think you have free choice in the matter of global warming. You will indeed feel pressure, from the boiling atmosphere. Virtue can only be found in submission to the Green agenda – the sole alternative is glassy-eyed, apathetic evil. Climate-change deniers are consuming air that noble environmentalists could put to better use.

People can be damned inconvenient that way. The key is to keep individuals who think this way from having dominion over your life. And as always, read the whole thing.

Collin Peterson Conducts a Controlled Experiment

Tim Walz and Jim Oberstar might be sweating out the run-up to November 2, but obviously Collin Peterson isn't worried about the upcoming election. How do we know this? He apparently doesn't feel any need to be circumspect about his view of the, shall we say, intellectual curiosity of his constituents. He told Congressional Quarterly the following (H/T: Captain Ed):

More importantly, Peterson doesn’t expect that his constituents — other than those who have voted against him in the past — feel the same anger stirring up races in much of the country. Unemployment is low in his heavily agricultural district, he said.

“If they didn’t hear all this negative stuff from the national press, if they would’ve been isolated from everything the last three to four years, they wouldn’t have even known anything was going on,” he said. “Nothing’s changed.”

Now I have it on good authority that the REA went through that area back in the 30s, so they do have the potential of receiving electronic communication. Maybe they don't have the internet out there in Thief River Falls? Or perhaps the 7th is some sort of Brigadoon, insulated from the rest of the world. Somehow I doubt that either scenario is true. What's striking about Peterson's comments is the arrogance of them. He clearly doesn't think his constituents are capable of coming up with political opinions that aren't handed to them by Katie Couric or the other news readers who offer a window to the world in between Metamucil ads.

My theory is this is a controlled experiment. After all, if Peterson is correct and his constituents only know what they hear from the "national press," there's little chance that his derogatory commentary will ever reach his constituents and they'll simply pull the lever for him like they always have. If Peterson wins easily, I guess his theory will be proved correct.

Sports Break

Goodness knows that the politics aren't going away, so let's talk sports for a minute:

• So Randy Moss is coming back to Minnesota. It's hard to say if this will help the Vikings or not. Much has changed in Minnesota since he left -- it's a different coaching staff and nearly the entire roster has turned over in the last 5 years. If I remember correctly, the only regular on offense who was here when Moss last played in Minnesota is Jim Kleinsasser. He'll have to get acclimated to the new regime in much the same way he would have if he'd been traded anywhere else. Moss is still a tremendous talent but he remains a problematic teammate. If the Vikings locker room is already fractious, and there is reason to believe it is, he could easily make things worse. But in the end, you can't blame the Vikings for making the move -- this is probably the last chance the current group has and they are already in a hole.
• Meanwhile, it was an all-too-familiar scene across town as the Twins once again took an early lead against the Yankees, coughed it up in the middle innings and flailed away without effect against Mariano Rivera at the end. I think a lot of people are going to question Jesse Crain's effort, but it comes down to this: to beat the Yankees, you have to play flawlessly. The Twins have done some remarkable things this year but there's still a decided talent gap. If you compare the two teams, the only positions where the Twins have an advantage are at catcher and perhaps left field, but that's close -- I prefer Brett Gardner to Delmon Young in the field -- he probably saved the Yankees a run in the first inning with his speed, holding Denard Span to a single. It's going to be tough to beat the Yankees.

The Expectations Game

You don't always get what you want, as Michael Barone reminds us:

When Howard Dean's supporters were declaring that they wanted to "take our country back" in 2003 and 2004, they weren't talking about repealing the Bush tax cuts. They were talking about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and taking a more conciliatory and respectful stance to the leaders of Old Europe and revolutionary Iran.

Similarly, Obama's refusal in 2007 and 2008 to admit that there was even a smidgen of success to George W. Bush's surge strategy in Iraq -- even today he will only hint that the surge worked -- cannot be chalked up to an intellectual incapacity to assimilate the facts.

It can only be explained as an unwillingness to rile the base of the Democratic Party whose concerns, as we know from Bob Woodward's account of the president's conduct of deliberations over what to do in Afghanistan, are never far from his mind.

Nevertheless, he has left these Democrats disappointed.

This seems right to me. Which brings us to an inconvenient notion from Mickey Kaus:

But you have to wonder if a GOP leader like potential House Speaker John Boehner even wants to win big in November. It's not just that Boehner needs to temper public predictions of triumph, lest a small victory be played by the media as a defeat. It's that a small victory might, for at least two reasons, actually be the best outcome for him. 1) A sizable GOP House majority would raise expectations that Boehner actually accomplish something--maybe even restraining the size of government. That's very difficult to do even when you control all three branches, and isn't necessarily popular when you do it. Tactically, with a big House majority, Boehner would feel pressure to pull the sort of stunt--a government shutdown to repeal Obama's health plan?--that got Newt Gingrich into trouble; 2) A large GOP wave would sweep into Congress fringe, outsider Tea Partyish elements who would be hard to manage and might rebel against the chummy relations between the party's leaders and lobbyists. You could even see obstreperous TPs making trouble for the Republicans' corporate backers.

This is true, too, I think. It's worth remembering that Republicans, especially establishment Republicans, aren't necessarily conservatives. And it's also worth remembering that the best outcome for John Boehner isn't necessarily the best outcome for you.

I believe that the Democrats richly deserve ouster and that many will get what they deserve on November 2. The thing that conservatives need to remember is this: once you elect replacements, the real job is keeping the replacements on task.

Another data point

If you want to live, you'd better be wanted:

Miss Ironside said: 'If a baby's going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.'

She added: 'If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face... If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.

The good news is that these comments, made on the BBC and reported in the Daily Mail, apparently shocked a lot of people. The bad news is that Miss Ironside is hardly alone in feeling this way. There's a lot of very casual callousness and cruelty about, as evidenced by the 10:10 video I wrote about on Sunday. Both of these examples come from Britain, where the secular winds have blown with greater force. One would hope that this sort of thinking hasn't infected our shores. One would be wrong, of course. We'll be talking about that in the coming days.

Put Down that Hayek

Can't be reading the dead white men:

Pamphlets in the Tea Party bid for a Second American Revolution, the works include Frédéric Bastiat’s “The Law,” published in 1850, which proclaimed that taxing people to pay for schools or roads was government-sanctioned theft, and Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (1944), which argued that a government that intervened in the economy would inevitably intervene in every aspect of its citizens’ lives.

Kate Zernike finds all this alarming, of course. I take it as good news, because if we extend the rule against taking using the ideas of dead white men to its logical conclusion, that means we are finally rid of Howard Zinn.

The opposite of public relations and a moment of truth

The 10:10 campaign is an effort by Big Green to get people and governments to impose a 10% cut in their carbon emissions. As part of their marketing efforts, 10:10 engaged the services of British filmmaker Richard Curtis to make a short film called "No Pressure." You have to see the film to believe it. It's so shockingly nasty that its makers have been playing a sort of whack-a-mole game on YouTube, where it appears and disappears. The link at Powerline works, and I believe the link at the Telegraph works, too.

If these links disappear, here's a very brief synopsis. We are shown four vignettes: a schoolteacher speaking to her pupils, an office manager speaking to his staff, a soccer team speaking to its coach and a woman doing a voiceover for the film itself speaking with a man at the control board of the recording studio. In each instance, individuals are asked if they are willing to participate in the efforts of the 10:10 project, with people given an opportunity to decline, because there's ostensibly "no pressure" involved. Once those who refuse are identified, the teacher, manager, team and producer all respectively reveal a red button, which they press. When the button is pressed, those who refuse to go along are blown up, with blood spattering everyone in the vicinity, as shown in the picture accompanying this post.

Nice, huh? As James Delingpole says in the Telegraph:

With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

Do you think that's overstating the case? You'd like to think that it is, but I'm not sure. If you doubt that, consider the blithe response the 10:10 people offered when confronted with the overwhelming disgust their little film has engendered (from the Delingpole post, emphasis mine):

Sorry.

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website.

We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team.

Now, I know nothing says comedy quite like making a film in which people are killed for comic effect. Actually I can think of two excellent examples -- the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones casually blows away a sword-wielding dude in the marketplace, and the final scene in Dr. Strangelove, in which Slim Pickens rides an atomic bomb. But there were crucial differences -- the scene in Raiders was just a throwaway, while Stanley Kubrick's message was deeply rooted in concerns about the machinery of war, a consistent theme in his work. Although Kubrick was a bit of a misanthrope at times, he did value humanity. Do you get a sense that the people at 10:10 value humanity?

Read through the comments of the 10:10 team again -- doesn't the "sorry if you were offended" and "oh well, live and learn" tone of the note betray something quite callous at its core? And does it not amaze you that if over 50 people worked on this 4 Minute Hate, not one apparently thought to question the message? There's an amazing amount of cynicism involved, and even more immaturity.

It takes a special kind of intellectual and moral blindness to commission and distribute a film like this. I'm glad that 10:10 did, though, because it reveals something that we all need to know. I'd also suggest that we ought to ask some of our more environmentally-conscious candidates for public office whether or not they found this movie amusing. No pressure, though.

The Class of 2011?

Stole this idea from Ann Althouse. The list of the 2011 nominees for the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame is out. The nominees include:

Alice Cooper

The Beastie Boys

Bon Jovi

Chic

Neil Diamond

Donovan

Dr. John

The J. Geils Band

LL Cool J

Darlene Love

Laura Nyro

Donna Summer

Joe Tex

Tom Waits

Chuck Willis

Whom would you pick? I would pick 3 of these acts, but I'm not going to tip my hand. Let me know your choice(s) in the comments section. And don't forget to vote in the latest Guilty Pleasures, too, or else Fearless Maria is gonna get ya.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Irondale High School Homecoming Edition, Baybee!

Oh yeah. There's plenty of HYYYYYYYYYPPPPPE in the air right now, because I got a game to go to in just a few minutes. So you'd better pick up the pace, old dude!

Okay, grasshopper. Besides, I wouldn't want to miss the Early Bird Special.

That's what they all say. But I say it's time to pick. So here we go, sports fans!

Robbinsdale Cooper Hawks (NL) vs. Glorious, Wonderful, Earth-Shatteringly Great Irondale Knights. I am surprised that Vegas didn't issue a line on this North Suburban showdown. But I know the truth here. So you're wondering why we're picking this game? Well, I, the Benster, am an Irondale student and this is Homecoming Week, so that means we've scheduled a real epic game. And my beloved Knights are going to pull another victory over the overmanned Hawks. Irondale 30, Cooper 24.

Well, I don't know much about Cooper, except that they haven't beaten Irondale in football since they've joined the conference. No reason to believe they'll start this week. Benster and his buds will cheer the mighty Knights on to victory. Irondale 37, Cooper 17.

Northwestern Wildcat Offense (-5) vs. Minnesota Golden Brewsters. I'm officially on Tim Brewster Firing Watch. The Gophers could probably be beaten by Irondale right now, because they haven't played up to their potential. It doesn't seem likely that a team that loses to South Dakota can beat a decent Big Ten team, even at home. However, I subscribe to the "desperate teams at home" theory that we've offered here before and it's also Homecoming for the Gophers. But everyone wants to go to Irondale tonight! Fire Brewster 100, Wildcat 3.

So you think the Gophers are going to beat the spread, huh? Well, that's a profoundly silly score, young fella. I'm looking through the schedule for the Gophers and I don't see a win on the horizon. And that would include this week. Northwestern 27, Gophers 20.

Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (-1 1/2) vs. Sparty the Spartan. Last week the Badgers defeated Austin "Yo Man, Where's the" Peay by a score that sounds like one of my predictions. Sparty is one of those teams that is trying to chase Ohio State and Iowa and I expect that the Spartans will finish 4th or 5th in the Big Ten this year. Bucky hasn't won in East Lansing for a while, but the series has been even lately and I predict that the Badgers will come out on top in a close game. Bucky 20, Sparty 13.

That's a surprisingly rational pick from you, youngblood! It actually shows reason and maturity. Say, who are you and what have you done with my son? Anyway, the Badgers are finally healthy and will have all their main weapons at their disposal this week. Getting Nick Toon and David Gilreath back will make a big difference in the passing and return games. The Spartans are a solid team but they don't have anyone who really moves the needle this year. So look for the Badgers to escape their first test, but barely. Badgers 31, Spartans 27.

Stanford Cardinal (+7) vs. Oregon Ducks. I just love to watch Oregon play -- they run a lot of option and have a lot of scary skill players, even without Jeremiah Masoli, last seen wandering around Mississippi. I predict a total domination by the Duck. Quack Quack 91, Tree 0.

You may not be aware of this, but I think Stanford is actually going to show up in Autzen Stadium tomorrow. Stanford is a pretty good outfit and they have an excellent quarterback. I think the Ducks will win, but it won't be that easy. Oregon 37, Stanford 31.

Motor City Kitties (+14 1/2) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. All I can say about last week is thank goodness Jeff Triplette wasn't working the game, or the Packers would have had 39 penalties instead of the 18 they incurred. It's obvious that the Packers need a decent running back and maybe a defensive lineman or two. I would recommend finding another Samkon Gado or maybe a Vince Workman. I hear they're both available and awaiting Ted Thompson's phone call. The Lions stink. Matthew Stafford was a horrible #1 pick and will go into the Hall of Failure in Detroit, which is pretty much everyone's residence. Yes, even you, Rodney Peete! Packers 56, Little Friskies in a Can 2.

Yeah, I bet Vince Workman is available. The Lions are going to have a difficult time scoring this week and the Packers, well, won't. It will be a little closer than my overexuberant colleague believes, but maybe not that much. Packers 38, Lions 13.

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+4) vs. New York Football Giants. Are ya happy, Gino? You got what you wanted, but just remember that next time the game is in the land of the free and the home of the Curly. Meanwhile, the Giants are playing like Betty White out there. I do not expect Eli Manning to survive the season. Yes, I said it: Eli's not coming back next year. He's going to get the pink slip. So therefore Eli needs a Snickers bar. Da Bearz 20, Betty White 19.

I re-read that last paragraph and I have no idea what you're talking about, youthful type. Better get used to that, I suppose. Oh, and the Giants will win the game. Giants 24, Bears 16.

I've got to run because it's time for some Knight Time! Ben out! And eat your Snickers!