Shut It Down, Send Them Home

Jake Tapper of ABC News provides the numbers on the last ditch effort of the current Congress to keep us in the ditch:

The Obama administration today told Congress to pass an omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmark projects, even though just a few days ago the president said one of the lessons he learned from the 2010 midterm elections was to take more seriously the public’s disapproval of – and his pledge to oppose -- earmarks.

“We wish there were no earmarks and are troubled with their presence” in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, an administration source told ABC News. “But Secretary Gates has told the President that the alternative bill” – a continuing resolution that for one year funds the government, which is due to run out of cash at the end of the week – “doesn't have the funding critical for several national security priorities.”

The term of the month has been "hostage situation." Well, yeah. Apparently national security is hostage to earmarks and $1.1 trillion in spending. This is standard operating procedure in Washington and precisely the sort of thing that the last election was about.

We don't have the money, kids. Nor do our kids, who actually get the bill for a lot of this nonsense. This Congress needs to go home. Kill the omnibus spending bill, pass the continuing resolution and deal with the issues in the next Congress.

Can't You See Me Standing Here, I've Got My Back Against The Message Machine

Eric Black at MinnPost offers the following observation about messaging:

Like many liberals, I’ve been increasingly frustrated with liberals’ ability to lose the political battles even though they have (according to me) the superior facts and arguments on their side.

Now as a conservative I'm painfully aware that I lack nuance, but I don't know what an "inferior fact" would be -- a fact is a fact and arguing otherwise is an assertion. But we'll set that aside as inartful phrasing in the service of Black's superior argument. Black quotes a much longer piece on messaging from U.C. Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff. Lakoff says this:

Conservatives who are savvy about marketing their ideas are closer to the way people really think than Democrats are, because people who teach marketing tend to be up on how the brain and language work. And over the past three decades, they have not just built an effective message machine, but they repeated messages that have changed the brains of a great many Americans.

We're not changing minds -- dammit, we're changing brains! Feel the power, baby. This conservative message machine must be damned good, because liberals like Black and his friends are having trouble getting their message out even though they tend to control most media outlets. It's gotta be some Vulcan mind meld or bad Rovian juju or something, right?


This assertion falls under the category of "lies you tell yourself." There's never been an issue with liberals getting their message out. There are liberals everywhere and they never, ever shut up. I can hear a liberal talking every minute of the day should I choose to seek one out. The problem isn't that conservatives have a better "message machine." The problem is that liberals have a message that many people have already heard -- hell, how could they not have heard it? -- and have rejected.

And the funny thing is this: Lakoff provides the reason, which is apparently hiding in plain sight:

Think of the TV show ‘So You Want to Be a Millionaire’ or the movies ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ and ‘How to Marry a Millionaire.’ To most Americans, being a millionaire is a good thing to aspire to.

Of course it is. I'm not a millionaire and I may never get there, but I don't begrudge anyone who does. I went to school with a number of people who are now, at mid-career, millionaires, including at least one who is a millionaire many times over. Good for all of them.

And the thing is, I'm hardly alone in feeling this way. It seems to trouble Lakoff, though:

But the conservative message machine, over the past 30 years, has come to own the word ‘tax.’ They have changed its meaning to most Americans. They have been able to make ‘tax’ mean ‘money the government takes out of the pockets of people who have earned it in order to give it to people who haven't earned it and don't deserve it.’ Thus, ‘tax relief’ assumes that taxation is an affliction to be cured and a ‘tax cut’ is a good thing in general. Hence, conservatives make the argument, ‘No one should have their taxes raised.

Now, if there were evidence that the government could make more beneficial use of a millionaire's money than a millionaire can if left to his (or her -- lotsa female millionaires out there) own devices, that conservative argument would fall flat. But it's not an argument that the Left seems to make.

Why would that be? Remember, Black asserts that liberals have the superior arguments. Is it an inferior messaging machine? Or is it because such assertions are "inferior facts?"

Let me offer some help to Mr. Black, who has a far larger audience than I do (and good for him, because he's earned it), despite my perch on the periphery of the mighty conservative message machine. It's pretty simple: aspiration for a better life is pretty much a universal thing. Every human being has dreams and most of the dreams involve bettering one's station in life. You don't have to change someone's brain to appeal to that very basic part of human nature. Nor do you need any great marketing savvy to figure that out.

Let's go back to something Lakoff said:

Conservatives who are savvy about marketing their ideas are closer to the way people really think.

Well, yeah. It's a hell of a lot easier to convince someone about something they already believe. You don't have to be a Berkeley prof or even take a college-level marketing class to know that.

So how does all that apply to the "superior arguments" of liberals? If you listen to a liberal for any length of time, and we all have, you hear grievances. Listen a few minutes longer and you'll hear a desire to have some greater power, usually the State, redress those grievances. Such howls of righteousness can work for a time, but after a while, people get sick of listening to it.

Obama understood that, at least initially. Since he's taken office, however, the message of hope that was integral to his campaign has turned into grievance mongering. The last few months have been like the made up holiday Festivus, a Seinfeldian airing of the grievances. Having to compromise with Republicans is a hostage situation. They treat me like a dog.

People have heard all that before. How could they not have heard it? The problem isn't the liberal messaging machine. The problem is the liberal message. And here's a hint for Black and Lakoff -- maybe the brains that need changing aren't those of conservatives.

The Viking Horn

I watched a good portion of the Vikings game last night, in lieu of doing something useful, I guess. Both of the Fox announcers, Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, were speculating at some length about whether the collapse of the Metrodome roof will be the catalyst for getting a new stadium for the Vikings.

I'm still pretty skeptical about it -- I don't imagine there will be much support in Hennepin County for additional taxes to fund yet another stadium and alternatives for funding are likely to be non-starters. While it is possible to site a stadium elsewhere, you'll likely get grumbling from the ticket-buying public if a stadium is sited on the north side of town. The site in Blaine could have been up and running by now, but that got sabotaged. I don't know where you'd put a stadium on the south side of town, unless the tribe running Mystic Lake Casino decided to get involved and built it out by Prior Lake. While that wouldn't be a terrible drive for many season-ticket holders, it would erode support for the team on the St. Paul side.

This much is certain -- there's no way the Vikings will renew a lease for the Metrodome. And I can't blame them for that.

So, Is ObamaCare Unconstitutional?

Doesn't matter what I think, really. Nor will it matter what Henry E. Hudson thinks, either.

Now, what Anthony Kennedy thinks -- that matters a lot. Philosopher-king must be a pretty cool gig.

Five Years

I heard telephones, opera house, favourite melodies
I saw boys, toys, electric irons, and TVs
My brain hurt like a warehouse
It had no room to spare
I had to cram so many things
To store everything in there

-- David Bowie, "Five Years"

Monday is the 5-year anniversary of the debut of this feature, now known as Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood.

A lot of things change in five years. At the time I began this thing, I was about to lose my job as a program analyst for Bank of America. I'd been faking my way through that job pretty well, but when it came time to decide whether to take the relocation package to Portland, Oregon, or remain at home and take my chances here, I decided to stay. And the blog was going to be my creative outlet to get through the hard times ahead. Through an extended bout of unemployment, a health scare that revealed a pituitary tumor that culminated in brain surgery and recovery, and a radical career change, there's no doubt that tickling the pixels has been an important constant.

The second post I did was the one where I set out the tone I had in mind for this feature. The principal points read as follows:

There's a scene in Bull Durham where the Kevin Costner character prattles on at great length about what he believes. Since the movie was filmed in 1987, he couldn't blog and instead had to talk to Susan Sarandon. Oddly enough, Ms. Sarandon hasn't been returning my calls, so I thought I'd share some random thoughts in my very own blog.

You can be a Great American hero and still be a moron. Charles Lindbergh, meet John Murtha.

Who has been more influential - John Rawls or Hugh Hefner? You could make a good case that Lou Rawls is more influential than John Rawls.

I don't really want to talk to Susan Sarandon.

Lee Harvey Oswald did act alone.

Five years later, I still believe all those things are true, although we don't have John Murtha to kick around any more. Looking back, the one thing that seemed true to me then still animates this feature -- you can be serious without taking things all that seriously.

Sometimes my brain does hurt like a warehouse. I bet yours does too. We store so many things in our consciousness and we spend a lot of time trying to make sense of it all. I don't know if writing a blog, or reading a blog, helps that much. But I do know this -- if any of the 2,330 posts that have appeared in this space since December 13, 2005 have helped my readers to sort things out, or at least made them smile, it's been worth the effort. And I still think pretty highly of Lou Rawls.

I've made a lot of great friends in the last five years because of this blog, and I've renewed friendships long dormant. That's been the best benefit of blogging. To all of you, I thank you for your support of this feature. And I hope that, at a minimum, I haven't made your brain hurt a lot.

Old Home Weak

So who was that guy standing at the podium at the White House yesterday?

Obama introduced Clinton lightly as "the other guy" and recalled how Clinton has overseen heady economic times. Obama warned that he wouldn't be staying long -- another White House Christmas party was waiting, as was his wife, Michelle.

And so it became clear pretty quickly that this was Clinton's show.

"I feel awkward being here, and now you're going to leave me all by myself," Clinton said from the stage of the White House briefing room.

Not that awkward.

Clinton comfortably outlined how the pending package of tax cuts, business incentives and unemployment benefits would boost the economy -- even though it included tax help for the wealthy that Obama had to swallow.

Think about this for a minute. Could you have ever imagined any other president turning over the podium to a predecessor? If George W. Bush had let his dad run a press conference, his presidency would have been over at that very minute. Could you have imagined Richard Nixon giving Dwight Eisenhower one last turn? Or John Kennedy kicking it back to Harry Truman?

And the reason -- because he was late for a freaking Christmas party? Wow. Just wow.

On the other hand, at least one pundit saw it coming. I give you Iowahawk, writing in November, 2008:

Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government's executive branch.

"I am pleased that Bill Clinton has agreed to come out of retirement to head up this crucial post in my administration," said Obama. "He brings a lifetime of previous executive experience as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and has worked closely with most of the members of my Cabinet."

Clinton said he was "excited and honored" by the appointment, and would work "day and night" to defeat all the key policy objectives proposed by Mr. Obama during the campaign.

"I am gratified that the President-Elect has entrusted me with this important responsibility," said Clinton. "I'm looking forward to getting back behind, and under, the Oval Office desk again.

As I have told the President-Elect, I pledge to do whatever I can to serve his historic administration by making sure that none of that bullshit he talked about during the campaign will ever see the light of day. Americans can rest assured that he will be safely confined to the East Wing, as far away as possible from any potentially dangerous office equipment or nuclear buttons."

What can we learn from this? Well, two things:

Satirists like Iowahawk often understand things better than pundits do -- I'm looking at you, Charles Krauthammer; and

I am planning to ask Iowahawk to pick out my Powerball ticket numbers.

Only one regret -- I would have preferred that the White House wheel out an animatronic Harry Truman instead.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Eagerly Awaiting the Tradition-Laden Beef O'Brady's Bowl Edition

We're running out of college football games, Decrepit! But pretty soon the bowls will begin and the highly inspirational Beef O'Brady's Bowl will take place. I can't wait to see Louisville and Southern Mississippi duke it out over some tasty Beef O'Brady! Can you feel the HYYYYYPPPPPEEE!

No, youngblood -- I gotta be honest with you. I'm not feeling it.

But old dude, Beef O'Brady's looks just like Hooter's, except a lot more boring!

Yep, and a game between Louisville and Southern Miss would be pretty boring, too.

It's 10 days away, old dude. Try to get yourself psyched up, okay? In the meantime, don't worry. I've got other assignments for you. Now it's time to make some picks. Watch me work:

Army Black Knights (+8) vs. Navy Mids, at Philadelphia. Mrs. D always likes this game, because the fans are dressed up in their nice uniforms and don't have body paint on themselves. That's because these future military leaders have to deal with drill sergeants at 6 a.m., unlike kids from other colleges, the jackwagons! Anyway, these young men are going on to do good things, unlike the BCS, which is EVIL EVIL EVIL, I tell you! Mids 35, Cadets 21.

I knew you couldn't resist a BCS dig. Both Army and Navy are going to bowls this year, which would be a nice thing, except that there are approximately 2,475 bowl games this year. In fact, chances are you personally are playing in a bowl game and just don't realize it yet. Navy has won this game pretty frequently in recent years and I don't think that will change this time. Navy 31, Army 24.

New York Football Giants (-2 1/2) vs. Minnesota Down Goes Fraziers. Is this the day that Brett Favre doesn't answer the bell? He has a shoulder injury, which makes it very hard to throw the football. Now mind you, the way Favre has been throwing the football lately, we might not be able to tell the difference. So it could be T-Jack Attack. Can he handle the Giants? Will he be out of luck against Justin Tuck? Yes. Andre the Giant 30, T-Jack Attack 20.

I haven't heard what Favre's status is -- he could be a game time decision. Of course, given the fact that we are predicted to get about 726 inches of snow this weekend, the entire game might be a game time decision. But I digress. I'm not sure it does the Vikings any good to play the old guy anyway -- they need to know if T-Jack can handle the job. The Giants are a very good test. The guess here: T-Jack surprises a few people. Vikings 27, Giants 20.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (-6 1/2) vs. Motor City Kitties. Well, in a couple of weeks I, the Benster, will be in Lambeau to watch the Packers play the Giants. In the meantime, the Packers have to go to Detroit. What a thrill for them! The question for me is which Packer team shows up. Is it the one that showed up against Washington and Miami and stunk up the joint, or the team that knocked two NFL coaches out of a job. It won't be easy, since the Lions are capable of hanging with teams, but they seem to run out of gas at the end. Packers 20, Lions 19.

The Lions are getting better. Despite the 2-10 record, they have some guys you have to plan for, especially Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh. But they are playing their 3rd string quarterback and the Packers are going to be plenty motivated. I suspect it will go well for the boys in Green. Packers 35, Lions 17.

New England Benjarvus Green-Ellises (-3) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Strangely enough, some of the kids in school have been calling me Benjarvus Green-Ellis, even though I don't have an NFL resume or really cool hair like that guy. But it's cool with me. I have to wonder if New England has enough left in the tank after Monday's demolition of the New York Jets. The Bears are a Jekyll and Hyde team but they've been very good lately. The game is in Chicago, which will help, since New England never loses at home. Sorry Gino -- I have to pick the Pats for standings reasons. Benjarvus Green-Ellis 90, Dit-ka Dit-ka 0.

Uh, no. I think the Patriots could win. And I'd really like it if they did. But I'm very worried about this one. The Pats are certainly due for a letdown and the Bears seem to have found something lately. You can move the ball on the New England defense and I suspect that the Bears will move it. I hate this pick, but here it is: Bears 27, Patriots 24.

Old fella, I think you need to run me and Fearless Maria up to Beef O'Brady's one of these days so I can have me some buffalo wings or Beef O'Brady or something. I bet they serve haggis, too. Ben out!

Joel of Arc

Joel Rosenberg is a topnotch writer and gun safety instructor and an excellent person. He has lately been fighting the power, a/k/a the Minneapolis Police Department. There's a long story involved but, suffice it to say, the MPD doesn't like it very much if you publicly demonstrate their hamhandedness. This synopsis at Popehat does a good job of explaining what's going on. Mitch Berg has also been following this story closely. If you believe in principle and also decry capricious law enforcement, and you should, this is a story worth watching.

Science!

If you've ever expressed any skepticism about the increasingly ineffectual campaign against global warming climate change, chances are pretty good you've been accused of being against science. Global warming climate change activists pride themselves on their superior understanding of science. Just ask them.

It is precisely this measure of erudition among the scientific elites who support lavish funding of their research, and the young acolytes who believe in Science, that makes it easy to find signatories at the latest global warming climate change confab in Cancun (natch, why go to Copenhagen again and risk it snowing during your presentations) who would put their John Hancocks on a petition to ban an especially odious chemical compound, the dreaded global warming agent DHMO*.

Wonder if Kate Knuth signed this one. . . .


*DHMO is Dihydrogen Monoxide, also known as water.

And so, Governor Dayton

Tom Emmer decided to concede yesterday, so we are now faced with the prospect of four years of Governor Mark Dayton. A few thoughts:

• If you search around the local blogosphere, you'll see the same greeting for Mr. Dayton twice, from both Mitch Berg and Gary Gross: Welcome to Hell. If that seems somehow ungracious, let me help you understand why so many conservatives are especially bitter about this election: it's not just that Tom Emmer lost by such a close margin. It's the incredibly sleazy and cynical way Mark Dayton ran his campaign, with the complicity of a news media that completely ignored all the red flags that surround the governor-elect. This is a man who couldn't handle the rigors of being a backbencher Senator, but now he will be in charge of a state government. This is also a man who has had myriad substance abuse problems and mental health issues. He is ill-equipped for the job on any number of levels. Of all the prominent figures on the Minnesota political scene, he was the worst possible choice for an executive position. And yet here he is. And a lot of people, who know all these things, were cheering him on.
• The good news is that Dayton will have adult supervision in the form of a legislature that is now in Republican hands. Dayton will not be able to raise taxes, because the lege holds the power of the purse. I don't suspect that Dayton's calls for tax hikes will get much traction among the citizenry either, especially since it now appears that inflation is coming and will eat away at household incomes. Gas prices are now around $3 a gallon and that's a sign of things to come. Nor will punitive tax policies be likely to attract new business to the state. I'm guessing that Dan Hindbjorgen of the Sioux Falls Development Council will be spending a lot of time in the recording studio over the next few years.
• Watch carefully who ends up being on Dayton's staff. There's been a lot of speculation on the starboard side that Mike Hatch would have a prominent role in a prospective Dayton administration. That could happen. What I want to see is if Matt Entenza has a role. You might remember Entenza, the unappealing politico with the rich wife who spent millions of dollars on a primary campaign in which he never really criticized Dayton, instead attacking Emmer and, at the very end, Dayton's real DFL challenger, Margaret Anderson Kelliher. It's always struck me as strange that Entenza would do these things, unless he had some expectation of either (a) a prominent role in a Dayton administration, or (b) the prospect of having state monies directed to his wife's environmental startup company. I'm going to watch this carefully. If Entenza has a role in a Dayton administration, it ought to be a subject of discussion.

Watching the Wheels

True story: on the day John Lennon was killed, I had turned in a paper I wrote for my high school sociology class concerning gun control. And as a young smartass and White Album fan, I had titled the paper, "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

I was a senior in high school and learned the news as I sat at the dining room table, which was where I typically did my homework in those days. I had lugged out the massive, cobalt blue IBM Selectric typewriter that my dad had brought home from the office. I was typing up a paper for my high school English class that was due the next morning. You could see the television set in the living from there and at the end of the 10 p.m. news, a late bulletin arrived. John Lennon had been shot dead in New York City.

It's easy to forget now, but it was the beginning of a very violent 10 month period. At the end of that long winter of 1980-81, President Reagan nearly died at the hands of an assassin. Not long after, Pope John Paul II nearly met his maker. By the fall, Anwar Sadat was felled.

My generation was too young to really understand the events of the 1960s, especially the toll of the assassins of that blighted decade. We had come of age in the 1970s, a time that seems especially grim in retrospect. It was pretty easy for me, and for a lot of my classmates, to adopt a mask of adolescent cynicism and to sneer at a lot of what we saw in front of us.

When Lennon was killed that night, I remember thinking that cynicism I felt about my life and future prospects was somehow justified. I felt like a caged animal in those days, believing that I was being constrained by the petty, small-minded town I had called home. I kept thinking to myself -- I just can't wait to get the hell out of this place. It wasn't for me, this silly backwater of Appleton, Wisconsin. There was no way I would ever come back to Podunk and I sneered at my classmates who seemed content to stay and settle for the blandishments of a boring little town, a suburb without a city attached to it.

The thing was, that cynicism had a very thin veneer. I remember that when we were discussing the murder in school the next day, one of my friends reported the reaction of Mick Jagger, who called Lennon's murder "a good career move" or something like that. We were all convinced it was the worst thing we'd ever heard and some of my friends vowed to get rid of their Stones albums. They didn't.

Adolescents are like that -- simultaneously full of dreams and full of shit. 30 years later, I now have an adolescent son, who has a far sunnier disposition than I did at the same age. That's a good thing and will serve him well, because cynicism at a young age can corrode your soul in ways that are difficult to understand until years later. He's coming of age in a time that's like the late 1970s in too many ways. He even prefers 1970s era music -- if you grab his MP3 player you'll find a lot of AC/DC and Aerosmith. He's at the age where he's starting to question many things and he's discovering that the world can disappoint you if you let it. My job is to ensure that he sees the opportunities that remain, even in a low, mendacious time.

Many, many things have changed in the 30 years since John Lennon died. One thing hasn't -- I still do a lot of my writing at the dining room table. And while I look at John Lennon's more fuzzy nostrums with a gimlet eye these days, I'm actually a lot less cynical than I was in 1980. No matter how rotten the world might look, there are always opportunities if we choose to see them.

il miglior fabbro

Yesterday was the 69th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. As usual, Mitch Berg has an excellent take.

Apparently we shouldn't even bother

We're doomed, I tells ya. No chance at all for any Republican to unseat Amy Klobuchar, it would appear:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar holds a double-digit lead over the biggest names in the Republican Party who could possibly challenge her in 2012, an early Public Policy Polling survey found.

Wrote PPP: "Amy Klobuchar is overwhelmingly popular and would cruise to reelection at this point pretty much no matter who her Republican opponent was."

Hell, Klobuchar should run for Divine Right Monarch with those numbers, right? Let's just say this: we'll check back in a year or so, or even in 18 months, when people start paying attention.

Changing the Tone

Do you remember when President Obama pledged to change the tone in Washington? He sure did it today. Behold as he describes his negotiating session with the Loyal Opposition:

As he recounted the White House effort to get the GOP to relinquish its support for those cuts -- something he described as the party's "holy grail" -- the president admitted bluntly, "I have not been able to budge them." Opinion polls show overwhelming popular support for ending the tax breaks for higher earners. He later added, "I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed, then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed."

Emphasis mine. I'm glad to see that the President is taking things so well.

Standards for thee, but not for me

Jamie Dupree of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution details another vote of confidence for ObamaCare:

The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.

One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.

Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers.

These waivers deal with limited health benefit plans, sometimes referred to as "mini-med" policies, which companies as large as McDonald's use for some its employees.

So why would these companies need waivers? And why would the Obama administration be so eager to grant them?

The feds though have granted waivers from that law, amid concern that certain groups would drop their health insurance programs entirely. Those waivers are good for one year, and can be considered for renewal.

So, what sorts of groups would drop their health insurance?

Several weeks ago, critics singled out a number of unions which had received government approval for exemptions from certain provisions of the law dealing with annual medical spending limit requirements.

And there are more unions who have received waivers in this latest batch, like the Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, the Indiana Teamsters Health Benefits Fund, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund, and more are listed.

And here I thought that unions were among the most enthusiastic supporters of ObamaCare. Go figure. There's a lot more at the link. Go read the whole thing.

This Morning's Pinata

Timothy Dalrymple, via Allahpundit:

For the cultural elitists on the Left, Palin lacks everything they pride themselves on possessing, possesses everything they pride themselves on scorning, and stands for everything they pride themselves on opposing. She lacks cosmopolitan tastes and elite university credentials, a well-worn passport and fluency in foreign tongues, a blueblood vocabulary and literary speech patterns, not to mention a fashionable address and a vacation home on Martha’s Vineyard. She possesses a beauty-queen title and the wrong kind of good looks, a large brood of lily-white children with outdoorsy names like Track and Piper, a commoner’s cadence and a steady supply of you-betcha folksy phrases, and a background in conservative white evangelical and even Pentecostal churches. And she stands for the defense of the unborn, for heterosexual marriage, for premarital abstinence, for the extraction of our natural resources, for small government and second amendment rights, for conservative Judeo-Christian traditions and for American exceptionalism.

There's an element of truth to that, although I know plenty of people who hate Palin who do not have elite university credentials or a blueblood vocabulary. I'm not convinced that Palin would be the right person to be president -- in some respects she is the antitheses of Barack Obama and would represent an overreaction to what we now have.

Read the whole thing.

Lightning Round - 120610

Catching up after a weekend mostly spent away from the internet:

• It's not especially surprising that Tom Emmer's campaign is not faring well in the recount, since there's obviously no stomach for it among most people. The only way you can stop voter fraud is to make it too painful for those who would commit. If we aren't willing to send people to jail for false vouching or voting more than once, nothing is going to change. Once the votes are cast, it's too late. It's clear that Minnesota isn't ready to punish people for such behaviors. As a practical matter, it means that Republicans need to win elections by larger margins than Democrats do, so long as Democrats control the apparatus of voting.
• Lori Sturdevant bashed Tim Pawlenty pretty good on Sunday in the Star Tribune, essentially blaming Pawlenty personally for the mythical $6.2 billion deficit. What she's really mad about is this: Pawlenty exposed the fiction of government funding by auto-pilot, which she desires. And since the D's won't control the Legislature this time around, the spending she'd envisioned won't happen and the budget deficit she posits won't materialize. Which, unless I miss my guess, Sturdevant will credit to the heretofore unrealized genius fiscal management skills of Mark Dayton.
• Badgers to the Rose Bowl, to face Texas Christian. TCU was once part of the big time as the footwipe of the old Southwestern Conference, but they now are one of the so-called "BCS Busters," although that will change next year when Horned Frogs join the Big East. I have a feeling that a lot of people who like the current system will be hoping that the Badgers put a whipping on the Horned Frogs. It should be a fun game.
• Meanwhile, the hapless Gophers have selected a guy named Jerry Kill as their new head football coach. My son and colleague Benster has already informed me that the term often used for the Gophers around here, the "Golden Roadkill," is still operative.

New Neighbors?

The Star Tribune reports this morning that the Vikings have been talking with various politicos in Ramsey, Anoka and Washington Counties about potentially siting their new stadium at the Twin Cities Ammunition Plant site in Arden Hills.

I can see why the Vikings would be interested; they have up to 430 acres available, the site is only about 12 miles north of downtown Minneapolis and while the roads would need a major upgrade, there would be development possibilities galore.

The cost of developing the site could be problematic -- there's a lot of pollution there and while the Army is committed to the cost of some remediation, it's always been an open question concerning how viable the site is for development, since no one really knows for sure what's buried out there. Right now the roads in the area are not sufficient to handle the potential traffic, but it could be improved without changing the current routing patterns that much. If the Vikings came, it would also have a potentially huge impact on what happens at the Northwest Quadrant site in New Brighton.

There's a lot to sort out, but if this thing goes through, it could be a huge game changer for my little corner of the world.

MDE Notices a Local

Minnesota Democrats Exposed is under new management these days and one of the new guys at blog, Andy Post, noticed that our plucky, orange-clad state representative, Kate Knuth, got her climate change trip to Copenhagen funded by the Will Steger Foundation. The thing is, the Steger Foundation also gets money from the state. Knuth apparently recused herself from voting on this funding when the final vote came before the House, but she may not have recused herself from when the measure was voted out of committee. You can evaluate all this at the MDE site, which promises a Part II to the story as well.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- How Old Is Decrepit, Anyway? Edition

So, I hear it's your birthday, old fella! How old are you again? The over/under is 104.

Take the under, Seabiscuit. I'm only 47.

Whatever! Happy birthday, Dad! I may give you grief because you're old, and you are really quite old, by the way. But I still love you -- not that it's going to stop me from kicking your butt yet again this week.

Well, of course it isn't. What games have you selected for us, Grasshopper?

Here they come. Watch me work:

Oregon Quack Quack Attack (-16 1/2) vs. Oregon State Buck Toothed Varmints. Who's gonna stop the Duck? I know how you do it, so listen up, Beavers -- you play ball control. The Oregon offense can't score if they never see the field. Turn those running backs loose and keep pounding the rock. Also, this Oregon team isn't as good as the team from last year and you remember what happened last year -- when Oregon faced a team with quality personnel (that would be The Ohio State University), they fell short. Buck Toothed Varmints 35, Quack Quack Attack 7.

Don't get me wrong -- I think the Beavers have a chance on their home field. But I think the young fella is picking that one with his heart, because he wants TCU to get to the National Championship Game. I don't see it. The Ducks score a lot of points and are actually quite a bit more ruthless than a certain Cardinal-clad midwestern team that I'm fond of. And with the National Championship Game in their sights, they won't fall short. Oregon 42, Oregon State 21.

Oklahoma Boomer Sooner (-5) vs. Nebraska Future Big Ten Representatives, in lovely Arlington, Texas. It's the last chance for Nebraska to give a parting shot to their soon-to-be former rivals. The Cornhuskers are headed for the Big Ten next year and will be in the same division as the Gophers, who are looking forward to facing yet another team that will kick their butts. Look for Nebraska to go out on top. Johnny Rodgers 70, Jack Mildren 63.

Wow, that's old school even for me! Nice 1970s name check, young fella! I think Nebraska will enjoy the Big Ten, but they'll miss this rivalry in particular, which has been a classic over the years. I suspect that Oklahoma will win this one, but it's gonna be close. Oklahoma 35, Nebraska 31.

Au-Barn WAAAR-Eagle! (-5) vs. South Carolina Gamecocks, in Atlanta, GA. So, I wonder if I can get a loan from Cam Newton? He must have a tough time running down the field with all those $100 bills stuffed down his pants. I'm a nice young man and am perfectly willing to lighten his load a bit. Benster will take good care of your Benjamins, Cam! Really, trust me! I'm going to have to play devil's advocate again -- remember, once upon a time, Florida lost to the Seminoles in the regular season, but beat them when it mattered later on. I'm gonna call it! Gamecocks 17, WAAAR-Eagle 13.

I actually agree with you. The Auburn situation has been a bit of a circus this week and they have a lot of pressure. I've seen the Gamecocks play a few times this season and they are pretty good. I suspect the Ol' Ball Coach has a trick or two ready this time for Newton and the rest of the Auburn squad. I also like this because it would put TCU in the Championship Game and Stanford in the Rose Bowl where they belong. Gamecocks 34, Auburn 24.

Buffalo Wings (+6) vs. Minnesota Down Goes Fraziers. Do I even need to analyze this? Joe Frazier 100, B-Dubs 0.

Apparently you didn't need to analyze this. So I will -- the paying customers of this free blog demand analysis. Buffalo is playing very well, although their receiver Stevie Johnson had an existential crisis over the weekend after he dropped a sure touchdown pass last week. I don't think that God is a Steelers fan, but the Bills have been pretty God-forsaken or something this season. Vince Lombardi got his theology from the Jesuits and they said "Run to Win." So you should pick the team with Adrian Peterson (even an injured Adrian Peterson) in that context. Vikings 24, Bills 17.

San Francisco 49ers (+9 1/2) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. It's Decrepit's birthday today, and it's also the birthday of Aaron Rodgers, who is 20 years younger than the old fella. In other words, Rodgers is in his prime right now. And also the 49ers never beat the Packers. It's not gonna start on Sunday, especially considering that the Packers are going to come out swinging the Hammer of the Gods. Pack 27, Niners 20.

Here's the thing I don't get -- the Wisconsin Badgers have 3 top running backs and the Packers have none. Isn't there any way they could sneak Montee Ball into the stadium under an assumed name or something? They could call him Montee Blood McNally or something. The Packers won't need him this week, but later on. . . . Packers 31, San Fran 17.

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (-3 1/2) vs. Motor City Kitties. Gino has been whining incessantly that we aren't paying sufficient attention to his Bears, so here we go. The Bears are currently leading the division, behind the quality quarterback play of Jack Concannon, er, I mean Bob Avellini, er, scratch that, Mike Tomczak, no, that's not right, Peter Tom Willis. Yeah, that's it. The last time these teams met, Calvin Johnson somehow didn't catch the ball that he actually caught. It's really quite confusing. Like how the Lions have a chance to get roasted on Thanksgiving every. single. year. Rex Grossman 7, Eric Hipple 6.

Okay, my pick is likely wishful thinking, but while we have great respect and admiration for our pal Gino, screw the Bears. I keed, I keed. Are the Bears the better team? Yeah. Will they win on Sunday? Not necessarily. Lions 24, Bears 20.

We're a little early this week because I'm dragging the old man camping this weekend. Out in the cold, even! Ben out!