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!

Guilty Pleasures Part Seventy-Two -- Fearless Maria Hits the Books

Fearless Maria is back and it's really about time we get moving on another Guilty Pleasures. Why haven't you stopped by more often, Maria?

Oh, Dad! You've seen me! There's so much to study in the 5th grade! I haven't had any time for music, except for practicing for the band! Hey, here's a joke -- why did the skeleton go to the library?

Hmm, why did the skeleton go to the library?

To bone up on a few things! You know, you really need to keep up, Dad! A grilled cheese sandwich would have known that joke!

I'm more of a panini, actually.

Well, then get over to the deli, panini dude, while I get back to my books! I have so much reading to do that I'm not sure I'll even make it to breakfast tomorrow!

So you have a lot of books, Maria?

Well, sure! Maybe not as many as your nerdy English major friends, but I have a lot of stuff to read. So wait -- well, maybe I could take a break and do some Guilty Pleasures.

That's the spirit, Maria. And since you're so concerned about books, maybe we could do --

Songs about books! But I don't want any songs about the improper fractions in my math book -- I've seen enough of those, thank you very much!

Sounds good. Should we hit the Great American Songbook?

No, I'd rather not go over the rainbow tonight, Dad! It's already dark and I don't have one of those light-up hat things like Ben. Can you find some rock and roll songs instead?

I can do that. Let's start back in the 1950s, in the doo-wop era. This song was from a group called the Monotones--

Dad, if they are singing in monotone, it won't sound very good. That was one of our spelling words last week. Now I'm learning all those fancy words you like to use and I'll know what you're talking about!

That puts you one up on me -- half the time I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, in any event, these Monotones actually could carry a tune and this one was a big hit for them back in the day:

Who Wrote the Book of Love

I can play the drums on this song, Dad! Boy, I did like that song -- it was quite catchy and the Monotones were very well dressed. But anyway, who did write the book of love? They never answered the question, did they? If you know, put your answer in the comment section, because I'm getting curious now!

I'm not sure who wrote it, Maria. But I know that the Beatles had a song about writing a book back in 1966:

Paperback Writer

"A thousand pages, give or take a few?" That's impossible! The longest paperback I've ever seen is the fifth Harry Potter book, but it was so big that it almost fell apart when I opened it! Do you think the Beatles might have been exaggerating a little bit, Dad? Or did they staple together 100 easy reader books?

I don't know, but I was amazed at the great sound quality they got considering they hadn't plugged in their guitars.

Dad, they were lip-synching! Kinda like Elvis does in Suspicious Minds. They did a lot of lip-synching in the 1960s, probably because they were too scared to speak up.

It could be, Maria. But I know of another song that came out a little later in 1966, or maybe it was early 1967, by a band from Los Angeles called Love:

My Little Red Book

Dad, I don't think the girls in the audience were the ones he was singing about -- I think they look a little nervous. That song is pretty tense with the throbbing beat! And what's the deal with the weird sunglasses? It looks like he stole a couple of pieces of stained glass from the windows at St. John the Baptist!

It was the 60s, Maria. I'm nervous just looking at it myself. But then again, the 60s had some other interesting fashions beyond the hippie stuff. Check out this video from a guy who knows something about books, Booker T., with the MG's:

Booker-Loo

Are you sure that's not Booker from the Ramsey County Library? That dog is so cute! Anyway, so my question is this -- why were all those beautiful women dancing with dorky guys that were wearing practically poisonous polyester? They should have known better, I think!

Again, I've given up trying to explain the 60s, Maria. But we can move to the 70s and listen to this song from the Talking Heads:

The Book I Read

What, no video Dad? Just some weird orange album cover? Well, the album cover might be orange, but the lack of video is making me see red! If he's singing about living in the future and being ambitious, maybe he should have come up with a video! I'm not sure he's really that ambitious, Dad!

I guess he was too busy reading. Anyway, once we got to 1983, Elvis Costello got interested in writing a book, too. And he brought a video:

Every Day I Write the Book

Well, that's a pretty good song, but what's with the outfits on the ladies? And do you think they made the couple look like Prince Charles and Princess Diana on purpose?

Well, yes -- I especially like the part where the Prince Charles guy jumps through the ring of fire.

Dad, I think if were really Prince Charles, he could hire someone to jump through a ring of fire for him! Like a stunt man or something.

Well, Elvis was interested in pulling stunts in the video, I guess.

Well, you know what's no stunt? Picking a winning song, people! So pick your favorite and put it in the comments section. And if you know who wrote the book of love, put that in the comments section, too! No one tells me these things around here!

A Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

The Wall Street Journal offers the following report, which will make Kathleen Sebelius mad:

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

So why would this happen? Cost, of course:

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

That makes sense -- if you have a lot of turnover, you are almost certainly going to have larger administrative costs. It's not as if you can just put someone's policy in a file cabinet and forget about it. Apparently the great minds in Congress didn't think about that, or didn't care.

What drove the decision to require such ratios? Anyone who understands how Democrats think won't be surprised at the answer:

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.

One might ask how losing a health plan entirely benefits a patient, but that would be churlish. But we're all about solutions here. So if the regulations are a problem, they can fixed, right?

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."

The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.

Oh, snap! But surely it's just those greedy capitalist bastards under the Golden Arches who would do something like this, right?

Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples
Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.

"There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.

Sounds like something Congress really ought to fix, right? Oops -- not gonna happen, since Congress has adjourned until after the election.

If you want to know why the economy stinks, this is why: a company needs to be able to plan. When a government acts in a capricious way, it can't. And people get hurt.