And Not a Moment Too Soon

Difficult to dislike, but you should try

During the current campaign season, our congressional candidates have all expressed respect and admiration for the outgoing incumbent, Jim Ramstad. Rarely does one hear our solon's name without adjoining expressions of respect, admiration, 'honor personified,' etc. So occasionally it bears repeating: Some lucid, unfanatical individuals think quite little of Jim Ramstad. And many singers in the Up With Ramstad choir know better, deep down. The incentive to misrepresent one's true opinion is usually overwhelming. 'As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand,' as Josh Billings said.

Independent-minded folks ought not be bamboozled: Ramstad has not been a good representative. He did not articulate an interesting or thoughtful philosophy of governance. He championed many harebrained ideas: the flag-burning amendment, the anti-gay-marriage amendment, the ongoing Iraq fiasco and draconian antinarcotics laws. He couldn't even marshal a compelling argument on behalf of his signature legislative proposal. He long claimed to sit on the board of 'The Violence Against Women Coalition,' even after a blogger had informed him that no such organization exists. As Ramstad observed his party lurch to the right, he didn't seriously consider the honorable response--to aggressively champion and grow the party's dwindling moderate wing. Instead, the Congressman entered into a mutual admiration society with a worshipful local media. Our guy never quite expressed himself as elegantly as he dressed. When he learned his party would try to replace him with an ultraconservative he let everyone know he didn't care.

Jim Ramstad is a difficult guy not to like. But one ought to try.

The Rachel Hetland Incident

Rachel Hetland is the A-List Faegre and Benson attorney newly married to Ashwin Madia's Communications Director Dan Pollock. It appears likely she is the person captured on the now-infamous video.

All over the state, media and blogosphere have featured the embarrassment: Youtube video of the week: Wife of Madia's Communications Director Caught Stealing Campaign Signs.

Chris Steller is defending the volunteer on the sign incident:

Was it a stakeout? If you’re Paulsen pals picking Perkinses, Maple Grove’s is a 25-minute haul from Paulsen’s Eden Prairie HQ, Joe Bodell estimates, while the Maple Grove Perkins is one mile west of Madia headquarters along 73rd Ave. N. Like Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin driving past hospitals to give birth at her hometown clinic, staffers at the Paulsen campaign office would pass at least three Perkins restaurants en route to the Maple Grove Perkins.

Yep, Joe Bodell also thinks it makes sense to parse the issue:

But what was Brodkorb doing at the Perkins in Maple Grove? I'm sure Michael doesn't want me reprinting his entire address, so I'll leave it at his South Metro hometown of Eagan. The Paulsen campaign headquarters are in Eden Prairie.

Commenters have also come to her defense.

So progressive CD3 politicos are challenging Michael Brodkorb's backstory. And I agree with my netrootsian brothers and sisters--Brodkorb's intro could well be bogus. I just think it doesn't matter. If I drove past six Perkinses, finding one to my liking in St. Bonifacius--and there videotaped the spouse of Erik Paulsen's communications director uprooting Madia For Congress signs--how would my implausible setup reduce Team Paulsen's embarrassment?

Whether we're discussing the underlying ethics--or bare-knuckled political strategy--an enraged Madia kicking Pollock and Hetland's arses all the way to Mount Rushmore would have been the smarter response.

So my viewpoint differs from the activist consensus in that I think Hetland really handed Ashwin Madia a perfect opportunity to underscore his seriousness on ethics and integrity--by issuing a serious response. Instead, Team Madia put forward its overly-clever reply, with a lick and a promise.

A minor matter, to be sure, but a lost opportunity nonetheless.

Farmers for Sarvi Picnic, Saturday

Steve Sarvi, CD2 DFL candidate for US Congress

Bill and Sue Gorman operate a 160-acre organic dairy farm in Goodhue County. They hosted a Farmers for Sarvi picnic yesterday which attracted about twenty guests. The weather cooperated; it was a fun opportunity to see a bit of Greater Minnesota and observe the excellent CD2 congressional challenger out on the hustings.

Farmer Bill Gorman with Josh Lease of Team Sarvi

Sarvi arrived a few minutes late. Ever the gruff, laconic comedian, at one point I catch Sarvi discoursing on the challenges in using idioms while abroad:

'I was telling a Kosovar, "I don't want to hand you a fish, I want to teach you how to fish." ' Noticing the native was baffled by the expression even after he had explained it, Sarvi elucidates his meaning again, in fine-grained detail. Thinking he's successfully communicated the concept, the Kosovar then announces, 'But I already know how to fish!' The candidate rolls his eyes.

Sarvi is jokester with the affect of a high school football coach. He is funny and self-deprecating--as unconceited as a crew cut--and is making a great showing thus far on the campaign trail. To be polling within the margin of error in a district his predecessor lost by more than 16% is a great achievement. His opponent John Kline votes just as Michele Bachmann does. Massively outgunned financially, a Sarvi victory would be a stunning upset. The candidate is giving it his all.

Minnesota Farmers Union government director Thom Petersen announced his organization's support for Sarvi at the event. (In supporting ethanol subsidies and opposing free trade, I oppose the MFU's lobbying priorities, but CD2 farmers haven't quite begun looking to this blog for legislative advice.) Steve Sarvi wants to move away from corn-based ethanol. Sarvi reminds his audience he takes the F in DFL quite seriously. (You say what you have to say.)

Bill Gorman's family bought the farm in the 1940s. He said the unusual barn, above, was built sometime around 1900.

The Candidate's Mistake

“It has come to our attention that a campaign volunteer removed two Paulsen lawn signs from public property. The volunteer happens to also be the spouse of one of our campaign staffers. Since learning of this, we have reminded all staff and volunteers of our standing policy to not touch Paulsen campaign lawn signs or any lawn signs regardless of where they are placed. In addition, they have been reminded that the proper course of action is to call the authorities if they believe that lawn signs may be placed on public property. We apologize to the Paulsen campaign for our volunteer’s mistake.”

Stuart Rosenberg
Campaign Manager
Ashwin Madia for Congress

**

Michael Brodkorb performed a valuable public service today in publishing video showing a Madia for Congress volunteer--the wife of Communications Director Dan Pollock--removing Paulsen signs. After learning of the story, I emailed Dan Pollock and Stuart Rosenberg, asking for further details. Nine hours have passed, and the Madia campaign has not even passed along its statement. A commenter published it on MDE: The statement does not release the volunteer's name, nor does it clarify whether she has been booted off the Madia volunteer rolls. Has she been informed she is persona non grata at Madia HQ and events? To properly put this situation behind us, Pollock should have been fired today.

Every step of the way, Ashwin Madia promised a new kind of politics, predicated on openness, honesty and integrity. Team Madia embarrassed us today--and has embarrassed us further with its inadequate, weaselly response. Disappointing.

**

I crossed the line yesterday in suggesting Chris Truscott urged a holier-than-thou strategy for Barkley to use against Franken. That was BS. Sorry, Chris.

**

I've been running a monthly book club for some years now; this evening was the first time I've had the opportunity to meet one of our authors.

Mildred Armstrong Kalish spoke this evening at the Virginia Street Swedenborgian Church on Cathedral Hill in St. Paul. (The church is an 1888 Cass Gilbert marvel; the denomination claims 5,000 adherents worldwide.) The church is on friendly terms with nearby Common Good Books, which frequently has authors give talks at the chapel; Kalish herself isn't much of a believer anymore.

In May 2007, Kalish published Little Heathens: Hard Times and High Spirits on an Iowa Farm During the Great Depression, now in its tenth printing in paperback. In it, Kalish recounts many memories of day-to-day life in that era--of food preparation, cleaning, manners, recreation, misbehavior, etc. An enjoyable light read that reminds one how radically different everyday life was, not far from here, not all that long ago. RTWT.

More here, concerning the denomination's founder.

Dean Barkley House Party in Orono

A Barkley for Senate fund-raiser was held this evening at Donald Haberman's house in Orono. Fewer than two dozen people attended. (The host supported Amy Klobuchar during Minnesota's previous senatorial contest.) A surreal affair; forty days before a huge election, a US Senate candidate without enough money to shoot a TV ad can convince just over a dozen Minnesotans to eat and drink for free on a pleasant Thursday evening in a $3.2 million house. Times is tough.

Dean Barkley is a nice guy. He was diagnosed with diabetes recently; he's the father of two and has no health insurance. After the Brodkorb-inflated flaps months ago, some commentators called for a bluenose campaign to replace Al Franken on the DFL ticket. One--former Ashwin Madia staffer Chris Truscott--went on to suspend blogging to join Team Barkley. Barkley, a social-issues libertarian who supports eliminating the drinking age and legalizing marijuana, ran Kinky Friedman's 2006 bid for guv in the Lone Star State.

(Friedman courageously then championed the dewussification of Texas.) Barkley had no interest in pursuing Truscott's bluenose strategy; he remains on Barkley's staff though I haven't seen him at any of three recent Barkley events. Props to Barkley.

Dean Barkley was appointed to the US Senate by then-Governor Jesse Ventura, to serve out the remaining six weeks of Paul Wellstone's second term after the fatal plane crash. Senator Norm Coleman and Al Franken are currently fighting a $60 million battle over the seat--about the same amount Minnesotans spend each year on Halloween candy, as George Will might put it. (And truthfully.)

Many moderate and liberal voters very much want to unseat Norm Coleman. Barkley supporters, when pressed, almost all admit they'd prefer Franken to Coleman. So Barkley is asking moderate-to-liberals to take a massive risk, changing horses in midstream. To anyone seriously interested in unseating the incumbent, considering Barkley is just not worth the risk. Coleman-leaning voters are not considering Barkley; Barkley represents an obvious danger to the Franken candidacy, a fact not lost on DFLers.

The Barkley campaign claims it's taking in $5,000 a day now; they don't have enough money for television advertising and so are doing only radio. If they can maintain their current fund-raising clip, they may be able to compete (albeit 22 years from today).

Don't get me wrong--Dean's a nice guy. But I've got my heart set on retiring a public servant for whom I feel no fondness.

While at this evening's party, I ran into former two-term Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino. Tambornino, a moderate-to-ex Republican, is nearly universally admired for her lengthy contribution to civic life in the area. After some minutes chit-chatting, I asked her if she'd support Erik Paulsen for House. 'I wouldn't support Erik Paulsen for anything,' she responded--without a moment's hesitation. 'He's one of those politicians who's great at pretending to be a moderate,' Tambornino continued, 'but he isn't. He's a far-right conservative.' (Tambornino attended the General Mills debate. She remains undecided between Madia and Dillon.) Get on the telephone, Jiggy!

Paulsen's Complacence

Something Didn't Rub Off

Erik Paulsen says he honors the equal citizenship of gay people--but favors amending the US Constitution to permanently ban the legalization of gay marriage. Paulsen would like to bring about an America in which the discussion of legalizing gay marriage would be taken off the table. Paulsen supporters must grapple with the reality that the relative improvement we've witnessed in the participation of gay people in society has in no way come about due to the public service of Erik Paulsen. Would Paulsen himself contest this assertion?

So a politician who's happy that gays are treated more fairly today than they were in his youth, and who--in decades of public life--has done nothing to bring this reality about would now like the Constitution amended solely for the purpose of restricting human freedom, to prevent further movement toward greater social equality. There's a word for Erik Paulsen's policy on gay issues: schizophrenia. Paulsen owes CD3 residents an explanation for his incoherence.

Yesterday, debate moderator Mary Lahammer attempted to get Paulsen to explain his position on abortion. Why was Paulsen ashamed to say, 'Mary, Embryos are tiny babies'--as he likely believes? As a state legislator he received a 100% rating from MCCL over six consecutive years. Had Paulsen said, 'Mary, it's an election year, so I'm not going to discuss my passionate views on this subject,' we'd at least have to praise his honesty. Instead, Paulsen congratulated himself for 'refusing to engage in single-issue politics.' What high-mindedness!

Would Paulsen favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Does anyone know?

Bet Shalom Debate -- Minnetonka

The three CD3 candidates for US Congress met this evening at Bet Shalom Synagogue in Minnetonka for their third debate. I drove up to Minnetonka on 494 and crowds of blue t-shirted Madia supporters waved signs from the bridge above the superhighway. More masses of Madia supporters also welcomed visitors near the entrance to Bet Shalom. I didn't see any Paulsen pep rallies occurring anywhere, though once inside one did notice a staid minority sporting a Paulsen sticker or telltale business atire. Of the three debates so far held, this was by far the best: The venue was right-sized, comfortable and well-lit, the moderator was effective and at times amusing, though not overbearing, the audience was well-behaved and intensely interested and Paulsen and Madia hammered each other hard.

David Dillon argued that a moderate such as himself would have no hope of getting nominated for Congress by either major party. He's probably correct, but that shouldn't be counted a human rights violation: You get a nomination after at least a few years of courting and impressing party activists. The activists in a serious political party want to make sure you've been through the wash a few times and have proved colorfast. Had Dillon seriously tried--and failed--to build a moderate movement from within a major party, his 2008 candidacy would have considerably greater credibility.

The candidates treated us to quite a number of oft-repeated lines this evening. But the Dillon presence--which tilted decidedly anti-Madia during the General Mills debate--worked in Ashwin's favor tonight. Dillon softened the blow of some of Paulsen's toughest anti-Madia attacks and endorsed an anti-Paulsen jab or two of Madia's. The major party candidates didn't appear to have a strategy on how to deal with Dillon, though neither bit on Dillon's request that they categorically foreswear earmarks and voting in favor of any unbalanced budget. Madia and Paulsen do not see Dillon as a threat--and neither goes so far as to honor him with an attack.

All three candidates reached out to Jewish voters this evening, with Paulsen promising blind, uncritical support for Israel to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with full US support. Paulsen announced his view that Israel is America's best ally and that it is a democracy 'just like the US.' Madia thanked Bet Shalom for its congregants' work in opposing bigotry.

Sparks flew this evening on a number of social issues. Moderator Mary Lahammer at one point attempted to draw Paulsen out a bit, on his contrast with outgoing incumbent Jim Ramstad's position on abortion. Paulsen repeatedly attempted to downplay the importance of social issues, claiming he'd never sought to call attention to his positions on gay marriage or abortion, for example. On social issues, Paulsen wants it both ways: He wants to be able to signal to his base that he shares their most fanatical views while telling the moderate middle that he is redeemingly unenthusiastic when it comes to promoting his reactionary social agenda. We're unimpressed, Erik.

On the current congressional action to bail out Fannie/Freddie/Wall Street, Paulsen said he'd likely oppose such legislation; Madia said he'd likely support it, with some misgivings, as would Dillon.

The candidates went back and forth on quite a number of issues. At one point Erik Paulsen chided Ashwin Madia, telling the Democrat not to make assumptions about his views before asking for his actual position. I found this to be an odd claim, coming from a candidate who has so steadfastly refused to answer any of numerous fair, above-board questions I've sent him. Paulsen--to this day--disgracefully refuses to inform me whether I'm his 42B constituent.

All-in-all, an exciting debate. People are starting to realize that Madia could win this thing--and that's calling forth ever greater enthusiasm among his steadily growing team of supporters.

Franken Rally Saturday in Plymouth

Al Franken and a young fan

Rep John Benson and Al Franken

Franken was preceded by Clint Faust, John Benson, Mrs Molin and Stuart Rosenberg.

Yesterday I'd intended to stop by the Franken for Senate rally at the Osseo Dunn Bros.

At the coffee shop I ran into Nicole--the GOP tracker pictured above--who was friendly and polite. She even identified herself as a GOP tracker. A customer sitting across from Nicole, overhearing our brief conversation, asked Nicole, 'What's a tracker?' She replied: 'We just follow Al Franken around, take pictures and then send them to Washington DC.'

That's what she said.

Nicole told us that the Dunn Bros event had been cancelled, but that another Franken Rally was set to start shortly at nearby Parkers Lake in Plymouth. So we hopped in the car and drove to Plymouth.

The Franken rally was set to take place at the hilltop picnic area at the park, requiring a walk up the hill. Shortly after arriving, I noticed two presumed Norm Coleman supporters ascending the hill.

I started asking the Grim Reaper and his companion about his point, and whether he was being paid to perform his act. The GR wouldn't talk. The videocam model looks standard issue MN-GOP. The two scurried away in response to my questioning.

Seems a bit weird, no? Imagine you got so riled up about Al Franken's position on EFCA that you went out and got a funny costume to wear to his rally. Upon arriving at the rally, a blogger politely asks you to explain your viewpoint. Rather than engaging in polite discussion, you run away. Coleman Courage.

I also noticed this Norm Coleman stand-in at the rally. So by my count the rally included four Norm Coleman representatives--at a casual afternoon rally that drew perhaps 150 supporters. Attending political events in Minnesota this season, one of the eeriest aspects has been the surfeit of Republican surveillance. The young Republican activists genuinely seem to believe that surveillance is their proudest area of expertise.

Blogging to resume tomorrow...I've been busy. Thanks!

You Complete Me

I-35W made whole as new bridge opens at 5 a.m.

An Academic Offers a Hunch

At Cost Cutters, this afternoon, with Twyla

I've been asking a number of people what they make of Erik Paulsen's inconsistent, unusual-sounding claim concerning his meetings with the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers more than a year ago. (See the second half of yesterday's post for further context.)

I received the following reply from a US academic with expertise on Middle Eastern affairs:

My hunch is that many of the regional powers are wary of a rapid American withdrawal, because it will create a "vacuum" (so they think) and an out-of-control conflict in which everyone might get involved; I have heard that even the Iranians think that. It is entirely plausible from the point of view of Realpolitik. However, I don't think anyone is willing to say that in public. And I think it entirely implausible that ministers of foreign affairs would be speaking so candidly to state legislators from Minnesota. So while I don't think the position Paulsen states is implausible, I think he is very likely making up the fact that he is so important as to be having these kinds of conversations with foreign ministers.

AARP 'Debate'

I just listened to the AARP 'debate' which you can view here.

Mary Lahammer moderated this evening's sit-down with Madia, Paulsen and Dillon. The event was sponsored by the noxious special interest once daintily known as the American Association of Retired Persons. (Social spending on impoverished younger people, families and children is minuscule because these groups have no AARP.) During the debate, David Dillon advocated (albeit vaguely) reducing Social Security spending, presumably by increasing the retirement age. Dillon would also increase the taxation which funds SSI, possibly by increasing the income cap on SSI taxation. But nobody seriously nibbled on the hand feeding this evening's meeting.

Like all moderators, Lahammer perceives herself as imposing seriousness and focus on the hot-air-filled political blowhards. An unmoderated format would be much more interesting, imho; I'd prefer a debate where just the three candidates appeared on stage. They could hammer out some rules beforehand, but the candidates ought to ask each other questions. Moderators' self-perception is generally in error: By imposing 'politeness' and 'seriousness' upon the participants, they unwittingly favor the most Establishment candidates over the outsider or insurgent ones. The meek gain at the expense of the gutsy. Moderators impose a soporific, herded quality upon the discussion's flow. When the candidates are escorted through a quick MSM question series, we see them at their least independent. Instead of seeing the ponies led around by the nose, I'd like to see them asking challenging questions of each other. Were the candidates to try an unmoderated debate, each would have strong incentive to ask tough questions; each would have a strong incentive to appear civil. Moderators simply get in the way.

Refusing--as a matter of high principle--to pay for television, my Magnavox has been gathering dust for several months now. So I listened to the audio off of Polinaut's link, though the video is now available on Almanac's site.

The candidates were well-spoken, though if you've been following this race for awhile, you didn't hear much that roused you away from your Sudoku browser. Paulsen occasionally spoke too quickly, Madia (typically) got very scratchy-throated, Dillon sounded clear-voiced and amicable.

**

On January 25, 2008, Erik Paulsen appeared on Almanac with Cathy Wurzer and Mary Lahammer. Concerning Iraq, Paulsen then said, 'And I'll tell you—I was in Jordan and Egypt earlier this year, and I met with both of the foreign ministers of those countries, and they're very nervous about a vacuum that could be left if we withdrew.' Eight months later, Paulsen has now upgraded the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers' concern; this evening Paulsen said the two diplomats were 'scared to death of a vacuum being created if the US just precipitously withdrawed. [sic]'

Some months ago, I emailed an Egyptian acquaintance, hoping to find out if Paulsen's description of the attitudes of the two foreign ministers is plausible, but getting through to knowledgeable elites in those countries appears quite difficult. I'd really like to find out if either of the two foreign ministers Paulsen met with--Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Salaheddin Al Bashir [or his predecessor?]--can confirm Paulsen's description of their discussion. Did the foreign ministers of two major players in Middle Eastern politics really tell a visiting state representative from Minnesota that they were 'scared to death' of the US leaving Iraq more quickly than they would prefer?

If you know how I might verify Paulsen's claim, please email me. Does either Egypt or Jordan have an announced position concerning the speed with which it would like the US to get out of Iraq? Is their first inclination really to tell Uncle Sam to make sure our exit isn't excessively speedy?

Stop the Bridge Memorial

Memorials should be built for heroes and victims of persecution--they should not be built to immortalize accident victims. In 2007, 503 people died in traffic accidents in Minnesota. Due to an irrationality in media emphasis, a tiny minority of the 503 were stupidly accorded Victim of Terrorism status, with survivors and next-of-kin receiving massive taxpayer-financed payouts. And as a state, we have all been designated Preferred Victims, with the federal government picking up a far higher portion of the cost of the new bridge than would have been the case had we initiated the replacement prior to the unhappy snap. We made out like bandits.

**

Her call for repairs came one day before Gov. Tim Pawlenty's news conference this morning announcing when the new 35W bridge will open. "Creating a memorial and holding ceremonies is good, but we need to go further," Brown said.

Brown, 37, was a passenger in a car when the bridge collapsed. She fell with its midsection and crawled out through the driver's side window.

**

Of the remaining unfortunates among the 503, sure there were drunk and careless drivers. But there were also certainly many every bit as guiltless as the baker's dozen who died on August 1, 2007.

So why build a memorial to this tiny subset of 2007's traffic accident victims? DFLers believe--ridiculously--that the bridge victims were victims of the MN GOP. But what motivates Republicans to participate in the 'Minnesota's 9/11' charade? Is it just the magnetic quality of the television camera, in 2008's America?

In Minnesota, traffic safety has improved massively during my lifetime. This trend does not appear to be linked to which party is in power. So let's cut the mugging and preening for the viewers in Tuscaloosa--and let's not build any memorial singling out 2.5% of last year's accident victims for Saint Sebastian status.

DFL Senior Forum

I attended the DFL Senior Forum yesterday at the Operating Engineers Local 49 Union Hall in St. Anthony. Here are some pictures from the event:

More pictures here.

Ho Hum

Joe Bodell sounds unconvincing and wonkish on the inside-baseball ad-buying front. Erik Paulsen doesn't appear to be 'playing catchup' in our neck of the woods; his signs are larger than Ash's and they're everywhere in 42B. (I've just started noticing Ash's smaller, less eye-catching signs.) The FU billboard was a clever tweak, let's face it. We should have thought of that. And while I haven't heard Paulsen make any interesting statements of late, the same goes for Madia. Madia has followed Franken in calling for larger budget-busting middle class entitlements in the form of a $5,000 tax credit for higher education.

Jeff Rosenberg is also convinced Paulsen is wasting his money putting up the billboards. But Paulsen's political strategy is rarely idiotic. This week's Madia Weekly Campaign Connection--the Wednesday newsletter--has nothing of interest.

**

Just read Hitchens and Paglia on the Palin phenomenon; I'm still rather amazed by the choice, and can now admit it was a politically shrewd one. Gary Hart calls on Obama to re-think strategy. Mark Kleiman continues to go after McCain and Palin tooth-and-nail.

**

Some months ago, Prof. Susan Estrich sounded off on the Eliot Spitzer implosion in What I Couldn't Teach Spitzer at Harvard Law:

The easy answer, the one I heard frequently as the story was breaking, is that men just get stupid about sex. But prostitution is -- from my vantage point as a woman and a mother -- a particularly unattractive and offensive kind of extramarital activity. I really believe it is none of my business, as a member of the public or the media, if a political or business leader has an affair. I don't sit in judgment of other people's marriages or their private lives. But prostitution isn't just sex. Prostitution objectifies the women who engage in it, dehumanizes sex and sexuality, and turns both into commodities with a price tag.

Could a woman, conceivably, get stupid about sex? Estrich implies that all women naturally condemn prostitution. She is disgusted by heterosexual prostitution and particularly condemns married men who partake in it. But she's no fuddy-duddy--she doesn't condemn married men who have consensual affairs. Estrich doesn't sit in judgment of other people's marriages or their private lives--except when she does. And is it really fair to lambaste prostitution for turning sex into a commodity with a price tag? (It's not the commodification that irritates me about Cub Foods--it's those vile price tags!)

People of Faith

His Hitchness: With a coffin nail in Brazil (2006)

In an email thread today among friends, I mentioned Robert Nozick's Experience Machine and Felipe De Brigard's clever riposte [which came straight from Bloggingheads]. Our thread marched on through C.S. Lewis to Christopher Hitchens, who, I noted, rips on Lewis around page 119 of God is Not Great. My invocation of Hitchens prompted Paul [nhrn] to respond:

I enjoy Hitchens and I read him in Slate; there is something about dogmatic persons that can be fascinating when half the time they make sense. It is too bad I can’t take him seriously more often. I think the anti-religious nuttery is such a classic example of how people’s hatred for God makes them irrational—they don’t seem to think their own hearts are full of dark passions. Only religious people suffer from them, I suppose.

Readers may have noted I frequently charge people with dogmatism myself; Paul had my attention.

(For example, not long ago I attempted to ask a few questions of my state senator. David Hann refuses to answer questions coming from a lowly citizen, as he deems me insufficiently 'serious' to his lofty lifeway. Implicit in Hann's revocation-of-citizenship on me is his belief that personal judgment is a one-way street, and that my assessment of him ought not even be momentarily considered, due to his self-evident august worth. Were our stations reversed--I the state senator and he the inquiring microblogger--I wouldn't fire off character-assassinating idiotic attacks, as comes so naturally to the puny punk SD42 sends to St. Paul. He acts as he does due to the dependable torpor of his constituency.)

So, for me, dogmatism is a bad quality; it's in conflict with the social equality we need for democracy to function.

In that blue quotation up above, Paul accuses Hitchens of dogmatism without providing any example. And while he illuminates no dogmatism in Hitchens' writing, he reveals significant dogmatism in his own. Hitchens, according to my correspondent, is in the grip of anti-religious nuttery and hatred for God. He accuses Hitch of both irrationality and being in denial of human beings' dark passions. (That final charge seems to cancel itself out.) In bringing these concerns to his attention, he responded:

I’m not being unfair. I don’t actually have to advance any evidence to anybody to be convinced that Hitchens is being irrational. I’m telling you why I can’t take him too seriously: I find the anti-religious nuttery off-putting. There are plenty of things I can read that come free of it and are intelligent and interesting.

And I don’t think there is anything wrong with being dogmatic. I think you’re making the mistake of thinking I use it as a pejorative term. Nothing wrong with being dogmatic, especially when you’re right.

What I had in mind about being irrational is the subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. Granted, I haven’t read his book and I don’t intend to, but I think the statement that religion poisons everything irrational and an attempt to explain it boring. That is the anti-religious nuttery. The problem is with the religious and with religion: if we can only get rid of them. As if the problem were not in every human heart but only in the heart of religious people. Irrational. I’m pretty close minded about reading things that strike me as irrational, I admit. It seems there is a lot of it with Dawkins and the other chap called Josh Harris—I actually watched him give a speech, on Youtube, waste of time.

I think they do it out of hatred for God, perhaps they have better motives for making an argument against God altogether? I’m just not interested in what they have to say.

Paul misrepresents Hitchens' position on religion, since he refuses to read the book. Hitchens does not view religious belief as being eradicable in human society, nor does he 'hate god'. (For Hitchens, 'hating god' would be akin to hating the electric blue four-headed giraffe that lives inside Pluto.)

Being correct is not a good excuse for employing dogmatism in argumentation; it's disrespectful of others and fails to persuade even when your underlying point is sound. Accusing someone of engaging in dogmatism ought to be pejorative.

Paul is defending his avoidance of Hitchens' God is Not Great on consumerist grounds--that he can shop elsewhere for reading material unsullied by Hitchens' 'off-putting' anti-religious nuttery. His description of his own motivation comes across as deeply unconvincing, as much as one hesitates to tread upon the minefield of motives. It is odd--during a period in which antireligious thinkers have published several excellent books--that religious people show such little interest in responding. It's as if they're conceding the point. Indeed, many religious people seem to think that 'god' wants them to shield themselves from exposure to such ideas. Boo hoo.

This topic reminds me: If you attended a Catholic Mass four days ago, you were likely handed a parish bulletin that included this insert--from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops--concerning Faithful Citizenship. The 2000 word document is dogmatic from top to bottom; read it and ask yourself to describe the presumed audience [I suggest: morons]. It's just amazing how--in 2008!--the Catholic bishops think they can speak this way--and that someone is going to listen to them. The dogmatic register demands a surly response--from the living, at least. An insult!

And while I'm on this religion-related tear:

Richard Land has appeared on Bloggingheads twice recently alongside Brian McLaren. During their most recent diavlog both used the phrase 'people of faith' repeatedly. I suppose the phrase ought to denote 'people with at least one superstition' but one senses it actually means 'people who believe in religions deemed normal and acceptable to Richard Land.' But in the clip above, Land appears to clarify his definition: 'That's right. We have to always remember, as people of faith, that our ultimate allegiance, belongs to no one but the Lord Jesus Christ.' So people of faith, for Richard Land, simply means 'evangelical Christians.' Land and I have corresponded previously; assuming him to have misspoken in the clip above--and that by people of faith he does include many or all believers--I asked him [and have thus far received no response]:

In your Bloggingheads appearance the other day, you said that your 'ultimate allegiance, as people of faith, belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.' A somewhat odd leap, no? I mean, vast numbers of 'people of faith,' globally, do not believe in Jesus Christ at all, right?

If you and I found ourselves trapped in an elevator with two other people--and we started chatting and learned that among us we had an evangelical Christian, an atheist, a Hindu and an ancestor-worshipper, why would you consider the three non-atheists to constitute such an interesting, special group? ['people of faith'?] I mean, it just isn't clear to me why an evangelical Christian such as yourself would feel greater kinship with a polytheist or an ancestor-worshipper than with the elevator's non-believer. Can you explain that one?

MNIP Primary Party at the Hopkins VFW

Dean Barkley pulled 59% in the MNIP US Senate primary today, easily winning.

David Dillon got 674 people to vote for him in the MNIP CD3 primary, or roughly 3% as many votes as Ashwin Madia received, running unopposed.

About 75 people showed up for the party this evening at the Hopkins VFW. The MNIPers are nice and it must be fun to participate in a party which is so small and informal, though it's probably Minnesota's least diverse political party. The raison d'etre of the MNIP is quite questionable; historically you just don't displace a major US political party by railing against the two-party system. You take one party out, or one party destroys itself. The MNIPers are sort of Republicans without the corporatism and religious stupidity. As harmless as a political hobby shop.

Franken + Sarvi Event in Lakeville 9/7/08

Al Franken

Steve Sarvi

More pictures here; slide show here.

Steve Sarvi and Al Franken held a joint campaign event at Antlers Park in Lakeville this evening. The event attracted about 75 supporters and was notable for attracting two separate Republican trackers [apparently]. Can anyone identify this one?

Wayzata Parade Pictures - 9/7/08

Ashwin Madia

Sen. Terri Bonoff

Clint Faust

Kim Kang

Rep. John Benson

More pictures here; slide show here

Daniel Kim / Maria Ruud -- 42A State Rep contest

When I challenged Wendy Wilde in the 2006 primary, a few DFL stalwarts responded with surprising fury. I don't mind a political whack or two, but a few genuinely stupid and over-the-top criticisms were directed at me. I made a mental note to watch out for this kind of thing, in future.

Enter Daniel Kim. Kim--who grew up in South Korea before immigrating to the USA--is 48 years old and lives in an apartment in Eden Prairie. He is unemployed; his much-loved brother pays the rent. While he has lived in the US for decades, his English is broken; his words are somewhat difficult to make out. He appears to be rather non-integrated into the mainstream community. He has neither a website nor an email address. (He does not own a computer.)

He is mostly apolitical; we spoke on the telephone this evening. When he filed for office he was unaware that Maria Ruud currently held the seat. During our conversation, I asked him four times whether any Republican advised, encouraged or suggested he file for office. Kim convinced me of his sincerity; he insists the decision was entirely his. Since filing for office, Kim has reconsidered and would like his candidacy to be considered withdrawn. He bears no animus toward the incumbent.

Kim is very religious and attends two Christian services (at two different churches) each Sunday. His goal in life is to enter theology school and become a pastor. Kim is antiabortion; he has been strongly moved and influenced by one Percy Collett, an evangelist who Kim says claims to have entered heaven and been made aware of the many souls of 'aborted babies' residing there, before returning to earth. I didn't get the whole story; I gave Kim my telephone number and suggested we get together sometime for coffee so that we can discuss his views on this and other matters.

In speaking with Kim, I thought: Wow--here's an immigrant who's had a difficult and unsuccessful adjustment to our country. He's polite and kind-hearted and clearly isn't some devious Ron Carey plant. He's unemployed and very alienated from our society, and one day Jesus or Percy Collett moved him to file for state representative as a Democrat.

Let's cut the fellow a bit of slack, okay? Indeed, let's extend the hand of friendship, and cut the hyper-partisanship. He's going to get clobbered in the primary on Tuesday whether or not you vote for Ruud. But Marty Seifert is not behind Daniel Kim's semi-candidacy; indeed, Daniel Kim isn't any longer behind Daniel Kim's candidacy. So can we cut the crap?:

Dear SD42A Democrats,

This email comes to you because Maria Ruud is facing a primary election this coming Tuesday, September 9.

We have received word that Marty Siefert (R), the MN Senate Minority Leader has hand picked Maria's opponent, Daniel Kim to run against her as a Democrat in the DFL primary. The Republican base in SD42A has been mobilized to crossover and vote for Daniel Kim, to get Maria off the ballot in November so they can take the seat back to the Republican side.

It's imperative that you vote in Tuesday's primary election to maintain Maria's seat on SD42A House of Representatives. Bring your neighbors and friends, encourage them to vote on Tuesday or we'll lose Maria's leadership in the MN House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

[Beloved SD42 Activist Known to All]

John McCain's 'Heroism' Narrative -- When the Daddy Party Goes Oprah

Sarah, Piper, John -- photo credit: Huffington Post

During the recent RNC Convention, John McCain's treatment as a POW in Vietnam was discussed at great length--though ripped completely out of context.

We were instructed that Americans ought to feel great pride when we ponder our involvement in Vietnam--and that the compassionless robots of Hồ Chí Minh responded with shocking ingratitude in the face of our high-mindedness.

Bullshit. Thinking people ought to cry foul in the face of this Republican narrative, since it is stupid and ahistorical--and dishonorable.

If we are going to publicly recall John McCain's experience as a POW, we should remind ourselves that

1. The devastation and suffering inflicted upon Vietnamese civilians during the war was beyond comprehension: At least 1.5 million Vietnamese civilians were killed, many by aerial bombardment.


2. North Vietnamese soldiers captured by the RVN also report mistreatment.


3. In one US military operation in 1968-69 in Vietnam, we killed 5,000 or more Vietnamese civilians.

During the Vietnam War, gentlemanly niceties were jettisoned by both sides. We killed many times more--probably thousands of times more--Vietnamese civilians than they killed US POWs. Any honorable discussion, by Americans, of John McCain's suffering in captivity ought to acknowledge the above. Our hands were anything but clean.

**

In taking a sober, adult look at war heroism, we should also note the extreme anti-traditionalism involved in according John McCain First-Tier War Hero status. Traditionally, one didn't attain such status by being the guy who suffered the most. (Indeed, once you were removed from the field of battle, you were nearly irrelevent, concerning heroism.) You rose to First Tier War Hero by being the guy who inflicted the most severe harm [within the rules] upon the enemy's military--by filling up their caskets, or by accomplishing strategic objectives in-theater. We live in the age of Oprah, in the cult of the exalted sufferer, in the epoch of the optional war, in a period in which technology has greatly disrupted the way warriors organize and fight. Historically speaking, the McCain narrative is quite unusual fodder for hero-creation, let alone the HONOR PERSONIFIED status the GOP now assigns him.

**

How we speak about the Vietnam War speaks volumes about our national honor at this moment. The Republican Party--we saw in St. Paul--equates its supposed Virtue with its willingness to lie, distort and tell self-flattering fables, concerning the Vietnam War.

That is the very opposite of honor.

Prosecute Bushies? No.

From Bloggingheads: Ann Althouse and Jane Hamsher discuss 'Should an Obama administration prioritize the prosecution of Bush Administration officials?' I side with Ann on this one. (Or watch the whole diavlog here.)

Hello, man in red

SWS Dean Barkley and Jesse Ventura, this evening

I skipped the RNC convention this evening and went to Orchestra Hall, where the harder left met to hear Dean Barkley, Jesse Ventura, Green Party VP candidate Rosa Clemente and Independent Party Candidate Ralph Nader, among others. Ventura mentioned he now lives in Mexico and speaks no Spanish. They claimed 1500 attendees, a small fraction of the number of Naderites I saw before the 2000 election in Minneapolis, when Granny D told the audience at the Target Center that supporting Nader then might well cause Bush to be elected, but that was a risk that must be accepted.

Barkley spoke briefly, reminding the audience that he would have US troops out of Iraq in four hours, were he in charge. The former Kinky Friedman campaign manager shows no interest in going after Al Franken on Chris Truscott's beloved crucify Hef program, thank goodness.

Adored hero Nellie McKay performed three songs and was fantastic.

I continued to ponder, today, the silly Republican biographical obsession of the hour. It's as if to say character is an intrinsic, magical, unteachable quality and only we can identify it. The antidemocratic fraud-based hero-worshipping grates.

And who'd-a-thunk it would be the Republicans who would end the stigmatization of teen pregnancy?

But the sine qua non of the Republican narrative is that, looking back at the Vietnam War, America was the aggrieved party. Vietnam owes America an apology for the many wrongs it committed during that conflict. IOW, this is a campaign based upon historical idiocy. (It would of course be an entirely different matter were Team McCain to say 'During a war in which America gave far better than she got, atrocity-wise, our candidate was on the receiving end of one of their darker chapters. The narrative we tonight relate concerning our candidate does not momentarily mean to suggest the USA was the victim of the Vietnam War--quite the contrary. Our Vietnamese friends need not take offense as we relate...')

Palin night at the GOP Convention in St. Paul

Watching the convention at the moment. Listening, mostly--to ABC News--within another browser. Romney just starting now...looking slim and a little cutesy, fending off thank-yous that aren't as loud as he'd anticipated. He's coming out slamming the evil liberals...he sounds like Rock Hudson after a few Tom Collinses. Romney looks straight at the camera a lot (I remember most of the Democratic orators pretending as if the event were for benefit of the delegates.) Romney's arm/hand gestures fail. [Ron Carey just got a full-screen, as he applauds Romney's anti-lib zinger.] Pan of audience: We see a 'Drill now!' home-made sign. Romney nails radical violent Islam now. [I so prefer moderate violent Islam.] He now zings Michelle Obama--Romney's never had a day during which he wasn't proud to be an American--as the crowd chants USA USA USA. An especially ugly brand of head-in-sand nationalism, in short.

[Have you honestly never experienced a day during which you felt ashamed of your country? How did you feel on the day you learned of My Lai--or Abu Graib? Were those stories of insufficient weight to color a whole day in your life? Walt Whitman would have been horrified--and he has a pretty strong claim on being a real American, I thought.]

Reminds one of the martial obsessiveness last night--subsume the individual under the massive military demigod! Eisenhower was not treated to anything mildly similar to this military-obsessiveness at either of his conventions, was he? (Citizens then would have been happy to treat Ike to an evening of General-Worship--but Ike himself wouldn't have stood for it--he would have found it unseemly.) McCain himself must be embarrassed by this bullshit. I'm all for respecting veterans--but object to making a religion out of it, or allowing it to subsume democratic interaction, or get reduced to a political club by a campaign whose slogan--Country First--proudly advertises the McCarthyism at its core.

In real life, all people are talking about--at work today, at least--is Sarah Palin. The Noonan thing was the group favorite, around the water cooler.

Michele Bachmann is on now, pretty shoulder-length brunette coiffure, in a sharp gray Chanel suit and pearls. Burning up the camera.

We go Huckabee now, as Sam begs Michele to stick around past the Huck interlude.

Huckabee jumps right into civil rights and race--faintly praising Obama, briefly. He's starting off with a greater seriousness than Romney. Now Huckabee is nailing Obama for bringing back dumbass Euro-ideas from Europe--here comes the meathead part of the speech. Abortion, gay marriage, Palin. We're back now in Vietnamania again, like last night--again neglecting to mention that our country inflicted a lot more human rights violations during that war than we received, a loathsomely corrupt omission, were we to seek to be honorable. This segues into ever more veteran-flattering. Huck now tells us--preposterously and with the heartfelt emotion of the squirrel connoisseur--that McCain's military service earned schoolchildren desks. Our country would have been vastly better off had we never entered that war. Many Americans suffered gravely during that immensely wasteful war; many more Vietnamese people suffered vastly more. No American sacrifice there defended any Arkansas schoolchild's desk--contrary to Mike Huckabee's willfully self-deluded bromides. That's part of why we feel so sad about 'Nam, when we're actually thinking about it--and not dishonestly wielding it as a political club.

Sam now has Michele shucking-n-jiving a bit in defense of Palin. Sam loves Michele. 'We're the Saudi Arabia of oil' Michele now tells us. Then she says we're the SA of coal--though without making clear she's correcting her earlier statement. Sam is mesmerised and beyond correcting Bachmannisms--he thanks her for joining him...she exits.

Jack Burkman now yakking with Sam and Rick Klein. I'd never heard of JB. Burkman is explaining how disappointed Team Obama must be with this Palin curveball. Burkman is going so far as to claim McCain offered the VPspot to Romney. No way. Otherwise he seems sane.

Bristol and Trig on-cam now, with Levi, Track, Willow et al. They are lovely--really lovely.

Rudy is now up. Just noticed the lectern contrast between the two conventions--the Democrats had that whimsical cartoon thing, the Republicans have a businesslike one. While Rudy speaks, the camera pans past Cindy McCain and Bristol--initially indicating a cultural chasm, though later the two seem chummy enough. Rudy, for the 18 billionth time, reminds America McCain could have come back from the Hanoi Hilton early. More martial fanaticism, from the party of rugged individualism. Rudy's belittling tone toward Obama could backfire, I think--the crowd is chanting something as Rudy slams Obama's career. Rudy Giuliani crosses the line, imho--as does his audience, with their excessive Obama-belittling chanting.

Camera pans to the families--Cindy nodding with Rudy in assent; Bristol not paying attention, entertaining Trig. Rudy and Romney reinforce the adage--every bad comedian is horrid in his own way. 'Drill baby drill' Rudy works the crowd--so the crowd is shouting an anti-McCain/pro-Palin chant. We've got to stay on offense in the GWOT, Hizzoner reminds us. The Democrats never said 'Islamic Terrorism' once at their convention. For shame! (An upright, anti-terrorist Muslim could quite reasonably take offense with this [Romney and Rudy] rhetoric.) Giuliani: The Democrats gave up on Iraq and at that point the Dems gave up on America. (But we're not attacking their patriotism!) Now he's doing Obama-the-flip-flopper, now Obama the insufficiently pro-AIPAC guy. That's the trouble with America's politicians--insufficiently uncritical support for Israel. Couldn't be more obvious.

Now we see Cindy cradling Trig. Elsewhere on this audience-pan, we see a young white dude in a suit grimacing, shouting USA USA USA...quite jingoistically. RG is now praising Palin. Her great virtue: She's the most popular Guv in the USA. Levi (Track?) looks off to the side; appearing unengaged. Rudy is blessedly finished.

Now: Sarah. Looks great. Crowd going nuts. Very noisy reception... multiple thank yous. We hear the Pacific NW accent for the first time; it is broad. She's off to a good start. Medea Benjamin gets kicked out now--I think that was she. Palin's firing them up but not really throwing a lot of right-wing lines. This reform narrative sounds awfully skimpy. 'We need American sources of resources' she flubs, though she's clearly passing the immediate hurdle. She's doing the traditional VP-candidate attack-dog thing now.

Palin tells us that there is only one man in this race who has fought where winning is everything and defeat equals death. Quite revealing, no? Palin is unaware that we unambiguously lost the Vietnam War. 37 minutes into the speech, her energy level is flagging a wee bit, but she's doing fine. Palin also exults in McCain's POW conduct, again--dishonorably--forgetting all about our Vietnamese victims. (They don't count--they're pleasantly dead or far off camera.) Whatever; Palin passes the screen test.

The family now parades. McCain comes out, looking his mother's age. McCain utters just two sentences...[I paraphrase from memory:]...Don't you think we made the right choice? and What a beautiful family! He's bitter-smiling his fuck-you-nattering-nabobs smile. We love the crotchety old bastard.

Overall, a good night. Lacking the polish of the Democratic convention, but the GOP is in a sweet spot, expectations-wise. The Silent Majority was in its preferred beleaguered-victim stance. They believe they're going to win.