Mitch Anderson's Paulsen Puff Piece

The Strib's Mitch Anderson published Paulsen is hard at work prepping for new job on Capitol Hill more than a week ago.

We learn that Rep. Erik Paulsen continues to see himself as a politeness expert--and praises his predecessor for his supreme civility--and nothing else. When a high-status individual anoints himself politeness expert, the crowd tends to make way, accepting the assertion without skepticism. Eventually praising the pooh-bah for his 'exalted politeness' becomes a way of signalling one is in the know, politically.

At some point reporters owe it to their readers to provide some analysis as to whether Paulsen's paragon of civility claim holds water.

And there's a pretty obvious way one might assess a politician's civility: Look for people who strongly oppose the politician's ideology and then ask them how they feel they get treated by the VIP.

One possibility: If the Star Tribune one day decides not to act as Erik Paulsen's stenographer, it would make sense for Mitch Anderson to contact me, asking 'Rep. Erik Paulsen considers himself a great exemplar of civility. Do you share his assessment? Why?'

My response:

Absolutely not--Erik Paulsen is among the least civil politicians I have ever met.

I doubt any person addressed more inquiries to Erik Paulsen, during the campaign [with Paulsen for Congress staffers carbon-copied almost every time]. I asked him about his positions on issues, I asked questions about his biography, I asked him if he represented me in the state legislature. My inquiries were entirely civil and polite; Paulsen refused to respond, ever--and instructed his staffers to cold-shoulder me too.

So on my civility-assessment scale, I'd award Erik Paulsen a zero.

**

Also in Anderson's article:

As for the big issues awaiting the new Congress, such as the proposed auto bailout and a second, transportation-heavy stimulus package, Paulsen is taking a cautious approach: "From my perspective, I'd just want to see Congress have hearings on all the different proposals that are out there. I can't tell you yes or no on these things yet."

Mitch Anderson commits a serious journalistic oversight: He has Paulsen speculating vaguely about two proposed big-ticket congressional appropriations. But Paulsen claims to be a supporter of the Balanced Budget Amendment, so Paulsen claims he wants federal borrowing to be prohibited by the US Constitution, barring World War Three. So a serious journalist should have requested Paulsen's reassurance: 'As a supporter of the Balanced Budget Amendment, you will oppose any proposed auto bailout or economic stimulus package not paid for by this fiscal year's tax revenues, right?'

If Paulsen has already concluded that his central political/economic belief must be jettisoned, he ought to have the courage to say so out loud.

Responding to Holly's Comment

It makes no difference to me whether the DFL provides advice to bloggers. I have no desire to turn gavinsullivan.com into Democratic Visions. This is not a house organ.

The point I'm raising now really isn't about how the bailout money should be spent, or whether the bailout was a good idea. (I supported the bailout in the same manner Ashwin Madia did.) I'm drawing attention to the complete collapse of Erik Paulsen's philosophy of governance. And so I'm trying to find a serious Republican who will defend that philosophy. On my first attempt, I contacted Sheila Kihne--who admitted she didn't know whether Erik Paulsen supported the Balanced Budget Amendment. (Quite surprisingly, Kihne was unaware Paulsen had ever articulated a position on the issue.) So my immediate task is to find any Republican who was paying attention during the recent CD3 race. Can anyone out there suggest someone?

**

KARE: Dillon also said the deficit has to come down, and he vows he'll resign if he is elected then votes for a budget that's not balanced.

**

On this topic, let's spare a moment for David Dillon. Dillon praised Erik Paulsen for the 'responsibility' and 'good judgment' reflected in Paulsen's support for the Balanced Budget Amendment. (Dillon also supported the Wall Street Bailout.) So had David Dillon won the recent election, we'd be directing the same question to him: How could you vote for a bill which you believe ought to be unconstitutional? Implicitly, Dillon was suggesting that he had the right to support legislation requiring massive borrowing before his swearing in--but that afterwards it would become [politically, for David Dillon] a capital offense. Would any MNIP supporter care to defend Dillon on this point?

Grievegiving, etc

Robert Wright and Joel Achenbach appeared on Bloggingheads today and discussed Thanksgiving. Wright is a founder of Bloggingheads (my base); he teaches at Princeton and is a popularizer of ideas on evolutionary psychology.

The American Thanksgiving holiday was originally a day to give thanks to 'god' for the bounties people then believed 'He' had bestowed upon them. That seems an odd way of thinking to some people today: If you believe you owe thanks to god for your possessions or health, for example, it would suggest that the poor and the unhealthy are in their difficult position due to god's decision. It would also suggest that god frowns mightily upon some countries and that god's generosity correlates with recipient hue. That's assuming you view god as an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Bob Wright points out that historically, belief in omnipotent, omniscient gods is quite rare. Somehow the topic meanders into the morality of meat-eating:

Achenbach: We're biophilic. I eat meat. God forbid how those poor animals are treated at the slaughterhouse. But I make an implicit judgment that the life of the cow is not as valuable as the life of a human being.

Wright: Actually, you have to assume more than that to be eating meat. You have to say that the life of the cow is less important than the fleeting satisfaction you get from tearing into a bacon cheeseburger.

Sullivan: There are many sensible reasons for being a vegetarian. But if you refuse meat because you don't want a cow to die, that's dumb. If everyone quit eating meat, farm animals would not only not die--they'd never be born in the first place. Furthermore, Wright overlooks the fact that you don't kill the cow for 'a bacon cheeseburger'--killing a cow in fact gets you about 2,000 cheeseburgers (leaving aside the swine angle, and the cow-imprisonment angle).

During the diavlog, Achenbach and Wright suggest some other potential thanksgivingish holidays: Why not a Regretgiving, or a Grievegiving? Perhaps a Day Of Smugness (AKA What About Me? Day). To accept that it makes no sense to thank god for your car, your youth or your hearing is not to suggest that a thinking person oughtn't feel very thankful for any of these things, of course.

'Can you give thanks without god?' asks Wright. Tough question; Achenbach discourses a bit on the praying/wishing distinction. When my daughter had Hodgkin's disease several years ago, I learned that prayers can issue forth from people otherwise quite loyal to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. And when people would learn of the illness, I did find it a bit moving when some would tell me they were praying for her. Though if I'd had to choose between the prayers and the science, I'd take the science in a heartbeat. (And yes, she's well, thank you.)

Wright asks and answers: And what is gratitude for?

Gratitude was 'designed' by natural selection to draw human beings into mutually-beneficial relationships. So we should be thankful for gratitude, Wright believes, in that it makes everything else possible.

Since evolution is a non-conscious process, even Wright's distillation seems a bit off. But I'll lift my Diet Coke anyway, not wanting to disturb the family celebration.

**

A commenter yesterday made clear to me that I was providing insufficient context. So let me clarify, with regard to yesterday's post:

By party, I mean individual. (I am active in the DFL, though I take marching orders--and blogging points--from no one.)

During the recent campaign for US Congress in CD3, Erik Paulsen publicly supported the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution. Paulsen's public support for the BBA during the recent campaign is not in dispute. (Listen to the first debate here--and scroll forward to 12:12 to hear Paulsen say 'We need a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, just like the State of Minnesota has to balance its budget.') Paulsen proudly expressed the point on numerous occasions during the campaign.

The bailout clearly constitutes massive deficit spending. (The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks.) And Paulsen has no intention whatsoever of paying for the bailout this fiscal year with spending cuts or tax increases--this point is not debated among the politically conscious, in CD3; to believe otherwise would require a flirtation with insanity.

I emailed Eden Prairie's best-known Republican blogger today, and put the question to her: Does Erik Paulsen support the Balanced Budget Amendment, or not? Her reply: I don't know.

Here's my reply:

Dear [Blogger],

As you're aware, Erik Paulsen said he would have voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

That's the law--which you strongly opposed--the one that [quoting Wikipedia] authorizes 'the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks.'

If you want a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the US Constitution, you're saying you want laws such as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be legally forbidden. You want the US Supreme Court to strike down such laws. (As always, if I'm wrong, please show me my error.)

You're a serious observer of the political scene, [Blogger]--and I don't know you to duck an honest question:

Do you take seriously Erik Paulsen's claim to support the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment? If you do, how can you explain his support for the EESA-2008?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan

An Open Letter to Erik Paulsen

At the Humph, before his election

Dear Erik Paulsen:

I continue to gasp at a colossal incoherence I perceive at the heart of your professed public policy. Perhaps I am the party in error--if so by all means please set me straight.

The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment is the cornerstone of your economic and Constitutional thinking, right?

In other words, you say you believe the US Government should never borrow, save in the case of Congressionally-declared war (IOW, Vietnam, Korea and the WOT wouldn't qualify). But in October, you made clear you would vote just as Rep. Ramstad did--in support of the now-named Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. [You know, that law...the one that authorizes 'the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks,' as Wikipedia has it, accurately.]

To state the obvious: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 would be unconstitutional if you had your way, right? So you favored the passage of a bill you would like to have labelled unconstitutional? How could you?

Some expression of embarrassment would be appreciated. Or an explanation?

Oh, and Erik: Why did you take down the Issues section on your website?

And when can we expect your first series of town hall meetings to be announced?

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Stimulate or Wait?

His last words: “My only regret in life

is that I did not drink more Champagne.”

Our three congressional candidates were in agreement on one issue: Deficit spending should not be used to help get the US economy out of a recession. All three candidates opposed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Erik Paulsen and David Dillon both publicly endorsed a proposed Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have made the financial bailout illegal. So our Congressman Elect has some explaining to do. (If I'm misrepresenting anyone's thinking, please set me straight.)

The immediate economic outlook is considerably bleaker than many had anticipated during the campaign. The situation now calls for a massive, deficit-financed liquidity infusion, says the consensus [me too]. If you're Erik Paulsen or David Dillon, you've committed yourself to opposing any deficit-expanding economic stimulus, no matter how dire the state of the economy, ever. To his credit, Ashwin Madia never supported anything that irresponsible.

Do Erik Paulsen's supporters stand by their man's position? (Any word from supporters of either of the other candidates?) Policy positions don't get much more consequential than this.

Make It Minnesotan! etc.

This evening I attended a book event in Wayzata for Make It Minnesotan! Sesquicentennial Cookbook. The book compiles recipes and lore contributed from people all over the state, including at least one contribution from every county. A similar book was published for the centennial of Minnesota's statehood, back in 1958. The contributors to the earlier volume were often credited Mrs. Lloyd Haxby, Mrs. Rodney Lindstrom, Mrs. Philip Pearson, etc. I arrived a bit late for this evening's event, where Doris Rubenstein (one of the book's contributors) was telling the dozen or so guests about her experience entering real kosher dill pickles in the Minnesota State Fair contest.

**

Replying to Independent Minded, where the commenter decries the negative effects of accepting corporate PAC money:

If that's an argument for unilateral disarmament, it is not a good one. It doesn't tell a hypothetical DFL candidate why forswearing contributions from corporate PACs will benefit her candidacy or her performance in office. Erik Paulsen accepted corporate PAC money during the recent campaign--and no one seemed to care. So I want to convince the next CD3 DFL candidate not to practice unilateral disarmament. And I don't want the DFL to rely on recruiting millionaire candidates as a means of solving the problem--not even if they're nice millionaires. (My, that photo looks familiar.)

**

This weekend I saw two excellent movies: Happy-Go-Lucky (above) and Let the Right One In (below). HGL is a character sketch of a clownish 30ish working class woman who's filled with panache and joie de vivre, played brilliantly by Sally Hawkins. She's contrasted with her embittered, reactionary nutcase driving instructor (played by the equally-brilliant Eddie Marsan), her married, constipated suburban sister, and--less brutally--with her flamenco instructor (Karina Fernandez, above).

The CD3 Congressional Seat and CFR

Over the length of our recent campaign for Congress in CD3, one often heard DFL candidates complain of the role of money in American politics. Both Terri Bonoff and Ashwin Madia advocated stringent campaign finance reform and publicly-funded congressional campaigns. From the start Ashwin Madia promised never to accept corporate PAC money. In the end, money did not win the election for Erik Paulsen; both Ashwin and Erik had similar war chests. Unilateral disarmament (i.e. forswearing contributions from certain detested PACs) doesn't make sense. If their money's green, take it; if they give you stupid advice, plug your ears.

The law as it stands allows individuals to contribute up to $4,600 to as many candidates as they like. But if you were rich you could probably convince a few other family members or friends to double max out as well. If you'd like to spend even more to influence the election's outcome, you might make a much larger contribution to your candidate's party, or to any group you can find which is 'educating' the public about your opponent's frailties, real or imagined. You can buy Google search terms so that anyone searching for information about your guy gets steered to positive information and anyone searching for her opponent gets led to the most negative information out there.

As a practical matter, the $4,600 limit does cap the political contributions of most rich people, who likely lack either the sophistication or desire to exceed that threshold. Indeed, many rich people are probably grateful for the limit, as it allows them to fulfill a perceived social commitment at relatively modest cost. (Your friends look for you on Fundrace just as you look for them there--let's be honest.)

Members Only

it's raining men

The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis generally strikes an à la mode pose; for about the cost of an iPod Shuffle you can become a member. Otherwise--if you're in pajamas in your parents' basement--you can visit the Walker on the first Saturday of the month or any Thursday evening, when admission is free.

The Tetsumi Kudo retrospective, now on display, is really cool. Tetsumi Kudo grew up in Japan and moved to Paris after he became successful. He made amazing works and performances, incorporating many interesting materials (my favorite being the spool from old rolls of film); he trampled upon sexual taboos in a manner once capable of inducing shock. (The penis features prominently in Kudo's art, symbolizing [prepare to chuckle] impotence.) He espoused New Left gibberish; he juxtaposed human body parts with plants and shells, lengthily immersing himself in themes of metamorphosis, as the show's title indicates. Circa 1970, he was rejected by the Venice biennale for indecency. A politically-obsessed blogger can't do it justice, but it was worth a second trip.

The Walker is admirable in part because it is difficult. It appeals to the discriminating and requires a bit of attention and concentration from visitors. Given its disproportionate historical appeal to the educational and economic elite, you might expect the Walker's current leadership to work on attracting more diverse visitors. But it's still surprising to read of the Walker's new initiative to cater to those suffering from dementia. Some of the objects on display at the museum seem quite unsuited to the Alzheimer's-suffering community. Thinking of my grandmother's slow decline at the hands of the disease, it had never occurred to me that her situation might have been improved by Herzog & de Meuron, though perhaps stranger things have occurred.

Herbert Hoover on C-SPAN

I noticed the interview above on Erik Paulsen's website. A mind-numbing speaker, the Congressman-elect splices together his standard string of schmaltzy cliches: 'drinking from a firehose,' 'baptism by fire,' etc. But Paulsen is energetically committed to one clearly-stated policy priority: He believes that the times call for a contractionary fiscal policy. He would like to severely reduce government spending at the beginning of recession, in other words.

A further remark on the Madia candidacy, then: I assume Ashwin Madia will run again in 2010. To do so, he'll have to establish real residency in the district, maintain some visible community involvement and work to keep his team intact. Ashwin Madia earned many strong supporters during his 2008 run. But his rather distant finish will not discourage other candidates from entering the 2010 race. It's quite possible that--ten months from now--we'll have an even larger field of serious candidates fighting for the CD3 DFL 2010 label--quite possibly including Ashwin Madia and Terri Bonoff, again. (Both Madia and Bonoff had their congressional campaign web presences up before the end of September 2007, if memory serves.) In addition, we'll likely see others vying for the opportunity.

What Went Wrong?

CD3
DAVID DILLON 10.6%
ERIK PAULSEN 48.5%
ASHWIN MADIA 40.6%

CD6

BOB ANDERSON 10.0%
MICHELE BACHMANN 46.4%
EL TINKLENBERG 43.4%

CD2

JOHN KLINE 57.3%
STEVE SARVI 42.6%

Going into the recent election, I believed DFLers' greatest chance for picking up a congressional seat would be in CD3. And I supported Ashwin Madia from well before the CD3 DFL Convention. Yet truth be told, our candidate faired rather poorly. If you supported Team Bonoff or even Team Hovland, perhaps you're thinking that the politically naive got their comeuppance.

A well-placed Team Madia insider mentioned to me--just days after the tragedy--that Madia's mistake lay in failing to seriously address the David Dillon candidacy. But Madia lost by eight points; I don't think that Madia's 'Dillon error' could possibly explain more than a fraction of Ash's loss. Nor am I sure how Ashwin could have successfully attacked Dillon.

Just a gut observation or two:

I'm not sure Team Madia handled Ashwin's 'cultural placement' as well as it might have. Madia supporters had an underlying concern that antiforeign bias might work to Ashwin's disadvantage in the contest--and that Team Paulsen was encouraging such ugliness, at arm's length. (And yes, I think that did happen.) But might Team Madia have played it a bit smarter?

Any person considering throwing her hat in the ring for Congress in CD3 has to expect a few cultural questions. Candidates have always been asked their religious affiliation, for example. Yes, that's probably a dumb tradition: It allows a candidate such as Erik Paulsen to accomplish a great deal of cultural signalling without ever having to face a question on it--and it exacerbates public pondering of irrelevancies, when a non-WASP emerges on the political scene. So when I asked Ashwin his religion, I was surprised to learn he had no prepared response. Rest assured I didn't care what Ashwin's actual spiritual beliefs are, if any--I simply wanted to defuse a question we all knew would eventually be asked. When Ashwin didn't answer the question, I defended his right to not respond. But as a strategic matter, I think it may have made sense to establish some religious affiliation--for public consumption if nothing else.

The religion piece was part of the larger cultural battlefield. And I think Team Madia might have done better in competing for the Fred MacMurray cultural slot.

A second area which Madia's position may have been underfought was in the political cleanliness area. Lots of negativity occurred on both sides--and plenty of phony anti-Paulsen ads were financed by outside groups. But what if Ashwin Madia had committed himself to a genuinely no-bullshit campaign, in which he came down really hard on the anti-Paulsen sleaze coming from his out-of-state supporters as well as his in-state supporters?

What if Madia had established himself as squeaky-clean candidate, firmly in charge of his own campaign, permitting no stupid anti-Paulsen attacks? Might a more upbeat, uplifting Madia campaign have done better at the ballot box?

Various only-slightly-political people in my life knew I'd been following Madia-Paulsen quite closely, and that I fervently wanted Ashwin to win. By the end of the campaign, a few people chided me for [what they perceived to be] the Madia [anti-Paulsen] bullshit they'd been bombarded with, on their televisions. And I think that was the general perception--that Team Madia was putting out more yucky bullshit than was Team Paulsen. And I noticed that being an FOA didn't have quite the cache it did some months before.

You're Not Worthy

“Don’t you ever tell me that something like this is not meaningful.”
Brigadier Gen. Dennis Schulstad, keynote speaker at the dedication of the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial

No one is saying that. As I've noted, the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial--that odd homage to John Lennon and Dick Cheney--is both an aesthetic and an intellectual failure. It's a sacred cow that pretends to honor American memory, but three of its quotations are false, indicating a certain phoniness in the monument's claimed purpose. (On the 'Washington quotation', see here.) It throws a bone to pacifists, militarists and anyone willing not to smirk. It appears to have been designed by mutually-antagonistic factions, yielding a push-me pull-me composition.

Some commenters have argued that my EPVM opinion doesn't merit attention--because I never served in the military, because I haven't attended enough ceremonies previously, because I didn't volunteer for the EPVM committee, because my opinion is shared by a right-wing blogger, etc. And I'm just too obstinate 'to understand the sacrifice of service to this nation.' To seriously evaluate the EPVM--some think--is to risk offending sensitive community elders and relatives of those who died serving our country.

The monument's redder-, whiter- and bluer-than-thou defenders, in other words, desire an America in which people know their place--and discussion of monuments to our nation's past is confined to a tiny grouping of dependably chirpy supporters. That's too bad.

Mike Gallagher Revs Up the Patriots

This evening AM1280 The Patriot held a post-election party in St. Paul, in the warehouse showroom of a large kitchen and bath distributor. Around 200 conservatives showed up. The draw was Mike Gallagher, the #8 radio talk-show host in America, who claims an audience of more than 3 million. His show airs (in the Twin Cities) weekday mornings from 8-11.

Gallagher is a bold, ebullient conservative, though he's not a real ideas guy; he projects a certain working class hero self-image. He's not by any means an intellectual leader among conservative talkers--he's no Hugh Hewitt--nor is he scoffed at by the serious political right, as is Michael Savage. He's a solid meat-and-potatoes right-winger who puts on a reasonably good radio program.

The talker, who recently lost his wife to cancer, was in top form this evening, speaking to AM1280 listeners about why the GOP lost the recent election, and the prospects for the right. We've tried moderation; it doesn't work was the essential message. (If only McCain had made more of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers!) The press was in the tank for Obama, if only McCain had opposed the bailout, yada yada. Gallagher does mine white resentment a bit, but he acknowledges the historic moment and only wishes the first black president could have been Michael Steele or Condoleeza Rice.

Gallagher (who grew up Michael Smelstor)--and those who came out to see him--still credit a series of unfortunate coincidences for their recent loss. The host and his fans quite openly believe that race has everything to do with the Obama phenomenon. But that's a truism; it has to be expanded upon to really have any explanatory value, regarding the election. I mean, race played an enormous role in the selection of the forty-three presidents preceding Barack Hussein Obama, too.

In offering a few shout-outs, I'm surprised to learn that Tim Pawlenty is now a contemptible liberal to Minnesota righties. Gallagher's mention of our Guv elicits dismissive muttering all around, with no visible dissension. Sarah Palin is adored here.

The bottom line for Gallagher is that we've got to get back to the principles of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan, the president who illegally sold weapons to a terrorist enemy so as to fund an insurrection within a country that posed no threat to us. (Palling around with real terrorists is fine, provided you're a Republican.)

Gallagher takes numerous questions. A girl asks if she can be on his show; he tells her he'll be interviewing her tomorrow morning, if she's willing. I've attended a number of these Patriot events; they're fun and the audience really feels a part of the station. The stars of righty talk seem to enjoy the face time with their base; when Gallagher's Q&A is finished, he holds court with devotees for another half hour. Pleasant political bull sessions break out around the showroom; the sandwiches and cookies are free.

CCD Night

I attended Essentials of Our Catholic Faith the other night, a multi-Tuesday series at St. Patrick's in Edina, led by Sr. Fran Donnelly. The topic of the night: Sin, Morality, Mary.

Fifteen or so mainly older adults are in attendance. The suburban American Church has metamorphosed almost beyond recognition in recent decades. Yet many of the people who regularly attend Mass were inculcated with an older version of 'the' 'faith', so they've been taught to believe all kinds of things that sound crazy. Since the church can't admit that it's been convulsing and changing, people in the pews believe all kinds of disparate things. It's a pretty weird environment, since clerics must pay lip service to respect for authority when in fact people prefer to draw their own conclusions.

During her presentation, the unhabited Donnelly repeatedly makes statements in As Catholics, we believe XYZ form. After the event, I suggest that if participants voted by secret ballot, we'd likely find considerable disagreement on all of her As Catholics, we believe statements. She readily assents and is completely unbothered. So the formulation is simply a genuflection to yesteryear's dogmatism; if you can read between the lines, you're not being asked to take such suggestions seriously. Donnelly is a very liberal nun, which sometimes makes her sound like North Korea's lone Unitarian Universalist: You think you know what she's driving at, but you're aware she has to speak elliptically.

The reactionary, ostensibly celibate monarchy running the church seems more out of touch with the pews than ever. Were US Catholics to vote on whether to abolish the all-male monarchy and replace it with democratic governance, the hierarchy could be replaced in an instant.

During the interactive presentation, I learn that:

1) Marian apparitions remain a topic of considerable interest among the older people who show up for this kind of thing. (Fellini presented a wonderful one in La Dolce Vita, imho.)

2) Catholicism doesn't make the crazy-sounding claims on behalf of the Pope's infallibility...um...very often. And the Pope last 'spoke infallibly' in the 1950s, we're told.

3) Baptism doesn't wash away original sin. The older attendees are stunned to hear the nun say this; they're quite sure she's wrong. Participants were terrorized by the Catholic clerics of the 1950s into believing that newborns had to be baptized ASAP; if the infant died unbaptized it couldn't enter heaven--God not being smart enough to treat all dead babies the same. In any case, the church no longer insists that infants be baptized immediately--just as, uncoincidentally, it has lost the power to make such demands--the flock being considerably less gullible these days.

4) Limbo? Purgatory? I don't know, the nun tells us. 'And what about those pagan babies?' someone asks. I hadn't heard, but before my time, parishioners were asked to make contributions on behalf of the souls of [dead?] pagan babies. The unethical crap the church engaged in, back when it was able to do so, shocks the conscience.

While the attendees are friendly, one can't help but notice an infantile quality in their moral reasoning. Morality consists of regurgitating the dogmatism of some tyrant nun from 1953. Perhaps they're hamming it up; hard to say.

'Fair Trade' Panel Meets

sing along

I caught a panel discussion last night on trade, in which three advocates of 'fair trade' sparred good-naturedly with Carleton econ prof Michael Hemesath.

The fair trade movement encompasses businesses which don't simply seek to make a profit--but try to satisfy a host of liberal social goals. Peace Coffee--a private corporation owned by a non-profit--is a leading exemplar of fair trade; in addition to making a profit on the sale of coffee, Peace seeks to increase remuneration for Third World agricultural laborers working for its suppliers.

When you're buying from a fair trade company, you're purchasing a bundle of product + social services. Hemesath noted that Target gives 5% of its income to community betterment. If you shop at Wal-Mart, you might save 5%--and you would then be able to contribute the remainder yourself. Would you prefer to choose your own charity recipients, or would you rather have Target do it for you?

In addition to the java, consumers of Peace Coffee are also purchasing identity elevation. By associating themselves with fair trade companies they build their own radical-chic brand identity. Lurking behind this ideology is the delusion that if only capitalism were less profit-seeking and efficiency-obsessed, we'd have all of the material wealth we enjoy today and we'd have achieved social justice. This vision for social improvement--for firms to take on a host of liberal social priorities and be less profit-centric--won't bring on the workers' paradise. It misunderstands how we got here and muddies the essential political nature of social improvement. We express our desire for collective goods mostly through political action.

Peace Coffee estimates total sales at $3 million for 2008. The company contributed to thirty-seven community groups in 2007, though it isn't saying how much. Starbucks' market cap is just under $7 billion--almost four times that of General Motors. Peace Coffee's CEO praises Starbucks for paying generally fair prices to growers. And Starbucks welcomes the fair trade movement, since SBUX isn't in the business of promoting rational economic thinking any more than Peace is.

Fair trade comprises a minuscule sliver of current trade. Since businesses taking part in the fair trade movement are, by their nature, not strongly committed to cost-cutting and efficiency improvement, they present little menace to real-world business.

Additional Errors Noted at the EPVM

Yesterday I called attention to an invented quotation which has been wrongly credited to George Washington. It was somewhat embarrassing that Eden Prairie's leading patriots would put such an obvious falsehood on their website.

It was mostly overcast during yesterday's ceremony and I was shivering; I didn't take many pictures. It was sunny and 32 degrees today, so on my lunch break I drove over to the Memorial and snapped some. And I noticed some additional problems:

The Library of Congress weighs in: tinyurl.com/not-george

That's right--that hilarious George Washington misquotation has been immortalized in granite, above. Yes, I'm aware that both John McCain and Barack Obama love the remark. Can anyone find a source? (That 'how they were treated and appreciated' has a distinctly Age of Oprah aroma.) I say the quotation is bunkum.

This quotation was written by Ted Sorensen--not John F. Kennedy. It appears on pages 224-5 of Profiles in Courage, a 1955 book which Sen. John Kennedy falsely claimed to have written. To nitpick a bit, the precise quotation, as it appears in Profiles in Courage is:

"For without belittling the courage with which men have died, we should not forget those acts of courage with which men--such as the subjects of this book--have lived."

The quotation above was authored by Wendell Phillips, not Thomas Jefferson. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" has been attributed to the Sage of Monticello, though no original source has been found.

**

There's an eerie aesthetic and intellectual convergence going on in the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial. Future Eden Prairie residents may chuckle at their predecessors' ill-informed solemnity--and fight efforts to fix the many errors in this goofy little time capsule. Perhaps they'll view the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial as a charming last gasp of exurban brain death, during a period when every right-thinking resident insisted the emperor's finery couldn't be improved upon.

Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial Dedicated

From the website of the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.” – George Washington

Sen. John McCain recited the same quotation, as did President Elect Barack Hussein Obama, in 2005.

George Washington was first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen--this blogger's included. But we all know Parson Weems' fable was fiction. When we tell obvious falsehoods about our first president, it cheapens our claim to patriotism. So let's consider that fanciful 'quotation', above:

It's quite unlikely Washington would emphasize optionality when considering a potential enlistee's decision making process. Second, if Washington were wondering about potential future soldiers, he wouldn't refer to 'young people'. In speculating about future wars involving the United States, Washington could never casually entertain unjustified ones: From his perspective, one bad war would have meant national suicide. In addition, it would suggest Washington's acceptance that an American president might entertain doing something dishonorable.

You can be an adequately patriotic American without spinning falsehoods about our past. And if you could read that quotation and attribute it to Washington--wow!

**

I attended the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial dedication today. It was cold and went on at considerable length. When Americans engage in ostentatious veteran admiration, too often we spew falsehoods such as that Washington 'quotation'. Many speakers talk of the 'direct connection' between our freedoms and American soldiers' deaths--and sadly, that's bullshit. Few dispassionate analysts would tie such rights' solidity to the deaths of soldiers fighting in Iraq or Vietnam. When our trench-coated Congressman-elect drones in appreciation of the blank check each new person in uniform hands her country, we understand the sentiment--as we gasp at the naïveté and oversimplification.

Hundreds were in attendance. Beneath the supposed hooray for our military unanimity, a subtextual cultural warfare saunters forward. Right-wing speakers advance the McCarthyite ideal of the obedient, sacrificing, hyper-martial, anti-individualistic American. Left-wing speakers seek to put forward a clever anti-McCarthyite response--championing the role of women in the military as another optimistic chapter in the national progressive narrative. They advance the belief that the country's foreign policy focus should turn to war avoidance, as we contemplate the horrible loss of Tyler Fey, Mickey Zaun, et al. No final victory appears in sight.

The Veterans Memorial encompasses two bronze sculptures, neither of which will impress future Eden Prairians with their forebears' aesthetic taste. One of the speakers mentions the steep discount exacted from the artist and/or foundry which produced the two pieces. If the committee paid anything over $3,000 per ton, they were overcharged. Eden Prairie tots will one day be treated to an ennobling lesson in recycling.

The Dog and the Bone

Some Minnesota Independence Party Activists, in January

The other day a commenter accused me of admiring Minnesota's Independence Party. To reiterate: No, I don't.

In fact, not only do I not admire the MNIP--I have long dangled an enticement: If it disbands, I will treat its ex-members to an ice cream social.

My horse sense says that MNIP candidacies draw more from Democrats than Republicans, by confusing less-informed voters into adopting a false belief about the political process. In short, the low-information voter attracted to MNIPism thinks, 'When I go out for ice cream, I get to choose among many flavors. Shouldn't it be like that when I vote for Senator?'

Even if you think MNIP candidacies throw elections to Democrats, I hope you agree that it would be an act of high patriotism for the MNIP to close shop. The MNIP's fundamental diagnosis--that we're living in a time of exceptionally arrogant, inflexible, unlistening political parties--is a crock. And it proposes to heal this misdiagnosis with a political fantasy worthy of Aesop.

The Democratic party takes pride (among other things) in its emphasis on the full participation of historically-marginalized groups. The Democratic Party has made some progress in this area, while even the Republican Party has taken a step or two in the direction of diversity. The MNIP is the single most vanilla major party in Minnesota--and it doesn't care. It does not even offer lip-service on multiculturalism, while it daftly proclaims its superior openness. It's the belt-and-suspenders fancier perpetually stung by GQ's rejection.

The MNIP value prop is a silly one. The party identifies positions in each major party which it finds nutty--and then it attributes these positions to power-mad special-interest groups. Then it asserts--quite dubiously--that the positions are fixed for eternity. QED: The MNIP then claims the crazy positions justify the abandonment of reform-from-within. But ask a political scientist: Are the two major parties--in 2008--super-rigid and out-of-touch, or do they respond with some nimbleness to public opinion, demographic shifts and political opportunities?

The MNIP does not seek to displace one major political party: It seeks to displace both parties. It sees one-party rule as being superior to our present two-party system. (The MNIP is above temptation, of course.) In reality, the best the MNIP can hope for is to displace one major party. Both the GOP and the Democrats are too malleable today to make such a displacement likely. And the MNIP has no issue-cluster which is genuinely taboo in either major party. Special interests focus their political energies and money on serious contenders.

If Phil Colins couldn't sing and had never learned to play the drums, he might have remained a virgin indefinitely.

Election Night

I spent the evening with the MNIP crowd in Minnetonka--with Dean Barkley, Jesse Ventura, David Dillon and about 150 guests. (I voted--and strongly supported--Obama-Franken-Madia-Pitzrick.) I am delighted by Barack Obama's election to the presidency.

Thanks to all of the candidates and activists who have spoken with me over the past year or so. Congratulations to Reps. John Benson, Sandra Peterson, Debra Hilstrom, Maria Ruud and David Bly on their reelections. To Steve Sarvi, Nick Thomley, Kim Kang, Grace Baltich, Jerry Pitzrick, Clint Faust, Lee Carlson, Joan Molenaar and John Branstad--thanks for fighting the good fight. Congratulations to Bobby Joe Champion and Paul Rosenthal. Thanks to the MNIP people for letting me attend your events. And thanks also to David Dillon, a perennial favorite of this blog.

Thanks also to the other bloggers and journalists who've been covering Campaign 2008. As I've long been intoning: This election may well rank among the dozen most important elections of your lifetime--particularly if you're a smoker.

Big ups to my readers. And good wishes to all of you Republicans out there, including that St. Olaf grad I've been excoriating for so long.

As I write, Al Franken is down by less than half a point with 80% reporting; Ashwin Madia is down almost 5% with 71.5% in. So it appears we significantly underperformed expectations.

Election 2008 Prayer Event at New Hope Church

Satan's Second Choice for 42A

Shari May is Maria Ruud's opponent in 42A. She's a zealous religious conservative; her website advises the incumbent: 'Maria should read "Unprotected" by Dr. Mary Grossman. whose experience reveals that the "safe sex" message is making our kids physically and emotionally sick. [sic]' (Hyperlinks not in original.)

The book May cites was actually authored by Miriam Grossman. A reviewer notes Grossman is 'a Senior Fellow at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, a conservative non-profit that counts Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Michelle Malkin as members.'

After making May's acquaintance I viewed her church's website and noted they were holding an Election 2008 Prayer event last night, which I attended. About 200 people took part. The huge EFCA congregation is very conservative. Worshippers at New Hope Church believe that behind earthly events there is an ongoing battle between Jesus and Satan--and that Satan has candidates and ballot initiatives in the present election. And that all-powerful god's preferences may not be realized if we don't do our part. That's where the squinting comes in.

Those assembled are given handouts with biblical quotations, which we read aloud to remind god of some key ideas that He might be overlooking at present. The idea that an infinitely powerful, omniscient, all-compassionate, ever-perfect Being might require our urgent advice and reminding seems pretty nutty--a hateful secular humanist might nasally complain. Though I detected none.

We break up into small groups for prayer. I'm with five other adults who include a Champlin couple whose son is now serving in Iraq. Eyes are closed and impassioned praying occurs, as one person or another takes the floor, giving thanks for our wonderful-if-morally-imperiled country. (Those tireless homosexuals!) Everyone but me eventually has led the praying at least once; I'm somewhat concerned I'll be called upon to take the lead but am relieved--they don't.

Later we're asked to pray for more specific election-related things. People pray for ending abortion and gay marriage, they pray that the evil plans some have to steal the election come a cropper, they pray that strong Christian candidates win and that the Satan-leaning candidates lose. The people in my group seem kind-hearted in a way, burning with worry for the country and for our straying youth, for the Islamic hordes, etc. No one makes an explicitly partisan statement, but it's pretty clear this isn't Franken country.

**

It's been a long campaign. I'm happy it's coming to a close and we'll be moving on soon. It appears the McCarthyite campaign of John McCain, Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen and Shari May stands a decent chance of being rejected tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

True Grit

Larry Millett

A few weeks ago I attended a book event at Magers and Quinn in Uptown. Borealis Books had just released Larry Millett's Murder Has A Public Face. A dozen or so turned out to hear Millett discuss the four celebrated Twin Cities murder cases (and their media representations) from what Millett calls the Speed Graphic era--from the mid Forties to the early Sixties. (That's Millett above, signing books after his talk.) Millett's Lost Twin Cities is a must; he mentioned he's currently working on a novel set in St. Paul just after WW1--and recommended Watchdog of Loyalty for an introduction to that decade's assault on civil liberties.

After attending Millett's enjoyable talk, I found Murder's predecessor--Strange Days, Dangerous Nights--another coffee table book of photos from the pre-Pi Press St. Paul Despatch with background, context and historical commentary from Millett. Amid many photos of fire, murder, suicide, traffic accidents, courtroom drama etc, Millett repeatedly notes how unlikely it would be for a contemporary paper to print gore of this kind. It's a different world, but there's something to be said for that period's wide dissemination of such images. One can read of the 1949 tragedy when a two- and five-year old accidentally suffocate themselves in a disused icebox; it's another thing entirely to be presented with the image on the front page. And a beautiful, arresting image it is.

In Strange Days, Millett says that today's press photographers would never be allowed such accident scene access. But I think it's truer to say that today's photojournalists don't seek the difficult-to-view shot; they're obsessed with respectability and being perceived as polite, just like everyone else.

When six-year-old Yasir Mohamed was killed crossing the street a stone's throw from my balcony a year ago, no media outlet published--or sought--a photograph of the tragedy, nor was any effort expended to publicly identify his accidental killer [described to me as 'an Indian woman' by a Somali teen who witnessed the fatality]. That's weird, and releases the masses from having to grapple with the event.

The earlier era suffered at times from a naive assumption that the presentation of images and narratives was ideologically non-problematical. At the time, The Paper was a Reality paving machine--it had so much more power than it does today. Educational levels were lower, people didn't equate meaningful citizenship with aggressive, constant media/reality contestation as some do today. For all its faults, the older era's newspaper photography has a likable grittiness. And Millett deserves a hundred times more fans.