How I Got this Body

 

While at Saturday's CD6 Convention, I met Sen. John Marty briefly. I informed him that I'm an alternate delegate, supporting his candidacy for Governor. A professional politician is above all a professional at niceness (to the in-group at least) and Marty is exceedingly likeable--a liberal saint and earnest St. Olaf grad in his sixth term representing Roseville in the state senate.

Marty mentions a 'public conversation' being held Saturday evening--which I went on to heartily enjoy--in which his famous-theologian father Martin Marty and he would be asked fawning questions by a St. Olaf professor, accepting queries (submitted on the standard-issue 3x5 cards) from attendees--and modeling elevated conversation.

I am somewhat skeptical concerning the theological enterprise wholesale, though the elder Marty is amusing and chatty. He mentions churches do all kinds of things--and so when preaching he didn't want to over-advocate politically; he views society's public dialogue as a mainly secular enterprise. (What area of expertise does the clerical class maintain?--an inquisitive blogger would like to know.)

Churches are highly subsidized in America, with great regressivity. I occasionally urge house-of-worship participation even among the non-religious; it has a number of benefits and you're paying for it regardless. I also encourage a non-deferential attitude toward the church's (and the Church's) social hierarchy, and a deniably mocking mien toward excessive displays of piety. So shouldn't I ease up a bit on my pzmyersism, when in the presence of the Christian Left?

It's a somewhat militant Krista Tippett crowd.

The church is packed; no specific religious belief is at any time asked of attendees. By the event's end Marty fils hasn't revealed any contour of his cosmological theorizing. It's a campaign event; Sen. Marty's appeal is in his scrubbed, earnest, egoless moral politics.  (It's very disturbing--to John Marty--that the just-passed Health Care Reform still leaves 6% of the public uninsured.)

The event at Holy Trinity Lutheran in South Minneapolis is enjoyable--though no persuasive connection between superstition and societal betterment is driven home. The Marty family, I learn, grew up ultra-lib Chicagoans--who at times wouldn't allow their children to answer the telephone--so frequent were the vile calls. As a child, John Marty played with Martin Luther King's children, and later--as a tween--had classmates who praised the 1968 assassination, he says.

I knew almost nothing of Marty prior to my (Eden Prairie, Feb. 2, 2010) precinct caucus. At our neighborhood's caucus--with around 20 people in attendance--one young entrant advocated strongly for Marty.

When I attended my senate district convention Jeff Strate took me by surprise--naming a subcaucus in support of the Palestinian cause. That momentary grouping failed to attract sufficient support, alas, and split up. (Few Somali-Americans showed up for the SD42 convention--sadly--despite Eden Prairie's large Cushitic minority; at least some would have taken our subcaucus seriously, I lament.)

Senate district convention delegates seek advancement to delegate slots [for the congressional-district and state conventions] to enhance their own social status and to back candidates and positions they support. (Once elected a mere alternate, you receive telephone calls from Minnesota-famous pols seeking your support, you get invited to house parties and meet-the-candidate events--you receive some minor sliver of the flattery you've long presumed your due.)

After our moment of AIPAC-skepticism, it was game theory for me. Seeing the young fellow who'd backed Marty at our subcaucus, I theorized (incorrectly, as events demonstrated) that he might conceivably support my grab for the delegate slot. Within our small Marty-for-Guv subcaucus, folks who wanted our lone delegate slot were asked to speak for a minute or two.

One participant not seeking our slot confides he feels somewhat unfavorably toward me--as during the last cycle I'd photographed event-attending political folks excessively, 'in the view of some,' he relates. Were I to have asked each person's permission, prior to taking pictures, the entire enterprise would have been impossible, I explain. He responds, 'Yes, but at least you should have pretended to ask people first.'

We ascribe a rationality and coherence to our detractors which at times isn't borne out by sound field research, IOW. (I'm certainly not an asshole because I didn't pretend to ask people permission in 2008 prior to snapping their pictures.)  Some people who hate one do so for stupid reasons, and merit little attention.

After the mini-speeches and prior to the vote, I attempt to assemble a supporter or two, begging this person and that--putting the old pleading-puppy mug to maximum effect, dismaying even my son.  (I win over one vote.  God, I suck.) Whatever the eventual tally, I end up third--in large part thanks to my preemptive self-absolution for self-voting.

Later, our subcaucus is reminded of the DFL's gender-balance rule; affirmative action catapults me from show to place.  I'm going to Duluth.  I am somebody.

Marty does seem a decent bloke, don't get me wrong. But happenstance, strategy and arbitrary-seeming rules play a large role in the formation of the delegate/alternate pool.

Teamsters Local 120

CD6 DFLers held their convention in Blaine today. When I arrived, Maureen Reed was speaking; I stayed only for a short while, until Tarryl Clark finished orating.  I expected Clark to win the endorsement on the first ballot, as she did--though Maureen Reed had a very substantial presence on the floor.

I don't think I was even authorized to be in the room, which always feels good; the convention environ always has that public-spaceness where one can, without obeisance, address a direct question to a stranger and expect a straightforward response.  Without providing any self-description, I asked a few people for their ranking of the remaining [two] Michele Bachmann alternatives--which reminded one of the minute signal-to-noise ratio within even rank-and-file political rhetoric.

When you ask the t-shirted conventioneer What's so good about Bob? they'll respond with feritilizer-rich old-standards:  Bob is electable, Bob fits the district, Bob is a fine father, husband and churchman, his experience as treasurer on the 1983 Fly the Flag Committee instilled an irreplaceable Je ne sais quoi in Bob, Bob will abide by the convention's endorsement and is therefore an upright, non-Rayon Partymember.

Lori Sturdevant's recent article confirms this default expectation:

"I'm for Tarryl Clark because she's electable," said Mary Vogel of Marine on St. Croix. "We need someone who knows how to run a winning campaign, because she's done it. She's an experienced legislator, and a leader. She's a very good communicator."

Yvette Oldendorf of Lake Elmo countered, "I'm for Maureen Reed because she's electable. She's a better fit for the district. She's a doctor; she has on-the-ground experience in business and education. Michele Bachmann doesn't know how to deal with someone who knows what she's talking about, like Maureen does."

It irks that Sturdevant can't acknowledge the consistent meta / sales-pitch argumentation both sides exclusively invoke.  Were a comrade to recite either of the above quotations, one would appreciate a bluff retort: 'Cut the shit--and please dispense with the team script.  Why are you supporting this candidate?'

And I defend the horserace--it's an essential part of the campaign; protestations against horserace-consciousness are mere kabuki.  But bigger prestige ought to be accorded participants who can compellingly articulate why Bob deserves to be the party's candidate and what they believe really separates him from Sue. 

When you're giving your Why I'm Supporting Sue neighbor-to-neighbor speech, this comrade would like you to be explicit in identifying pro-Sue statements which you personally regard as unimportant but which you believe nonetheless make Sue a stronger candidate.  By making this distinction more explicit, participants will up their game--excising a pile of BS from such exchanges.

In CD3 such events are held in public school buildings; it's noteworthy that in what MPR calls the most conservative congressional district in the state you'd choose to so emphasize the union piller--with much emphasis (from the lectern) of EFCA's ostensible centrality to American improvement.

Reed is taking this to the primary--with the standard 'heartfelt' fainting spells and self-justifications much in evidence on both sides.

I have no moral qualms with a candidate taking her case to the larger party, though such a candidate should explain clearly why her challenge is justified.  Maureen Reed hasn't thus far provided a convincing narrative, in support of extending the internecine scuffle.

Paulsen's Irresponsible Opposition

International Socialism is happy about the passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.  Erik Paulsen, dull ditz, is uncool--and he never surprises.  (You're never completely sure he's not a simulation.)

Rep. Paulsen carped from the sidelines during the shaping of the legislation--and he's incredibly bitter about the loss.  Paulsen--emerging from a political tradition unapologetically unconcerned for the uninsured--has published the requisite carping blogpost in which he claims the Act's impact on jobs is already known.  Paulsen's implicit claim to economic omniscience should require explanation.

During the lengthy debate on health care, the GOP settled upon a plebiscitary argument:  Decency required Democrats to back down, given the bill's unfavorable polling numbers.  That Republican leaders would make such a tawdry argument their core position speaks eloquently of their Palinesque oneness with bubba. 

Paulsen doesn't much enjoy looking stupid, when he doesn't think he has to, whatever the stance's populist benefit.  (While 'fitting the district' is tautological, Paulsen knows he should emit a certain aloofness, when possible, toward Michele Bachmann, to remain CD3's eternal virgin.)  It's not as if Erik Paulsen would ask a Republican president to withdraw a proposal that polled unfavorably.

On his blog's front page, Paulsen also has a retrospectively funny post on the health care summit.  The spinmeisters had it that the event came off, counterintuitively, as a Republican victory.  In combination with the paroxysms set off by the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the Act's passage constitutes a whale of a CW-overturning.

Republican statements at the HCS were generally predicated on their 'inevitable' success in preventing the Senate bill's passage by the House.  Lamar Alexander put forward the sugary Daddy Party position succinctly:  'This is a car that can't be recalled and fixed and ... we ought to start over.'  Conservatives--playing 'indulgent patriarch'--magnanimously suggested the debate start anew, from the beginning, given the 'impossibility' of passing the Senate bill against lockstep GOP opposition. 

Had Democrats taken Alexander and Paulsen at their word--and backed down--reform opponents would have won.  Alexander and Paulsen proved poor prognosticators:  Democrats were able to enact the legislation without any Republican help--and despite some sanctimonious pests in our own ranks.

Miller's Misunderstanding

The Rev. Mike Miller writes this week's Spiritually Speaking column in the EP News.  Miller is the grandfatherly, warm-hearted voice of non-right-wing Christianity--and he's just read Jim Wallis' Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street.  Miller writes:

In the book he quotes Adam Smith, author of the famous economic treatise “The Wealth of the Nations,” who also wrote another volume called “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” In that document, Smith wrote, “To feel much for others and little for ourselves, that is the perfection of human nature.” Wallis then responds: “Is this contradictive? No. It’s a question of which comes first. Our moral system, our beliefs about what is right and good, must always come before our economic system … When economics comes before values, we have idolatry.”

Let's look again at the ostensibly wisdom-imparting quotation from Adam Smith--expanding our snippet a bit [see p19 paragraph 5]:

And hence it is, that to feel much for others and little for ourselves, that to restrain our selfish, and to indulge our benevolent affections, constitutes the perfection of human nature; and can alone produce among mankind that harmony of sentiments and passions in which consists their whole grace and propriety. As to love our neighbor as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity, so it is the great precept of nature…’

So Adam Smith is not merely saying that 'caring for others is good'; he's asserting [in my phrasing] 'Since human social success requires robust concern for others and the suppression of selfish impulses, the Golden Rule comes to us not from Christianity, but from being human. 

Recall Jim Wallis' interpretation of the Adam Smith quotation, too:

“Is this contradictive? No. It’s a question of which comes first. Our moral system, our beliefs about what is right and good, must always come before our economic system … When economics comes before values, we have idolatry.”

So Wallis thinks Smith believes values come prior to exchange--though Smith's words never make any such claim.  Smith--who published The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) long before Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859)--somewhat anticipates the latter with his observation of human societies' inevitable need for the channeling and regulation of social values.  Smith's acknowledgement of the complex historical interplay between human values and economic exchange rejects Wallis' suggestion that values emerge prior to--and separate from--exchange.

Catching up with Crystal and Sheila

After witnessing the pervasive America-bashing at Saturday's SD42 convention, I imagined how much better life might be, if fellow attendees only shared my devotion to flag and country.  No such problem for Crystal Kelley, where she's describing a recent gathering of Republicans:

There is something inspiring about standing in a room saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a confident, clear voice, with hand over heart, and knowing everyone in the room reciting that pledge with you means every word of it.

At our senate district convention, dual loyalties were seen only among the energetic few.  Increasingly, they don't even bothering to faking patriotism.  I tell you.

**

Sheila Kihne remains apoplectic about some acting group the school district hired to teach a history lesson.  Kihne is the kind of person who never lets up (even when it gets boring)--and so she feels obligated to stay on this topic until she's pinned every person in the room to the mat.  Underlying her grandstanding on the acting troupe, Kihne apparently seeks to prevent the district from engaging in antiracist education, or from desegregating Eden Prairie schools.  (Though I'm not sure why she prefers them segregated--and she doesn't take questions from non-adoring bloggers.)

While Sheila goes ballistic (uninterestingly) on Eden Prairie schools--she praises Eagle Ridge Academy, a 'conservative' charter school in Eden Prairie. Eagle Ridge (like TAND) peddles an ersatz old-fashioned identity--as if 'a classical education' were self-defining and unarguably superior--in which Mad Men-era gender norms are tastefully reasserted, without the leporine boinking, sexism, littering and cigarettes. 

IOW, Eagle Ridge is tailored to cash in on anxiety-ridden yuppies, embodying an unapologetically ethnocentric, vaguely revered [though cleansed] past--in which discipline and hierarchy are celebrated.  That no such institution ever existed in the real past, Kihne considers churlish of you to think. 

By enacting their clock-reversing fantasy at Eagle Ridge, Kihne dreams the wider culture will one day join her in her 1959 chimera.

Bernard Johnson, religious fraud

In the Eden Prairie News local clerics take turns writing the weekly Spiritually Speaking column--the newspaper's dependable flagship for tautology, euphemism, planned obfuscation and self-delusion.  One local man of the cloth, Dr. Bernard E. Johnson--no spiritual home listed--affirms a particularly noxious 'down-home' fundamentalism.  His latest: What I would do if I were the devil. 

People who claim to uphold tradition often reveal great innovation, upon examination.  Were Johnson to take on the devil's many obligations, privileges and immunities, he'd expend almost no effort exacerbating human cruelty--or in spreading hunger or disease.  Nor would a satanic Johnson fritter away limited devilish resources on behalf of child abuse, war, torture or exploitation. 

No sirree.  If Johnson morphed Luciforward, he'd spend all his time promoting secular liberalism.  He'd have his hands far too full advancing moral disarmament within the Twin Cities middle class to bother bolstering rape, murder or chattel slavery.  But he'd never tire helping out on behalf of imagined victimhood, relativism, skepticism and rationalism.  (As a leader one must commit to a limited set of neatly-stated priorities.)

If I were to interview the archfiend--arriving in hell (as luck would have it)--on the very day Dr. Bernard E. Johnson was playing Prince of Darkness, I'd draw his attention to the similarity between his perspectives and those of other garden-variety conservative Eden Prairie dads.  'This the devil character you're playing,' I'd tell him, 'bears an easily-explicable resemblance to you.'

If Dr. Johnson spends any of his professional time impressing the devil's existence upon young people, he is a deceitful serpent indeed.

Crystal Kelley on Health Care

Crystal Kelly has published Party of "No" Vol. 1: Anti-Health Care Reform.  A few comments:

Kelley has had it with those who charge Republicans with opposing health care reform.  (How dumb can a Democrat get!)  An incorrigible leftist might point to the recent two-term Republican president who didn't push any comprehensive health care proposal.  Self-designated conservatives don't even support the goal of universal coverage--and are wont to publish blogposts with titles such as Party of "No" Vol. 1: Anti-Health Care Reform.

Friendly Neighborhood Republican favors a federal law mandating insurance companies to accept enrollees without regard to their present health:

Many conservatives would like to see changes in the current system, such as insurance companies allowing coverage for pre-existing conditions, which can bankrupt a family if one of their family members has a chronic health condition, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or a chronic pain condition.

So the reason the government should intervene in the private market is because otherwise pain and discomfort would occur.  (When will Kelley suspend free-market, minimal-government orthodoxy?  When to fail to do so would entail pain and discomfort.)

In mandating health insurers accept patients 'blind', Kelley self-consciously seeks to inculcate a moral lesson:

Insurance companies have to realize that pre-existing conditions are not like injuries incurred in a car accident or on the job. Those injuries and everything relating to them need to be paid by the auto insurance company or workers compensation. I understand an insurance company not wanting to pay for injuries for which the person has other insurance coverage and that insurance will pay those bills. In those cases, the auto insurance or workers compensation will follow that person wherever they go and whatever health insurance they have.

That's right:  Seeking an alternative risk market where insurers don't segregate customers based on 'known likely future cost', Kelley suggests we look to automobile insurance.  (Notice any problem with this illustration?)

The conservative's reason for feeling ethically justified in soaking the insurance companies?  Because they're rich: 

The practice of disallowing pre-existing conditions needs to stop, and I think insurance companies can afford it. Their executives are some of the highest paid professionals in the country.

The non-sequiter-velocity then increases logarithmically:

For example, the average cost of malpractice insurance for an OBGYN is $100,000 annually. The cost is passed directly to the consumer. The premiums are so high primarily because people have decided they have a "right" to a perfect baby. I can find no document giving people this right, but people still insist they have it. It stems, I think, from the lack of respect for the sanctity of life in our country.

Is this claim true, in your experience?  During the years when your children were born, did you spend a lot more on medical malpractice insurance than you did during other years?  (It's also interesting to learn that for Kelley, the root of the problem isn't the courts or even the lawyers--it's those unreasonable parents!)

Kelley then lambastes wrongful life lawsuits.  Providing no example, she insinuates such legal disputes provide incontrovertible evidence of liberal lunacy.  But such an unattractively-named suit might in fact stem from a quite reasonable unhappiness:  If a medical professional--with egregious incompetence--tells you your fetus does not carry Down syndrome and you then give birth to an afflicted infant, should a reasonable legal system allow you to collect damages?  (Might, therefore, our 'wrongful life' dispute concern nothing beyond semantics?)

Kelley wants 'conservatives' to pay for PSAs to scare people into thinking that additional government-run health care would be radically unlike currently-provided public care.  She believes Americans will be horrified to learn about the health systems of Canada and Britain. 

Ending on what she thinks her strongest point, Kelley asserts that forcing people to buy health insurance violates their liberty.  But when these hearty individualists come down with pancreatic cancer, does FNR think society should provide the expensive treatment indicated--or should free-riders be told 'Tough luck'?  (That's the real question separating capitalists and socialists, isn't it?)

Sanu's Granddad Ambulatory

Hello Sanu Patel-Zellinger,

I saw this intriguing info on your website:

'[M]y grandfather was also the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (loose translation is the "People's Party", one of the main political parties in India, with values similar Conservative values) during the early 1980's until he passed away.'

The president of the BJP from 1980 to 1986 was Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

So can you confirm: Atal Bihari Vajpayee is your grandfather? (If so--I bear extremely happy news: Your grandfather is alive today!)

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

SD42 DFL Convention

 

I attended the biennial SD42 DFL convention yesterday at Eden Prairie High School.  Above, Dr. Maureen Hackett addressed the convention.  Hackett seeks the party's endorsement for Congress, to face Erik Paulsen. This is her home senate district, but still:  Her domination at this convention is stunning.

 

Ron Case--running unopposed--gets the endorsement for state senate.  He'll face Sen. David Hann.

 

State Rep. Maria Ruud addresses an adoring crowd.

Jim Meffert didn't quite close the deal with Eden Prairie Dems.

 

In February, active Democrats attended their precinct caucuses, where they elected delegates to the next level up--the senate district convention.  Those slots were free for the asking, essentially.  About 192 people attended yesterday's SD42 DFL convention as delegates.  There they formed subcaucuses in support of issues and/or candidates, exerting influence in the selection of the party's candidates for Congress and Governor. 

The process starts with volunteers naming subcaucuses whose formation they will help facilitate.  It is surprising how many subcaucuses include support for Maureen Hackett--and stunning how little support Jim Meffert has on this floor, judging from participants' unwillingness to step up and suggest a subcaucus on his behalf.

Among the numerous groups suggested, Jeff Strate calls for a subcaucus in support of Minnesota's Break the Bonds campaign.  (While I am somewhat unclear on this particular organization's goals, I agree with Jeff that our relationship with Israel has fallen off track and needs to be readjusted significantly.)  When he holds up his sign some are taken aback; I hear someone chortle or gasp a bit.  It's the only 'controversial' subcaucus-name suggested.

Seventeen delegate slots are available for the convention to fill.  In other words, among our 192, just 17 will make the cut to serve as our ostensible emissaries to the state and congressional district conventions.  Eventually it is determined that a subcaucus requires 13 members so as to attain viability--meaning it is large enough to be able to fill one delegate slot.

After people finish volunteering, delegates are free to walk over to the subcaucus of their choice.  Unfortunately, Jeff and I are alone in standing up for the Palestinians--so our Break the Bonds subcaucus disbands, and we join the John Marty for Governor subcaucus.  Our candidate stands by our side--off the restricted convention floor--as you can see in the photo above.  Unlike the other gubernatorial candidates present, he didn't address the convention.

Among our 13 members, about half seek our sole delegate slot.  We are each allotted a minute to address the group.  My own meteoric political rise continues apace:  I am elected alternate delegate.

Paulsen and Walz' Love Glows

US Reps Erik Paulsen and Tim Walz published a little love note to the nuclear industry the other day, calling for support in solving the waste disposal problem.  A few comments:

For decades, the debate over nuclear energy has been stalled, largely along ideological lines. During that time, our nation's primary energy sources have drastically narrowed. Our emissions have increased. High and volatile energy prices have become standard. As a result, our nation is heavily reliant on energy sources that come from countries and regions often hostile to our interests.

The droning statist voice is vintage Near Leader--though one 'our nation' would have sufficed.

The prevalence and intensity of anti-Americanism in the Middle East ought to be an important national security concern--for us.  We have to look cold reality in the face:  One recent action most incenses Middle Eastern public opinion:  Israel's Gaza War.  And yet our congressman believed that with Cast Lead, Israel merited special congratulations. 

The blue Paulsen/Walz paragraph above assumes the region's permanent political volatility and anti-US outrage--alongside our permanent, uncritical support for all Israeli actions.  The writers' knowingly disregard known causes and effects--and disregard the immense human suffering widely attributed to our policies, in other words.  We should therefore oppose Walz and Paulsen's idea:  Before we discuss building more nukes, they should have to promulgate more realistic policies on Israel and on oil importation.

We ought to tax imported oil more than we do--reducing other taxes to maintain revenue neutrality.  We must take coordinated international action on climate change.  By not acknowledging the reality of climate change--and with his uncritical support for Israel and his aggressive stance on Iran--Paulsen eggs on the very problem he claims he seeks to solve.  Walz and Paulsen should pressure Israel to reduce its illegal settlements, renounce nuclear weapons, sign on to the NPT and allow international inspectors to certify its compliance.

This paragraph also irks:

A few years ago, it would have been difficult to find members of Congress from different political parties working together on this issue. It would have been difficult to find businesses, labor and environmental groups working together on this issue. However, that is exactly what is happening today right here in Minnesota, where a broad coalition of those supporting nuclear energy expansion is taking hold.

Paulsen and Walz provide no evidence that there is any strong popular grass roots thirst in CD3 for greater reliance on nuclear power.  (Nationally, feeling appears mixed with 42% believe existing plants unsafe.)

Hackett, Meffert, Issues

An activist contacted me yesterday--inviting participation in an issue-focused lefty blogswarm.  I told her no--I don't generally participate in that kind of thing.

Much political discussion effectively seeks to re-jigger issues-prioritization.  The activist's request for multiblogger coordination chafes due to its contrivance. 

The independent actor vs. political pawn distinction is for some sacrosanct; hence the prickliness.

**

Meffert and Hackett met in Brooklyn Park last Thursday. A few words:

Meffert is the more sure-footed public speaker--and he's more in command of the issues.  By contrast, Hackett often directs her statements to the flaccid moderator, Brooklyn Park Mayor Tim Willson.  The candidates' contrast--in forensic ability--is widening.

Democrats should consider Dr. Maureen Hackett's professional history--as an expert witness for the defense in the Rocori school shooting case--to cite one obviously high-profile case.

America's freedom allows the citizen to mount a vigorous defense, when accused of a crime.  Mounting a vigorous defense means being able to hire high-caliber professionals.  (As someone who the state once tried for an uncommitted crime, I'm aware of this.) 

Sound political judgment includes gauging public sensitivities--even irrational ones.  Hackett seeks to defuse her Rocori involvement (and, by extension, her other defense-supporting service)--I think ineffectively.

Here's a snippet from the Wikipedia article on the Rocori shootings:

Only one expert, Dr. Maureen Hackett, testified that McLaughlin was insane under the conditions of the McNaughten rule and stated: "He thought he was doing a morally right thing ... It's almost as if Seth represents bullies."[2]   McLaughlin was nonetheless found guilty of first and second-degree murder.[3]  In August 2005, he was sentenced to life in prison.

Jason McLaughlin is currently incarcerated at the Stillwater Correctional Facility in Minnesota. He will not be eligible for parole until 2038.

As it happened--justice found Dr. Hackett's viewpoint unpersuasive, rejecting John Jason McLaughlin's insanity defense.  But Dr. Hackett still questions the Rocori decision:

Reality: In 2005, Dr. Hackett testified that 15-year-old John Jason McLaughlin was insane when he opened fire at Rocori High School. That doesn’t mean he should’ve walked free. It means he should’ve been held and treated in a high-security psychiatric facility indefinitely for a severe and persistent mental illness that made him dangerous. This is the only case of criminal insanity in which Dr. Hackett testified for the defense. She has testified hundreds of times and evaluated well over 1,000 individuals and this was the only case where she thought the defendant met the insanity defense per Minnesota criminal statute. Dr. Hackett testified in the Lawrence Dame case in Anoka County (for the prosecution) and he was convicted of five consecutive life sentences.

Joe Six-Pack dislikes not just the convicted murderer but his entire defense team; we political sophisticates wish that weren't the case.  But in selecting our candidate for Congress, we have to think in the real world.