Tear Down That Flag

Attending my son's orchestra concert this evening in Minnetonka, I noticed the POW/MIA flag on display, a bit smaller and alongside the Stars and Stripes:

It's displayed as a political sop to Vietnam veterans and the families of dead and missing soldiers.  We concocted a fable--these get generated in every war--of our enemy's 'unique psychiatric pathology' and 'quintessential evil.' 

The flag symbolizes the belief that, to this day, Vietnam holds American servicemen in secret prisons--and as patriotic Americans we must yearn for their release.

This is bullshit. There's no evidence that Vietnam is holding any US personnel, nor is that nation impeding America's effort to repatriate the remains of our dead soldiers. In 1998, the Defense Technical Information Center noted, 'On the issue of recovering and repatriating remains of US personnel, we rate Vietnamese cooperation as excellent.'

The POW/MIA flag is flown to bolster American historical victimology, encouraging people to think Americans were the primary victims of the Vietnam War--that a morally improved Vietnam would grow up and offer us an apology for all the mean stuff they did.

America's intervention in Vietnam was a disastrous foreign policy blunder--and the victims were overwhelmingly Indochinese.  Wikipedia:  Total civilian dead: – 631,000 – 4,500,000.

The disgraceful POW/MIA rag should be torn to shreds.

Compassion and Choices

On this cold, rainy morning an 'Edina Health & Wellness Expo' was held at St. Patrick's--the romish church I attend (and where I served as an altar boy in the early '70s).  Numerous healthy aging businesses and organizations were represented.  Walking through, I chatted with the friendly representative from Compassion and Choices.

The rep wants people to give more thought to the end-of-life care they want to receive, and to reflect on how best to ensure that the care they get corresponds to their values.  If you don't have a health care directive in place, the hospital is going to default to the position of the Roman Catholic Church--and try to keep you alive for as long as it can, if for no other reason than to minimize its legal liability.

It might seem funny that my church would go to such lengths to remind people of the benefits of avoiding Catholic doctrine.  You've come a long way, baby.

I informed him that I was in complete agreement; people ought to give this some thought, despite having filed no directive myself.  The health care directive might instruct one's doctor to pull the plug, were she to adjudge one in a permanent vegetative state, for example.

'Twas time then to raise the bidding:

What if the best medical advice said you can be kept alive for another two months, though the likely quality of such living would be gruesome?  Of course we need safeguards, but shouldn't you have the right to euthenasia?  (Fr. Rudolphi I did not see.)

I was again pushing against an open door:  Compassion and Choices adamantly endorses the Aid in Dying movement.

Authenticity Hoax

If you've ever considered taking on the political establishment, the recent Sund-Barnes standoff merits study.  Two individuals came forward and competed with low-budget tenacity, building campaign organizations, raising money and defining themselves in the public arena.

Immersing oneself in such a soul-sucking battle has its costs, as one attempts to flatter CD3's most hyperpartisan 100 Democrats--the reserve army of the unenjoyed.  You submit your self-description to them, they smile at you, you wait while they interview your opponent--and then they issue their mind-numbingly stupid 'endorsement.'

You and I would never affix our names to a repulsive document such as this, though more than a dozen people did, among them, yes, sadly.  What a cheerless comment on their integrity; let this be a reminder to all of us--and to avoid casually self-besmirching is such a tawdry fashion.

While every sentence therein showers shame on its coarse authormob, I'd be most embarrassed about this part:

Brian Barnes radiates authenticity. He has the integrity, and the core values that will inspire voters across the political spectrum. He is honest, he looks at issues with an open mind, and he is not beholden to any special interests.

I mean, please.  Brian Barnes radiates authenticity?  What an odd attack upon Sharon Sund--and what an unjustified one.

I didn't attend the convention--and have wondered whether hard feelings remain among Sund supporters.  Hack propaganda initially announced that--after Barnes first-ballot endorsement--peace and love reigned immediately.  Though I see Ms. Sund's website hasn't been updated in any way.  I have my doubts.

After the activist's passing, Barnes posted an exceptionally tasteless statement, particularly if one imagines hearing it through Sund ears: 

When Jackie decides to help, she’s so much more than just an activist; she’s a mentor, coach, advisor and a dear trusted friend.

In other words, at this delicate post-convention moment, Barnes was reminding all parties that in his boring recent ego-clash with Sund, the deceased saw moral purity beating within his breast alone.

It would have been such an opportune time for Barnes to have attempted to quietly expunge the noxious document; it says a lot about Barnes that he went the opposite route, amplifying the very qualities that ought best be forgotten.

Conversation With Collins

Lots of people would like to be congressional representatives.  Getting elected to the House would represent a dramatic increase in most people's social status--and if you've got ideas about how to make the country function better, it's a naturally attractive workplace.

If you're left-of-center, penniless, reside in Minnesota's Third Congressional District and want the job, you've got several options:

You might consider grabbing the Independence Party endorsement, which is usually free for the taking.  David Dillon accepted it in 2008, spent $161,185 campaigning--mostly his own money--and received 10.5% in the general election. Jon Oleson tried same in 2010, with one-ninth Dillon's budget and received 4.5% in the general.

If you want to win the CD3 House seat, the Independence Party option is not viable, even if you're willing to spend serious money.  In 2012 the MNIP has decided not to field a congressional candidate--though anyone with $300 might yet file for the primary.  It's hopeless.

Regardless your party, candidate filing opens on 5/22/12 and closes on 6/5/12.

Facing facts, if you want to win the seat, you're going to have to get the DFL endorsement.  There are two ways you can do so:

You can enter the party-approved preliminary endorsement process [hereafter PEP]--that thing that got decided on April 14 in Brian Barnes' favor.  In recent cycles, at least two individuals have come forward seeking the preliminary endorsement, wherein the district's 150 or so most politically active, pavement-pounding Democrats vote.

If you want to get the preliminary endorsement, you're going to need to raise some money, though the fees vary dramatically from one cycle to the next.  In-the-know CD3 Democrats consider 2012 an exceedingly unlikely year for a pickup, if we judge from the relatively small amount of money involved in the Sund-Barnes battle.  Still, even in 2012, you had to assemble $30 or $40k to compete in the PEP.

Entering the PEP has many unpleasant aspects.  The process is very much controlled by party insiders, who want to play it safe and go with the person who sounds most like a TV talking head.  Like any political party, the DFL is a blob of mutually antagonistic interests, egos and ideologies; the party leadership wants a predictable congressional candidate who can make the party's various wings reasonably happy, who's willing to mouth a mushy Dukakisism--a person not advancing any self-authored perspective.

The party is interviewing you for the job, and you have to impress the activists that your passion for Dukakisism is sincere and fervent.

If the PEP tends to generate a boring cheese-merchant candidate, the process is flattering to the activists who participate in it.  To maximize their status gains, they have a strong interest in promoting the idea that the PEP is the only game in town:

This Saturday, April 14th, CD3 Delegates will endorse a candidate to beat Erik Paulsen.  Beating Paulsen is doable - especially now that he's told CD3GOPers that he's all-in with the Ryan Budget. 

Another avenue in fact exists:

You can pay $300 and enter the DFL primary election, which takes place on August 14. The chances of pulling off a primary challenge are remote, though blogging gives the underfunded challenger a tool which hasn't thus far been seriously tried.

It is not worthwhile to attempt to use the media to disseminate your message.  The media--whether they know it or not--are on the side of the endorsed candidate.  (In the general election, they are on the side of the incumbent.)

You have to go around the media.  On this point you must be firm:  It's your job to campaign; it's the media's job to report on the campaign.  Under no circumstances can you allow the campaign to occur 'under the auspices of the media.' You have to communicate your message to primary voters directly.

As an independent, unmoneyed candidate, don't waste your time assembling volunteer teams and sucking up to rich people.  Take your case to the people, the free way.  Worry about fund-raising after you've won the primary.

If the media fails to notice your candidacy, keep plugging away.  Your sole focus must be on communicating your message to primary voters.  It's a long-shot, but it's your only shot.

Worst case scenario:  You wake up on August 15 and you got your arse kicked.  So what; you're out $300.  Whoop-di-doo.  David Dillon blew $122,630 of his own dough, for gosh sakes.

Blogger

The Star Tribune published a business fluff piece featuring, supposedly, a hip young Minneapolis marketing partnership that researches 'what women want.'

In a classic exchange between 1960s advertising executives Don Draper and Roger Sterling on "Mad Men," Draper muses, "What do women want?"

Sterling replies, "Who cares?"

An improved America would have the marketing and advertising industries paying greater attention to 'the underserved,' it is suggested.  Maybe, perhaps, to some degree.  Something else caught my eye:

"We know what we want and how we feel, and we'll tell you, sometimes even when you don't ask," said Colleen Burns of Eden Prairie, a former TV news anchor and producer turned spokesperson/blogger and mother of five sons.

Funny, I thought: I've lived in Eden Prairie for awhile, and have tried to pay attention to nearby bloggers.  I'd never heard of Colleen Burns--so I emailed Ginger and was sent the link.

Ms. Burns'--of Chanhassen, not Eden Prairie--most recent blogpost went up on May 23, 2010; in all she published three posts that year.  Each of her three 2010 posts advises readers on gadgets and gift ideas.  Ms. Burns apparently considers herself a media personality--her site features numerous photographs and television screen-captures of herself--so you know you ought to take her seriously.

If she's ever made an interesting public statement, I can't find it.  (So she has that in common with Brian Barnes.)

When the Star Tribune refers to a person as 'a blogger,' that designation should mean something.  Colleen Burns is a blogger in the same way that I am a landscape painter.

Brainwashing the Young

At the 394/169 intersection, you can now see this billboard advertising Providence Academy--the disneyfied, ersatz back-to-yesteryear Catholic K12 in Plymouth.  School employees know they have places that need to be filled--and traffic heading towards Wayzata is the happy hunting ground.

A somewhat odd advertisement, no?  Americans are free to choose any religion or no religion, though our money includes the phrase In God We Trust.  Mainstream churchgoing Americans often seek governmental subsidies--and try to insult and humiliate the non-superstitious.

America's founders were a very skeptical--even irreligious bunch.  As aristocrats, they considered the mainstream swarm incapable of seriously confronting clerics' efforts to bamboozle them.  The vast majority of American Catholics today descend from marginalized 19th and 20th century immigrants who'd be puzzled to learn that their suburban, middle-class great grandchildren attend a Catholic megaschool fetishizing America's 18th Century--before their people had even heard of the place.

We can make your children believe in god; send them to us.  Attending Providence, your daughters will remain ultrafeminine, naive and unquestioning.

Remembering Brian Barnes "Remembering Jackie Stevenson"

An unpleasant aspect of being a partisan cog is the requirement to issue lifeless eulogistic sentences upon the passing of each successive ancient hack.

Jackie was my friend, my mentor and a 'mother' to so many of us," State Sen. Terry Bonoff wrote on Facebook, where Stevenson's death was announced. "When I first thought about running for the state Senate I was told in no uncertain terms, 'Talk to Jackie Stevenson. She will decide if that is a good idea.' I talked to Jackie and she was tough. ... I was a lucky one. I was 'blessed by Jackie.'"

An oddly harsh indictment against the recently-deceased, no?  Someone ordered me to seek her approval, very much implying such a discussion would be anything but a two-way street.  I hope I would have the courage to refuse such a blessing, were it ever to come my way.

Alongside the standard-issue hack+luminary photo Brian Barnes' offers this selfless love-overflow, complete with religious dog whistle:

One of the great thrills of this campaign was receiving the endorsement of Jackie Stevenson.  When Jackie decides to help, she’s so much more than just an activist; she’s a mentor, coach, advisor and a dear trusted friend.

Today we want to offer our thoughts and prayers to her family and countless friends.  She will be missed by all.

Imagine the thrill Brian experienced; now that's excitement.  What a dear trusted friend.

Luxuriating of late in her role as DFL MSM reality-conferrer, Lori Sturdevant publishes:

Can that party function without the feminist matriarch of Minnetonka dispensing advice, plotting strategy and mobilizing her feminist forces,

Er...yes, without a moment's hesitation.

That ol' Sturdevant treacle:   

To the dustbin!

Pastor Carol Skjegstad

Attending a Catholic church, an overarching message gets communicated:  Your opinion doesn't matter.  Readers are not allowed to comment on the church's website.  A great dishonesty pervades the entire project:  'We all believe the same stuff, so discussion is unnecessary.'

The people attending any local Catholic Church do not all hold identical religious beliefs: Their perspectives fall all over the map, and bear minimal relation to the tenets they are supposed to hold.

Priests work hard to undermine honesty, telling grown adults what they believe and impugning the integrity of skeptics.

Challenging Catholic bullshit isn't easy, as church employees impede and implicitly prohibit critical discussion, equating open-mindedness with incivility.  People on the church payroll work hard to limit parishioners' opportunity to dissent.  A church apportions respectability and social status--and tries to communicate to the sheep what an admirable thing it is to uncritically accept doctrinal claims.

Local Protestant churches often engage in the same stuff, though they can't entirely embrace Catholicism's anti-individualistic brutality--and sometimes allow comments on their websites.

When challenging mainline Christians, I often start by asking them what they view as the strongest single piece of evidence for the existence of god.  I just put the question to Pastor Carol Skjegstad of Calvary Lutheran Church, in Golden Valley.

Superstition professionals are often taken aback, as it occurs to them that there exists no single piece of evidence even slightly pointing in their favor.  So they try the hokumstorm--disregarding the question and listing a bunch of individually worthless claims.  Ms. Skjegstad sadly goes this route:

It's hard for me to point to just ONE piece of evidence without going through many pieces of evidence -- I like to paint the whole picture.

However, I will give you a couple that you many want to consider -- First, look at nature. Look and investigate human DNA and the creation. Creation didn't just "happen" out of nothingness.

Why would DNA and nature suggest the existence of god?  No 'loving' god would have countenanced evolution--which entailed unfathomable suffering--would it?  If you are claiming creation occurred as a result of some conscious plan, you should be able to provide some evidence for that claim.

When describing the origin of the universe, earth and life, non-gullible people do not in fact claim 'it just happened out of nothingness.'  When observing each step, however, we tend to look for evidence-based reasons.  When we can't find reasons, we continue to look and think--and refuse to attribute developments to magic.  When we don't know, we say 'I don't know.'

And the other huge piece of evidence is the fact that Jesus Christ is who he says He is and He rose from the dead. There are 3 choices when you consider Jesus: he is a crazy person, a madman with a purpose, or he is who he says he is. He made direct and indirect claims as to WHO he is in the New Testament. Jesus came; He fulfilled the prophecies; He died; and He rose. Over 500 people verified his resurrection afterwards.

Pastor Skjegstad, I asked you for evidence--and you now engage in dogmatic assertion.  I'm not asking you to tell me Jesus rose from the dead--I'm asking you to provide evidence for such a belief.  Thus far you have presented none.

You claim we have three--and only three--interpretive choices, when we read the bible's various and contradictory descriptions of Jesus.  You are incorrect:  The bible does not include eyewitness testimony--and was written down long after the events therein described.  If some portion of the statements attributed to Jesus are accurate, he might have been sincerely mistaken--and neither a liar nor a madman.  People can believe false things for a thousand reasons, often involving no ill intent.

We possess no evidence that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy.

If it is your view that 'over 500 people verified his resurrection,' then please tell me the name of the single most credible person among them--and I will be happy to review the evidence you present on this person's behalf.  You have thus far provided none.

We can also look at various historians from that time period who, in their writings, which have been proved to be credible. There is evidence outside of the New Testament -- look at Tacitus & Suetonius, Romans historians; Also Josephus, a Jewish historian. They mention Jesus. SO we know that Jesus did live.

The paragraph above provides no evidence for Christianity's central claim, Jesus' resurrection.  If you have any, I'm all ears.  Tacitus was born in 56 AD--so I'd be interested to learn why you consider his writing supportive of your thesis.

What evidence is there to support His claims of being God and the Messiah? There are 5 areas to explore on that question: His teachings, His works (Healings, miracles), His character, His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and the fact that He conquered death.

Again, Pastor--I simply want your strongest single piece of evidence--so that we might attempt to engage in an adult discussion.  If you can select one, that will allow us to focus our discussion.

Burning Down the Barn

Up until a week ago, Sharon Sund and Brian Barnes were fighting it out for the preliminary DFL endorsement for US House.  It was a dispiriting, boring contest--and Barnes won the nod on the first ballot.

I'm challenging Barnes in the primary--and have already delineated a number of areas in which our ideas differ.  Barnes is a strong supporter of unions (an enthusiastic Education Minnesota groveller); I am somewhat tepid.  I support lifting federal anti-marijuana laws, Barnes doesn't.  I support using economic leverage to end Israel's occupation of the West Bank; Barnes doesn't.  I want to reduce America's military spending to 1.5% of GDP; Barnes doesn't.

The conventional wisdom says that my candidacy cannot be considered, as I lack Barnes' electability.

Checking on the FEC's website:  As of 3/31/12 Erik Paulsen has $1,292,913 cash on hand.  Barnes for Congress has $30,841.  I have $300.  The financial difference separating Barnes and me amounts to a rounding error, when compared to the incumbent, in other words.

Let us pause for a moment of frankness:  Brian Barnes electability is close to zero.  He has almost no money--and has no history of expressing any interesting viewpoint on the issues.  (I've tried mightily--and can't locate a Barnes supporter who disagrees with me on this point.)  He has never uttered a courageous public statement--and is an effusive flatterer, genuflecting before every DFL special interest group.

By contrast, I am an independent-minded person; I am not beholden to Barnes' sclerotic paleolib pabulum.

Please consider voting for me on August 14, 2012.

The Butcher's Benevolence

The Star Tribune often attributes respectability and wisdom to 'the local food movement.'  The LFM posits that the local economy could be easily improved were citizens to start trying to purchase Minnesota-made products.

Yesterday the Strib offered SUPERIOR TRADITION CATCHES NEW LIFE (the headline indeed in all-caps):

The once mighty North Shore commercial fishing industry, decimated by invasive species and overfishing, is healthier than it has been in decades thanks in part to the local-food movement embraced by Dahl and most of his customers.

That movement, in which people eat food grown and caught locally, combined with demand from Europe for caviar and from the East Coast for gefilte fish, has helped revive an industry steeped in the history and lore of one of Minnesota's most beloved places.

Those Europeans and East Coasters sure are stupid, no?  Why can't they find locally-produced food products?  Perhaps we might impose a tariff to help educate non-Minnesotans in our recent moral advancements.

The local food movement is an economically dumb thing, a tool for upper middle class self-flattery; it's too bad the Strib has so cottoned to it.

The LFM wants us to feel ill-disposed toward trade.  Everybody would benefit if only we could stop buying distantly-made products, right?  We'd be so much better off were our neighbor to produce our computer, and our automobile to come from the couple down the street.

Redeemer Hook

A tragic event happened:  December last, an HIV-positive man afflicted with 'at least a dozen psychiatric ailments'--and off his antipsychotic meds--bit a jailer hard.  The sergeant was put on medications to prevent becoming himself infected, 'but reacted poorly to them.'  The event and its aftermath inflicted great trauma upon the turnkey, who hit the bottle and died of 'acute alcohol toxicity' two months later.

When such unfortunate events happen, the media in general--the Star Tribune not excepted--invariably assumes the next of kin to be a fine source for philosophical insight.

"I am not angry," his wife, Julie Berntson, said. "We believe in a God of love.  He forgives us and to be in relationship with him means to live that example. Brad lived that example.  I am honored to have been married to Brad and will not dishonor him by living any other way."

In contemporary American culture, everyone is allowed to dictate to god the characteristics they like best.  You can dress god however you please.

If you're a Christian and you believe in a God of love, you've decided to nullify large portions of your holy codex--which depicts god as wrathful, capricious and violent.  The god of the bible endorses child sacrifice, rape and prescribes the death penalty for a dozen or so crimes.  The bible supports eternal punishment for undefined offenses.

The Jesus described in the bible has the ability to cure ghastly diseases and disabilities, but often chooses not to do so--even for horribly suffering children.  Had the Prince of Peace simply told his followers about the germ theory of disease, he could have saved millions of lives.

Had the Son of Man simply said 'Women should enjoy the same civil rights as men,' imagine the horrors that might have been forestalled.  Had the Perfect Book unambiguously proscribed slavery, think how much better a book it would have been!

Human beings are the products of evolution.  Consciousness is the product of biological evolution.  No evidence points to the existence of consciousness independent of a body.  No non-human mind can offer us any forgiveness--something which we can only receive from the living.

What could the widow conceivably mean, then?  To be 'in a relationship' with the imagined entity misdescribed in the bible 'means to live by that example.'  Huh?

If the widow unilaterally withdrew from the imaginary relationship with her self-authored god character, would such a move in any way dishonor her lost husband?  Why?

Strib Motherearthism

Yesterday Soil Sister appeared in the Strib's Variety section.  We are introduced to a moral paragon--an organic farmer turned writer--Atina Diffley.  While unthinking slobs price-shop for food, more thoughtful individuals are loving Mother Earth, sustaining themselves on locally-grown, chemical-free vegetables and such.

Diffley, now a 'consultant' who exercises at a gym but has made peace with war paint, has a passion for 'filling people's plates with delicious, healthful food' and 'protecting the land that produces such food.'

The article provides no evidence that organic foods taste better or are more healthful than conventionally-grown alternatives--or that today's organic farmland will be preferred in the future.  Seeking out locally-grown agricultural products does not constitute an effective strategy for addressing global warming--and probably isn't even an important component thereof.

Purchasing organic foods and adopting a localvore food-purchasing strategy is about signalling:  Telling others--and reminding oneself--what kind of person you are.  It is a means of status elevation--hence people don't really care whether the ideology in fact extends life, benefits land or ought to be promulgated even in poor regions where food is extremely scarce.

The Strib implicitly endorses Diffley's dubious spiritualist assertions, while marshaling no persuasive evidence on their behalf.

To the dustbin!

Eden Prairie News

The 4/19/12 Eden Prairie News leads with a happy family coming together to fight ALS--the disease ravaging the family's father, Michael Brandt.  They've rigged a bicycle trailer which will allow pop to sit in a chair while hauled forward the 11 miles of ALS Bike Trek Minnesota.  The ever-chipper, boostering newspaper informs us that during his ongoing degeneration, 'Brandt has been Mr. Positive.'  You're going to need it.

Contracting a terrible illness is one of the surest ways to become newsworthy, in our town. 

'Mr. Sullivan, five minutes prior to going under the guillotine, was a portrait of composure and even gaiety, availing himself of a Marlboro Ultra Light, sharing a laugh with a stranger, cursing his foes--ideological and familial--one last time.'

If you're being eliminated by Disease X, it's odd that people feel the need to play poster child for that specific illness, no?  If you're going to contribute money (or work to get others to do so) to reduce human suffering, why not look for the lowest-hanging fruit?

The Berboks are practicing a Kinshasa family ritual almost as common here as corrugated metal roofs and dirt streets: the “power cut,” as residents in this capital of some 10 million have ironically christened it. On some days, some children eat, others do not. On other days, all the children eat, and the adults do not. Or vice versa.

The EP News continues to allow local religious yarn-spinners free access to readers:  Today Rev. Rod Anderson--the superannuated snake oil salesman just replaced by David Lillejord--invokes Timothy Kellor's The Reason For God.  We need to doubt our doubt more, to allow the faith/doubt yingyang to function better in our lives.  (They're sure getting clever, aren't they?)  Once we give doubt less leeway, Anderson argues, Jesus will begin to make more sense.

Anderson's is an idiotic argument, of course:  If we dial down our anti-magical skepticism, we won't simply let Jesus in the door--we'll allow thousands of deities in.  When you subsidize the suspension of critical thinking, you end up with a lot of religious drivel in the public square, particularly when the local gatekeeper takes a fawning attitude to superstition.

Same newspaper, same day:

Answers in Genesis conference at Grace

A free "Answers in Genesis Conference" provides scientific answers to support the biblical account of creation by uncovering the facts, investigating the mysteries, and comparing current secular beliefs to the account of creation presented in Genesis 1-11," according to a news release.

Scientific, my ass.

Blaming the Dictum

Gail Rosenblum just presented Our society's urge to blame is a fault we must address.  Rosenblum observes there's much misplaced, over-the-top and excessively personal criticism out there, but there's also warranted, fair criticism. What to do?

She brings in an academic with an Economist column--and builds to:

Recognize that people and the news stories they create are rarely simple. "All of us need to stop and say, 'If this person or group really is blameworthy, how do we know?'" Wyatt said. "With the economy, which is an extremely complex area, how do we know where to place blame? We need to ask the questions to be able to figure it out."

Most important, try to develop "a generosity of spirit, which means resisting the urge to tear people down," Wyatt said.

One senses the rubber is not ever going to be asked to hit the road.  We have lots of dumb criticism and some smart criticism.  So?

The solution is not to inculcate ever greater reticence in the chattering classes; there's considerable danger that, in stigmatizing criticism, we aid and comfort the worst offenders.  (Criticism is already strongly frowned upon, in our community.)  When people in the public square assign unfair or excessively personal blame, the best solution is to publicly call attention to it--and come to the defense of those unfairly singled out.

Many people play-act as public-stage actors but in fact discourage undeferential discussion of their ideas.  Local publicly-subsidized clerics (i.e. all of them) make many easily-debunked, stupid claims, though they forbid public response on their websites.  Such clowns deserve far more criticism--aka blame--than they have yet received.

Doubting Thomas

Hello Fr. Tim Rudolphi,

Last week I glanced at the parish bulletin in which you talk up Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.  While the movie greatly impressed you, you withhold

Indeed this is one of the comments the critics made about Mel Gibson's film, The Passion. His main focus was on the suffering of Jesus Christ.

Your caveat is a bit pussy-footed: A far more trenchant and damning criticism was leveled against The Passion, and it's a problem the Catholic Church itself has long sidestepped: anti-Semitism.

If you're going to remind parishioners of a serial anti-Semite, serial bigot's movie, I think you owe it to the sheep to emphasize that many viewers did not find the film morally uplifting.

Separately, I attended this morning's Mass at 9, in which you read--and commented upon--Doubting Thomas.

I admire the probably-fictional Thomas, since I don't respect people who are willing to believe magical stories based on no evidence.  When people come to Thomas with improbable-sounding stories about a reanimated dead body levitating through cave walls, Thomas expresses mild skepticism. Good for him!

While leery on hearsay claims concerning the flying dead, even if presented with dispositive evidence I'd still occasionally disagree with Jesus' moral teachings.

The New Testament endorses slavery, for example:  See Ephesians 6:5-6, 1 Timothy 6:1-2 and Luke 12:47-48.  Even if I became convinced that the Resurrection happened, I would still strongly oppose Christianity's support for slavery. 

By contrast, you today preached that we no longer have reason to take Thomas' questioning attitude:  'How lucky are we,' you announced: We have 2000 years of Christian history to rely on, so we have far greater reason to accept the Christian message than did poor Thomas.  All those Christians must have known something, right?

Your argument then is an extremely weak one--and it causes me to respect you less.  Two millennia of Christianity ought not lessen our agnosticism as to apocryphal stories involving revived dead folks.  Hinduism is older still than Christianity--do you consider its age a compelling statement on behalf of its historicity?

Of those hundreds of millions of forgotten Christians, btw, most had extremely little education.  Most were destitute, by our standards.  A great proportion had essentially no meaningful freedom to reject their religion's disparate and evolving claims.  At every phase of Christian history, there was a leader telling the flock that believing without evidence demonstrated sublime inner purity.

Gavin Sullivan

Eden Prairie

Wind subsidies? No

Glancing at the business section today, South Dakota ranks No. 1 in wind power caught my attention.  The Wind Production Tax Credit, which is set to expire at the end of 2012:

provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour benefit for the first ten years of a renewable energy facility's operation. It is only available for wind energy equipment located within the United States and only if electricity produced is sold to an unrelated party. Any unused credits may be carried forward for up to 20 years following generation. [Wikipedia]

The average price of electricity in Minnesota is 9¢/kwh, making the PTC an effective 23% subsidy for wind power.

Subsidies for fashionable or politically favored energy sources are not an efficient way to address our over-reliance on petroleum and coal; I would let the PTC expire.

Preserving revenue neutrality, we should increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and reduce other taxes, to encourage conservation and incentivize the consideration of fuel efficiency when people purchase new vehicles.

Small Land

Eden Prairie's St. Andrew Lutheran Church has more than 10,000 members--and has just installed a new pastor, the Rev. David Lillejord.  Lillejord is a minister's son who grew up promising himself not to go into his old man's line.

If one seriously believed oneself to be in possession of the universe's ultimate truth, you'd be willing to serve anywhere, seeking out the most challenging positions and locales.  The Jesus biz doesn't quite work out that way; Eden Prairie struck Lillejord as 'intriguing.'  There's a first for everything.

'The process of choosing a new pastor takes about a year,' Karla Wennerstrom writes.  This is an important, high-paying job; it's too bad Wennerstrom expresses such little curiosity about the hiring process.  I'm guessing it goes something like this:

First, we eliminate all female applicants, since they don't resemble Jesus' disciples.  (Their presence at the helm would offend God, who needs to be shielded from women's disgusting existence.)  Then we kick out all of the people who aren't superstitious.  We favor those with Norwegian-sounding names.  My--this fellow seems to fit the bill:  Lillejord.  Now we can kick back for another 364 days before our announcement.  Lillejord

went to Africa with a church group.  'That changes your life,' he said.  'And changes your perception of what we have and what we value,' he said.

Seems funny that--if his Africa trip really had such an impact--Lillejord can't tell us a single reason justifying his claim that he grew, as a result of the trip.  Mightn't one draw the opposite conclusion, upon observing the world's poorest people?  Why not conclude, 'God is wicked, racist and unjust'?

Is our country fulfilling its moral obligation to help the world's poorest people?  Does any such obligation exist?

If you've dedicated your life to spreading the message of Jesus Christ, why do you seem to care so little about contemporary unbiased scholarship, concerning that figure's biography?

Why does the bible contain so much reprehensible moral messaging?  Does it embarrass you that your religion's holy book accepts slavery--and instructs slaves to be submissive?

A happily disneyfied suburbanite, Lillejord employs a Harley Davidson vroom vroom as his ringtone of choice.  Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

**

But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine. If they give a prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they extort twenty thousand from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against them.

Martin Luther

Decoding the Strib

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann staged a publicity stunt on Tuesday in Lino Lakes, pumping gas before the assembled reporters.  The Star Tribune bites the hook, printing a large color photograph of the pol on the front page of the Twin Cities+region section.  Nearby, a smaller photo shows newly-announced challenger Jim Graves, holding his wife Julie's shoulders, looking to his left.

Bachmann self-congratulates:  Her presidential bid elevated the importance of ending Obamacare.  If so, it would appear odd the GOP has settled upon the single least credible anti-Obamacare candidate--who she's called a 'frugal socialist.'

Running for president, Bachmann missed a number of House votes.  I'd have preferred her missing even more--though Graves invokes a standard campaign ploy, bashing Bachmann for absenteeism:  'If you don't show up for work at Graves Hospitality you get fired.'  More political cheese; the Strib takes him seriously as he's 'a successful Democratic business entrepreneur with roots in St. Cloud and who has labor support.'

'Having labor support,' of course, assumes everyone agrees: 84% of Minnesota workers don't exist.  'Labor' refers to the 16% of Minnesota laborers who are represented by unions.  The political viewpoints of the remaining 84% are not considered worthy of interest, as the paper of record assesses the policy preferences of the state's labor force.

To its credit, the Strib calls Bachmann out on her crazy drill baby drill claim.  No, the US doesn't have more untapped oil than Saudi Arabia.

Graves' position on abortion?

"I believe it's a woman's issue. It's a health issue. At the end of the day, it's going to be between a woman, her doctor and her god." He said he supports attempts to reduce unwanted pregnancies, adding, "Abortion is always a tragedy."

My position on abortion differs with Jim Graves':  I believe it's entirely the woman's decision--and I can't think of a sensible reason for giving the doctor any say in the matter, let alone inviting the purported views of Ganesh, Thor or Jesus.  Some abortions are induced to save the life of the mother; some abortions take place before the fetus' nervous system has formed.  Graves is wrong:  At a minimum, such abortions are no 'tragedy' at all. 

The effort to stigmatize abortion and abortion providers has a loathsome, reactionary history--and it is incumbent upon politically active people to stand up for what's right.

In addition to Graves, the CD6 DFL field includes what the Strib calls 'two lesser-known candidates.'  Lesser-known to whom?--I'm curious.  Congressional campaigns occur within an imagined 1952, of course--wherein institutions such as the Star Tribune assume a rich political cipher is 'well-known,' whereas a civic-minded anti-McCarthyite blogger is 'extremely unknown.'  Garbage in, garbage out.

To the dustbin!

Savage Crucifixion

More liberated than thou Dan Savage was interviewed the other day on NPR.  He's got a new show on MTV, Savage U, tailored for the young who--cutesy Savagism incoming, take cover--are 'trying to figure out what it is they want to do, who it is they want to do.' 

A shitty writer without much wit, insight or expertise, he does pretty well for himself, riding the gay is okay meme.  Savage tells Neal Conan that even among those young people 'we've given a decent sex education to, all they really covered in those classes was reproductive biology, which is pretty simple.'

Odd, no?  A young person who has received competent sexual education should not simply understand 'reproductive biology,' but critically, factual information about contraceptives--including how to access them. 

To possess minimally adequate knowledge of human sexuality, young people need to be brought up to speed on the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases and what to do if they have contracted one.  American sex educators should make young people knowledgeable about the legal basics--that they can access contraception confidentially and that in the United States of America abortion is available and legally protected in every single state; that no one has the right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion if that be her choice.

What does it matter how many lovers you
have if none of them gives you the universe?

                                     Jacques Lacan

In addition, schools should make young women aware that--whether married or single--no person ever has the right to overrule one on whether to pursue pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to term.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone, regardless of race, sex, religion, party affiliation, disability, income or marital status.  Young women should be taught that they do not require a man's approval (ever, even if married) to terminate a pregnancy, should that be their preference--and that they live in a society which will afford them maximum legal protection from anyone seeking to impose his opinion on them.

After receiving sex education, young women should know that they can access contraception at any time during their lives and that their decision to inform a sexual partner--including a husband--that they are using contraception is not required and is at their sole discretion.

Savage is, sadly, more media whore than sex educator; he fails to draw attention to the stuff listed above.  Our society's failure to adequately instruct young people in basic sexuality is a scandal.

Savage hasn't much improved upon Ann Landers of yore, though he's more sanctimonious.  He wants American sex education to deal with 'negotiating relationships' and 'talking people into sleeping with you,' he says, though knowing they'll never take on such tasks, his own job security is solid.

To receive Savage's approval, we must be 'good, giving and game,' he signatures.  Thanks, but I have other plans.

Twin Cities

The Star Tribune--Minnesota's quality newspaper--is a valuable news source, vastly more credible than our suburban birdcage liners.  A non-subscriber, I hunt for the Strib's Twin Cities section at the local Starbucks--and today noticed several interesting articles:

The nabbed serial pedophile piece cannot help but draw one's attention.  In the present case, 68 year old Bill Jacobs--of leafy Deephaven--is being sentenced to 18 years, having finally been brought to justice after a lengthy career ["at least two dozen" prior victims] having gotten away with it, benefiting from the social stigma which dissuaded potential accusers from turning him decades ago.

The present accuser's father cannot but look unkindly upon the retired Wisconsin retinal surgeon who counts himself among Jacobs' cop-shy victims.  Sexual abusers of minors should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned; we have no disagreement on the essential social order point.  We merely note:

At sentencing, Jacobs expresses real-sounding remorse:  "I don't know why it is that I have this curse"..."But I know with 100 percent certainty that I could have taken the adequate steps to prevent the curse from hurting others."

Awaiting trial, Jacobs wrote clumsy letters to his minor accuser and family, expressing contrition and implicitly requesting absolution.  Abby Simons--to this reader, anyway--indulges a certain easy moralism, inviting the reader to luxuriate in renewed disgust for Jacobs:  In custody, Jacobs--writing to the victim's family--refers to his prey as "a good young man." What a monster!

Genuinely contrite people often express self-censure poorly, failing to reasonably consider the feelings of those they have harmed.  Implicitly, the article invites us to consider Jacobs' apology 'obviously insincere.'  Considering a convicted pedophile's story, we are rewarded--the paper of record asking us to ponder our own hard-won sexual normality:  We are good people indeed.

In the same section today, Mayor Rybak met with Occupy protesters.  I don't much care for Occupy, though I want them to be treated fairly by the police when they are justly prevented from residing on urban public property.  Seems to me Rybak has it about right.  Occupy doesn't resonate much in CD3; most people here simply don't thirst for enormous governmental wealth redistribution.  A vanguard of activists pitching tents in public parks doesn't strike me as politically helpful or attractive.

Driving north on Highway 100 the other day, I saw a group of placard-holders up above, on the pedestrian flyover:  H O R N E T T E S, they gigantically announced.  I grew up in Edina back when the suburb had two high schools; Edina West featured Cougarettes as the hottie-girl pep-dancers.  Knowing nothing of any current controversy, I asked myself how long Hornettes will be allowed.  Edina's sports mascot is the Hornet; a diminutive has been--for 53 years now--used to describe the school's elite cheerleaders.

Mary Pawlenty is standing with Edina's huddled masses on this one.  It's interesting that the authorities attempting to remove the name won't come out and admit why they're ending its usage:

School officials have said they made the change to strengthen the school's "brand consistency" and to unify the band, dancers and cheerleaders under a common name. They said the changes were part of a broader schoolwide effort to align programs wherever possible.

Typical gutless bureaucrats.  You've earned Mary Pawlenty's grandstanding victimology.

Brezhnevian Endorsements

Sharon Sund flack Brad Gangnon announces hers.

Brian Barnes is loved by 'unlicensed seafarers'--a perennially powerful force in CD3 politics--among other unionists.

In neither case does the endorser describe any candidate-specific policy position.

Barnes and Sund are recognizable as the serious candidates in the race, of course--as they so seldom discuss issues.

He gets it,” said Pete Parris, Political Director for the Sheet Metal Workers Local #10, and a DFL delegate from SD47 in Waconia, the new part of the district. “He’s been a union member.”

Let's be honest:  Over and over, across CD3, you hear liberals saying:  Sullivan just doesn't get it.

Identity, identity, identity.  Cheesy symbolism.  A wooden, all-knowing attitude:  The answers are self-evident--no need to talk.

We are given to understand Barnes is not today a union member, assuming Parris has spoken with the candidate.  But Barnes is 'proud to carry a union card,' then--even if it's expired.  Bouncers seldom check closely.  Perhaps carrying an expired union card helps one win friends at this critical phase.

Sharon Sund 'will be a strong and tireless advocate for all the residents in the district,' says a long-forgotten Minneapolis mayor.  You just know bleary-eyed Sullivan would punch out at four o'clock on a Thursday and spend his salary at the racetrack.  'Tell the constituents I'm busy.'

Barnes 'understands the issues that affect working families.'  For all his charms, you just know Sullivan lacks the perspicacity to grasp such complex matters.  Barnes 'has the kind of real-world job creation background that we need in our next congressman.'  Sullivan's oft-acknowledged fixation on virtual-world job creation will make him popular in Second Life--but will send the US economy into a tailspin should he win, goes DFL pooh-bah CW.

Money

Barnes/Sund will be decided on identity politics, verisimilitude, 'electability' and money.  Participants take the contest's extreme vacuousness as a fact of nature.

Given the emptiness of Barnes/Sund, let's take another glance at money.

During the oft-mentioned debate, Brian Barnes made a macho, rich-dude, ostensibly chivalrous promise:  If Sharon Sund wins on April 14, he will not only immediately endorse her--he will max out as a Sund for Congress contributor.

I found the pledge mildly irksome, as it put Barnes' greater personal wealth in the service of winning the political support of people who should be committed to disregarding such a distinction.

Taking in the various public statements of Sund and Barnes, it appears Barnes is personally better off than Sund.  Looking up each candidate in the telephone directory and then Zillowing the two addresses, we appear to confirm the supposition.  If the Zillow data is correct, the Barneses bought into Edina just a year ago, perhaps explaining Sund's calling attention to her multidecade residential connection to the district.

I say this as someone who would prefer candidates be assessed based on their ideas and character, disregarding income and net worth.  Dealing in the real world, I can imagine situations in which my desire for fairness and my desire to unseat a Republican might come into conflict.  If Barnes, for example, were to reveal he would be willing to put $3 million of his personal wealth on the line to win the seat, I might well opt to give way.

Still--an electability argument is being advanced for Brian Barnes--and in part it says 'Barnes is wealthy, he knows the elite business world; it will enable him to raise sheetloads of money, so he'll win.'

And yet:  Comparing Barnes/Sund to Meffert/Hackett and Madia/Bonoff, this is really tiddlywinks.  Barnes has outraised Sund $53,319 to $41,748--peanuts, in congressional politics--and Barnes himself contributed $15k of this $53k.  Separately, Barnes' $53k includes $10k from two Barnes-surnamed Oklahomans.

In other words, we do not appear to have much reason to view Barnes as a gifted fundraiser.

Mike Freeman's Barnes Valentine

Mike Freeman has endorsed Brian Barnes for Congress.

As with previous Barnes endorsements, it's a form letter, essentially. Freeman--playing candidacy oracle--gives no evidence of having seriously reviewed the alternatives. He does not claim Barnes has ever authored a courageous statement or shown any political backbone. Freeman makes no affirmation of Barnes' history of independent thinking--as Barnes supporters don't consider that characteristic important.

For Freeman, Barnes fits the bill due to his ostensible appeal to independents.

Perhaps the Hennepin County Attorney hasn't been following Barnes' publicly-stated views:  At the Barnes-Sund debate, Barnes made clear his central proposal for restoring economic growth is to increase education spending.  Barnes' preferred method for reducing the deficit is to raise taxes.

In a 311-word endorsement, Freeman spends one sentence on issues:

Brian Barnes is a strong advocate for Medicare and Social Security, for our environment, and for our brothers and sisters in organized labor.

Standard political fluff then, nothing more.

I have not previously heard this claim being put forth, btw:

Brian Barnes has real business experience, providing hundreds of American manufacturing jobs.

If any reader can provide evidence in support of this claim, please do not hesitate to comment. (Sounds like yet more BS.)

Double Whammy

A quick update on the CD3 campaign:

Brian Barnes claims to be ahead in delegates.  Note: Barnes and Sharon Sund have raised very nearly nothing:  The FEC--above--reveals the corporate candidates' catastrophic failure:  Cash on hand:  Brian Barnes = $28,462.14; Sharon Sund = $14,599.47.

Rep. Erik Paulsen has more than one million dollars to spend getting re-elected--and any prudent Republican political strategist would have to be telling him parsimony makes sense, for now--as he's facing perhaps the single weakest, brokest DFL field in memory.

Per federal rules, my activity thus far has not triggered the requirement to file any FEC documentation--that's why you don't see my name on the list.

After April 14, we'll have a single candidate with the temporary DFL endorsement, having received the support of <1% of CD3 Democrats.

When it comes to issues, a congressional campaign centers upon one primary question:  Whose preferred policies will make our economy stronger--creating jobs and building a strong foundation for sustained growth?

Whether Sund or Barnes gets the nod on 4/14/12, that DFL candidate will want to raise taxes to address the nation's long-term balance-sheet problem.  In other words, we will be saddled with a penniless Mondale manque whose central proposal for restoring growth is to implement the economic priorities of Education Minnesota.  A candidate whose principal economic recommendation is uninteresting and incredible to voters--and if implemented would not meaningfully address the challenge we're facing.

A pleasant alternative exists:

I am the sole challenger who doesn't want to raise taxes:  Instead, I seek to cap military spending at 1.5% of GDP.  (The countries most comparable to us can do it--so we can do it.)  By reducing our military spending from 4.8% of GDP to 1.5%, the lion's share of our deficit problem will have been solved.  Sure, we'll have other problems to tackle--but I'm the only person running who's speaking openly and honestly about the most obvious solution before us.

The solution I am proposing is highly popular with rank-and-file CD3 Democrats--and it genuinely pulls considerable support from independents and from the party of Lincoln.