The Problem With Kevin

North Minneapolis Christmas Carols

2009-12-08T12:35:00.005-06:00

Share with the family! Make the children enjoy!

------------

Well the screaming outside is frightful
And the neighbor's stoned on Nyquil
And since you're completely broke...
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

------------

Copper pipes. (Copper pipes)
Copper pipes. (Copper pipes)
Foreclosure time, south of Dowling

Cracking windows, shattered windows
And a cat that just died
And the bank
Won't be fixing
The furnace

Children laughing, Children laughing?
How long have they been here?
It's a new low for Camden this year!!!!!

----------

Fremont roasting... On an open fire.
Broadway overrun by hoes
A liquor store, and smell of burnt tires
Merry Christmas from us west of Ninety-fo!!!

----------

Krugman is Optimistic in Hacky Ways

2009-12-07T09:27:00.004-06:00

That Paul Krugman is considered a thought leader, and is employed by perhaps the most influential left-win publication in the world, tells you something about the economic expertise of your average liberal.

Read and weep.

Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday. President Obama now plans to address the conference on its last day, which suggests that the White House expects real progress.

Why does it suggest this? What do these two facts have to do with each other? If Obama were to attend the whole thing, or only the first part, Krugman would say the same thing.

It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.

Lip service isn't principle. China also agrees, at least in principle, that it is bad to murder religious dissidents. Principle is kind of the sticking point, re: China.

Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild.

Disagreeing with Krugman = Going Wild

We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show — well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind.

Let's apply this clever rhetorical dodge to other events.

Stolen e-mails indicate that Al Qaeda is planning a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers. This is further proof that terrorists are human.

We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.

This particular brand of dysphemism gets under my skin. Nobody will be "crying" at all. Krugman is uninterested in countering this argument like an adult, so he resorts to this hacky means of dismissal.

The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth.

Well, if "serious studies" say so. What, you're going to argue with "serious studies"?

And the depressed economy is no reason to wait — on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover.

And I'll probably start shitting clowns. In other words, Krugman is defining downward the colloquial notion of probability.

Why should you believe that cutting emissions is affordable?

Because you have no common sense? Because you go to Bennington College? Because you've never really had to pay taxes?

Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of “cap and trade”: businesses won’t be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

No. The taxpayers will buy their credits for them. That makes an already stupid ponzi-esque scheme even, well, more stupid, but less ponzi-esque. Krugman is ignoring this, either because he is lying, or because the optimism has gotten to his brain.

So they’ll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon — and there’s every reason to believe that they’ll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that.

Lobbying congress to get taxpayers to foot the bill, for example.

As a recent study by McKinsey & Company showed, there are many ways to reduce emissions at relatively low cost: improved insulation; more efficient appliances; more fuel-efficient cars and trucks; greater use of solar, wind and nuclear power; and much, much more.

All you have to do is buy new cars, new appliances, and re-insulate your house... Oh, and relocate to a community that relies on wind energy. Easy and cheap. I don't know why you haven't done it already.

And you can be sure that given the right incentives, people would find many tricks the study missed.

Is putting the Democrats out on their asses in 2010 one of the tricks?

The truth is that conservatives who predict economic doom if we try to fight climate change are betraying their own principles.

Note to readers. Krugman knows the argument he is about to make is complete and utter BS. He is not this stupid. He is counting on the fact that his regular readers do not. They are this stupid.

They claim to believe that capitalism is infinitely adaptable, that the magic of the marketplace can deal with any problem.

Nope.

But for some reason they insist that cap and trade — a system specifically designed to bring the power of market incentives to bear on environmental problems — can’t work.

Sigh. Artificial price controls negate the free market. The same principle applies to fraud. Bad actors in free markets skew the markets in a way capitalism cannot accommodate. As such, conservatives argue that the government should NOT impose constraints on the free market, for the precise reason that capitalism relies upon a free market.

This is akin to arguing that, since (small d) democrats believe in the virtue of personal autonomy, they should not object to concentration camps, on account of the inevitable triumph of that autonomy.

The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today’s fight over climate change.

Insofar as demagoguery and flimsy science shaped policy then, too, yes.

Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.

My guess is that this is in a press release, since I've seen this argument made by several greenos over the last several days. I'm not going to rehash the entire debate over acid rain, but this is bologna.

But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.

Yeah. Visit here to see what Krugman considers to be a "sharp reduction". Or take my word for it. SO2 reduction occurred at the same rate from 1980-1990 as it did from 1990-2000.

Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task — but we’re likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started.

Well, he did warn us he was feeling optimistic.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been.

Yeah, 3.5% of the entire American economy. No big whoop. Let's be optimistic. What's projected to happen probably won't happen. See how easy it is?

If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point — from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent.

That's actually really bad. A drop from 2% GDP growth in 2007 to 1% in 2008 was sufficient to cost 7 million jobs. Take that figure, and divide it by twenty. That is 350,000 jobs lost, every single year, enough to constitute a .25% increase in unemployment. Again, Krugman knows this, and assumes you do not.

Add this to the $2k or so (depending on how the lobbyists do with this bill) that this will cost per family. Say you make $80,000 per year. You have an added .25% chance of losing your income at any given time. You have are now devoting $2,200 (5.25%) to a single piece of environmental legislation.

Still, should we be starting a project like this when the economy is depressed?

No, because obviously the costs will be front-loaded, meaning the bulk of the impact will be almost instantaneous... Which is a bad thi...

Yes, we should — in fact, this is an especially good time to act, because the prospect of climate-change legislation could spur more investment spending.

Noooooooo! That's not how an economy works. You don't impose a cost in hopes of spurring investment to reduce the cost. Otherwise, we might as well introduce a cap and trade system for soybeans and screwdrivers. It's like buying something solely for the tax break. This is depressing.

Consider, for example, the case of investment in office buildings. Right now, with vacancy rates soaring and rents plunging, there’s not much reason to start new buildings.

Yeah, let's consider things. That's a start. Things are good.

But suppose that a corporation that already owns buildings learns that over the next few years there will be growing incentives to make those buildings more energy-efficient.

This is what the corporation will do. It will sell its empty buildings. Alternately, it will foreclose on them. In either event, the new price will reflect the "incentives", thereby driving down the price of commercial property. I now return you to the land of make believe...

Then it might well decide to start the retrofitting now, when construction workers are easy to find and material prices are low.

Of course, if demand rises in accordance with Krugman's fantasy, material prices will be high and workers scarce. But again, in reality, they'll just sell the damn buildings and declare bankruptcy.

Oh, and this applies to homeowners as well. I mean, not Krugman's Central Park friends and Bennington College students, but people who exist in something resembling reality.

The same logic would apply to many parts of the economy, so that climate change legislation would probably mean more investment over all.

After all, weren't you just itching to re-insulate your house? All you have to do is cash out the equity in your home and use that money to... What? Oh, right. The economy.

So let’s hope my optimism about Copenhagen is justified.

Hope springs !@#$ing eternal with these people.

Seriously?

2009-12-02T14:30:00.002-06:00

Remember when I made fun of Starman? Hyper-earnest 80s film. Wouldn't get made today. No big whoop.

A search under Jeff Bridges profile indicates, among his four career Oscar nominations is one for the leading role in, you guessed it, Starman!

My world is upside down over this, people.

Monday Musings

2009-11-30T09:43:00.002-06:00

Dubai is goodbye? Or just a Tokyo-yo? Let's muse.

Even more curious than the phenomena that is Thanksgiving dinner, which emphasizes symbolic comfort foods one would seldom consider eating on any other occasion? Thanksgiving leftovers, or, rather, those who are passionate for them. We're talking about the hardened, dry meat of a bird that doesn't rank among the tastiest to begin with.

My leftover turkey recipe? Leave turkey in refrigerator. Age three days. Toss.

------------

Remember Mike Huckabee, the perfectly nice but not so presidential candidate for the Republican nomination? Turns out he granted clemency to the guy who murdered four police officers in a Seattle coffee shop. Two years ago, I wrote this of Huckabee:

"Are the Republicans really going to nominate a Bush clone (one who draws arbitrary distinctions with Bush at that) who also has a Willie Horton problem?"

They did not, and they will not. Mike Huckabee is a nice person who lets his heart get in the way of his head. Giving power to such people is a dangerous thing. Who knows when God will call Huck's cell with another bad idea.

------------

So, it turns out that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia decided to toss all of the raw data they had been collecting from various weather stations. Cue thousands of greenos hurrying to their keyboards to explain that it is perfectly normal for scientists to throw away large amounts of data used in their research.

(edit: scouring the web, I see that the left is starting to take this story more seriously. They are now throwing the entire institution under the bus, casting the University of East Anglia as a sort of glorified community college.)

------------

I am completely ignoring cyber-Monday. I'm also done blogging. Enjoy the sunshine!

Happy Thursdaytimes!

2009-11-25T11:38:00.002-06:00

In honor of the White House, TPWK would like to dedicate this Thanksgiving to India, which kinda dodged a bullet with the whole Columbus thing, if you think about it.

Monday Musings

2009-11-23T12:17:00.002-06:00

Do me a favor, will you? Wherever you are right now, stop what you are doing, throw your hands in the air, and shout "it's musing time, baby!"

Thanks... Let's roll.

------------

Too little has been said about the hacked e-mail from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. To those unfamiliar with the story: the e-mails reveal scientists exaggerating data, conspiring to suppress dissent (going so far as to redefine the much ballyhooed process of peer review), calling for the deletion of e-mails. They also reveal that scientists are as baffled as anyone as to why the Earth hasn't been warming (one prominent researcher, who contributed heavily to the IPCC report, calls this a "travesty").

This is damning evidence that scientists are more or less trying to invent a catastrophe out of whole cloth. The green movement has gotten as far as it has because the public regards scientists as benevolent Mr. Wizards who wear lab coats and fight for truth. Else, an appeal to "peer-reviewed" literature and "settled science" in the face of common sense (very few people actually think we are headed for a climate catastrophe) falls flat.

Absent this appeal, greens are left pointing to anecdotal evidence such as melting ice caps and "disappearing" polar bear populations (the polar bear population is actually increasing). This is the very behavior they decry in skeptics (global warming? This was the coldest summer in years!.

Before we enact any policy w/r/t global warming, I want to see research that is done honestly and transparently. To reject this demand is to treat global warming as a religion, and carbon emissions a God to be worshiped. No thank you.

------------

What the hell? It's like Ziggy Stardust, if Ziggy Stardust was actually Brittney Spears and not David Bowie.

------------

Can someone explain the appeal of Twitter? I've been blogging in some capacity for almost five years. I'm on Facebook daily. These things bring me joy. Twitter is the most boring thing on the planet. Worse, it seems to be entirely redundant if you are on Facebook. I'm not the type who starts accounts and promptly abandons them, but I'm not going to torture myself either.

------------

Visited Tea House in Plymouth, one of the few reasonably authentic Chinese places you'll find in this city. The food is extremely greasy, which I found odd, but the flavors were generally spot on. The dumplings and bamboo tips were standouts. My pork in szechuan sauce would have been better had the waiter remembered to bring rice. This is a place better suited for larger groups, as the portions are large and the flavors are pretty intense.

------------

Gotta run. Seasons 2 of Major Dad just came on Netflix.

McLaren Types Words Into His Computer

2009-11-16T21:27:00.004-06:00

It’s been said that conservatives are people who honor the tombs of dead progressives.

I have never heard this, though I cannot dispute that it has "been said". Other things that have probably "been said":

This Leprechaun is ravishing my grandmother's ottoman.

Your kitten is waffles.

Whiskey is the truest form of religion.

If that’s true, then within the Democratic movement, even with its progressive reputation, there could be a wing of conservative progressives, those who remember the good old days and the great leaders who then presided.

Brian has no idea what conservatism is, what it stands for, or how to engage it. Instead, he muddles together some things he saw on Rachel Maddow.

What would a conservative wing of the progressive party stand for?

Abortion rights.

First, I think, they would be staunchly secular, deeply suspicious of progressive Evangelicals and Catholics being “out of the closet” about their faith in party circles.

Progressives are historically religious, dating back to the social gospel movement of the early 20th century, the wheel which McLaren is ignorantly re-inventing.

Second, they would be nervous about progressive religious Democrats who do not favor criminalizing abortion but are deeply committed to abortion reduction.

Does McLaren use the word "criminalizing" to describe the act of officially prohibiting anything other than abortion? But yeah, the conservative liberal would be pretty much about abortion rights, and I can't imagine why they would have any problem with a little bit of lip service about reducing abortions.

Third, they would be concerned if these Evangelical and Catholic Democrats wanted the same kinds of accountability for big government that they want for big business.

Fortunately, they'll never have to worry about that.

Most progressive Evangelicals, it turns out, are the sons and daughters of religiously righteous conservative Republicans,

They also use ridiculous phrases like "religiously righteous conservative Republicans". That's some bad writing, is what I'm trying to say.

so they have already learned how to break free from conservative strangle-holds. Wouldn’t it be ironic if they become the ones to help shift the center of gravity in the Democratic Party — not regressively, but in a freshly progressive direction?

It would not be ironic to anyone who understands the political history of this country. What would be ironic is if their kids saw through their theological and political piffle and became more conservative than their grandparents.

We need to realize this inconvenient but urgently needed truth: it’s not the 1980s anymore.

What? Who thinks it's the 1980s? Who is acting as though it's the 1980s? What planet does McLaren live on?

If we keep asking the same old poorly framed or unproductive questions — What is your position on abortion?

If this question is so unproductive, then why did McLaren introduce his position early on in this piece? This question is only unproductive for McLaren because it requires him to acknowledge that he is pro-choice, and therefore costs him credibility with moderate and conservative Christians who cannot tolerate the sanctioned slaughter of nearly half of our population.

What’s your position on gay marriage?

Apparently, direct questions are poorly framed and unproductive. Best to stick with innuendo and banalities - What is your modality?

Are you religious or secular?

How irrelevant, the whole question of whether one subscribes to a religion. Meaningless, religion, as a concept. Deep down, we're all the same.

Are you for or against big government?– whatever our answers are, we remain stuck in a past moment and can’t get out of it.

I have never been asked whether I am for or against big government, though I agree that it is a useless question, albeit for more precise reasons than McLaren. Also, Brian McLaren hasn't written anything compelling in nearly a decade. Who, exactly, is stuck here?

We don’t just need new answers to the same old questions; we need to raise new questions entirely, and in that way, change the conversation in both parties in a truly progressive way.

I'd ask McLaren to pose one such question, but I suspect this is just a setup to talk about his latest book.

Democrats and Republicans alike need to progress to a new list of critical issues, beginning with three emergencies I identified in my book Everything Must Change:

Yahtzee. Like clockwork, this guy.

1. The Crisis of the Planet: How can we reorient our economy around sustainability and regeneration rather than consumption and environmental degradation?

Why is this more important than the question of whether literally any human being in this country might be subject to execution prior to exiting the womb? Also, a planet is not a crisis. That is a categorical error.

2. The Crisis of Poverty: How can we address the growing economic gap between a powerful rich minority and the marginalized poor majority of our world’s people, especially when rich corporate elites have found ways to co-opt democracy and control political agendas here and around the world?

Answer, by extracting control from the democracies. By limiting government, you reduce the influence of corporate scoundrels on same. McLaren has never engaged this argument, and never will.

3. The Crisis of Peace: How can we move beyond the morally bankrupt and economically bankrupting endless wars of terrorism and counter-terrorism to pursue peace through justice and reconciliation in a world armed with too many and too-dangerous weapons?

Catch phrases. Catch phrases solve everything. Everything must change. Therefore, the catch phrases must change. Alternately, you could find military personnel to think through the issue and recommend... Ah, forget about all that.

Christians have every reason to address these three issues with faith-based energy and passion, whatever their party. I hope that Democrats will welcome a shift in focus to a new kind of question, and that progressive Evangelicals (and Catholics) will aid in that process.

And, we're done. Yes, let's all get together and ask mundane questions of each other. That will make everything better, and everything will change therefore.

And let's keep the Catholics in their place, enclosed in parentheses.

Monday Musings

2009-11-16T10:56:00.002-06:00

I'm back in Minnesota with the rest of the plebs. Let's muse.

On airlines:

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with Delta. Caveats about small sample size not withstanding, it seems like they're the kick in the ass Northwest needed. Consider this. All three of our mainland flights were on time, with flight entertainment (a rarity on NWA), and all of our stewards were friendly (ditto). Most impressive was the baggage claim turnaround. Checking bags with NWA used to add 30 minutes to your trip, minimum.

------------

I am somewhat less impressed with Go! Airlines. Operated by Mesa, they fly between the Hawaiian islands, sort of. For starters every flight out of Honolulu was delayed that day. Some flights to the big island were so delayed that other late flights to the same destination were departing before the other flights. Our flight only departed about 15 minutes late, but we were the exception.

I thought someone was going to pull a gun. It's not like security was going to stop them. On our flight to Kauai, the man sitting next to us successfully smuggled a live chicken on board.

Spring the extra $10 and fly Hawaiian.

------------

On Anita Dunn:

A few weeks ago, I speculated that Anita Dunn was being put front and center in the White House's weird battle with Fox News simply to provide a pretense for firing her. That was precisely the case. Smart move by the administration. She was abysmal at her job.

So what does Obama do? He elevates Dunn's husband. That is an unfathomable decision.

------------

On 9/11:

Politically, I understand the motivation behind bringing the 9/11 masterminds to civilian courts. It is a chance to placate the left-wing without making any substantial concessions to the idiotic cause of extending constitutional rights to internationally affiliated terrorists.

What I don't understand is the left-wing base, which is applauding what essentially amounts to a show trial. If these men are not convicted, what is the government going to do? Release them? Hardly.

------------

To that end, the White House might have a potential mess on their hands, in the event of a jury trial. At least 1 of 12 jurors is likely to vehemently oppose the decision to bring this to a jury trial. That person could make themselves very (in)famous very quickly by registering a protest vote against the whole dog and pony show. Joe the juror, anyone?

------------

On Hawaiian food:

The Hawaiian's get fast food right. Instead of the usual dog food on a donut, they favor "plate lunches", a meal paired with rice. I had one with fish, chicken and beef, and had it just as quickly as I would if I had ordered a Big Mac, and much MORE quickly than had I waited twenty minutes in line for a Chipotle burrito.

Also, hot dried cuttlefish, which is essentially squid jerky, is divine. Anyone know where I can get it in Minnesota?

------------

On Minnesota Food:

On the topic of decent fast food, Hook Fish and Chips is pretty good, if a bit pricey (and not really fast). I had fried shrimp and talapia w/fix. They have a few locations, mostly in lower income neighborhoods. So if you're in one, and you're hungry, go.

That's all for today. I have to go give someone a lot of sass.

Nothin' Wrong With This

2009-11-13T03:27:00.003-06:00

Look at this guy...

He's gonna gitcha. Don't worry though, he'll wait until you're asleep.

Can I Get a What, What?

2009-11-11T13:11:00.001-06:00

No, no I cannot.

Apparently, it is more or less a figure of speech, is the reason, or so I have been told.

Ridiculous.

Hawaii musings

2009-11-10T11:27:00.002-06:00

Light blogging week, on account of I am on beautiful island. But here are some goodies.

Hawaiian food is a trip. Sausages, shave ice, funky donuts, moco loco (sort of a deconstructed scotch egg), and all things spam... It's like these people took the Minnesota State fair and internalized it.

------------

If you are ever in Oahu, by all means avoid the Dole Plantation. Trains, mazes, and horrendous food pineapples on top of it. What I thought would be kitschy fun wound up being as pleasant as having a baseball bat shoved into my eye socket. It's like if the Small World ride and the Wisconsin Dells got together and had a mildly retarded baby with jaundice.

------------

So, if you are in the Army, and you reveal you have attended a radical mosque, speak favorably of suicide bombings, oppose American military interventions in the Middle East... That's all cool? No cause for concern there?

Gen. Casey's commentary on the matter. "It would be a shame if you diversity became a casualty as well."

Would it? Even if it would, the fact that the Army Chief of Staff seems to think that hampered diversity should occupy the same psychic space as a terrorist attack that killed 13 people tells you a lot about how this came about.

------------

A restaurant reco on the mainland. I had been meaning to go to the Modern Cafe for quite awhile. I got around to it, and wished I had got their sooner. Excellent, fresh food, outstanding service. Top notch all around.

Top Ten Fridays - Lessons From Tuesday

2009-11-05T11:53:00.004-06:00

I know it's Thursday, but I'll be on a plane tomorrow. If the cognitive dissonance is too much for you, you can wait until tomorrow to read.

The pundits have discussed Tuesday's election results to death, but I have seen very few interesting observations. Mostly, the analysis is drawn along partisan lines. The Weekly Standard thinks it was a referendum on Obama. Jim Wallis thinks it represents a nebulous rejection of the power of money in politics.

It's neither (though especially not the latter, which is a ridiculously self-serving conclusion). With that, here are my ten observations.

1) Re: NY-23. Very statistically minded sports fans, when attempting to predict future results, look beyond wins and losses. Games decided by small margins (e.g. 1 run in baseball) are essentially toss-ups, as the better team is no more or less likely to win a close game over a weaker opponent. The same can be said for elections.

NY-23 was, essentially a tie. What does this tell us? That a Democrat can win in a Republican leaning district? Yes. That a conservative movement candidate cannot? No. The truth is, both sides can take comfort in the fact that they identified ideologically viable candidates, and may feel free to anoint similar candidates in the future.

2) Low voter turnout once again favored the status quo in Minneapolis. Ironically, however, the variety of party affiliations has only served to reinforce the unilateral stranglehold of the Democratic party. Green Party candidates split votes with independents, Flag Party members, People Against Cats et al... Simply split votes. The lack of a real Republican presence in this city has allowed this to happen, and those residents who don't live on the Southwest side are getting the worst of it.

3) Whether or not Tuesday's election was a repudiation of Obama, it certainly heralds the return of ideological norms, or indicates that they never went away in the first place.

4) The Washington Post doesn't hold court over Northern Virginia the way it did even three years ago. Between their incompetently crafted opinion pieces and "straight" political reporting, they have usually managed to push the numbers. Not so in this case.

It's not that people aren't reading the Post. It's that people are contextualizing it. As a stand alone paper, it's a persuasive piece of work. Against the backdrop of a Google Reader or news digester (drudge, RCP), it is simply one voice in the choir. This is a great development, and its happening all across the country.

5) Just because poll numbers do not indicate that people cast their vote to repudiate Obama, doesn't mean this wasn't a repudiation of Obama's ideas. When people cite health care as among their top three issues (it hasn't been so in the past), and then vote for Republicans, there is some pretty easy math you can do, if you are willing to pick up a calculator.

6) California is still liberal. This will not change, especially when businesses begin to jump ship.

7) In response to the successful referendum against gay marriage in Maine, the gay power groups were understandably frustrated. Many have taken to op-ed pages to declare the inevitably of their cause, since those in opposition to the practice will be dead soon. Suffices to say, this is off the talking points. Those who eagerly anticipate the death of other human beings tend to float to the political margins in accordance with their viewpoint. Bloodthirsty gays are only popular in Twilight.

8) R.T. Rybak has precisely no interest in leading this city. If he is elected governor, he will have no interest in leading Minnesota. He's one of those types, which isn't necessarily awful, except that he isn't competent enough to pull it off. He can't campaign and lead at the same time. As such, his fallback is to make a big splash about irrelevant issues (see: bottled water).

9) Barack Obama is tone deaf. Clinton responded swiftly to the mere suggestion he might be souring the prospects of his party nationally. He took action, triangulated, and did his able best to grovel back into the good graces of American voters. The White House issued a press release about how unimportant the elections were .

10) People still don't pay attention. How many people didn't even know there were elections on Tuesday? 60%? That's terrible.

Minneapolis 4th Ward Endorsements

2009-11-03T11:04:00.002-06:00

Today, Minneapolis residents have the opportunity to lodge protest votes against our incompetent city leadership. If you live in my neck of the woods, here's how you can vote, TPWK style.

Note: The instant runoff gives you the choice of up to three candidates. This will almost certainly not create any voting irregularities that inure to the benefit of incumbents.

Mayor

1st Choice - Papa John Kolstad

The Green party and the Republican party agree on him, for some reason. Kolstad is the only candidate who has even made mention of getting this city's fiscal ship in order.

2nd Choice - Christopher Clark

He's Libertarian, which means he probably won't spend all his time worrying about whether or not you are drinking bottled water.

3rd Choice - Joey Lombard

His mildly amusing ballot gag trumps the entirety of R.T. Rybak's accomplishments.

City Council - Fourth Ward

1st Choice - Grant Cermak

In addition to being conservative and actually caring about North Minneapolis, Grant also has the endorsement of the council to save happy hour. Cheers!

2nd Choice - Barb Johnson

She isn't particularly good at her job, but she did take my phone call regarding the ridiculous sidewalk repair estimates from home the day after having surgery.

3rd Choice - Marcus Harcus

Living in this city makes it very difficult to take yourself seriously. So don't! Vote Green.

Board of Estimate and Taxation (if it remains)

1st Choice - Michael Martens

He has earned the Strib endorsement, and has actually made a pledge to limit taxes. He is the only candidate for whom I am excited to cast a ballot.

2nd Choice - David Wheeler

Also at least claims to understand our problematic tax structure, though he seems inclined to pass the blame to the state legislature. The fact that he is moderate on the issue of preserving the board impresses me. People who run for office in this city are never moderate about anything.

3rd Choice - James Elliot Swartwood

A member of a party called the "New Dignity Party". Wants to lower taxes, and has absolutely no chance of winning. Why the hell not?

Park Board - 2nd District

1st (and only) choice - Michael Guest

The Park Board had a pretty disastrous summer, and the incumbents need to be held to account for a ridiculous and petty war with the city council.

Park Board - At Large

1st Choice - David Wahlstedt

A reformer with genuinely good ideas for incorporating the private sector into fiscal planning. His idea for "mini farmers markets" makes a lot of sense.

2nd Choice - John Butler

The New Dignity candidate. I think the anti-establishment zeal is better placed at this capacity.

3rd Choice - Nancy Bernard

She is running because she is concerned that people aren't using the parks, and wants to find out why. This approach almost certainly guarantees transparency, and her candidacy is a direct rebuke of an establishment that could care less whether people actually enjoy the parks we spend so much to maintain.

Amendment 168 - Yes

As much as I loathe the notion of rendering more power unto our ridiculous city leadership, the Board of Estimate and Taxation is a needless bureaucracy that has done nothing to assuage skyrocketing property tax rates or increase transparency.

Frank Rich Melts Down

2009-11-01T19:53:00.004-06:00

This is the most poorly written, fundamentally unsound opinion piece I have read in a major daily in a long time. Naturally, it runs in the New York Times.

If you aren't up to speed, Barack Obama named Rep. McHugh (R-NY) the Secretary of the Army. A politically connected liberal named DeDe was anointed to run as a Republican in a special election. All was well until the Conservative party candidate, Doug Hoffman, started gaining momentum. In a fit of pique, DeDe quit and endorsed the Democratic candidate.

The lesson in all of this, according to Frank Rich, is that Republicans are just like murdering communists.

Title: The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York

Let's all settle in for a nuanced, well-reasoned piece of criticism, shall we?

BARACK OBAMA’S most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army.

Nothing like kicking off an opinion piece with a hacky Halloween reference.

This week’s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war.

If this is a civil war, it is the equivalent of South Carolina seceding, and Abraham Lincoln saying "whoa, didn't know you felt that way. That's cool, that's cool. We'll be up here if you need anything. Go slaves!" Followed with Kentucky being annexed by France.

No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond.

Rich spends the rest of this paragraph in a furious defense his assertion...

Skip to next paragraph

...Or not. Will do, New York Times html guy.

But preposterous as it sounds, the real action migrated to New York’s 23rd, a rural Congressional district abutting Canada.

Why the reference to Canada? "Meh, NY-23? They're pretty much Canadians." Who cares?

That this pastoral setting could become a G.O.P. killing field, attracting an all-star cast of combatants led by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Kristol and Newt Gingrich, is a premise out of a Depression-era screwball comedy.

This is exactly like the plot for Bringing Up Baby.

But such farces have become the norm for the conservative movement — whether the participants are dressing up in full “tea party” drag or not.

Drag? I think he's confusing the Tea Partiers with the Prop 8 protesters.

The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama.

This is contradictory. Wacky, paranoid cults stand in unison against opposition. They do stuff like hide in basements together. That's why we call them cults. So you can call us a cult that wants to destroy Obama, or you can say we eat our own, but not both.

The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck,

Rush Limbaugh would dispute this. As would John McCain. You know, the guy who ran for president on the Republican ticket? The guy who picked Palin? He's kind of a big deal. Also, Mike Huckabee? Mitt Romney? No?

neither of whom has what Palin once called the “actual responsibilities” of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true.

Meh, NY-23? They're pretty much Canadians.

The New York fracas was ignited by

Don't begin your paragraph with the passive voice, Frank.

The 23rd is in safe Republican territory that hasn’t sent a Democrat to Congress in decades. And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards;

But not by the standards of her district, or the standards of any reasonable person, or at all.

But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package.

Sure, she's fiscally and socially liberal, but she's a hawk when it comes ticket resale prices.

To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Or just encourage Republicans to vote for someone else, an act which, I suppose, constitutes a metaphorical beheading.

When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway — as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele — he too was slimed. Mocking Newt’s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as “global warming czar.” She’s quite the wit.

Two sides of the same coin, dude. Remember the screwball comedy bit? Yikes.

The wrecking crew of Kristol, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the government-bashing Club for Growth all joined the Hoffman putsch.

That's a hell of a lot of Jacobins.

Then came the big enchilada: a Hoffman endorsement from Palin on her Facebook page. Such is Palin’s clout that Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor (and presidential aspirant), promptly fell over one another in their Pavlovian rush to second her motion.

Fred Thompson's rush was so Pavlovian that he beat Palin to the punch by 24 days. Also, I'm pretty sure Steve Forbes doesn't sit around waiting for Sarah Palin to tell him what to do.

Hoffman doesn’t even live in the district.

New Yorkers care deeply about this.

When he appeared before the editorial board of The Watertown Daily Times 10 days ago, he “showed no grasp” of local issues, as the subsequent editorial put it.

And if you disagree with the Watertown Daily Times (which endorses Owens entirely on the basis of his promise to deliver pork to the district), you are crazy and paranoid.

Last week it turned out that Hoffman’s prime attribute to the radical right — as a take-no-prisoners fiscal conservative — was bogus. In fact he’s on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark.

Okay, we're to the point in the piece where Frank is regurgitating talking points the Owens campaign has provided him. Can we get to the part where I'm a Stalinist?

The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P.

This sounds like a lyric from a Rage Against the Machine song.

Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure.

She's not impure. She's purely a Democrat.

That’s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor’s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.

Well, if he did it on Thursday, then it wasn't hasty at all. Or did he just talk really fast and sound out of breath when he did it? Frank likes to play fast and loose with adverbs.

The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats’ prospects next year.

Care to back up this assertion, since it's carrying the lede of your paragraph? No? Alright, then.

But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes.

I have nothing witty, except to say if you read this paragraph and nodded your head, you are completely and utterly ignorant regarding the 1960's political landscape.

Writing in 1964 of that era’s equivalent to today’s tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society’s “ruthless prosecution” of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.

The execution of tens of millions of people, for example. Remember when the John Birch society did that? Lousy jerks.

The same could be said of Beck, Palin and their acolytes.

What same can be said of the acolytes? Frank didn't explain what the John Birch Society did. He isn't even using metaphors to explain himself now.

Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.

Which again, the blood purges involved slaughtering millions of people. Even as dysphemism, this is unhinged.

They drove out Arlen Specter, and now want to “melt Snowe” (as the blog Red State put it).

Let's reconstruct Frank's syllogism.

1) Most Republicans are conservatives.
2) Some Republicans are not.
3) Conservatives support conservatives.
4) Stalin murdered tens of millions of human beings.
5) Conservatives are just like Stalin in every way.

The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp.

Routinely = Once

These conservatives’ whiny cries of victimization also parrot a tic they once condemned in liberals.

Argumentum ad dictatorum? I'm still condemning it.

After Rush Limbaugh

I don't really care what Frank thinks about Limbaugh. I just had a bet with myself that he wouldn't get through his piece without devoting a paragraph to him. I win. We lose. Besides, Glenn Beck is leader now. Who cares about Rush.

This same note of self-martyrdom was sounded in a much-noticed recent column by the former Nixon hand Pat Buchanan.

Who, for the record, has not endorsed Hoffman, did not win a nomination for office, and doesn't have anything to do with this op-ed.

The right still may want to believe, as Palin said during the campaign, that Alaska, with its small black and Hispanic populations, is a “microcosm of America.” (New York’s 23rd also has few blacks or Hispanics.) But most Americans like their country’s 21st-century profile.

NY-23 is not diverse, but some places are, and so this race is not a microcosm of anything, except for how dumb Republicans are generally, because of Rush Limbaugh, and Alaska is not diverse, so it is just like NY-23, so this is all a microcosm.

No wonder even the very conservative Republican contenders in the two big gubernatorial contests this week have frantically tried to disguise their own convictions.

But you said this wasn't about those races. Your changing the sub... This is bad writ.... GAH!!!!

But in this campaign he ditched those issues, disinvited Palin for a campaign appearance, praised Obama’s Nobel Prize, and ran a closing campaign ad trumpeting “Hope.”

And the conservatives have rushed to support his opposition, so I can see why he brought this up. Wait, no? They haven't? Then why did he bring this up?

Chris Christie, McDonnell’s counterpart in New Jersey, posted a campaign video celebrating “Change” in which Obama’s face and most stirring campaign sound bites so dominate you’d think the president had endorsed the Republican over his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine.

Doesn't sound very ideologically pure to me. We Stalinists sure don't pay attention to much, which is weird, since we're so paranoid.

Only in the alternative universe of the far right is Obama a pariah and Palin the great white hope.

Nobody thinks this way.

But if curious moderate and independent voters are now tempted to surf there and encounter Beck’s histrionics for the first time,

What could possibly be crazier than comparing 40% of America to mass executioners? For posterity, I took a gander at a random Glenn Beck clip on Foxnews.com, and he was playing Connect Four. I have to admit that was the last thing I expected to see. Dunno if he was playing histrionically, though.

Okay, I can't stop. Seriously, after all this unhinged ranting, Frank is accusing someone else of histrionics?

There is only one political opponent whom Obama really has to worry about at this moment: Hamid Karzai. It’s Afghanistan and joblessness, not the Stalinists of the right, that have the power to bring this president down.

And Frank finishes by introducing an entirely new argument in his concluding paragraph. Perfect. Thanks for this, Frank.

Top Ten Fridays

2009-10-30T09:27:00.004-05:00

I am accustomed to CNN simply slapping its logo on Democratic press releases, but this is one of the worst articles I have ever read. Tami Luhbi should be embarrassed. Ten things wrong with it.

1. The title is "Stimulus creates 650,000 jobs". That isn't even what the White House is claiming, and...

2. Even if it were claiming it, its methodology is sufficiently opaque that it is ridiculous to title your piece after the claim. Even the other MSM organizations ran with the headline White House: 650,000 Jobs Under Stimulus, or some such

3. The chart on the right doesn't make any sense until you read the paragraph above it, at which point, you can sort of see how it visually represents the paragraph above, but, then, what's the use of the chart?

4. The author fails to interview a single objective source. Seriously, a Senior Editor for CNN Money doesn't have a business leader or Econ Prof in her Rolodex?

5. Tami reports: "The state received awards of over $2 billion but spent only 11% of these funds, or $229,200." 11% of $2 billion is $229,200,000, not $229,200.

6. Apparently, CNN Money staff writer David Goldman contributed to this report. I guess it takes multiple journalists to be this hacky.

7. "Two weeks ago, the government provided an early glimpse of the challenges of transparency when it reported that 30,383 jobs had created by stimulus-funded federal contracts given directly to companies." Should read "...had been created by.

8. This sentence doesn't seem to be in English: Among recipients' biggest hurdles are accounting for part-time or short-term jobs created, for people working on multiple stimulus projects and for positions saved recovery act funding.

9. "The job numbers are at best going to be a rough outline of how the recovery act is impacting the economy," said Craig Jennings' senior policy analyst at OMB Watch, a government watchdog group. Does this mean they interviewed an anonymous senior policy analyst who works for Mr. Jennings? This could be an html error.

10. At the article's conclusion, we read this: Do you have a job because of the $787 billion stimulus package? We want to hear from people whose jobs have been created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please e-mail your stories to CNNMoney.com and you could be part of an upcoming article.

Great. Even the proles get a chance to thank Barack Obama.

An Open Letter to Blockbuster Video

2009-10-29T10:22:00.004-05:00

Dear Sir or Sirs,

I am writing to inform you of my disappointment with your in-store selection of DVDs. On Tuesday night, I attempted to rent King Ralph, considered to be one of the most influential films of all time.

At first, I assumed that this incendiary commentary on class structure and social norms would be located in the 'Classics' section, or at least 'Drama'. After over an hour of searching, I decided to ask your associate to locate the film. I was dismayed to discover that the film is filed under 'Comedy', alongside such trifles as Turner and Hooch and Some Like it Hot.

To add insult to injury, even though the film was listed as in-stock, it was not on the shelves. I endeavored to wait by the dropoff slot until the film was returned, but was advised that such activity would be fruitless and, apparently, illegal. Consumed by rage, picked up one of your giant pre-packaged pickles and flung it across the store (note: I am enclosing $1.48 to cover the cost of the pickle, plus tax. I can't remember if it was $1.29 or $1.39. If the former, please remit ten cents to my account. Thanks.)

Resigned to my fate, I finally settled on my fallback. I watch it pretty much every day.

Sincerely,

Kingralphfan47

Throwing Caution to the Wind

2009-10-27T10:32:00.004-05:00

You know what? Screw it, I'm renting King Ralph.

What, you haven't heard of it? It's a film about the pressures of royalty, like The Queen, but subtly different. King Ralph is John Goodman's most important work.

I wish John Goodman and Helen Mirren would finally collaborate on something.

I particularly enjoy this scene, in which the king is served a royal meal consisting of chicken, carrots and boiled potatoes. Clearly, a lot of research went into the presentation of a royal meal.

Note the taut dialogue and pitch-perfect accents:

See? I never understand why you won't watch King Ralph with me. I can't believe I voted for you for president. Jerk.

Sincerely,

Kingralphfan47

I am Swine Flu

2009-10-22T09:18:00.003-05:00

I'M BAAAAAAAAACK!

You thought you could ignore me, and I'd go away? Like I'm Arrested Development?

Dude, I'm not a pop culture reference, I'm a plague. Check this out. Watch this. Watch how I roll.

Boom!

I consulted with a fashion expert. Now I have a "look". Swine is fiiiiiine, baby.

Hey, SARS. Imma lechoo finish, but the Spanish Flu was the greatest pandemic of all time... That's a Kanye West joke. What, you think that's a "bit obvious"?

(achoo)

Oops, I seem to have sneezed blood all over Freckles. Whose a bit obvious now? Freckles is all swined up. What, you're crying? Freckles having Swine flu makes you sad? Awwww, was all that hand washing a complete and utter waste of time?

From now on you will laugh at my jokes. Who names their baby Freckles, anyway?

While you're busy laughing at my caustic humor, bring me some spaghetti. I freaking dig that stuff, man. Don't give me that look. You wanna ride shotgun on the Swine express? That's right...

Okay, that is clearly no spaghetti, but rather a pamphlet from the World Health Organization. I don't see what...

Oh. Really? Swine flu isn't carried by pigs? They hardly ever even contract the disease. I'm gonna need to see some evidence.

Oh, yeah, that's pretty compelling. No, I recognize that name. He's a pretty well respected researcher. Um...

I just wanted to apolog...

Bono Loves Everyone More Than You

2009-10-19T18:12:00.006-05:00

I am tired of Bono. I am experiencing Bono-fatigue, brought about by years of mediocre albums and sanctimony.

Suffices to say, I have no patience for this.

A FEW years ago, I accepted a Golden Globe award by barking out an expletive.

Yeah, that was weird. What happened there?

One imagines President Obama did the same when he heard about his Nobel, and not out of excitement.

I don't for one second imagine Obama did the same thing. My guess is he had Rahm Emanuel ask his Communications team to craft a speech. In fact, I'm 100% that's what he did. That said, the reason Bono cursed at the Golden Globes was out of delight at having won... A Golden Globe? Bono. Rock star of the universe and savior of Africa. Delighted. Golden Globe.

When Mr. Obama takes the stage at Oslo City Hall this December, he won’t be the first sitting president to receive the peace prize,

He will share the award with Woodrow !@#$ing Wilson. Read up on that guy. Not. Peaceful.

but he might be the most controversial.

Yassir Arafat was the most controversial. Thanks for playing, Bono.

There’s a sense in some quarters of these not-so-United States that Norway, Europe and the World haven’t a clue about the real President Obama;

Quite the contrary. Those of us who reside in "some quarters" think Norway has him pegged.

instead, they fixate on a fantasy version of the president, a projection of what they hope and wish he is, and what they wish America to be.

I wish he were John McCain, personally.

Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them.

Then how do you explain Zooropa?

So here’s why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:

You think he deserves the hype because he makes a good speech. Find me a person who does not think Obama's hype is related to his speech-making.

“We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.”

Compared to those other lousy presidents who announced their plans to increase poverty.

They’re not my words, they’re your president’s.

Gathered that from the quotation marks, but thanks for the clarification, Bono.

If they’re not familiar, it’s because they didn’t make many headlines.

The press really hasn't covered Barack Obama much at all, really. I honestly hadn't heard of the guy until, like, June of this year.

But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.

They do not. End this op-ed.

The millennium goals, for those of you who don’t know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact.

Insofar as they were crafted to conform to a press release.

They’re a set of commitments we all made nine years ago whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama wasn’t there in 2000, but he’s there now. Indeed he’s gone further — all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.

Not only that, but let's harvest the energy spent ending poverty into fossil fuels. There. I have an even better idea. Write an op-ed about me.

Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America.

Obama included.

Rebrand, restart, reboot.

Good verbs, Bono. Work it. Make it. Harder. Faster. Stronger.

In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration’s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.

Agreed. This administration is nothing if not a clever marketing campaign.

These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man.

No, they don't. Nobody is reminded of this.

But I will venture to say that in the farthest corners of the globe, the president’s words are more than a pop song people want to hear on the radio. They are lifelines.

I would venture to say that they are utterly meaningless. If you were starving, would you care at all whether Barack Obama were exploiting your suffering for international acclaim? No, you would not.

In dangerous, clangorous times, the idea of America rings like a bell (see King, M. L., Jr., and Dylan, Bob).

This is a clangorous sentence, Bono.

It hits a high note and sustains it without wearing on your nerves. (If only we all could.)

Even more clangorous, Bono.

The world senses that America, with renewed global support, might be better placed to defeat this axis of extremism with a new model of foreign policy.

The world doesn't exactly have a great track record, w/r/t, sensing. Remember that Stalin guy? World had a good feeling about him. Oops.

It is a strangely unsettling feeling to realize that the largest Navy, the fastest Air Force, the fittest strike force, cannot fully protect us from the ghost that is terrorism ....

That's why we keep nukes.

Asymmetry is the key word from Kabul to Gaza .... Might is not right.

Even more clangorous, Bono.

I think back to a phone call I got a couple of years ago from Gen. James Jones. At the time, he was retiring from the top job at NATO; the idea of a President Obama was a wild flight of the imagination.

Who ever thought we would again have a charismatic, smooth-talking president who failed to live up to his words? Stuff of dreams. Obama.

General Jones was curious about the work many of us were doing in economic development,

Bono is using this exchange as an opportunity to talk about himself. Moving on...

Remember, this was a moment when America couldn’t get its cigarette lighted in polite European nations like Norway;

I'll go on the record as not giving a damn what the Norwegians think of America. Minnesota is full of Norwegians. They are the most disloyal, weak-kneed, equivocal people I have ever encountered. Just ask the Minnesota Vikings.

Stability = security + development.

Fair enough.

Enter Barack Obama.

He entered, like, five paragraphs ago. You can't use this rhetorical device now.

If that last line still seems like a joke to you ... it may not for long.

Agreed.

Mr. Obama has put together a team of people who believe in this equation.

Don Rumsfield was a devotee of the now-debunked Stability/security = (Infrastructure)-squared equation.

From a development perspective, you couldn’t dream up a better dream team to pursue peace in this way, to rebrand America.

Security = (Peace*Branding)/Dreams

The president said that he considered the peace prize a call to action. And in the fight against extreme poverty, it’s action, not intentions, that counts.

Unless you are awarding Nobel Prizes.

That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow

Disingenuously agreed.

unless he returns to next year’s United Nations summit meeting with a meaningful, inclusive plan,

To which, no matter what he says, he will earn praise from Norway and Bono.

one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.

Especially when the goal is so nebulously defined as "gets results". It is not only doable, but inevitable that there will be results. That's why they call them results.

What the president promised was a “global plan,” not an American plan.

He's a global president, not an American president. He should go lead Egypt.

The same is true on all the other issues that the Nobel committee cited, from nuclear disarmament to climate change — none of these things will yield to unilateral approaches.

It will take lots and lots of buzzwords to solve our world's problems.

The president has set himself, and the rest of us, no small task.

Barack Obama is NOT in charge of my task list.

That’s why America shouldn’t turn up its national nose at popularity contests.

Wait, what? We should embrace popularity contests because Barack Obama has given us a task? What is the cause and effect relationship, there?

In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made.

Which is why Americans should turn their noses up at popularity contests.

Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless ...

When in reality it is dangerous and sad.

a measure of Mr. Obama’s celebrity (and we know what people think of celebrities).

Do we know what people think of celebrities? I'm not sure I agree with Bono as to how I regard celebrities. I certainly wouldn't give them a semi-regular editorial space in my newspaper.

But an America that’s tired of being the world’s policeman, and is too pinched to be the world’s philanthropist, could still be the world’s partner. And you can’t do that without being, well, loved.

Counterpoint: WW2.

Here come the letters to the editor, but let me just say it: Americans are like singers

No we are not.

— we just a little bit, kind of like to be loved.

No. Most Americans do not care if they are loved. That's why we are not loved. Our president, however, is quite like a singer.

The British want to be admired;

Really?

the Russians, feared;

Huh?

the French, envied.

Is this the projecting to which Bono was referring earlier? I think he just envies the French. I do not, nor do I want the French to love me. I want them to obey.

(The Irish, we just want to be listened to.)

Apparently.

But the idea of America, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthrall the world.

No it wasn't. The idea of America was to reject the world, with it's kingdoms and fiefdoms and dictators. The world is made up of idiots, to whom we are superior. Our government didn't give us the freedom of speech. We insist upon it (much to the dismay of the world").

As a consequence, we don't have the world's fiefdoms and kingdoms, and we have the military might to bring them down.

Our earliest leaders weren't popular, and they certainly weren't lovely. They were bold, ugly, violent men. Nobody would have awarded George Washington a peace prize, and he would have mucked it had they done so. If "the world" didn't like our freedom, it had two choices: Deal with it or die.

Barack Obama is an anomaly, a product of the Internet generation whose stock and trade are charisma and marketing. The world showers him with acclaim at the precise moment when our citizens are beginning to see through him.

And it is. The world wants to believe in America again because the world needs to believe in America again. We need your ideas — your idea — at a time when the rest of the world is running out of them.

The world never had ideas to begin with, and I doubt it ever will. Bono certainly doesn't. I have no interest in re-branding to conform to his tastes.

Monday Musings - Now With Grass Fed Beef

2009-10-19T09:02:00.002-05:00

I'm tired. You might be too. Let's muse.

Last week, Sojourners responded to seemingly conflicting accusations regarding their abortion stance from AlterNet and First Things, of which Ryan Roderick Beiler wrote:

However, I’ve always had a tremendous desire to introduce our critics on the left to our critics on the right. I would love to be a fly on the wall as they debate which one of them is wrong about our position on hot button issues, of which abortion is the easiest example:

His dream came true, as Adele Stan from AlterNet commented on Keith Pavlischek's response to Ryan. The mutual conclusion was that either could be wrong, since Jim Wallis is guilty of employing an intellectual falsehood and obfuscating his stance on the issue.

------------

Setting aside the question of whether Anita Dunn was joking when she said she adheres to the political philosophies of Mao Tse Tung, what kind of communications professional thinks it's a good idea to make this joke in front of schoolchildren?

------------

That said, the White House is putting Anita front and center in their battle with Fox News. Declaring war on a television station is such a colossally bad idea, that I have to think this is simply going to be the pretense for firing her. She isn't good at her job, and anyone who shouts "Mao" in a crowded classroom is going to be a political liability in the future.

I smell a Saturday evening firing some time in November. She goes, or Lenny Gibbs does.

------------

One day after lamenting burger hype in the Twin Cities, I became it's latest victim. Burger Jones, whose holding company arguably initiated the summer burger craze with its customary PR blitz, simply doesn't make a good burger.

Short on flavor, wimpy bun, inconsistent patty size, no sear. You name it. For $10 ($14 if you include fries), I expect a masterpiece. This is not that.

------------

Congratulations to Peter, who has officially made the transition from irono-culture maven to blubbering baby-lover... Witness the transformation:

There I was, holding a copy of Alan Jackson’s Let it Be Christmas in a busy department store in October, weeping openly. This is no joke.

Oh yes it is. The big black man will be along to confiscate your Miller High Life shortly. He'll stop on his way to Burger Jones.

Top Ten Fridays: Annoying Food Trends

2009-10-16T12:47:00.003-05:00

Recently, Esquire named it's 12 most annoying food trends. As a blogger, I am permitted to steal ideas without consequence, so I will. Many of the "trends" don't particularly apply here in Minnesota (if a bar doesn't have a sign, that usually just means someone stole it, or that most of the patronage doesn't ever leave, thus negating the need).

So here are my top ten obnoxious Twin Cities trends:

10. Soft openings

In the Internet age, there is no such thing as a soft open. Launches are tough enough without adding another hurdle of lacking preparation. If you don't have your act together (liquor licensing, remodeling, wait-staff), don't open. Otherwise, that buzz you're building is purely negative, and you're wasting your customers's time and money.

9. Burger hysteria

With 22,563 new burger restaurants in the Twin Cities, and 1,428,960 (estimate) slated to open in 2010, the Twin Cities is becoming a burger mecca for some reason. The reaction to this has either been unbridled enthusiasm or outrage. Stupid and annoying. I don't want to debate the merits of Five Guys Burgers vs. Sonic Burgers. Neither am I interested in hemming and hawing about how burgers are really just lips and anuses crushed into a patty.

There are several great burgers (h/t Victory 44, Vincent, and Blue Door), and they are well-worth eating, whether Fatburger opens 39 locations here or not.

8. Beets

I like a good beet salad, but since when did it become mandatory that they be included on at least two items on every menu? Seriously, find me an upscale restaurant that doesn't have beets on the menu. Worse, a lot of chefs manage to screw 'em up. Beets are the new seared scallops.

That said, if a fast food chain centered on beets were to open, that would be amazing.

7. Upscale bars with lousy tap selections.

Not going to name names, but if you are going to have the words "pub", "alehouse" or "brewery" in your name, you should offer a unique and excellent selection of beers. Throwing a Surly in with your assortment of Miller, Leinies and Summit does not qualify.

6. Employees who don't know directions.

I don't expect every hostess who picks up the phone to know how to direct me to their restaurant from, say, Chaska. But if I'm six blocks away? Lots of restaurants are popping up in non-traditional locations, so knowing where your restaurant is located is just good business.

5. Happy hour shenanigans.

With the economy on the downswing, we're seeing more happy hour specials. That means more happy hour related BS. If you're going to advertise it, live up to it, and make clear what it is. Keep your website updated, and be consistent.

4. Prix Fixe shenanigans.

I seldom complain about portion sizes, because it is not a restaurants job to make sure I'm stuffed. But some restaurants are using fixed course options to sneak in some pretty scandalously tiny stuff. If you're offering a tasting menu, call it that. If you're offering three courses, then provide three courses, not a niblet of each.

3. Valet parking at low to mid-price non-Downtown restaurants.

This is just stupid.

2. Crappy bread and hard butter.

This is not a new trend, but it has certainly gotten old. Here's a good rule of thumb w/r/t bread. If you have to heat it up, you probably shouldn't be serving it to your customers. And what, exactly, does the act of smashing an icy cube of butter against a wimpy piece of hot bread do to enhance one's dining experience?

1. Farm fresh, rather than well cooked.

Look, I appreciate great sourcing, and we have some great local resources for meat and dairy in this state. I absolutely want Berkshire pork to do well. But it's a disservice to their quality product when it is present in phoned-in or inconsistent dishes. I would rather eat a dish made from Sysco food products by an outstanding chef than a banal preparation of something that was killed five hours ago.

Those Who Can't Do, Write. Those Who Can't Write, Write About Sports.

2009-10-14T22:16:00.004-05:00

Rush Limbaugh tried to help buy the failing St. Louis Rams. Bryan Burwell doesn't like that one bit. Why? Rush Limbaugh is raaaaaaaacist. How racist? So racist, he has to make up quotes and attribute them to Rush, just to get at how racist Rush is.

This is drivel. Let's shred it.

Rush Limbaugh wants to own the St. Louis Rams. Well, good for him. His money is green and plentiful and his politics are conservative, which means he'll pretty much fit right in with the rest of the gang within the NFL ownership's corridors of power.

Um, nice thesis statement, Bry.

They probably don't care about his politics.

Why would they? How could that possibly be relevant to the question of whether one should own a football team?

With a wink and a smile, they will surely welcome him to their club, because ultimately all they care about is whether or not his check will bounce, and we all know that's highly unlikely.

Football being a business, that is what matters, yes. When Bryan sells his house, is he more interested in whether the new owner can pay, or whether the new owner might be a Republican?

They will all look the other way when it comes to Limbaugh — forgetting his polarizing racial politics, conveniently ignoring (perhaps even quietly agreeing with) all the mean-spirited divisive bile that comes along with his ample financial clout — just like many of you surely will, too.

Largely because I don't give one whit who owns my football team, unless that person's last name is Ford.

They will look the other way because of his wealth and influence.

And because it is completely and utterly fine for a Republican to own a football team.

You will look the other way because to some of you, he is your politically incorrect hero, and the rest might be willing to ignore all of that just as long as he can put enough money on the table to help keep your football team in St. Louis.

And because his politics have absolutely NOTHING to do with running a football team.

I don't have that luxury.

Being a hack and all.

"Look, let me put it to you this way: The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

And then Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, and Donte Stallworth totally proved him wrong.

Those are Limbaugh's words. So are these:

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

I know how those words play out in Idiot America. They are embraced as gospel.

Bryan is an idiot, and embraced this quote as gospel.

(ed. note:for those who are unaware, Bryan is now in hot water for having cited a left-wing screwball book, which, in turn, attributed the above quote to Limbaugh... Alas, Limbaugh never said this.)

But inside the locker rooms of the NFL, where the overwhelming majority of the players are descendants of slaves, Limbaugh's ignorant ramblings resonate with entirely different emotions.

That's because idiots like Bryan get paid to foment racial dissent with misinformation. The solution is to cease paying idiots like Bryan.

Remember the failed experiment with the ESPN NFL pregame show?

He said that Donovan McNabb was overrated on account of his being a black quarterback. It was then fomented by the race dissenters for weeks. It was also arguably true.

Remember the seething anger and pained expression on the face of ESPN analyst Tom Jackson

This I do not remember, since I could not possibly care less whether or not ESPN analyst Tom Jackson seethed or not.

Remember the uncomfortable backtracking that had to be done when Limbaugh spouted off on his predictable anti-affirmative action screed and took McNabb down into the cesspool with him?

Note to Bryan... Minority share owners in football teams are not called upon to provide football analysis on the air. Also, McNabb didn't go into any cesspool. He's still in the NFL. He's totally fine.

This isn't about conservative politics.

It's about deigning to express them in public.

He would fit right in with the rest of the exclusive boys club of ultra-wealthy, ultra-conservative white men who rule the ownership suites of most professional sports leagues.

So, does Bryan have a point, or was this article just an excuse to reproduce that phony slavery quote?

And yes, that is exactly what it is, no matter how many of his blindly loyal supporters want to put the "politically incorrect" party dress on it.

How about a "completely fabricated by a left-wing lunatic" tuxedo?

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

That's just really weird, moreso than racist. Seriously, the dude has been on the radio for, what, 10,000 hours? This is the best you can come up with?

If Goodell has issues with the embarrassing antics of some of his players, what will he do when Limbaugh inevitably crosses the line of good conduct?

If he thought electrocuting dogs, paying off the family of the man one ran over while drunk and high, and shooting one's self in the leg was embarrassing, just wait until Rush Limbaugh weirdly insinuates something about the NAACP.

Did you notice that I didn't say "if"?

Actually, you did say "if". It's the first word in the sentence above.

I didn't say "if" because anyone who is even marginally familiar with Limbaugh's act knows it's only a matter of time before he says something that is at the very least embarrassing but will most likely top out at downright hateful.

And if he doesn't, you'll just make it up.

Dancing with Limbaugh is like dancing with a snake. Eventually, the snake will bite you. That's his nature.

That's a very hacky analogy, Bryan.

You just might want to consider this while everyone is conveniently forgetting (or perhaps even quietly agreeing with) all the polarizing racial politics that comes along with Limbaugh:

Bryan has been doing this throughout the whole piece, the thing where he parenthetically asserts that the people of St. Louis are secretly racist. Have we reached the point where we can just parenthetically assert one's racism, by the by? Can we yadda, yadda racism? Apparently so.

In this modern age of the NFL, where free agents have the right to pick where they play, how many will turn their nose up at the Rams once they get a whiff of Limbaugh's "Bloods vs. Crips" sensibilities?

Not a single one. Here's what NFL players don't do: Turn down multi-million dollar contracts because they don't want to work for a Republican. This has never, ever happened, in any professional sport. Ever.

Here's a question for Bryan. How many potential owners (sports or otherwise) are going to want to invest in a town where the journalists run with false information?

Bryan may or may not know this, but St. Louis is generally regarded as a hellhole. Reason: it's a hellhole. The St. Louis Rams are worse than the Detroit Lions. Rush Limbaugh and his conservative buddies, racists (parenthetically or otherwise) that they are , are putting up a LOT of money in an attempt to keep a football team there.

The alternative is to move the team, in which case your talentless, hacky, unaccountable ass gets fired. Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh. At least the man can do his job.

That talentless thugs like Bryan Burwell won the battle here should give us pause. Apparently, there is now a political litmus test for investing in a community. We should think twice about that.

It Ain't Easy, Being Sleazy

2009-10-14T07:08:00.000-05:00

Sojourners is an organization that unilaterally supports the agenda of the Democratic party. No reasonable person doubts this, but their acrobatic prevarications to the contrary are amusing to read.

No more so than when they actually catch someone who isn't paying attention, and actually takes the pseudo-centrist bait. In particular, they are often the victim of left wing critics who have not (and seldom do) any research.

The organization pretends to bemoan such criticism, knowing full well that their conceit relies upon it. This is how Jim Wallis gets (handsomely) paid.

His toady, Ryan Roderick Beiler, explains:

Every now and then someone to our right or left posts an article excoriating Sojourners or Jim Wallis for not being _____ enough,

Actually, Ryan, they just disagree with you on the issues. That is allowed, and even encouraged, in some circles. Also, a thesis statement really shouldn't feature blanks.

infuriated that we still claim to be _____ even though we’re really just _____.

Non-partisan. Partisan.

You may want to play along with this Mad Libs game at home.

Just did. That was very clever, the Mad Libs thing.

The comments on this blog often do,

Until the commenters are banned, if they are conservative.

filling in those blanks with terms like “conservative,” “liberal,” “evangelical,” “progressive,” “pro-life,” “pro-abortion,” “anti-abortion,” “pro-gay,” “anti-gay,” “radical socialist,” “closet conservative,” “Obama shill,” and “White House hijacker”

Well, the blog itself claims to be progressive... As to Obama shill, I'll say this. Would a forthright Obama shill, for example that poor retarded fellow who is forced to conduct press conferences on Obama's behalf, find any complaint with anything written in Sojourners magazine, or on the Sojourners blog?

respectively, depending on whether it’s the right or left wing that’s doing the flapping.

"Flapping" is a good word to use to discredit the arguments of those who disagree with you, without having to actually engage their viewpoint, which Sojourners never does, and of which Ryan is incapable.

While we don’t shy away from honest debate,

"Honest debate" is hyperlinked to a three year old exchange with Ralph Reed, conducted more than three years ago. Ralph. Reed. Three years ago.

we generally prefer not to respond to attacks that are unfair, inaccurate, or ad hominem.

Or respond to any criticism at all.

However, I’ve always had a tremendous desire to introduce our critics on the left to our critics on the right.

I think this is defining downward the concept of "tremendous desire", no?

I would love to be a fly on the wall as they debate which one of them is wrong about our position on hot button issues,

Alternately, you could spend more time articulating your position on those issues.

of which abortion is the easiest example: “He’s anti-choice!” “He’s certainly not pro-life!”

Let me explain what Ryan is doing here. He is using the presence of a debate about Sojourners' stand on an issue to imply that Sojo has not taken a stand. Misunderstandings aside, this question has a correct answer: Sojourners is a pro-choice organization, which simply chooses not to shed light on that fact, lest it be forthright, and lose delusional donors in the process.

Of course, they might just find common ground — that they both don’t like Sojourners or Jim Wallis.

Poor Jim Wallis. The people he criticizes don't like him, and neither do the people he pretends to criticize.

But at the risk of fanning the flames, I want to make at least one virtual introduction as an example: Adele Stan of Mother Jones, meet Keith Pavlischek of First Things:

From Stan’s “White House Religion Adviser Trying to Hijack Health Care For Anti-Choice Cause“:

Adele Stan accuses Jim Wallis of being opposed to legal abortion. Jim Wallis favors legal abortion. So Adele Stan is mistaken, though it's hard to blame him for being so since this Wallis has been so utterly dishonest about the issue. Which, given that rendering opaque the Sojo opinion on abortion is sort of the organization's bread and butter, I'm not sure if Ryan really wants to be "fanning the flames" here.

From Pavlischek’s “Back to Zero Cheers for Jim Wallis”:

Ryan ellipses and parentheses' Pavlischek to death, as follows:

[Wallis] has become little more than a flack for the Obama administration … Wallis has never really been serious on abortion … Wallis said that the abortion issue should not “doom the chances” of healthcare legislation … Back to zero cheers for Jim Wallis.

What Pavlischek actually said was that Wallis had earned one cheer for at least opposing the inclusion of abortion coverage in the health care reform bill, but that he lost that cheer for later arguing the inclusion of such language ought not to condemn the bill.

Also, since Wallis is so keen on "honest debate", I challenge him to debate one of the editors of "First Things". I mean, why be a fly on the wall when you can have a comfy chair at the table? No? Rather stick to panel shows and Ralph Reed? Okay, then.

So which is it? Are we hijacking Obama’s health-reform policy with our radical anti-abortion agenda?

Nope.

Or are we uncritical lackeys of the Obama Administration that don’t really care about abortion?

Yep.

Do we really get zero cheers? And multiple jeers?

Sounds fair.

Of course, this brings to mind the old joke that being a bridge builder means you get walked on from both sides.

Of course, in this case, all parties wind up in the Mississippi.

And though being beaten up by both sides doesn’t necessarily make you the happy medium,

Especially when there is nothing happy or medium about you.

there is something deeply gratifying about having the attacks of one set of critics offset by the arguments of their ideological counterparts.

Ryan and I have differing ideas as to what constitutes gratification. What is gratifying about being fundamentally misunderstood as to how you approach important issues? Expedient, surely, especially in this economy, but gratifying?

I suppose that’s the price for taking nuanced, common ground positions in a world of fundamentalists on both the left and the right.

No. It's what you get for being full of crap. You stink, no matter who's doing the smelling.

Eugene Robinson Still Gets a Paycheck

2009-10-13T09:02:00.003-05:00

And I love it. This week, we've got Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in the first paragraph. This will be a particularly empty exercise.

Somebody explain this to me:

Happy to do so.

The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award?

Geologists join with the Taliban in researching caves. This cheap rhetorical device isn't even phrased as a question, but I'll answer it, cause it's got a question mark. Rush opposes the award because he doesn't think Obama deserves it. The Taliban opposes it because it is batshit insane. Insane people are right once in a while. Didn't Eugene see Revolutionary Road?

Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor?

It is precisely because the honor is prestigious that Obama should have declined it, was the argument. If he had won the George McGovern award for advancement and character, nobody would care.

The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority -- as unworthy of such recognition?

Not sure what Eugene's question is here. Is he saying it's wrong to mock a president who is elected by a healthy majority? Cause, well, pot meet kettle, Washington Post. Or is he saying that simply being elected qualifies one for the Nobel freaking Peace Prize? To which, commentary implied by the inclusion of the word "freaking".

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

Because one of its leading papers allows asinine nonsense like this to be written.

OK, I know, it's just some conservatives who've been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as "Hanoi Jane" behavior.

Hanoi Jane went to our enemies, disseminated their talking points, accused our prisoners of war of being hypocrites and liars, and... Why am I dignifying this idiocy with a response?

Others who haven't taken leave of their political senses...

Given the above, I'm not sure Eugene ought to be the arbiter of what constitutes political sense.

-- and are familiar with the concept of manners -- responded to President Obama's unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Sen. John McCain always offers his good-natured congratulations. Have you ever noticed that? Also, he would have had the good sense to turn down this award, not that he would have received it.

Some of Obama's most strident critics, however, just can't give it a rest. They use words like "farce" and "travesty," as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate.

If there was universal agreement as to what constitutes a farce, there would be no need to argue that something is a farce. The purpose of editorializing is precisely not to speak to universal agreement.

Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

So, Eugene is arguing that the award is a farce after all.

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition.

No, the "addlebrained" argument is that he has done nothing to advance peace, and has not laid out a roadmap for peace, and has in fact made moves that will ensure war.

If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity.

Thanks for the hypothetical.

If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly.

Actually, Obama already solved global warming, and it is getting chilly.

If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

No, we'd complain that Obama thinks bringing leaders around the campfire to sing "Kumbaya" is going to solve long-standing religious land disputes. The event itself would literally be beyong parody, so Glenn Beck would simply show the footage, and then stare into the camera and shrug. That is how that would go, Eugene.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation -- by otherwise sane commentators -- that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

Wait. Haven't we just spent the last several paragraphs talking about this recommendation? He referred to it in his opening paragraph. What were we just talking about? This is bad writing.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn't matter whether Obama won it or not.

Fair enough. But it means much more.

But of course it means much more.

Exactly.

The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world's approval.

Thanks for the clarification, Eugene.

For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Why? Because Eugene says so, I guess.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush's cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach.

Just ask Poland... Wait, on second thought, ask France. What? France isn't on board? How is that poss... Alright, I'll throw out a random country. Czech Republic. No? So who is with him on this? Gordon Brown? But he's not going to be in power much... Oy, vey.

He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama's credit -- and to our country's.

Again, the award was decided within days of his becoming president.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining -- and some advocates of a pullout are hoping -- that the award may somehow limit the president's options.

Which would be a great reason for him to reject the award.

But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far.

Then why does disagreeing with its award put one in league with the Taliban? Aren't you really saying you don't approve of what the President has done thus far?

He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations -- or that he once called Afghanistan a "war of necessity."

Because he's making it up as he goes along.

What I really don't understand is the view that somehow there's a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say -- as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky high.

Quick aside. Does Eugene really not understand this view? How is that possible? At a moment in which the American people are realizing the emperor has no clothes, the Nobel committee just sent him a bowtie. You can agree or disagree with that interpretation of the narrative, but to not understand it?

Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy.

And that's going swimmingly, isn't it?

He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children.

Extending the school year counts as a revolution?

He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain's: Congratulations.

The only reasonable response to someone wanting to do something is: Congratulations? That's America for you.

Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he's already set it for himself.

The only reasonable response to this bit of fawning is mine: Puke.

Monday Musings - First Snow Edition

2009-10-12T09:23:00.002-05:00

As Minnesotans resume their muted grumbling, let's roll.

The BBC alerts us to something Minnesotans are already experiencing first hand. The Earth isn't really warming.

The fact that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 has been acknowledged by green scientists for some time, so this is hardly revelatory. What is revelatory is the proclamation by one of the IPCC (Al Gore's fan club, or vice versa) scientists predicts continued cooling for the next 10-20 years.

In spite of this, we are to place our unwavering faith in the "settled science", even as the science continues to update it's "projections" post facto. Not buying it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you're not, gonna, you're not gonna fool me again.

I'll go ahead and move myself back into the global warming skeptic column.

------------

After Oslo awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, commentators on both sides of the aisle proposed he decline the award. To have done so would have been humble, appropriate and (consequently) politically savvy. Of course, Obama accepted the award.

You know who would have turned it down? John McCain, that's who. But I think a Clinton (Bill or Hillary) might have as well.

Which brings me to this. As Obama's policies continue to falter, he is going to need keen political instincts to keep him and his party afloat. I flatly do not think he has any such instincts at his disposal. His ken is unkeen, you could say, which is good, for Americans, if not for Oslo.

------------

If you are looking for an affordable date spot, you can scarcely do better than the Tanpopo Noodle Shop. The simple, elegant decor matches a simple, elegant offering. The Agedashi tofu appetizer and mushroom soba ($12.50 for the pair) were standouts. It earns a strong recommendation from me.

------------

I'd write more, but I have to spend more time under blankets. Viva la small business!