www.downingworld.com

archives: August -- September, 2005

Friday, September 30, 2005

Nor Did He Say Whether He Has Stopped Beating His Wife
Another development in the strange St. Paul mayoral race. Democrat incumbent Randy Kelly, under fire from party faithful (who didn't endorse him 4 years ago, anyway) for backing President Bush last year, held a news conference yesterday to tell the voters being angry about his Bush endorsement will not help the city. I don't know that this will help him any. In fact, I'm sure it won't, because the story in the paper today makes Kelly look silly. But I direct your attention to this paragraph from the story:

Billed as a "major announcement," his remarks didn't include any new initiatives or any expression of contrition for the endorsement in August 2004.

Does the reporter think Kelly should have expressed contrition? Is that the reporter's editorial comment?

There are a lot of things Kelly didn't say. He didn't say whether he's a falling down drunk. He didn't say whether he hates babies and puppies and pushes little old ladies in front of moving cars. Maybe the reporter should have included those "facts," too.

Friday, September 30, 2005

Forget So-called "Global Warming," "Natural Ocean Cycle" Behind Hurricanes
We keep hearing about how "global warming" is causing more intense hurricanes. It's even on the cover of TIME magazine this week. The cover story is: "Are We Making Hurricanes Worse?" Bulleted subheads include "The Impact of Global Warming."

Meanwhile, buried on page 11 of my daily paper, I read a story headlined, "Intense hurricane in October is possible." The story includes these paragraphs:

Researchers also warn that the country should brace for 10 to 40 more years of powerful storms because of a natural ocean cycle now in the midst of the most active hurricane period on record.

"This has been the seventh hyperactive year since 1995," said Stan Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Not every year is going to be like this one, but there's going to be plenty of active years to come."

Hmmmm. A "natural ocean cycle"? Why isn't that on the cover of TIME magazine? Thirty years ago the magazine's cover warned us about the coming ice age; now it's all about "global warming." I don't think I'll be getting my science from TIME.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

More on Two-Incomes and the Income Gap: Bigger Pie vs. Equal Slices
Responding to my previous post, in which I offered my theory that the rise of the dual-income household has served to increase the gap between haves and have-nots, blogger Craig Westover writes me:

Your theory is interesting, and probably correct vis a vis the income gap, but it breaks down on the level of unseen productivity and overall wealth. The key is in your parenthetical "(And yes, I agree that they might not be as good at the jobs as the women who in fact perform them.)"

If the men are not as good as the women that have the jobs, their productivity will be less. Less productivity means less wealth produced. Less wealth produced means few jobs, less investment capital, and the like.

While a high-dual-income family might have considerably more than a low-dual-income family, as the result of a "better woman" in the job, both families have more wealth, albeit disproportionate. If equality is the goal, you have a point. If overall increase in wealth and the prosperity it brings is the objective, then there's a different angle.

Craig is, of course, right on the money (pun intended).

I attempted in my post to be descriptive, explaining what I think has been happening, rather than prescriptive, saying what I think should happen. It's not my intention to say that women shouldn't be in the workforce. As Craig points out, employing less-qualified men in place of better-qualified women would result in lower overall productivity in the economy, and my own personal philosophy is that it would be a mistake to drag down the overall economy for the goal of greater equity. Everyone being equally miserable is not a goal worth achieving, as just about everyone except Cuba, North Korea and the American Left has figured out by now.

But I think that if we are going to have discussions about things such as unequal wealth, we need to consider all the factors that go into creating that disparity, regardless of whether or not such a discussion is politically correct. I also think it's worth pointing out the irony that many of those who raise their voices the most loudly against inequity, are the same people who are the most adamant that of course every woman should have a career.

Now, let me talk a little more about my theory that the rise of the dual-income household widens the gap between haves and have-nots.

The truth is, we have always had dual-income households. The difference is, dual-income households used to be more common among those with lower incomes. That fact helped to close the gap somewhat. Let's get in the time machine and I'll show you what I mean.

Here we are in the old days. Look over there. That's the Smith house. Mr. Smith is a successful professional. He supports his family on a good salary of $100,000 a year (in 2005 dollars). With a good breadwinner like that, Mrs. Smith doesn't need to work. But she does volunteer work when she can. (Mr. Smith says, "No wife of mine is going to work! People will think I can't provide for my family!)

Now look across town, it's the Jones house. Mr. Jones has a good blue-collar job that pays him $40,000 a year. Mrs. Jones earns a little money, too, to help out. She works outside the house a little, does some babysitting (the term "daycare" hasn't been invented yet) for the neighbors, and takes in some sewing and mending work. She adds about $10,000 a year, for a household income of $50,000.

Finally, look way out on the edge of town. There's the Wilson house. Mr. Wilson works as a night janitor and makes $15,000 a year. To pay the bills, Mrs. Wilson has to work, too. Her unskilled job brings in another $15,000, for a household total of $30,000.

So, we've got $30,000 -- $50,000 -- $100,000. That's quite a spread. The poor family makes only 30% of what the wealthy family makes, and 60% of what the middle family makes. The middle family makes only 50% of what the wealthy family makes.

But what happens when the dual-income family becomes the norm?

The Wilsons see no change; they're still at $30,000.

The Joneses are now making $80,000, as Mrs. Jones goes to work full-time.

And the Smiths. Oh, the Smiths! Now that Mrs. Smith has a job like her husband's, their household income doubles, to $200,000!

The range has become $30,000 -- $80,000 -- $200,000.

Now, the Wilsons make only 15% of what the wealthy family makes, and only 38% of what the middle family makes. The middle family now makes only 40% of what the wealthy family makes.

This is just an example. It certainly doesn't represent everybody. My figures are arbitrary, and you may think all three families are "wealthy" or "poor" relative to yourself. But it does show how the advent of the dual-income household as the norm helps to further concentrate the wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. Meanwhile, those in the middle gain in absolute income, but lose ground relative to the wealthy. The poorest, on the other hand, gain nothing in terms of dollars, and fall even further behind both other groups, relatively speaking.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Two-Income Families Widen the Gap Between Rich and Poor
I read a David Brooks column in which the New York Times columnist writes about the "education gap" and how it is promoting inequality in America.

Brooks reminds me of one of my own theories, that the prevalence of two-income households also increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

I started thinking about this after noting one married couple where the man was an attorney and the woman was a doctor, and another couple where both people were well-paid, high-ranking managers in the state bureaucracy.

Once upon a time, those four well-paid jobs would have supported FOUR families. Now, they support only two, with double the prosperity.

Meanwhile, look around. People tend to marry someone similar. That means that the poorly-paid hotel maid almost certainly does not have a well-paid attorney for a husband, she has a poorly-paid janitor for a husband. So their "dual-income" family still scrapes to get by.

I can't avoid the fact that the "dual-income" household is the result of women entering the workforce en masse, many times in well-paid jobs that were once the exclusive domain of men. It seems reasonable that if women had not entered these fields, then more men would be filling the well-paid jobs -- men who instead are now in lower-paid jobs. (And yes, I agree that they might not be as good at the jobs as the women who in fact perform them.) That would result in well-paid jobs being spread among more households, and there would be less of a gap between haves and have-nots.

This reminds me of "Rosie the Riveter," and how after WWII, women were pressured to give up the "men's" jobs they took on while the boys were overseas, so that the returning soldiers could have those jobs. After all, they needed good jobs to support their families. Sixty years later, we look back on that and say how awful that was, how sexist and backward we were. But in a way, we're now seeing what happens if Rosie does keep her job.

So, what am I saying? Am I saying that women shouldn't work? No, that's not my intention. I just think this is something to think about. When people complain that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting wider, let's consider all the reasons why that might be. When a liberal couple who both are well-paid professors or bureaucrats complain about the lack of "good jobs" for the "working poor," maybe they should be asked, Why are you hogging two "good jobs" for yourselves?

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Night or Day?
News item: Two Minnesota Vikings football players arrested during a disturbance at 3:30 a.m. Monday morning. They gave no statement as to whether they were still out partying after Sunday's game, or were up bright and early for a Monday morning workout.

Consider 3:30 am. What is it, exactly? If you're still out having a good time at 2:00 a.m., that's a "late night." If you get up at 4:00 a.m. to go fishing, that's an "early morning." But what the heck is 3:30 a.m.? Is it "late night" or "early morning"?

The 3 o'clock hour seems to be when night turns to morning. It's hard to define. Many years ago, I worked a graveyard shift (11 pm to 7 am) at a convenience store. The drunks would stop in on their way home until 2:00 or so -- sometimes later. Then, after just a little lull in business, the early morning commuters would start stopping in for their coffee. Some people were turning in for the night just about the same time others were rising to face the new day.

So, what the heck do you call 3:30 a.m.? Night? Or morning? Something to ponder.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Paranoia and Inflated Self-Importance
When I was a student, I had the strange experience of people I didn't know wanting to pick fights with me. (Yes, I mean actual fistfights.) For some reason, they didn't like me, when I didn't even know who they were!

So maybe this shouldn't surprise me.

But if you're like me, you're amazed at the way some people (Arabs) around the world are convinced that the U.S. is out to get them. The truth is, if they didn't blow things up, we'd hardly even know they exist. (Yet, their "logic" for blowing things up, is that we were already out to get them.)

Closer to home, the disaster in New Orleans has revealed that many poor Americans seem just as deluded and paranoid about the U.S. government being out to get them. But just like with the Arabs before 9-11, the truth is, before Katrina, most of us hardly even knew the New Orleans poor existed.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

How Others See Us....Might Surprise the Liberals
Those on the left like to say that we need to start seeing ourselves as the rest of the world see us. How does the rest of the world see us? They might be surprised.

I know some folks who have travelled extensively in Eastern Europe in recent years. They told me recently that Ronald Reagan -- the "warmonger" Republican president who stood up to the Soviets -- is a hero in Germany, while the Democrats' favorite son, JFK, is the butt of jokes. You can buy coffee cups showing JFK saying, "I am a jelly donut," which is what he actually said when he tried to speak German and say "I am a Berliner."

Meanwhile, over in Poland, Herbert Hoover is a hero! Yes, that Herbert Hoover, the Republican president who gets the blame for the Great Depression. Hoover is a hero to the Polish people for the humanitarian and economic aid he helped bring to Poland following both World Wars.

Amazingly ironic, dontcha think?

Monday, September 26, 2005

Preparing for the Last Hurricane
There's a saying that the generals always prepare to re-fight the last war. Whatever hindsight says they should have done, they prepare to do next time. Trouble is, the next war is always different from the one that came before.

So it also is with hurricanes.

We heard all the criticisms of what should have been done to prepare for Hurricane Katrina. President Bush should have gotten involved. He should have gone to New Orleans to show that he cared. He should have called out the army. There should have been a mandatory evacuation. People should have been put on buses. We should have known that Katrina would be one of the most powerful hurricanes to ever hit land in the U.S., and people should have taken the warnings more seriously.

So, along comes Hurricane Rita. President Bush gets involved early. On Friday, a reporter asks, why are you going to Texas? What can you do to help? Won't you just get in the way?

There's a mandatory evacuation. The freeways are clogged. A bus full of old people burns up. Time to point fingers again. There should have been a better plan!

Hurricane Rita is taken seriously. People assume that it will be as powerful as Katrina, and hit a highly populated, low-lying area, just like Katrina did. But it isn't just like Katrina. The storm is downgraded and continues losing power as it hits land. Soon, it's no longer even classified as a hurricane.

More finger pointing. More questions. Why did we have to evacuate? Why can't we return yet? Why isn't there any gas? Why did you over-hype this storm? Next time, we're staying put.

Today, the President proposes giving his office more authority to put the army in charge during a natural disaster. Critics say, See, he really is a power-mad imperialist who wants to take away our freedoms and impose a military dictatorship! (Many of those same people asked why he didn't send the army into New Orleans to forcibly evacuate people.)

Three lessons -- One: Just like with wars, you can't prepare for the next hurricane based on the last hurricane. Two: People are never satisfied. Three: You just can't win.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Skin Too Thin? Everything's Not About You
I'm at the end of my rope.

A neighborhood bar on St. Paul's eastside has been renamed "The Noose" by its new owners, in recognition of the legend that a man once hanged himself in the building, and the owner's insistence that the man's ghost still haunts the building.

Whether or not "The Noose" is a proper name for a neighborhood bar is open for debate. But the name has become the subject of criticism for a reason that would never occur to most of us. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

The name is meant to be humorous, but it hasn't gone over well with some black members of this diverse East Side neighborhood, where no ethnic group holds a majority [black, Hmong, white, latino]. The Rev. Luches Hamilton, pastor of nearby St. John's Church of God in Christ, said he's heard complaints about the name's link to lynching.

"A lot of black people were coming to me saying it was very offensive," Hamilton said. But after speaking with Yauch, Hamilton said he doesn't think the new owner means harm.

"My thing is to try to keep peace in the neighborhood," Hamilton said.

At least someone can keep a level head. (The Rev. Hamilton was also recently profiled in the paper for his BBQ business, which helps support his church and youth programs.)

From my perspective, this is just another example of people who are always looking for a fight, people who think everything is about them. But it's not. I don't see where this has anything to do with race. If it does, that would be terrible. But that's a terrible charge to make against the owners of the bar, when there is no evidence to back it up.

Put this one in the same category as the Great Gopher Ticket Scandal.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Moral Poverty the True Blight in New Orleans
Writing in World Net Daily, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson says moral poverty -- not material poverty -- explains the plight of blacks in New Orleans.

Friday, September 23, 2005

The Bible Tells Us So
The Knight Ridder Washington bureau reports this week:

Seeking to defuse a central controversy of the culture wars, a Bible advocacy group will unveil a new textbook today [Thursday] that could open the door to widespread Bible courses in public high schools.

The textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence," was written to thread a constitutional needle by teaching, not preaching, about the Bible, its editors told Knight Ridder in an exclusive preview.

Verrrrrry interesting.

We teach Greek and Roman myths, and Aesop's fables. We teach folk tales and European fairly tales. In the quest for multiculturalism, our schools search out Native American and African myths and stories to teach our children. But strangely, the Bible has been strictly off limits for decades. Can't mention it.

That's a shame, because the Bible has been a huge influence in Western Civilization -- it has been one of the building blocks of Western Civilization, in fact. And it continues to be so, whether we realize it or not.

Scholars have been looking for a way to teach Bible courses in public schools for years, said Sheila Weber, a vice president of the Bible Literacy Project, a Virginia group that is publishing the 40-chapter book.

A source of faithful inspiration to many, the Bible also is a cultural touchstone that's crucial to young students, Weber said. For example, she said, the works of Shakespeare include 1,300 biblical references. She also noted that 60 percent of the allusions in one advanced-placement literature course had biblical references such as "walking on water."

The new book includes sections explaining the Bible's influence on literature, art, music and history.

Of course, not everyone is happy with this new book. Judith Schaefer of People for the American Way warns that the book must not endorse any religious perspective.

For example, she said, it can't say that the story of Adam and Eve represents mankind's fall from grace. That's a Christian view, she said.

I disagree. It's much more than that. It's also a philosophical view and a literary view.

But why should I be surprised by the response of PAW? Based on their track record, that group is not "for" the "American Way," it's against Christianity. Schaefer's response that we can mention the story of Adam and Eve but not what it represents, is sort of like the Klan saying we can let the dark-skinned people on the bus, but we still aren't going to admit that they are fully human.

Elsewhere on the Web, Adam Nicolson bemoans Bible illiteracy and its affect on our (formerly) shared culture in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal (registration required). (The similar headline? Great minds...)

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Games That Can't Be Won: Strikers and Stadiums
Economics columnist Ed Lotterman today writes about game theory and how it applies to the airline industry. "Game theory," Lotterman explains, "analyzes decision-making when the best alternative in a situation depends on what someone else chooses to do."

When it comes to games and the airline industry, now that Northwest Airlines has filed for bankruptcy it is clear what kind of game that airline's striking mechanics have been playing: a game they cannot win.

Here's how it went down: Northwest management, knowing the airline was on the brink of bankruptcy, made the mechanics union the sort of lowball offer that it would take for the airline to have any chance of avoiding bankruptcy. The union, not realizing -- or refusing to accept -- that the rules had changed and this was a new type of game, made a counter-offer and expected the airline to move in their direction. But Northwest wouldn't budge, because doing so meant certain bankruptcy. Management basically had nothing to gain by accommodating the union, and everything to lose.

As the strike wore on, the airline faced soaring fuel costs and growing losses. The airline then made an even lower offer to the striking mechanics, because even the original lowball offer was now too high to keep the airline out of bankruptcy. Aghast and insulted, the mechanics rejected that offer.

Finally, Northwest filed for bankruptcy protection, making the strike largely irrelevant. The strikers gained nothing, and may have hurt their chances of keeping their jobs.

It's now apparent that the mechanics were doomed no matter what.

--------

Lotterman explains that one of the simplest examples of game theory is the "prisoners' dilemma." (I learned of the "prisoners' dilemma" in college, but not in regard to economics. It was as part of the dynamics of communication.) In this example, two men are arrested for a crime. Interrogated separately, each is promised leniency if he turns against his partner. The police may have little evidence, and it may be most rational for each prisoner to remain mum, in which case both might go free. But on the other hand, each prisoner worries that his partner will rat him out, so both may confess and testify against the other, in which case both of them end up worse off than if they had kept their mouths shut.

At present, Minnesota taxpayers are being asked to pay for three new sports stadiums: a football stadium for the University of Minnesota, a football stadium for the professional Minnesota Vikings, and a baseball stadium for the professional Minnesota Twins.

Stadium politics seems like a good example of how we all get caught in the "prisoners' dilemma." We're told we must build a new stadium for our team or someone else will, and then we'll lose our team. But what if all cities, counties and states simply refused to play that game? There would still be just as many teams; they would have to play somewhere. Some teams might end up in different cities, but they would mostly stay in the same major cities, and overall, the taxpayers of the country would benefit. Tax dollars could go for something truly beneficial, while team owners and players would still get by, albeit with fewer millions.

But for some reason, we keep giving in. When it comes to game theory, the team owners seem to be a lot better at it than the taxpayers and their representatives.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

No Boyz Allowed
For decades, woman fought for access to men-only organizations and activities. But with that battle won, they still weren't satisfied. Now they want women-only organizations and activities of their own.

A story in my paper today notes that many women are joining women-only gyms and fitness centers. "It's nice to know that there aren't any men here," said Karen Segar, a member at a women-only fitness center. "Does that sound bad?"

Not to me, to be honest. But it should sound terrible to feminists, unless they believe in a double standard.

Which many do, apparently. Years ago, already, I read of a hospital that had a women-only floor: only women patients, only women doctors, only women nurses. It was said that some female patients were just more comfortable that way.

And if a man says he's "more comfortable" with a male doctor, he's called a sexist pig.

I recall a feminist newspaper columnist gushing about how great it was to have a women-only book club. It's nice to just be with the girls sometimes, she said.

Periodically I read of the wonders of girls-only schools, and how well the girls do without those awful boys around to distract them.

And let's not forget those directories of women-owned businesses, for women who are "more comfortable" hiring a woman attorney, a woman painter, or a woman auto mechanic.

Hey, all this is no skin off my nose. Except for all that hypocrisy.

Men have always known that sometimes it's nice not to have the opposite sex around. Now women have figured it out, too. When are they going to apologize to men?

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Rita Will Be Bush's Fault, Too, Regardless of Damage
As Texas braces for Hurricane Rita, the damage the storm will cause is still unknown. But there's one thing we can be sure of: Whether the damage is a little or a lot, President Bush will get blamed.

If Galveston and Texas come through the storm relatively safely, it will be called evidence that Bush took care of his rich white Texas oil friends, but not the poor blacks in New Orleans.

If Galveston suffers severe damage, it will be said that it's because while Bush was governor of Texas, he squandered federal money given to the state by the wonderful Bill Clinton.

I don't even know whether Clinton or federal money were in any way involved with Texas hurricane protection while Bush was governor, but for purposes of my prediction, it doesn't matter; That's just what they will say. Remember the modern definition of "news": Anything that makes Republicans look bad.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Star Parker on Bush's Race Rhetoric
Star Parker -- a black woman -- takes President Bush to task for saying that the poor in New Orleans are victims of discrimination. In an excellent column, she explains the real problem facing New Orleans' black poor.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Everyone's a Victim, or Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
I think this has some sort of connection to the Chai Vang story, though it's hard to pin down exactly what that link is.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press has a "Sainted & Tainted" section on the opinion pages each Saturday. This is a chance for people to give thanks and recognition to those who have done a good deed (the "sainted" part), and also an opportunity for people to vent and point fingers when they don't think others have treated them fairly (the "tainted" part). I like the "sainted" part just fine, but I could do without the "tainted." Too often, the one doing the tainting needs to be reminded that when you point the finger at someone else, you've got three fingers pointing back at you.

This past Saturday, we were treated to this doozy, from M.J. Toft of St. Paul:

Tainted: On Aug. 26 we were driving down Ruth Street in St. Paul's Sunray area and we suddenly had to come to a screeching stop because of a child who bolted out of his driveway directly into the line of traffic on his electric scooter. I yelled an expletive. The father heard what I said and approached us and yelled at me. The father ran up to his son and quietly spoke to him and sent him on his way. This man should have been more upset with his son rather than yelling at us. He needs to teach his son to be responsible while driving his scooter and he needs to watch for oncoming traffic.

Good thing Mr. or Ms. Toft didn't have a deer rifle with, or he/she might have felt that the father and son deserved to die.

I can't feel sorry for the "victim" Toft. Writing this "tainted" letter and expecting our sympathy pretty much proves that this is a person with a distorted view of reality. Makes me question whether any of the facts presented here are true. Sort of like listening to Vang defend his actions in killing six people.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

So Minorities Think Lynchings Are a Good Thing, Then?
Following the conviction of mass murderer Chai Vang, the deer hunter who shot eight other hunters in Wisconsin, killing six of them, I read the predictable story about how this was somehow a "racial" issue, and Chai Vang got a raw deal because he is of Hmong heritage, while his victims were white.

The story is headlined "Trial splits audience on racial lines" with a subhead of "Minorities question how a white jury could know how a Hmong hunter must have felt that day."

How he felt? He shot eight people. Repeatedly. Many in the back. Six died. Who cares how he felt? Maybe he felt really, really bad. So what? Does that permit him to commit mass murder?

Some think so. Vang said on the witness stand that his victims deserved to die. After the guilty verdict was delivered, several of Vang's relatives made the same statement to the media.

Why did they "deserve to die"? Vang alleges that they hurled racial slurs at him. But the only evidence of that is what Vang says, and he's changed his story several times. Besides, wouldn't someone facing life in prison say anything?

But that doesn't matter. Even if they called him lots of disgusting, hateful names, and it made him feel really, really bad, does that justify him killing people?

Of course not.

This concern about how Vang "felt" got me thinking, what about some "good old boys" who feel really, really bad because some black guy said something they find offensive to a white woman? Do we empathize with them, when they decide the black guy "deserves to die" and hang him from a tree?

That's what Vang and his defenders seem to be saying: If someone offends you in a racially-sensitive way -- kill 'em! They deserve it.

One of St. Paul's leading race-baiting activists, the Rev. Devin Miller, seems to think it's reasonable to think that Vang "felt" so bad that he had to kill six people:

"You can either say, 'This guy's really smart and he's going to play the race card,' or, 'He's telling the truth,'" Miller said. "And I'm thinking, you're in Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin, and here is a group of folks who don't think he should be on their property. I've been in places where maybe not necessarily racial epithets have been said to me, but you get the feeling, maybe I shouldn't be here. I think he was being sincere."

And if you're a white guy on the subway, and four black guys get on, and they don't say anything, but they make you feel like maybe you shouldn't be there, just whip out your gun and shoot 'em.

Yeah, right.

You should recognize the name Emmit Till. Emmit was the 14-year-old Chicago boy who was beaten, mutilated and murdered by two white men while visiting relatives in Mississippi. His "crime"? Whistling at, or maybe talking to, or maybe just walking past a white woman. In an outcome that astonished the world, his killers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, were acquitted by an all-white jury that deliberated less than an hour. (After which, free from fear of being retried, they admitted their crime and accepted money to speak about how they did it.)

I equate Vang's defenders with the all-white jury that sided with the white killers in the face of overwhelming evidence. That jury was racist. And so are those who defend Vang just because he, like them, isn't white. But a conviction in agreement with overwhelming evidence of guilt is no sign of racism, regardless of the race of anyone involved. It's simply justice.

Not surprisingly, the Rev. Miller (a black man) doesn't see things the way I do. He sees Vang -- the murderer -- as a victim, a modern-day Emmit Till.

More troubling, Miller said, is the feeling he gets that the town of Rice Lake has been blindly supporting the hunters, when the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

"The images that come to my mind is that of the rural South in the early '50s and '60s in justifying a lynching," Miller said. "You have the person of color on trial for being in a place where someone thought he shouldn't have been. If I'm a hunter, and I'm on somebody else's land, and I don't see a sign, I don't know what to look for. And if someone walks up to me with a gun, saying, 'Get the 'F' off my land, I'm not going to walk away with my back to this person."

With advocates like this, who needs enemies? Could Miller be any more wrong? Vang was not on trial for trespassing. He was not on trial for being a person of color in a place where someone thought he should not be. He was on trial for mass murder.

Vang and his defenders are the "lynchers" here. They justify and excuse the murder of six people who allegedly spoke "inappropriately" to a person of another race. That's just what Emmit Till's killers and the jurors who acquited them did. Vang is no victim. If you say he was justified in shooting these people because he felt offended, how can you not say the same for the killers of Emmit Till?

There's plenty of racism on display here, but it's from non-whites. Some of the worst racists I see are those who go around preaching against it. They judge every person of color innocent, and everyone pale-skinned person guilty. What is the definition of racism? Isn't it pre-judging people based on the color of their skin? That's what these people are doing. According to the newspaper, the Rev. Miller...

...said he can't help but think that the hunters used racial insults -- and possibly fired the first shot, as Chai Soua Vang contends. That's in dispute with the surviving hunters, who have testified that they didn't use racial slurs and that Chai Soua Vang fired first.

Why is it Miller "can't help" think the hunters used racial insults? Does he think all white people are evil, slur-spurring racists? What do we call it when a white person "can't help" thinking that the black guy next to him on the bus is going to mug him when they get off? We call that racism. You would call that racism, Rev. Miller.

Before I end this, I noticed one other interesting link between the Till case and the Vang case. The website where I looked up the Till case explains that:

"Mississippi politicians and newspapers unanimously condemned the murderers and promised swift justice. However, Mississippians became more defensive as for weeks the press bombarded them with harsh condemnations of racial violence in the South."

In the same way, Hmong-Americans no doubt feel themselves under attack -- whether or not they really are -- by association with Vang. That must put some Hmong on the defensive, and a closing of ranks to a certain extent explains their empathy for Vang. Nonetheless, it excuses nothing, just as Mississippians are excused of nothing that happened in 1955.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Constitution Day Comes and Goes
Did you know that Saturday (Sept. 17) was Constitution Day? I didn't, either, until I read about it in Saturday's newspaper.

I'll bet you also didn't know that a new federal law requires schools that receive federal money to teach students about the U.S. Constitution on or near Sept. 17.

I asked my kids if they learned about the Constitution Friday. Nope. So this morning, I asked the principal of their school about it. Guess what? It was news to her, too. But I'm not writing to criticize the school. Hey, who knew?

Well, to be fair, some schools did know, and they were featured in the newspaper story. Doug Austin, assistant principal of Irondale High School, said, "You can't just (teach) it in a day."

He's right. But unlike those who might think that since the Constitution is too big of a deal to be taught in just one day, that's an excuse not to teach it at all, I argue that the Constitution needs to be taught as an integral part of social studies and current events curriculums. The Constitution is the foundation of what students learn in those areas. Do they know that? Or do they think our country is run according to public opinion polls and lawsuits?

Still, while I think teaching the Constitution is very important, I am always wary of Congress micro-managing our schools.

Apparently, Constitution Day is a new holiday this year. Interestingly, a "Constitution Day" is what I've always thought we should observe in place of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

You see, I've got a bone to pick with MLK Day. Do you realize that MLK is the only American to have his own holiday? It's true. Washington and Lincoln even have to share a generic Presidents' Day. Columbus was not an American. MLK is the only American with his own holiday. Is that right?

Furthermore, I think that the emphasis on MLK Day should not be on one man, it should be on the ideas that he championed. There's too much "MLK worship" and not enough thought about what equality and civil rights are really all about.

And equality and civil rights are grounded in our Constitution, even though this nation may have egregiously ignored that fact for much of its history, with slavery (incorporated into the original Constitution) and Jim Crowe laws.

Nevertheless, the Constitution ultimately allowed us to triumph over those mistakes, and continues to protect the rights of all. We should recognize that.

Monday, September 19, 2005

New Orleans Flood Offers Lessons in Poverty, Government, Charity
A New York Times news story last week led with: "Donations for the victims of Hurricane Katrina have come in at a blistering pace that exceeds that of other recent disasters, charities are saying."

The Times story quotes Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, describing her theory about why there has been such a "quick deluge of money." Palmer said:

"I really think the biggest reason has got to be people seeing government agencies not doing the right thing, and that drove them to support a private response and do it quickly by sending it online."

Interesting. While Bush-haters will see this as something more to blame the President for -- "He didn't do his job, so we had to do it for him!" -- I think there is a different lesson here. If the government NOT acting spurs individuals to act, then I propose that the converse is also true: When people see the government acting, then they think they don't need to do anything. They'll just let the government take care of it, and won't accept any responsibility themselves, either to take care of themselves, or to help others.

I read a criticism claiming that 100 years ago, after the Great San Francisco Earthquake and fires, dozens of relief trains were on the way to the City by the Bay within 24 hours. The critic wanted to know why, with our improved communications, we are slower now.

Well, first of all, I reject the idea that there was no immediate response to Katrina. To the contrary, supplies and equipment were already being positioned near the Gulf as the storm approached. But let's skip over that, and look at another difference.

I'll bet those relief trains in 1905 were not products of some government bureaucracy. They were likely products of charity and private industry -- the railroads themselves.

Everyone knows that if you want something done quickly, don't look to the government.

But these days, many Americans have gotten the idea that the government is responsible for taking care of everything and everyone. That makes it easy for individuals to take no action themselves, and just point fingers at the government for not doing enough. Have you heard anyone say, "Isn't it great that we have helicopters and men (and women) show up right away to rescue people from their roofs?" No, we take that for granted. All we hear is criticisms: The aid is not fast enough. It's not handled in the right way. President Bush didn't say the right things.

There's an assumption that the government should and will take care of everything.

But it hasn't always been thus. There's an amazing story you may have heard before, about how frontier hero Davy Crockett, in his role as a congressman, gave a speech against a charity bill -- money for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Crockett is said to have given this argument:

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

That story, plus some very interesting background wherein Crockett further explains his reasoning, appears here. I don't know how historically accurate it really is, but it does a great job of explaining some important principles of conservative thought.

Elsewhere, Brendan Miniter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that our very reliance on big government is what doomed the poor in New Orleans. The welfare state -- "LBJ's Other Quagmire" -- let them down, he writes.

"Anyone who has taken a non-drinking-binge tour of New Orleans, venturing outside the French Quarter and Garden District, might have noticed that New Orleans was a failing city. Tourism kept it, well, afloat, but large swaths of the city were mired in poverty for decades. One out of four New Orleans residents was living below the poverty line, and tens of thousands of people were living in public housing. These are the people who were left behind in the flood and who have long been left behind by failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime well above the national average.

"The Lower Ninth Ward was one section particularly hard it by the blight of poverty. Another hit hard by both poverty and then the flood was the Sixth Ward, home of the infamous Lafitte housing project. Recently the murder of a teenager there sparked a high school class to write short, locally published books about Lafitte's horrible living conditions. One author and a Lafitte resident, Ashley Nelson, told NPR on Friday that her friends and relatives still hadn't been able to escape their flooded neighborhood.

"That's not to say there was a lack of funding or even a lack of interest in poverty 'elimination' programs. For decades city, state and federal officials poured good money after bad into public housing and other programs. In the 1940s the Housing Authority of New Orleans built several public housing apartment buildings near the French Quarter. As the decades passed more money and more programs followed. In 1993 the Clinton administration recognized that packing public housing units into a small space didn't eliminate poverty, but it did create ghettoes that were not well served by public transportation or emergency services."

Remember the dependent dolphins. Let's treat people with some respect. Let's expect more of them than we expect from dolphins. Let's not just give people some fish.

Yet, there are those who think the lesson of New Orleans is that we need MORE Great Society-type programs. More government housing programs. More people dependent on handouts.

Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Anyone who thinks the way to help the poor of New Orleans is more of the same failed policies has got to be nuts.

Monday, September 19, 2005

"More on "Living Wage" -- Some Re-Thinking
In my immediately previous post on "living wages," I said I didn't understand what was meant by firms receiving city subsidies. I understand that better now, and I've got more to say.

It's been fairly common for some time for cities to assist businesses either with some kid of grant or by giving some sort of property tax relief. This must be what is meant by "subsidies."

If that's the case, then it absolutely makes sense to consider the wages the subsidized business will pay its workers. The purpose of the subsidy is to benefit the city, through jobs and taxes, and a business in a sector where people earn higher wages is going to benefit the city more than a business that pays workers lower wages.

So it becomes a matter of return on investment. If public dollars are to be diverted to a private business, then the guardians of the public purse would be remiss not to consider the wages that business will be paying out in the city. If the wages paid are low, that business might not be worth having at the price the taxpayers are being asked to pay. The city may be better off letting that business leave, and concentrating on attracting businesses that do pay their employees well.

That still does not, however, mean that "living wage" legislation is the best way to handle this. Some industries simply pay better wages than others. It might not be fair, but it is reality. The city shouldn't try to force a low-paying industry to pay higher wages. Better, as I said, to let low-paying industries go, and concentrate on attracting higher-paying industries.

And as for firms that have contracts with the city, this, too, is a return on investment issue. As I said in my original post, what sense does it make to insist that vendors pay their workers more money? That will only result in higher prices being paid by the taxpayers. A city council that attempts to conduct some sort of social policy or wealth redistribution program under the pretense of conducting the people's business is out of line.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

"Living Wage" Really "Subsidized Wage"?
The city of St. Paul is considering legislation that would require a so-called "living wage" to be paid by businesses that have contracts in excess of $100,000 with the city, or which receive a city subsidy in excess of $100,000.

The wage would be determined by a formula linked to the federal poverty level. In July, for instance, the "living wage" would have been $12.09 an hour, or $10.24 if the business provided health care to the employees.

Advocates like to think that this is a way of making evil and greedy big businesses treat workers more fairly. But as an evil conservative, I know that you can't get something for nothing; the money has to come from somewhere. And in this case, the money comes from....

...the taxpayers of St. Paul.

Think about it. If a business has to pay higher wages in order to do business with the city of St. Paul, then that business will have to bid a higher price for the work it performs for the city. The city will pay more for the same services. (Or, businesses may decide not to bid for St. Paul contracts at all, resulting in fewer bidders, less competition, and again, higher prices paid by St. Paul.)

I'm not sure what qualifies as a "subsidized" business, and maybe it's just a hypothetical included to make sure all the bases are covered, but the deal still works the same way. If the business already needed a city subsidy, and now it has to pay higher wages, it's going to need a bigger subsidy. Again, that will cost the city more.

And how will the city pay more? Raise taxes, or cut services, like rec centers and libraries, and filling the potholes in the streets. But at least we'll be making sure that someone who may not even live in St. Paul is getting a "living wage."

This is along the lines of the Green Party mayoral candidate who wanted to impose a city income tax. They think they can just take and take, and there are no consequences. But really, what does simple economics matter, when you mean well?

The economic illiteracy of these folks is illustrated by a statement from Ryan Greenwood, executive director of Progressive Minnesota, who dismisses the notion that higher wages might hurt economic development. Greenwood says that won't happen, because the higher wages will likely be spent locally. "(The money) is not going to a stockholder in Delaware. It's going straight back into the Twin Cities economy."

Yes, but where is the money coming FROM? It's coming from others in the Twin Cities economy.

And note Greenwood's naked prejudice: Don't worry, the money's not going to a STOCKHOLDER! And not one in Delaware, which Greenwood may have picked because so many corporations are incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where their offices and plants are.

But stockholders are everywhere -- yes, even right here in St. Paul! And they include lots of everyday people -- who go to work everyday -- who have invested for their retirement.

But really, who cares about facts -- or a little collateral damage -- when you're so righteously involved in class warfare?

The "living wage" legislation is on hold for now. The sponsoring council member has shelved it for now, because supporters say it doesn't go far enough! A "coalition of labor, grassroots and religious organizations" objected to compromises that had been reached with Mayor Randy Kelly. That means we can expect it to rear an even uglier head in the future.

One more thing: What's with the religious groups involved here? What happened to that "wall of separation" that liberals are always talking about? Once again, as I've been pointing out to you periodically, that famous "wall of separation" doesn't apply when religion is used to support liberal politics.

Friday, September 16, 2005

ABC or WCCO, You Can't Believe What You See on TV
ABC's transparent use of leading questions in trying to get hurricane victims to bash Bush is no isolated incident. It's very much similar to my own experience in being interviewed by the WCCO-TV reporter at the State Fair. (September 5 post)

In my case there wasn't political bias involved, but the reporter used leading questions, clearly looking for us to say certain things to fit her story the way she wanted it to be. I was surprised after the pre-interview, when she initially spoke to us, that she wanted to proceed with interviewing us on tape, since our answers clearly didn't conform to what she wanted to hear. But it didn't matter to her, we found out much too late, because she just edited our comments to fit into her story, making us appear to say the opposite of what we had in fact told her.

To update you on my complaint with WCCO-TV, I sent a complaint to their news director last week. I had to send it through a gatekeeper, as they don't make his email or phone available to us commoners. (Too many complaints coming in otherwise?) After more than a week, news director Jeff Kiernan gave me this reply:

"Thank you Dave for your e-mail.

"I appreciate you writing WCCO TV.

"I have thoroughly reviewed your concern. I am confident that our story was accurate and did not misrepresent anything you or your wife said to us.

"Again, thanks for your e-mail."

Not much to work with. He never contacted me, so how could he have "thoroughly reviewed" my concern? Did he watch the raw video footage? Obviously not, or he would have seen that what I told him was true.

It's fitting. Template for the news, form letter for the complaint response. No need to gather any facts. Just pull it out of the file, fill in a few blanks and run with it.

I'm not letting this drop. I'll keep you posted on my next move.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Dependent Dolphins: What a Metaphor for New Orleans' Poor!
I hear some dolphins escaped captivity in New Orleans due to the flooding. But not to worry, animal lovers, the animals have been found swimming together in the ocean. They are being hand fed and will soon be recaptured and returned to captivity.

What's wrong with this picture? Isn't life in the ocean a positive turn of events for these dolphins?

Apparently not. The dolphins are so dependent on human handouts, they don't know how to fend for themselves. If they aren't recaptured and put back into an unnatural, controlled environment, where they will live off of handouts, they will starve. So the only humane thing to do is to make them dependent captives once again.

What an apt metaphor for the poor people of New Orleans, also displaced by the flood.

But let's use this opportunity to set those people free. Let's not put them back into the captivity of public housing projects, where they live off of handouts, just like captive dolphins. Let's use this opportunity to start over, rejecting 40 years of failed social policy that has not helped people, but rather, made them as helpless as those captive dolphins.

Let's give them the help they need to become self-sufficient. Let's teach them to fish, so to speak, rather than just give them the fish -- like we do with the dolphins. That's the humane thing to do.

Friday, September 16, 2005

ABC's Post-Speech Bias Story Catches Fire
Critics of Rush Limbaugh say that his listeners are mindless automatons who parrot whatever their leader says on the radio. I'm not a regular listener, but I beg to differ. When I first heard Rush (first read a bit of one of his books, actually), I was amazed to hear someone who agreed with what I had already figured out for myself, and wasn't afraid to say it.

An example came up today. Last night I wrote about ABC TV's flagrantly biased attempt to get hurricane victims to bash Bush last night after the President's speech (scroll down 2 posts). That was Rush's lead item on his show today. His reaction was exactly the same as mine. And bloggers all over the place are having at ABC over the network's naked attempt to set up a kangaroo court of Bush bashing, which instead backfired on Reynolds and Koppel. Guess they didn't know that black people had brains and could think for themselves. They just assumed all the po' black folks would repeat what the white liberals had told them.

I went to the ABC/Nightline website, but couldn't find any record of the biased interview. However, they did prominently offer, for my convenience, video of the President's speech, labeled: "Accepting Blame: The President takes responsibility for the response to Katrina."

That was their template -- the President is responsible -- so that's what they went with. All those positive remarks from the black hurricane victims? On the cutting room floor, evidently.

Some video of the interview session is available from The Political Teen

Friday, September 16, 2005

What Ya Got Under Yer Hat, Cowboy?
Actress Renee Zellweger, after just four months of marriage to country music star Kenny Chesney, has filed for an annulment, alleging unspecified "fraud."

Nonetheless, we at Downing World feel free to speculate on just what that fraud might be.

Top Five Reasons Renee Zellweger Wants an Annullment:

5) She found out the 37-year-old entertainer and sex symbol was not really a virgin.

4) When he finally took off that darned cowboy hat on their wedding night, he had a bald spot the size of the OK Corral.

3) She's seen his tractor, she doesn't think it's sexy, and it doesn't turn her on.

2) She's also not crazy 'bout his "farmer's tan."

1) Apropos his "tractor": She's unimpressed with his plowing technique; he always leaves a dead furrow.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

I'm Asking You Again, Don't You Blame the President?
I've seen something amazing. But since it doesn't fit the Mainstream Media's template, I'm sure "we'll speak of this no more." At least the MSM will speak of this no more. I'm going to speak of it.

I had ABC TV on for the President's speech from New Orleans. Afterwards, with Ted Koppel anchoring, they went to reporter Dean Reynolds, live at the Houston Astrodome. Reynolds was prepared to ask a group of flood victims -- all of whom were black -- for their reactions to the President's speech.

Reynolds kept trying to get the flood victims to say something bad about the President. But they wouldn't. His frustration was evident, and he became more and more obvious in his attempts to put words into their mouths.

Reynolds asked one woman whom she blamed for disaster. She said it was the state and local government, not the President, who were to blame.

Reynolds asked another flood victim if the President should have done more to prevent the flooding. She said it was the fault of the mayor. She said federal funds were allocated to improve the levies, but the mayor didn't do anything about it.

Reynolds asked if something could have been done better to get people out. A woman replied, "I'm going to be completely truthful. I had the chance to leave. I just didn't take it seriously." Others said that the local officials should have done something with all those unused buses to get people to safety, but they didn't blame the President.

Finally, Reynolds got desperate. He said something like, "Is there anything the President should have done differently, like giving this speech sooner"? One woman agreed, "Yes, he could have given this speech sooner."

Gotcha! Reynolds finally drew blood. After putting words into her mouth.

Reynolds was totally flummoxed by the way these flood victims expressed their optimism and faith that they would return home, by the way they said they trusted the President and believed what he had said, and by the way they refused to say bad things about the President.

They didn't fit his template.

How much of this will be in tomorrow's news reports? None, I'm sure.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Poop Head
One of the benefits of reading the advice columnists in the daily paper is that it shows me I'm really pretty-well adjusted, relatively speaking. More so than some people might think, actually. Yesterday, "Advice Diva" Tara Solomon dealt with the issue of a woman who was afraid to go away for the weekend with her boyfriend because... she might have to poop!

Oh, how embarrassing! Can't let him know her body does that!

If she doesn't know this guy well enough to let him find out that she poops, MAYBE SHE DOESN'T KNOW HIM WELL ENOUGH TO SPEND THE WEEKEND IN A HOTEL WITH HIM!

Apparently, she's perfectly willing to share lots of other personal things her body can do, but not that! She has her standards!

I mention this stupid column only so I can get on my high horse again. I'll tell you this: Men have always been pigs. When women decided that it was "progress" to become more like men, that's when things really started going downhill.

(The "Advice Diva" is just as nutty as the woman seeking advice. Her solution? When the woman has to poop, she should run the shower and put a towel in the gap under the bathroom door, telling her boyfriend that she's enjoying a "sauna." That will mask the sound and odor.)

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Modern, Caring, Sensitive Quadriga: A Century of Progress, But Where Are We Now?
We took a special tour of the Minnesota State Capitol building last night. This is the centennial of the completion of the building -- Cass Gilbert's masterpiece -- and the Minnesota Historical Society is offering some special, members-only tours.

What was particularly special about this tour was that we were able to go out on the roof and see the Quadriga up close. The Quadriga is a gold-leafed statue that looks out from over the main entrance to the building.

I'll bet you didn't know that "quadriga" is not just the name of this statue (I didn't), although that is what the statue is commonly called. A "quadriga" is actually the term for a two-wheeled chariot pulled by four horses. The name of this specific piece of art is actually "Progress of the State."

And progress is a big theme throughout the artwork that adorns the Capitol. A century ago, it was all about progress. It was all about civilization, tilling the land, building things, making things. Progress. (With a nod to the native inhabitants, as a part of the state's past.)

And the Quadriga is no exception. Again, note its name: "Progress of the State." While the horses are named for the elements: "Earth, "Wind," "Fire," and "Water," the driver standing in the chariot is named "Prosperity." Meanwhile, the women standing alongside the horses are "Agriculture" and "Industry."

Like I said, it was all about progress.

I wonder, if such a statue were commissioned now, how would it differ? Well, first of all, there'd be a big fuss about why is the man riding and in charge, while the women stand by the animals. But let's forget that, and imagine that the statue still looks the same. How would it be described?

"Prosperity" is out. It's not fair. Some are more prosperous than others. We don't value prosperity anymore, we want equal wealth for all. The driver would have to be "Entitlement."

"Agriculture" rapes the land. "Industry" pollutes the skies and water. They're out. We don't value those anymore. What do we value? What could we name the women after?

"Tolerance" and "Diversity." That would be it.

(And "Fire," isn't that a bit violent? And it destroys all those trees. Wait, that's it! The fourth horse could be "Trees"!)

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Insulted by the "R Word"
I voted for incumbent Mayor Randy Kelly in the St. Paul primary yesterday. Kelly finished a disappointing second to fellow Democrat and former city council member Chris Coleman.

I'm feeling pretty comfortable with either candidate. This is the fifth mayoral election since I've lived in St. Paul, but the first where one of the final two candidates wasn't a liberal wienie who I feared would do great harm to the city (unfortunately, one of the wienies won). Coleman is backed by some level-headed folks I respect, so he must be OK. What I'm getting at, is this is the first time where I'm not voting AGAINST someone. Either one can do the job. The choice this time is actually based on deciding who can do it better.

But while I'm not anti-Coleman, he's been doing his best to make me that way. Coleman's campaign has attacked Kelly for the way the Mayor crossed party lines to support President Bush's reelection bid last fall. They're calling him "Republican Randy," like that's some sort of slur. Coleman supporters even have "Republican Randy" lawn signs.

Is "Republican" supposed to be some sort of slur? I vote Republican. We just seldom have a Republican on the ballot in city elections, so I've voted for Democrat Kelly. Republican voters may be a minority in St. Paul, but we are here. Doesn't Coleman realize that? Or does he just not give a damn about us?

What happened to "bipartisanship"? What happened to "tolerance" and "diversity"? What's with this name calling? It's as though Coleman is saying that I am an undesirable. Yet he claims to want my vote.

Would a candidate call his opponent "Gay Randy" or "Black Randy"? Of course not. But "Republican Randy" as a slur? I guess that's OK. (You may be saying, "But there's nothing wrong with being gay or Black. Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with being a Republican. So why is "Republican" being used as a slur?)

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Fundamentalist Watermelons -- Greens Make Strong Showing in Twin Cities Mayoral Primaries
Green Party candidates made surprisingly strong showings in the mayoral primaries in St. Paul and Minneapolis yesterday: 19% in St. Paul and 14% in Minneapolis. But both finished third -- behind two Democrats -- and were eliminated from the race.

I first heard of the Greens more than 20 years ago, in college, while studying political science amongst other impractical subjects. The Greens had begun to exercise some political muscle in Western Europe. The professor told us that while they called themselves "Greens," some others called them "watermelons." I earned Brownie points by correctly guessing why: They're green on the outside, but red on the inside.

I think the same thing of the Greens here in the Twin Cities. They say they're all about clean air and clean water, but really, they've got an economic agenda. The don't like capitalism. They want to redistribute the wealth. Sounds pretty Red to me. (The Green candidate who garnered 19% of the vote in St. Paul was even proposing a city income tax! Does she want all the people who work for a living to leave for the suburbs? That's how these people think: If we could just get rid of all the people with money, the poor could live in some sort of Welfare Utopia.)

You know what the Greens are? They are FUNDAMENTALISTS! No one ever uses that term for people on the left, but it applies. Just as right-wing, religious fundamentalists may cling to their core principles regardless of the practical outcome -- because right is right -- left-wing, environmentalist FUNDAMENTALISTS cling to their belief that protecting any and all of nature is the most important, overriding principle.

Yet, a right-wing fundamentalist who wants to protect unborn babies is portrayed as someone who "wants to force her values on others," while a left-wing fundamentalist who wants to protect (someone else's) trees is portrayed as doing so out of a "deep and genuine concern for the earth."

Could that be the result of the double standard of the left-wing mainstream media? Of course it is.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Bush the Environmentalist Restores Wetlands
I like the way that Jack Welch says Mother Nature "has been given a pass" (previous post) when it comes to responsibility for the destruction in New Orleans. Think about the irony here. Apparently, the Bush critics think Bush should have done more to dominate and control (destroy!) nature, in the form of better levees and such. Yet they are the same people who say we mustn't do anything to disturb nature -- drill for oil, for instance, or encroach on a wetland. Which is it? New Orleans and its levees are unnatural. They prevent the natural Mississippi River flooding from taking place. They result in more sediment and pollution entering the ocean.

Heck, by personally donning his SCUBA gear and planting those explosive charges under the levees, Bush was simply engaging in some wetlands reclamation. He should be a hero to the tree hugging crowd!

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Jack Welch Analyzes Hurricane Aftermath
Former General Electric Jack Welch offers an interesting analysis of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in today's Wall Street Journal. Here's an excerpt:

"Mother Nature, perhaps for the first time in the case of a bona fide natural disaster, has been given a pass. Instead, the shouting has been about crisis-management -- or the lack thereof. Everyone from President Bush to the police chief in a small parish on the outskirts of the city has been accused of making shockingly bad mistakes and misjudgments. The Katrina crisis, you would think, is unlike any before it."

Welch argues that the Katrina aftermath follows the classic pattern of the five steps of crisis management, as he has witnessed it in the corporate world:

"The first stage of that pattern is denial. The problem isn't that bad, the thinking usually goes, it can't be, because bad things don't happen here, to us. The second is containment. This is the stage where people, including perfectly capable leaders, try to make the problem disappear by giving it to someone else to solve. The third stage is shame-mongering, in which all parties with a stake in the problem enter into a frantic dance of self-defense, assigning blame and claiming credit. Fourth comes blood on the floor. In just about every crisis, a high profile person pays with his job, and sometimes he takes a crowd with him. In the fifth and final stage, the crisis gets fixed and, despite prophesies of permanent doom, life goes on, usually for the better.

"We are a way off from the fifth stage in New Orleans, but the first four played out like an old movie."

Welch goes on to describe the specifics of how New Orleans fit the five-stage model. Interesting stuff.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

After New Orleans, Is Washington Next?
Kathleen Parker does a good job analyzing the facts of race and poverty as involved in the tragedy in New Orleans. Parker points out that for most of us -- whites especially -- New Orleans is just a big, fun town where you can go to party. "We don't see the poverty on the periphery," she writes, "Because, to be blunt, it spoils our movie." Parker writes that the tourism industry survives thanks to the poor who work in it.

And "the poor" in New Orleans, all too often, is synonymous with the black population.

That got me to thinking about what could be another disaster in waiting -- the nation's capital, Washington D.C.

It may not be flood prone, but the nation's capital is surely a tempting target for a terrorist attack. And think of all the times you've heard people say that the devastation in New Orleans resembles the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Could this be a preview of a disaster in Washington D.C.?

If I remember correctly, the majority of people who live in the nation's capital are black. And they aren't wealthy. What happens to them if an attack comes?

I've been to Washington D.C. once, when I was in college. I'd grown up in an area where pretty much everyone's ancestors had come from Germany, Sweden or Norway. I attended a college with a small minority enrollment. So I couldn't help but notice how many black people I saw and met. But here's the part that really hit me: Pretty much anyone who "served" me, a waiter, hotel staff, etc., was black. I felt rather awkward about that. It was as though all the blacks were subservient to me -- a white guy -- in some way. Yes, it was because I was "the customer," and the customer comes fist. But it was odd, and uncomfortable.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Let's Be Logically Consistent
The next time someone says, "We have to save the rain forest, because the cure for cancer might be in there," ask him about his position on abortion. If he's "pro-choice," tell him, "We have to save the unborn, because one of them might find the cure for cancer!"

Monday, September 12, 2005

What's with the New Guy?
It seems odd that someone being nominated to join the Supreme Court would also be nominated to join the Court as Chief Justice. Why the "new guy" for Chief Justice? That's strange to me for three reasons:

1) He lacks experience of actually being a Supreme Court Justice. How prepared is he to preside over the other Justices? 2) He hasn't yet had an opportunity to earn the respect of the other Justices. 3) Most important, the President can't be sure yet what sort of Chief Justice John Roberts would be. We hear often about how Justice David Souter surprised Republicans by not being conservative once he joined the Court. I'd think the President would not want to take that chance with a Chief Justice appointee. I'd think he'd want someone with a Supreme Court track record.

Another thing about Supreme Court appointments: If the Supreme Court is part of one of our three branches of government -- the judiciary -- and acts in the system of checks and balances with the legislative branch and the executive branch, how much sense does it make that the President and Congress select and approve a Justice based on him doing what they want? The Court is supposed to see to it that the President and Congress don't overstep their own authority. Kind of defeats the purpose to have the judiciary branch picked by the other two branches, doesn't it?

Monday, September 12, 2005

Listen Up, Dads
Sorry this isn't available online, but the St. Paul Pioneer Press has a feature they call "Ant Farm," in which they show a large photo and just a few paragraphs of story on the front page of a section, intended to "offer a glimpse of everyday life in various corners of our community."

Today, there is a photo of a boy helping his father do some automobile maintenance. I love this quote from the father, Thomas Nelson Jr., of St. Paul:

"Ever since he [8-year-old Thomas Nelson III] was 1 or 2 years old, he went along with me to fix things. 'Dad, take me. I just want to be around you.' And either I spend time with my kids or somebody else will, you know?"

"Either I spend time with my kids or somebody else will."

What's implied is that "somebody else" won't teach your kids what you want them to learn.

Remember that, all you dads.

9-11

Remember
It's been four years. Many have forgotten, or act as though they have. Don't you be one of them.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Al Gore Is a Nazi
(This post will have some people sputtering, "He's calling Al Gore a Nazi!" so I thought I'd put it right into the title to make their day for them.)

Former real-president Al Gore has joined the hiking-booted throngs marching lockstep to the tune of global warming. Gore, who preceded current real-president John Kerry, says that global warming is to blame for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina (even if the death and damage isn't as bad as first blamed on not-my-president George W. Bush).

Here's what I think: people who salute and sing "Global Warming" don't believe in global warming because of science; they believe in global warming because they want a reason to hate and blame those they don't like -- anyone who doesn't share their politics and lifestyle (so much for tolerance and diversity).

In this way, they remind me of American Southerners who blamed (or still blame) Blacks for their problems. Or, the best example, Nazis who blamed Jews for the very real economic crisis in between-wars Germany. Instead of "The economy is bad. It's the Jews' fault!" it's "The Earth is getting warmer! It's the suburban Republicans' fault!"

Scientists tell us that the Earth has gone through many periods of climate change, getting either cooler or warmer, for periods ranging from hundreds to thousands of years. Now, we detect a slight change in average temperatures and we're sure the sky is falling. But just a few decades ago, the fear was "the coming ice age." It was even on the cover of Time magazine.

I've written before about the Arrogance of Science, about how we think we know everything, but we laugh at the "ignorance" of those who came before us. Concerning global warming, I wonder sometimes if we're not being just like those "primitive" folks who saw the days grow shorter at the time of the winter solstice, and thought they needed to sacrifice a virgin (or a Democrat, if that was all that was available) to bring the sun back.

Before I go, I like to set the record straight. Al Gore is not a Nazi. The Nazis were National Socialists. Al Gore is a Democrat socialist who believes in concentrating power in the national government.

See the difference?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Nagin Lied, Not So Many People Died
Now that the blame has been firmly fixed on George W., the truth can come out. Now they are saying the New Orleans death toll won't be anything near 10,000, like Mayor Nagin had said it would be. And they're saying New Orleans will be dried out in about a month, not months and months like they were saying. And much of the city will come through this just fine, it won't all be destroyed.

That's all good news, of course.

Will anyone apologize to President Bush?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Hugo, Girl
In an ode to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, Kansas City Star columnist Mary Sanchez notes that Chavez "sharply criticized the Bush administration's response to Katrina's victims, accurately pointing out the poorest of the poor are suffering the most."

Wow! A regular Einstein! I wonder if Chavez could accurately point out that the sky is blue! And that grass is green!

As I've said before, OF COURSE the poor suffer the most. They're poor. Being poor sucks. Money may not buy happiness, but it does bring with it the ability to mitigate many of life's problems. If you're poor, you have fewer options. If you're poor -- or elderly, handicapped, etc. -- every problem hits you harder.

Sanchez also suggests that Chavez should be paranoid about the U.S. and its intentions toward Venezuela, because "Some Web sites are reporting that Venezuela has uncovered plans for a U.S.-led invasion of the country."

Once we get past the shock of a print journalist and member of the Mainstream Media using as a source "some Web sites are reporting," I'd like to say: We'd better have a plan!

We should have a plan for invading any country that we might ever have to invade. That doesn't mean we intend to invade any country, just that we are prepared if the need arises.

The Bush-haters like to complain, "Bush had a plan for invading Iraq even before he said he decided to do it. That proves he intended to invade all along, and never considered other options."

No. It means he was prepared ahead of time for what he might have to do.

And isn't one of the big complaints we keep hearing that the federal government DOESN'T have enough plans? No plan for Iraq after the invasion. No plan for a flooded New Orleans.

"There should have been a plan!" That's the cry we hear. But why should there be a plan? Wouldn't that suggest that Bush had decided to flood New Orleans long ago, and never really considered having his hurricane miss the Crescent City? (That must have been quite a sight, Old George out there in the Gulf with a big fan, whipping up Hurricane Katrina.)

Friday, September 9, 2005

Doomed to Repeat Our Mistakes?
We seem to have trouble learning from past mistakes. And no, in this case I'm not even talking about building cities in areas prone to flooding.

I've heard that some gas stations are being plagued by a problem with their pumps. It seems that their pumps are not able to be set for a price of $3 or higher -- $2.99 is as high as they can go. Why this should be, I don't know, since it's not as though a place for an extra digit needs to be added. Some stations are dealing with this, I hear, by setting the measure to half a gallon, and then setting the price at half of the gallon price.

Deja vu all over again.

This is the same problem that hit stations more than a quarter century ago when prices first topped $1. Many pumps had been designed so that they had only places for two digits for cents, so they could go only up to 99 cents (for simplicity, let's just forget about the 9/10 part).

Why on earth would anyone design a pump that could go to 2.99, but not advance to 3-9 in the dollars' place? Makes no sense.

Six years back we were hearing about a problem with gravestones. When a spouse was buried, some stones had also been engraved with the surviving spouse's year of birth, and 19(blank) for the date of death, with the final two digits to be filled in when necessary. Trouble was, some of those survivors were still living and expecting to see the year 2000!

The really strange part is, they should have known better. I read where one old timer in the business said his father had told him they had the same problem when the year 1900 came around!

People just don't learn, do they? (And I didn't even mention that "little" Y2K problem with the computers that had only two digits for the year.)

Thursday, September 8, 2005

Those Who Can't... Report
There's an old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." I think that's unfair to teachers. But I think we can apply it to someone else:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, report and second guess."

I say this because of the mainstream media's fixation on passing out blame for Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Maureen Dowd pretty much comes right out and says that President Bush personally killed people: "W drove his budget-cutting Chevy to the levee, and it wasn't dry. Bye, bye, American lives."

New Orleans was founded in 1718, but somehow, the fact that it sits below sea-level, waiting for a disaster to happen, isn't relevant until 2001, when George W. Bush becomes president? Bill Clinton didn't act to prevent this disaster. George H.W. Bush didn't act to prevent this disaster. Ronald Reagan didn't act to prevent this disaster. Jimmy Carter didn't act to prevent this disaster. Gerald Ford didn't act to prevent this disaster. Richard Nixon didn't act to prevent this disaster. Lyndon Johnson didn't act to prevent this disaster. John F. Kennedy didn't act to prevent this disaster. Dwight Eisenhower didn't act to prevent this disaster. Harry Truman didn't act to prevent this disaster. Not even the Democrats' favorite president, FDR, with all his New Deal public works projects, acted to prevent this disaster. I could go all the way back to President Thomas Jefferson, who purchased New Orleans from France in 1803.

But somehow, President Bush is personally responsible?

The media ask, Why didn't the government do something to prevent this? I ask, Why didn't the media do something?

I read years ago that this very disaster could happen. Why didn't the media continue to report the story? Why didn't Dan Rather begin each newscast from 1993 through 2000 with, "Good evening. The Clinton administration again today failed to act to prevent the destruction of the city of New Orleans"?

They knew. But they ignored it.

They'll say, "But it wasn't a story then." I say, if it wasn't a story then, then it's not a story now. If the story is that the government didn't do something, then it was a story while the government was not doing something. If the media -- and the populace, including those in New Orleans -- didn't think the issue was worth caring about before, how can they blame the federal government for feeling the same way?

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Blame, Blame, Blame
Local government officials find it easy to blame Washington for the disaster in New Orleans. But despite Andy Borowitz's humor, Washington finds it difficult to reciprocate. After all, that would be blaming the victim, and besides, everyone hates the federal government, anyway.

But read this Wall Street Journal editorial explaining how New Orleans mayor Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco blew it.

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Blame and "Refugees": Not Everything is Black or White
Now I hear there is a flap about whether people fleeing New Orleans should be called "refugees." Some blacks say "refugees" has a negative connotation, and it's racist because so many of the (people who used to live in New Orleans but now have gone somewhere else) are black.

I wondered, what does the dictionary say? So I looked up "refugee," and here's what I found:

"Refugee: One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution."

Interestingly, this specifically mentions reasons other than natural disaster. That suggests that the CONNOTATION of the word might make it not the best word to use in this situation, although based on the DENOTATION, it doesn't exclude these people.

But, it also says that a "refugee" is one who flees in search of refuge. How is "refuge" defined:

Refuge: Protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship. 2. A place providing protection or shelter. 3. A source of help, relief, or comfort in times of trouble.

I'd have to say the folks fleeing New Orleans are seeking shelter from danger and hardship. They need protection. That would make them "refugees."

Bottom line: It depends how you look at it. There is no definitive right or wrong here. If use of the word "refugees" distracts us from the real issue, then let's not use it.

[I've just heard a radio talk show caller trying to give a lesson on proper word usage in this situation. But he says we shouldn't call (people who used to live in New Orleans but now have gone somewhere else) "refugees" because of what that "infers." If he doesn't know the difference between "infers" and "implies" I don't think he's Mr. Language Expert.]

And one more thing, people don't have to come from another country to be "refugees."

Can't we forget all the black versus white crap and just get people some help?

A few nights ago, I saw people complaining on the "Nightline" TV news program that the reason they didn't get help sooner was that they were black. "We wouldn't be left in this situation if we were white," they claimed.

Monday on "Nightline," they visited Katrina victims in rural Mississippi. These victims claimed that they still had no help a week after the hurricane because they were rural, and FEMA cared only about the metropolitan areas. By the way, these "forgotten" people were white.

The lesson? When something terrible has happened to people, we can expect them to lash out and blame someone. But that doesn't mean their accusations are warranted. It's human nature to think we are the ones getting the short end of the stick. It starts when we are kids, and some people never get over it. Trauma like this only exacerbates the tendency.

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Appeasers Everywhere, But Appeasement Doesn't Work
A police officer died in the Twin Cities yesterday, hit by a fugitive trying to escape other officers in a chase at speeds up to 100 mph.

Officer Shawn Silvera of the Lino Lakes Police Department was laying out Stop Sticks designed to puncture the tires on the fugitive's car. Officer Silvera was off the roadway, but the fugitive veered off the road and hit him.

This follows another recent incident in which a civilian motorist was struck and killed by another fugitive fleeing police at high speeds.

Whether police should engage in these dangerous chases is the subject of much debate. It's easy to say, "It's not worth it." It's easy to say, "People would still be alive if the police didn't chase that guy." It's easy to say, "No high speed chases; someone might get killed."

But you know what that sort of thinking is? It's appeasement. It's the same as saying that we shouldn't be engaged in the Middle East, because if we didn't, soldiers and civilians wouldn't have died.

But if we just let the terrorists have free reign -- and they know it, if we let the bad guys escape the police -- and they know all they have to do is hit the gas and they'll get away, what will be the result?

More terrorism. More crime.

Decades ago, there were those who said, "Let Hitler have Poland," then "Let Hitler have France." In this country, there were many prepared to "Let Hitler have England."

But appeasement doesn't work. It's the same all the way on up from the playground bully to foreign policy. Giving the bully what he wants just increases his appetite for more. Appeasement is only a short-term solution. Long-term, you've got to stand up for what's right.

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

And Your Point, Again?
The final tallies are in, and Minnesota State Fair attendance this year was.... actually just a bit higher than last year.

Makes WCCO's whole "Why is Fair attendance down?" story rather pointless.

(Tip of the hat to Michele for the link.)

Wednesday, September 7, 2005

Exactly What "Should" the Response Be?
Regarding criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina, I have just one question: How does the response this time compare to the response the other times all of New Orleans has been flooded like this?

I'm just trying to get an idea of the "standard" response we usually get when a disaster of this magnitude happens. You know, so I can see if it's really any slower this time.

Tuesday, September 6, 2005

State Fair Follow-Up
(Read the Monday post immediately below this if you haven't done so already.)

I'm going to follow-up on my complaint about how my family was portrayed on the TV news yesterday. I've just recently sent my complaint to the station; hopefully it will get through to the news director. I'm torn between thinking I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, and feeling that I'm justifiably angry that I've been made to look foolish by being erroneously portrayed on TV by an incompetent "journalist." Maybe back when I was younger, a pretty face was all I required of a TV reporter. But these days, I expect some actual professional ability. Reporter Terri Gruca didn't get the reference when I joked that no one goes to the Fair anymore because it's too crowded -- not even when I tried to explain, "Like Yogi Berra would say." Clueless.

Other thoughts from the Fair:

--If the hot dog is "about" a foot long, is it OK to pay "about" $3.75 for it?

--A corn dog seller told me that when she started out 23 years ago, corn dogs sold for 85 cents. They are now $3. As I recall, 23 years ago, a gallon of gas went for about $1.30 -- 50 percent more than a corn dog. Today, that corn dog goes for $3! With a similar increase, gasoline would be about $4.50 a gallon! Yet, no one demands that the governor or the president do anything about high corn dog prices.

Monday, September 5, 2005

Don't Believe Everything You See on TV: Dave Quoted Out of Context to Fit the Pre-Written Story
1. I've long believed that all too often, news reporters -- especially TV news reporters -- first decide what the story is, then go out and get the sound bites to support it.

2. Many people quoted in news stories claim they have been misquoted, or that their quotes have been taken out of context.

I appeared on a TV news broadcast today, and I'm declaring WCCO-TV (channel 4) guilty on both counts. Here's what happened: