Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Can I Get a What, What?

No, no I cannot.

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

Ridiculous.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Hawaii musings

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.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Top Ten Fridays - Lessons From Tuesday

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.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Minneapolis 4th Ward Endorsements

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.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Frank Rich Melts Down

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.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Top Ten Fridays

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.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

An Open Letter to Blockbuster Video

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