Midtopia

Midtopia

Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Fast train to irrelevancy

The state legislative session has ended, and the big news (as far as I'm concerned) is that the Central Corridor extension of the light rail system is on the front burner, and drawing strong public support.

Those who testified were asked to comment on a recently completed draft environmental impact study, and to say which transit option they want. Should light rail or bus rapid transit be the mode of transportation along University Ave.? Or do citizens want the status quo and keep the avenue the way it is, with car and bus traffic?

Overwhelmingly, those who testified said they wanted something different, and that light rail is their preferred mode.

Even more pleasant, from my point of view, is how marginalized the Taxpayers League has become on this and other issues.

The League, apparently undeterred by the unqualified success of the Hiawatha line, opposes the Central Corridor extension.

(They also oppose the Northstar Commuter Rail. Their analysis is flawed to start with -- subjecting rail lines to cost-benefit analyses that they don't direct at roads -- and their "build more roads" solution fails the history test.)

Why do they oppose the Central Corridor? They cite the cost, a negligable impact on traffic congestion and opposition by many business owners along the proposed route.

But the cost will be amortized over many years and many, many riders. And the point of light rail is to provide transportation options and slow the growth of traffic congestion; the Met Council, for instance, has never claimed that it would greatly reduce congestion.

And most business owners are concerned about business disruption during construction of the line; they're not opposed to the existence of the line itself. The loss of 660 parking spaces is a minor concern, since the line would carry far more people than that each day. It should be a boon for business, not a liability.

That might be why the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce supports the line. Apparently the Taxpayers League doesn't speak for most business owners.

But then, they never did. They've always represented a small and secretive cadre of backers. Their political influence peaked during the last gubernatorial election (with their "no new taxes" pledge). But then politicians got burned by that pledge, and the public support for mass transit projects became apparent. More directly, their credibility collapsed as their "solutions" became increasingly nonserious. Remember the transit strike, and the League's suggestion that it would be cheaper to buy every poor person a used car?

If we want the Twin Cities to grow in a sensible fashion, it needs to grow with mass transit in mind. And that means having the mass transit systems in place. It would be far more expensive and disruptive to wait another 10 or 20 years and try to graft a mass transit system on to a metro area that grew without regard for such a system. Focusing on the short-term costs is shortsighted. We're building for the future, and doing it with narrow, high-capacity rail lines instead of four-lane highways. It's smart, it's forward-looking and it exposes the pennywise nature of the Taxpayer's League.

, , , , , ,

Monday, May 08, 2006

The Bachmann deBachle

Centrisity has a nice roundup of opinion about the endorsement of Michelle Bachmann in the 6th District race.

I agree with his conclusion: Bachmann is the Minnesota GOP's Hillary Clinton, a polarizing figure who garners support and opposition in near-equal measures. By endorsing Bachmann over Krinkie and Knoblauch, the GOP has managed to turn a reliably Republican district into a contest.

And for what? it's not like Bachmann is worth going to the mat for. In fact, several conservative bloggers have already said that they're more worried about Bachmann than either of her likely Democratic opponents.

In a year when the GOP stands to lose control of one and maybe both houses of Congress, you'd think they'd make an effort to court the middle. I guess not.

Oh, well. It's hard to feel sympathy for them when they dig their own grave.

, , , ,

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Reflections on immigration

Yesterday's post on immigration drew 200 visitors to the site, eclipsing the old daily record of 140 or so. It also raised some questions that I will attempt to answer now, including "what do you know about immigration, you Minnesotan?" and general attacks on illegal immigrants as being poor, prone to crime, unwilling to learn our language, and retaining excessive affinity for their country of origin -- in short, being unwilling to assimilate.

Setting aside the odd logic of demanding assimiliation from illegal immigrants while simultaneous erecting legal barriers to doing so, here's my answer.

I spent four years living and working in Hudson County, New Jersey. It's right across the Hudson River from Manhattan, but it's worlds apart in many respects. Though areas of it, especially along the waterfront, are upscale, much of the county is poor and crime-ridden. The schools stink, the politicians are corrupt, the infrastructure is crumbling.

Why? Largely because for at least a hundred years it has been a main point of entry for immigrants.

The "old" immigrants were Italian and Polish. Then in the 1960s came the Cubans, followed by Dominicans and Puerto Ricans. Then came the Indians, the Bangladeshis, the Pakistanis, the Asians and Filipinos.

I could walk down the street and hear a dozen different languages. I passed people in traditional dress of their home countries. There was an Indian shopping district in Jersey City; Cubans and other Hispanics dominated Union City. Large areas of the county would have qualified as ghettos, where English was scarce and what you heard wafting from windows and doorways was Spanish, Hindu, Urdu, you name it.

Because that is the way it has always worked. Immigrants arrive and seek familiarity in an unfamiliar land. Polish, German and Italian ghettos thrived in major cities at various points in American history. Here in Minnesota, huge swaths of the state were settled by German and Swedish farmers; had you walked through those areas in their heyday you would have been hard pressed to tell what country you were in.

That's because assimilation is a generational effect. The first generation arrives. they are usually poor, and they never fully assimilate. They clump together in cultural groups; they cling to their homeland traditions. Ask any second- or third-generation immigrant and they can probably tell you about their grandmother or aunt who never learned English. Some people just won't.

The second generation is far more American, culturally, and fluent in English. By the third generation, assimilation is complete. This doesn't mean that they abandon their roots, by the way; they incorporate them into the ever-richer fabric of American identity.

Economically, too, it's a generational step. Hudson County is perennially poor because poor immigrants keep showing up and settling there. But look at any given wave and you see the progression. The first generation settles in Hudson County; but their kids and grandkids move up the ladder and out into the suburbs, making room for the next wave of immigrants.

So what people see in some illegal immigrants is exactly what this country has seen from immigrants since its founding. Assimilation probably is a bit easier these days, thanks to the globalization of English and the dominance of American commercial culture. But as always, the first generation will never fully fit in. Their kids will.

As for crime: Crime rates are related to economic situation more than anything else. If you're poor, you're more apt to find yourself in a situation where crime looks better than the alternatives. Illegal immigrants are, obviously, poor. Further, they face all sorts of legal barriers that legal immigrants do not. Ergo, they will have a higher crime rate than average. But that rate will be similar to the crime rate among legal citizens in the same economic bracket.

Illegal immigration needs to be addressed. But we don't help the debate when we fail to understand how assimilation works, or try to impugne the human worth of "them", or seek to hold illegal immigrants to an impossibly high standard that ignores demographics, then point to that failing as evidence that they are undesirables.

Let's address the main issue -- how will we get control of illegal immigration -- and leave off the stereotyping and bad math.

, , , , ,

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Closing the circle

In a recent post about voter ID requirements, I agreed with Katherine Kersten that a voter ID requirement was reasonable -- providing, I added, there was a fallback provision so that people without IDs could still vote, using provisional ballots, for example.

What I failed to do is explain exactly what the current voter ID bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Emmers and supported by Kersten, says.

Here's the text of the bill.

It requires a photo ID, period. No fallback options. No ID, no vote.

That constitutes an unreasonable barrier to voting, especially given that there's no evidence that voter fraud is a widespread problem now. If someone shows up to vote, they should be allowed to vote. If they don't have ID, their vote will only count once their right to vote has been confirmed. But they should not be turned away for lack of ID.

Given that shortcoming of Emmers' bill, it should either be amended or rejected.

, , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Sen. Bachmann exposed

A couple of blogger scoops about the flagbearer for discrimination in Minnesota.

Over at Always Right, Usually Correct, a conservative calls Bachmann a "coward" for refusing to face the truth face to face.

And Great Plains View notes a letter to the Pioneer Press debunking Bachmann's claim that she consulted her family before launching her anti-gay-marriage crusade.

With Phil Krinkie challenging her for the GOP nomination in the 6th Congressional District, I have high hopes that Bachmann won't be going to Washington. Now if only she can get voted out of the state Senate, too....

, , , ,

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

GOP looks to buy votes

Minnesota Republicans -- if they win the unnecessary legal dispute they created by calling the tobacco tax a fee -- want to use some of the revenue to provide a one-time payment to homeowners billed as "property-tax relief."

Great Plains View has a succinct opinion on the matter.

Me, I have a handful of thoughts:

1. A one-time payment is not "relief"; it's a bribe. Restoring cuts in state aid to cities is "relief."

2. Scheduling the payments to arrive three weeks before the general election is not coincidence. Nor should anyone be surprised that if the GOP doesn't win their unnecessary lawsuit, they can still claim that they "tried" to provide tax relief -- but those activist judges on the Supreme Court thwarted them.

3. Relief might not be necessary if the GOP-led state government hadn't decided to balance its budget by pushing costs down to counties and cities, forcing them to raise property taxes -- which, by the way, is one of the more regressive forms of taxation.

4. We've been down this road before, with Jesse Ventura. He rebated the state's rainy-day fund to taxpayers -- just before the economy turned south. When that rainy day came, we had no fund to help cushion the impact.

Prudent financial management says you put some money away in good times in order to help you get through the bad times without huge increases in taxes. Prudent financial management also says that if property taxes are a problem, you address the problem on an ongoing basis, not with a one-year stunt.

If the GOP is so concerned about my property tax bill, they can address their own starring role in its growth.

, , , ,

When government works

The state Senate yesterday approved a bill on identity theft. A similar bill is pending in the House.

What I like about this development is that it represents a fairly thoughtful approach amid a lot of hyperbole and noise about privacy. Given the intemperate proposals from the governor and attorney general, it would have been easy for the legislature to get stampeded into passing a bad bill. Instead, the Pawlenty/Hatch proposals appear dead.

The identity theft proposal is a particularly good one because, as the woman featured in the story says, it can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive to get false information out of your credit report, largely because the people with the power to remove it have almost no incentive for doing so quickly.

My wife and I were the victims of identity theft several years ago, and we still haven't gotten all the smirches off of our records. Trying to do so launched us on a merry-go-round of bureaucracy, with the credit bureaus saying the bank had to request that the information be removed, the bank saying it was the collection agency's responsibility, the collection agency saying they had asked the bank to remove it, the bank saying it had lost the records.... it went on and on.

Only laws with teeth can fix that problem for victims of such theft.

But general restrictions on access to government data are a different kettle of fish. For detailed discussions of why the governor's proposal is a bad one, go here and here.

, , , ,

Monday, April 10, 2006

Kersten on voting fraud

In previous posts I have excorciated Katherine Kersten for either being wrong or intellectually lazy. So it's only fair to point out that I largely agree with her column in today's paper. It is much too easy to vote illegally in Minnesota.

Does that mean it's a huge problem here? Not necessarily. But since the problem can be addressed with reasonable precautions, we should take them.

Kersten does a good job of laying out the issue, and the solution -- some form of photo ID or provisional ballots -- seems obvious. But Kersten, perhaps because of space limitations, doesn't really get into what we should do. She mentions a bill by Rep. Tom Emmer that would require a photo ID to vote; but all she does is ask "Is Emmer's bill perfect? Maybe not." She does not get into why she thinks it might not be perfect or what she would do instead.

The key is to have some sort of safeguard against fraud without raising undue barriers to voting. The electoral system hasn't collapsed with the current lenient rules, so draconian new rules aren't called for. Some form of photo ID, with a fallback option for people without such an ID, should do the trick.

As an aside, I wasn't impressed with Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer's complaint that she had no idea what had happened to the cases she referred to county attorneys. Her main point -- that there's no system for tracking vote-fraud cases -- is well taken. But her example is weak. She has the suspects' names, and knows which county attorneys she gave them to. How hard is it to pick up the phone and ask what became of the cases? Or look them up in the court database?

Minor nit, though. Kersten found a solid issue and wrote fairly thoughtfully about it. Good for her.

, , , , , ,

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Creative professions oppose gay-marriage ban

The Twin Cities is one of the few nationally recognized centers of the ad industry outside of New York and Los Angeles. Twin Cities ad offices have billings of about $2 billion a year, and provide thousands of well-paying jobs.

That's why we should care about the letter that 50 local ad agencies sent to Gov. Pawlenty.

The letter says that such a constitutional amendment could undermine a creative business climate, stifle recruitment and send the wrong message to potential clients.

The agencies are self-interested to a degree, since many creative fields such as advertising have a higher-than-average percentage of gay employees. But when that industry is a major part of the state economy, we all have an interest in it.

There's research that shows a correlation between a region's gay population and its cultural and economic vibrancy. One can debate the causality -- do concentrations of gays create such vibrancy, or does the vibrancy create an environment that is attractive to gays? -- but the correlation is clear.

A gay marriage ban is not only unjust; it would be economically damaging to the state, chasing away the sort of high-paying jobs that we should be trying to attract.

, , ,

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Senate kills gay marriage bill

As expected, the DFL-controlled Senate killed the proposed gay marriage amendment in committee, on a 5-4 party-line vote.

There was only one interesting twist:

Senators altered the proposed amendment so that it wouldn't have asked voters to strictly ban the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Instead, it would have prohibited judges from defining marriage in Minnesota, reserving that right for state legislators.

Though one Democrat supported that alteration, all five then proceeded to kill the amendment anyway.

That would almost have made the subsequent campaign interesting.

The DFL did the right thing, but of course they were self-interested as well. Without the amendment on the ballot, social conservatives have less reason to turn out on election day. And that's really what this whole thing was about: Republicans trying to use a wedge issue to get their supporters to the polls, and Democrats trying to foil them.

It cannot be said too often: whatever you think about gay marriage, this amendment is premature. Marriage, for better or worse, is still restricted to men and women in Minnesota. If and when that status is threatened, then we can talk about mucking with the state constitution. Until then, this is just noise, smoke and political grandstanding.

Sen. Michelle Bachmann, the amendment's main backer, has become a single-issue legislator. For that reason alone she should be sent packing in November.

As a side note, Bachmann's openly gay stepsister showed up at the hearing with her partner to "show that the issue affects all Minnesota families." That puts Bachmann in an elite group: antigay activists or politicians with gay relatives. The group includes Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, whose son Jamiel is gay. And Alan Keyes, whose daughter, Maya, is gay.

As Dick Cheney (whose daughter, Mary, is gay) demonstrates, having a gay relative usually makes you more sympathetic to their situation. With the exception of folks like Bachmann, it will get harder and harder to find support for antigay policies as more and more people realize that people they know and care about are gay. When someone makes Dick Cheney look sensitive by comparison, you know they have a compassion deficit.

, , , ,

Rating Jim Ramstad


I got a newsletter from my Congressman, Jim Ramstad, the other day. He has a reputation as a moderate Republican, no big suprise since he represents a suburban Minnesota district. But is it deserved?

In the newsletter he highlights his stance on various issues, carefully tailored to appeal to his constituents.

TERRORISM AND SECURITY
Expedite the training of Iraqi troops so we can bring our troops home. Supported Patriot Act extension. Supported border security legislation.
The first is the only logical course. The second I have more disagreements with, largely in the area of civil liberty protections. The last is simply a mess that I haven't made a decision on yet.

JOBS AND TAX RELIEF
Brags a lot about tax cuts, but curiously mentions nothing about the deficit....

HEALTH CARE AND MEDICARE
Supports altering the Medicare drug program to allow importation of drugs and price negotiations with drug companies. Wants to expand health savings accounts and enact medical liability reform.
Amen to the first; the second is fine but doesn't come anywhere close to being a solution for rising medical costs; the third is code for capping damages in lawsuits, which is simply a grudge against trial lawyers, who overwhelmingly support Democrats. For a variety of reasons, an arbitrary cap is a terrible idea.

EDUCATION
Supports requiring full federal funding for federal education mandates.
Amen.

ETHICS
Says all the right things, but really vague on the specifics. This is an issue where talk is far, far cheaper than action.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Voted for the energy bill and against ANWR drilling.
In Minnesota, supporting ANWR is political suicide. The energy bill wasn't any great shakes. The House version provided *no* incentives for alternative forms of electricity production while providing more than $6 billion for oil and gas incentives and research.

TRANSPORTATION
Supports the Northstar Corridor commuter train project and the Hiawatha light-rail line, both important steps toward a serious mass-transit system.

PROPERTY RIGHTS
Supports legislation limiting the power of eminent domain.
Generally a good idea as long as it isn't carried to an extreme.

Reading that list, I became curious about what he wasn't telling us about. So I looked him up on Thomas. Here's what I found.

Ramstad has sponsored 22 bills this session. Among them:

Supporting a free-trade pact with Taiwan;
A private bill to keep a Greek national, Konstantinos Ritos, from being deported;
A whole bunch of tax code and export law changes that appear designed to benefit state businesses;
Various crime-related bills;
Various bills extending health services for retirees.

Not a particularly distinguished list, but nothing really objectionable, either.

Okay, fine. So how did he vote? Let's turn to the scorecards.

ACLU: 9 percent
Public Citizen: 40 percent
League of Conservation Voters: 61 percent
Club for Growth: 50 percent, more or less

A whole slew of others are available at Project Vote Smart.

The summation: Ramstad is a right-leaning moderate, although he swims against the tide in some ways, such as his strong scores on environmental issues and poor scores from the NRA and other gun groups. Naturally I disagree with him on some specific issues, but overall he's the kind of politician I can support -- a moderate who doesn't toe his party line all the time. His legislative accomplishments are a bit lightweight for someone who has been in Congress for 16 years, but I'd rather have a less-active moderate than an overactive partisan.

, , ,

Gasohol vs. gasoline


Here in Minnesota, all gasoline is required to contain ethanol. If you're like me, you've probably wondered just what we accomplish by doing so. Is the total energy cost of ethanol lower than gasoline? What about greenhouse gasses?

Which is why I was glad to see a very straightforward commentary by biology professor Peter Wyckoff in Monday's Star Tribune.

The main point of the article is Wyckoff advocating that we start using switchgrass as a source of ethanol instead of corn. But for me the most interesting facts were these:

Weighing all the factors -- the fossil fuel needed to grow and ferment corn vs. the cost of drilling oil, the lower energy content of ethanol vs. gasoline (and the resulting lower mileage) -- ethanol helps, but not a whole lot. Gasoline containing 20 percent ethanol will cut a vehicle's total greenhouse emissions by about 2 percent.

That may not be much, but it's something. Unless ethanol costs significantly more -- and Wyckoff doesn't get into that -- increased ethanol use is worth pursuing.

But it does suggest that the strongest argument for ethanol is energy independence, not global warming. The more ethanol we use the less oil we need, which is an absolute good in my book. Because what we pay at the pump for a gallon of gasoline doesn't reflect the political, military and moral cost of that gallon. The sooner we can stop subsidizing repressively medieval regimes, the better.

, , , , , ,

Monday, April 03, 2006

Kersten on campus

I was going to write about today's Kersten column, but Great Plains View beat me to it.

The main point: I agree with Kersten. But so what?

, , , , ,

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Priorities

In today's Star Tribune, the legislative roundup notes that this week two major pieces of legislation will be considered.

What are they, you ask? Perhaps a budget bill. Perhaps a transportation bill. Or an education bill. Or perhaps something truly revolutionary, like a proposal to implement instant-runoff voting or apportion our electoral college votes between candidates, rather than give them all to whoever polls the most votes in the state.

Nope. None of that. The "major" legislation? A stadium for the University, and the gay-marriage amendment.

How did our priorities get this screwed up?

,,,

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Sideshows and substance

First we had Dean Johnson "sanding off" the truth. Now we have Gil Gutknecht in "Gettygate."

During a campaign appearance last week in Mankato, Gutknecht, a Rochester Republican, told a group of college students they could play as pivotal a role in defending Republican control of Congress as the 1st Minnesota did at Gettysburg, according to a report published Tuesday in the MSU Reporter, the Minnesota State University-Mankato student newspaper.

The 1st Minnesota saved the field for the Union forces July 2, 1863, by stepping into a breach in their line and repelling a Confederate assault. The unit lost 82 percent of its men in the process, the highest casualty rate of any Union regiment in any battle.

"To compare beating Democrats to defeating the Confederate Army is either an absurd display of historical ignorance or an insult to the intelligence of Minnesota," Melendez said in a news release under the headline "Gutknecht likens DFL Party to slaveholders." David Ruth, the party's communications director issued the release.

Oh, please.

There are times when both parties try to tar the other with racist associations. The most egregious is the use of "plantation" imagery, which Republicans often use to describe Democrat domination of the black vote, and which Hillary Clinton used to describe Republican control of the Senate.

But a reference to a pivotal battle in the Civil War hardly likens DFLers to slaveholders.

Personally, if I were one of the college students so addressed, I'd be a bit concerned by that 82 percent casualty rate. I didn't realize human-wave attacks were part of the Republican electoral strategy. And don't Democrats support gun control? I had no idea Dems could do so much damage with their bare hands.

While the parties distract everyone with sideshows like this, a state House committee approved a University of Minnesota stadium plan that includes a $50-per-year fee increase for students, and both the Senate and the House are considering bills to keep the identity of University presidential candidates secret, among all the other bills awaiting action this session.

Dustups are fun, but they're not important.

, , , ,

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

State Senate passes eminent domain bill

As part of the continuing backlash over the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, the Minnesota legislature is considering bills that would limit the use of the government's property-taking power. The Senate version passed yesterday; the House version is expected to reach the floor in a week or so.

The bill would bar cities and counties from taking private property simply to increase their tax base or create jobs.

Local governments still could condemn property for "public use," such as roads, parks or school buildings. They also could use eminent domain to redevelop blighted urban and environmentally contaminated areas. But such areas would be much more tightly defined in law.

The bill is sponsored by a DFLer, Thomas Bakk, but has strong bipartisan support; it passed 64-2.

Eminent domain can be a delicate subject, because while the power is clearly needed and appropriate in most cases, it can easily be abused. The developing consensus seems to (rightly) be that taking private property simply to increase a city's tax base is an inappropriate use.

But it shouldn't be taken too far. When buying up multiple parcels of land for a project, for example, one holdout landowner with unreasonable price demands should not be able to hold the entire project hostage. Sellers should expect a premium on their property, but extortion should not be rewarded.

The first step should be attempting to build the project without the holdout property. Failing that, cities ought to be able to use eminent domain to take the property and compensate the owner with a reasonable premium over fair market value.

Bakk's bill seems to recognize the difficult balance of interests at play. It seems carefully crafted and deserving of support. It may make redevelopment more difficult for some cities, but that's just too bad; if property rights are to mean something, government will often be inconvenienced.

, , , ,

Friday, March 24, 2006

Doran and the DFL

Kelly Doran dropped out of the race for governor today, leaving three DFLers -- Attorney General Mike Hatch and state Senators Becky Lourey and Steve Kelley -- vying for the chance to take on Gov. Tim Pawlenty in November.

Doran was always a bit of a long shot but he was spending serious money, and I liked his more centrist approach. With him gone the other three can avoid spending big bucks in the primary contest and keep their powder dry for the general election.

Pawlenty hasn't been a horrible governor, but he has spent a lot of time trying to recover from various mistakes, such as his "no new taxes" pledge, his various flirtations with social conservatives and the tobacco "it's a fee, it's a tax" debacle. He also must answer for the budget gimmicks used to balance the state budget, notably taking inflation into account for revenue projections but not for spending and pushing the tax burden down to local governments, effectively financing the budget with increased property taxes.

But the DFL needs to learn from past mistakes, too.

Confession time: I voted for Jesse Ventura. I didn't really mean to; but I got into the voting booth and just couldn't bring myself to pull the lever for either the colorless Skip Humphrey or the self-serving Norm Coleman. Ventura spoke bluntly, and generally expressed common sense. "How much harm could he do?" I asked myself, and thus did my part to force the Chinese to come up with a word for "feather boa."

The problem with the DFL in that election was that they nominated a party stalwart who had "earned" the nomination through his party work -- ignoring minor matters like electability.

Four years later, they did it again. Roger Moe was a nice guy, but he really gave no reason why he should win the governor's post. With Tim Penny splitting the vote, Pawlenty won another three-way race.

The question is, will the DFL make it a trifecta? Will Mike Hatch get the nod simply because he's been the party leader by default for the last four years?

Hatch is another generally good guy, but there's not a whole lot to point to in his stint as Attorney General that makes me say "man, that guy should be governor." Lourey and Kelley have their own problems, which I will get into as the primary race heats up. But at least they quicken my pulse a little bit.

Of course, the biggest fool in the story is state GOP honcho Ron Carey:

GOP state chairman Ron Carey said "the race for governor is now between four liberals and one common-sense reformer, Governor Pawlenty. ...[The] early exit from the race further underscores how difficult it is for centrists to find a warm welcome in a DFL Party dominated by far-left activists."

What a maroon. I'm not really sure why Carey acts like a clone of former RNC chief Ed Gillespie, but it barely worked for Ed, who had dozens of red states to draw support from. Mindless labeling might play well elsewhere, but in an educated swing state it's just mindless.

, , , , , , , , ,

Johnson dodges censure

The state Senate ethics subcommittee dropped a complaint against Majority Leader Dean Johnson on the condition he apologize.

Members of the Senate special subcommittee on ethics said they agreed to the deal in part because they feared they would never be able to determine whether Johnson or Supreme Court justices were telling the truth without being able to question the justices. They said they considered the possibility that justices could successfully claim they were immune from testifying before the legislature.

"We wanted to avoid a potential separations of power conflict," said Sen. Thomas Neuville, R-Northfield.

The panel, which has two DFLers and two Republican members, voted unanimously in favor of the deal after a two-hour closed session attended by Johnson, his attorney and two Republican critics.


Neuville's quote echoes the argument I made earlier about both parties having an interest in not going after the judiciary. The Republicans are now free to make hay with this in the upcoming elections, and they should. Johnson and the DFL can plausibly try to put this behind them. In any case it appears sanity has prevailed, with the DFL showing humility and the GOP showing restraint.

It'll be interesting to see if this is brought up during the debate/argument over the gay marriage amendment. If it does, it will be a mistake. That battle should be fought on the merits, not personal attacks on opponents.

, , , ,

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Easter Bunny gets booted in St. Paul

In what will surely be touted as yet another example of the "war" on religion, Easter decorations in the St. Paul City Council offices were taken down after questions were raised about whether it was appropriate to recognize the Christian holiday.

A toy rabbit decorating the entrance of the St. Paul City Council offices went hop-hop-hoppin' on down the bunny trail Wednesday after the city's human rights director said non-Christians might be offended by it.

The decorations — including the stuffed rabbit, Easter eggs and a handcrafted sign saying "Happy Easter," but nothing depicting the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection — were put up this week in the office of the City Council by a council secretary.

Now before people get totally bent out of shape, let's point out that nobody complained; the city's human-rights director simply raised the question of "is this appropriate?", and they decided it was not. This is an incident of trying to be sensitive to other beliefs, not caving to pressure or litigation.

We should also acknowledge two other things:

1. This is not a constitutional issue. A bunny and a "Happy Easter" sign put up by a municipal worker without city money or approval doesn't really amount to establishment of religion.

2. The sensitivity issue was overblown, inasmuch as there was expressed concern that a non-Christian might be "offended" by the display. I'm sure someone could get offended by it, but I don't think such a person would meet the "reasonable person" standard so common in law.

All that said, taking down the display was the right thing to do. It's not a matter of law; it's a matter of simple human courtesy.

Religion is a part of society. It has no more and no fewer rights than any other form of expression. A municipal worker who is allowed to put up a "Go Vikings!" sign in their cubicle is equally allowed to put up a "Jesus Saves" sign.

But religion is unique when it comes to perceived government sponsorship. City Hall can hang a 50-foot banner out front saying "Go Vikings!"; they would be way out of line to hang a similar banner saying "Jesus saves."

Between those clear examples lies a vast gray area, where what is appropriate is open to debate, subject to context and personal preference.

Government has a right to acknowledge religion's role in society. And there's no real problem with marking religious holidays, as they are part of society, too. The problem comes when government only acknowledges a single religion, or gives clear preference to a single religion, or when they are driven by religious motivations and not a more neutral one.

In the St. Paul case, I highly doubt that non-Christian holidays get the same routine celebratory treatment that Christian holidays do. To some extent that reflects the fact that we are still a majority Christian country; but where government is involved, caution and sensitivity are called for. Not for fear of offending non-Christians, but so as to make clear that we are a government for all faiths, not just one.

Governmental units should commemorate all major holidays of major faiths, or none of them. Or come up with a religion-neutral criteria for choosing. Acknowledge religious contributions to society for their contributions, not their religion.

In our increasingly multireligious society, anything else is simply rude. The St. Paul display was absolutely minor; it was unlikely to offend anyone. But the principles that led to the decision to take it down were absolutely correct.

, , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Dean Johnson: Lie vs. lie

The Dean Johnson blowup continues -- fanned by Republicans and gay marriage opponents, downplayed by Democrats.

Chief Justice Russell Anderson adds the latest fuel:

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Russell Anderson on Monday said flatly that no member of the court -- including former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz -- ever spoke to Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson about the state's marriage laws.

"This just never happened," Anderson said.

If true -- and we should keep in mind that the judiciary has a selfish interest in preserving its own reputation -- then Johnson just flat-out lied when talking to pastors about gay marriage. Further, his evolving retractions of that January statement appear to contain ever-finer shades of truth.

None of this is making Johnson look good, and it shouldn't. He should be taking to heart the high price one pays for playing games with the truth.

But does this really change anything? No. No one is accusing Johnson of habitual lying, or fraud, or using his office to commit crimes or enrich himself.

He should be embarassed. He should be contrite. It should be brought up during his re-election campaign so that voters have a chance to make their views on the subject known.

But should he resign, as anti-gay-marriage groups are calling for? No. That's for voters to decide, and it speaks poorly of the marriage-amendment lobby that they would push for such an extreme sanction. Tom DeLay still has his seat -- and he's been charged with actual crimes. Only intemperate voices called for him to quit Congress.

Should Johnson resign his leadership post, as some Republicans have suggested? That is a slightly more reasonable course, but again, no. A single lie that does not involve a substantive wrong does not deserve that punishment. And Republicans should be wary about pushing for that too vigorously, lest they invite close scrutiny of every statement they've ever made to see how closely they track with reality.

I expect my politicans to tell the truth, but I also recognize that they are human. And while they need to be held to a higher standard, the punishment should fit the crime. In my book, the ongoing flogging that Johnson is getting constitutes appropriate and sufficient punishment, with voters getting the chance to render final judgement on election day.

Finally, the most interesting thing to me are the political calculations being made -- calculations that could end up forcing Johnson to fall on his sword even if it turns out that he didn't lie in January.

When it gets down to it, either Johnson or at least one justice is lying. Unfortunately for Johnson, everyone -- including Johnson -- has a strong interest in protecting the reputation of the state Supreme Court. People expect partisanship from politicians, but expect their judges to be neutral arbitrators. Faith in that concept is one of the key supports of the balance-of-powers system.

Republicans, whatever they may actually think about "activist" judges, find it convenient to treat the justices as unimpeachably honest in this case, because their real target is Johnson. Johnson and the Democrats, for their part, cannot defend themselves without either slandering the judiciary or revealing and destroying any actual sympathies that might exist between some justices and the DFL. Either course would ultimately hurt the DFL more than it would help them.

As long as they don't overplay their hand, the Republicans have a win-win situation here. But the rest of us should be aware that this is largely a minor political game. Weigh Johnson's lie against his 36 years of service and make up your own mind, without undue input from either Republican attackers or DFL defenders.

, , , ,