Really and truly happy that I let my subscription to the Star Tribune lapse.

I don't want to be held responsible for paying this guy's salary. Read the whole thing. If for no other reason than the novelty of having your eyebrows hit your hairline.

I find it absolutely breathtaking that a columnist of Coleman's (supposed) lofty reputation gets to vent his spleen in such an incontinent way across the Strib's Metro section. Think about it. If it had been a conservative columnist (like the Strib would employ one of those, but work with me here) who'd ragged on Kos like Coleman ragged on Powerline, I bet that column would have been in the bin before the ink was dry.

Where were the freakin' editors? Probably giggling and snorting with glee over the conference room table, not realizing that it's probably not a good idea to piss these guys off. After all, what's a law degree for if not to provide a really good reason to sue the pants off a newspaper for libel. (further footnote can be found here) I compliment the Powerline guys for handling this in such a classy way. I don't know that if I were baselessly accused of the same things that I'd be able to hold my temper.

Although, I do kind of wish they'd get ticked off and do something to hold Coleman accountable. And I think I have an idea of how to do that, provided I may be so bold. When I first moved to the Twin Cities, I worked for a large law firm downtown. I had flexible hours and late one night, I was walking back from the office to my car and had to pass by the Lutheran Brotherhood building. I was surprised to see five separate camera banks set up on the sidewalks outside the building in what was a deserted downtown. I wondered what was going on, and hurried home to catch the news.

Turns out that before I'd even moved here, WCCO-TV---the local CBS affiliate---had produced a series of investigative reports about Northwest Airlines safety practices. NWA had thought these reports painted a distorted picture and had sued. Instead of taking it through the worst of the court system, the case wound up at the Minnesota News Council. The News Council takes complaints from ordinary citizens who feel wronged by the press. They hold hearings and decide whether or not the news organization is at fault. While essentially a shortcut around libel laws it nonetheless lets displeasure with a media outlet be known. In the NWA case, while financial damages were now off the table, some big journalistic poobahs were rolled out to rule on what were, effectively, purposefully distorted camera shots in the promos that gave the wrong impression to the viewer. If this sounds familiar it's probably because Mike Wallace flew in for the hearing and reported on it for 60 Minutes. While WCCO was found to be less than honest in its reporting and the station did win an Emmy for the series, WCCO's golden reputation was tarnished nonetheless.

It would be nice to see the same thing happen to Coleman. If for no other reason than he would be forced to retract his statements or at the very least be held accountable for them.

I hope they file a complaint.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 3 kb.

Lionel Shriver in today's Opinion Journal:

{...}Freedom of speech that does not embrace the right to offend is a farce. The stipulation that you may say whatever you like so long as you don't hurt anyone's feelings canonizes the milquetoast homily, "If you can't say anything nice. . . ." Since rare is the sentiment that does not incense someone, rest assured that in that instance you don't say anything at all.
The concept of religious "tolerance" seems to be warping apace these days, and we appear to forget that commonly one tolerates through gritted teeth. It is rapidly becoming accepted social cant that to "tolerate" other people's religions is to accord them respect. In fact, respect for one's beliefs is gradually achieving the status of a hallowed "human right."

I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it is not an entitlement. I may regard creationists as plain wrong, which would make holding their beliefs in high regard nonsensical. In kind, if I proclaim on a street corner that a certain Japanese beetle in my back garden is the new Messiah, you are also within your rights to ridicule me as a fruitcake.

The fact that we have to be free to outrage one another is potentially in conflict with a law that soon will be put to the Commons that would add "incitement to religious hatred"--punishable by seven years in prison--to the equally dubious legislation already on the British books banning "incitement to racial hatred." Laws that prohibit incitement to illegal action seem defensible enough. But with this and similar "hate crime" legislation, are we not on the way to classifying hatred itself as a crime? And while we are at it, should we not then criminalize envy and narcissism for also being antisocial states of mind? Moreover, what is the difference between "incitement to hatred" and "incitement to fierce dislike"? Or "incitement to mockery"?

{...}Apparently contemporary "tolerance" does not merely allow others to practice whatever goofy or incomprehensible religion they like--and sometimes with a rolled eye--but surrounds any faith with a hands-off halo of sanctity, so that whatever is sacred to you must also be sacred to me. Disquietingly, this halo in Britain may be enshrined into law. Worse, today's exaggeratedly deferent brand of tolerance is driven by a darker force than mere let's-all-get-along multiculturalism, and that is fear. In the post-9/11 world, we are arriving at an unspoken understanding that zealots in our midst must not be offended, lest in their indignation they do something horrible.{...}

(my emphasis)

Can I get an "Amen"?

While I'm generally a believer in keeping one's mouth shut when one has nothing nice to say, Shriver's got a point that this inclination should not be legislated, but rather personally regulated. I find it incredibly interesting that, of all the places to experience the vast depths of turmoil due to religion, the English appear to have forgotten their history. One can only hope that this bill that's being presented to Commons will go down in a blaze of secularist glory.

After all, what would Henry VIII think of such rubbish legislation?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

Fausta, who conveniently is able to watch France 2---and who can understand it, too---has the scoop on the release of French journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot, who have been held hostage in Iraq since this summer.

What's interesting is that there are some internal rumblings that appear to be variating from Chirac's "Diplomacy is Job One" line. They're doubting themselves, in other words, because the government had, as best as I can figure, nothing to do with the release.

I'll be interested to hear about their experiences when they finally speak out. If their release is just another product of Fallujah, well, I'll be expecting a big ol' "Merci bou coup!" from Blaque Jacques.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been waiting for someone to deliver a slap of the demoralizing sort upside the very fat head of James Wolcott.

Lileks delivers.

Be gone.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I suppose, on one of them thar' sidebars, I should publish a warning that if you send me a stupid email, it will henceforth be published and subjected to harsh mockery. Well, I don't have any such warning posted. Pfft. Like that's gonna stop me.

While I've never had the need to publish such a warning---mainly because the Cake Eater mailbox has, mostly, been an unloved, ignored place---today has proved to be the exception to the rule. After all, it's not everyday you receive an email heralding that, since you have set yourself up as a vigorous opponent of Islamofascism, a fatwa has been issued against you.

Since whomever wrote this email has their wires crossed in such a way that they could light up Antarctica simply by blinking two times really fast, I feel the compulsion to have a little fun at their expense.

Let the mockery begin! more...

Posted by: Kathy at 09:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2522 words, total size 16 kb.

Mike Kinsley has put out a bleg via Sully:

My contention: Social Security privatization is not just unlikely to succeed, for various reasons that are subject to discussion. It is mathematically certain to fail. Discussion is pointless.

The usual case against privatization is that (1) millions of inexperienced investors may end up worse off, and (2) stocks don't necessarily do better than bonds over the long-run, as proponents assume.But privatization won't work for a better reason: it can't possibly work, even in theory. The logic is not very complicated.

1. To "work," privatization must generate more money for retirees than current arrangements. This bonus is supposed to be extra money in retirees' pockets and/or it is supposed to make up for a reduction in promised benefits, thus helping to close the looming revenue gap.

2. Where does this bonus come from? There are only two possibilities: from greater economic growth, or from other people.

3. Greater economic growth requires either more capital to invest, or smarter investment of the same amount of capital. Privatization will not lead to either of these.

a) If nothing else in the federal budget changes, every dollar deflected from the federal treasury into private social security accounts must be replaced by a dollar that the government raises in private markets. So the total pool of capital available for private investment remains the same.

b) The only change in decision-making about capital investment is that the decisions about some fraction of the capital stock will be made by people with little or no financial experience. Maybe this will not be the disaster that some critics predict. But there is no reason to think that it will actually increase the overall return on capital.

4. If the economy doesn't produce more than it otherwise would, the Social Security privatization bonus must come from other investors, in the form of a lower return.

a) This is in fact the implicit assumption behind the notion of putting Social Security money into stocks, instead of government bonds, because stocks have a better long-term return. The bonus will come from those saps who sell the stocks and buy the bonds.

b) In other words, privatization means betting the nation's most important social program on a theory that cannot be true unless many people are convinced that it's false.

c) Even if the theory is true, initially, privatization will make it false. The money newly available for private investment will bid up the price of (and thus lower the return on) stocks, while the government will need to raise the interest on bonds in order to attract replacement money.

d) In short, there is no way other investors can be tricked or induced into financing a higher return on Social Security.

5. If the privatization bonus cannot come from the existing economy, and cannot come from growth, it cannot exist. And therefore, privatization cannot work.

Q.E.D.

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong!

Kinsley works from two assumptions:
1. That Social Security should always be available.
2. That Social Security should always work the way it currently works.

Of course, if you look at it from his perspective, privatization looks likes a bad, unworkable idea.

I, however, work from these assumptions:

1. Social Security is the only legal pyramid scheme in this country. We pay out current recipients from current contributions. This is no way to run a retirement plan. If Wall Street offered this kind of a plan, and then ran it the way the government runs Social Security, the SEC would be all over them. Which is a moot point because no Wall Street firm would ever be allowed to run such a scheme in the first place because pyramid schemes are illegal.

2. Most people my age---thirty-four---do not believe Social Security will be available to us when we retire. We have accepted it and have planned accordingly. Moreover, we don't want Social Security to be available to us when we retire because we:

a. don't want to burden our descendants by forcing them to pay into a bankrupt system to support our aging carcasses.

b. it's our bloody money, not the government's. We're tired of dumping cash into a system that doesn't work and will not pay our grocery bill when we finally reach retirement age. Which, considering the government's habit of upping the eligibility age every few years, means I will, roughly, be around Methuselah's age when I qualify for membership.

Social Security needs a complete overhaul that will be pricey in the short term, but will enable it to survive. But an overhaul is only necessary if you believe that there is an inherent social contract between the citizen and the government to provide for a pension in the first place. I don't and that's because I don't believe the government will ever hold up its end. I don't trust the government to spend my tax dollars wisely. Why on earth would I trust my financial future to them, particularly when there are other options available?

It's all about choice. I could do a lot with the money that is currently in my Social Security account. If I lose it in a chancy investment, well, that's my fault. Like the losses we suffered in our 401K account when the market tanked a few years ago, I won't whine and moan about holding someone accountable for what was a market fluctuation. I fully understand what it means to invest in the stock market: it's about as chancy as placing your all your chips on the spin of a roulette wheel. The difference between that spin and Social Security is that I at least have a chance at a return on my investment with the roulette wheel, whereas with Social Security, I know I'm not going to ever see dime one. I'd rather take my chances with the stock market, and as it's my money, and not the government's, I fail to see where they get off denying me the opportunity to do just that. Moreover, that they would deny me this opportunity because the faulty house of cards they've built would collapse if privatization were ever to come to pass is insulting. They're covering their asses with my retirement money and that pisses me off more than Kinsley will ever know.

If Social Security were investigated by the SEC, it would be shut down in a New York Minute. I fail to see why I should be legally required to keep throwing my money into a failed system. It does no one any good in the long run to keep blathering on about the worthiness of a "social contract," when the real issue at hand is the breach of the current social contract by blatant mismanagement.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1130 words, total size 7 kb.

Bill Kristol has unwittingly joined a group of accomplished individuals: people possessed of a unique speaking style, who, when they write something and I sit down to read it, I hear their voices on my own inner stereo system.

Does that make any sense? No? I'll try to simplify. When I read these pieces, I hear the author narrating them, rather than just being able to read the text. I have my own internal audio-book narrator library.

Mr. Kristol is now in league with Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher and William F. Buckely, Jr. Distinct voices all. Ever tried to read one of Buckley's Blackford Oakes novels? Ever tried to focus on these works of fiction, where the character has his own unique voice, without Buckely's part English/part Connecticut-boarding-school-boy accent horning in? It's hard. Same goes for Kissinger, whose doctoral dissertation I had to read for undergrad political science coursework. I barely made it through it: not because the subject matter was boring---hardly, but rather because if there's anyone who can put you to right to sleep with the droning, monotone quality of their voice it's Henry. Maggie Thatcher gets a little annoying because she's just so righteous. You should hear her narrate the passages in The Downing Street Years devoted to trade unions. Wow, did they ever piss her off.

I just realized this as I read this WaPo piece. I am undecided about two things. First, if Rummy really needs to go as Kristol asserts. Second, if I like having him inside my head when I read his work.

Hmmph.

{hat tip: Galley Slaves}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

But I'm gonna do it anyway. But rather with a cattle prod. Less chance of it coming back to bite me in the ass.

Everyone's favorite commie pinko appears to be in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Not because that's the right and just thing to do, but rather because it's inefficient and doesn't serve as a deterrant.

In theory, I favor capital punishment. "An eye for an eye .. a life for a life," has always seemed just to me. Deterrence? I don't know. Deterrence always sparks the most arguments. Historically, there was a practical, timely death penalty. On March 6, 1933, Guiseppe Zangara fired on FDR's motorcade, killing the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak. Within days he was indicted and tried. Found guilty, he was executed on March 20, two weeks after gunning down Mayor Cermak. If that's what we had now, I would favor its continuation. Prompt and consistently imposed execution might have been a deterrent.

But that is not what we have; instead we have an rarely imposed, lengthily delayed death sentence. In 2003, Amnesty Int'l reported 65 executions in the United States. How many murders in 2002? 16,204. So, if you murder someone in the United States, your chance of being executed eventually is four-tenths of one percent. "Eventually?" In Florida, a state that actually uses its electric chair, notes that the average stay on death row is almost 12 years.

Let's face it comrades, the Left has won this debate. Capital punishment has been outlawed throughout the Western world, leaving the U.S. in the dubious company of China, Iran, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, et al. Here in the U.S. death penalty opponents, in lieu of actually eliminating capital punishment, have raised nearly-insuperable obstacles to every instance of its application. Timothy McVeigh practically had to volunteer. Will Scott Peterson ever walk the green mile?

I think he's got a point. Commie pinko leanings notwithstanding.

I've lived in states where the death penalty is an option and I've lived in states where it isn't. In my experience, the death penalty is more of a political tool than it is about actually deterring people from killing other people.

You'll pardon the expression, but it's all in the execution.

It's not about right and wrong, per se, in the politicians eyes: it's about finding a way to protect their civilians. A rising crime rate, or one particularly shocking murder, will bring about the death penalty conversations and how much safer things were in the good ol' days when they had the opportunity to fry someone for a heinous crime. Some will come out strongly in favor of having the ability to execute the offender. Some will vehemently deny that the system has any right to "murder" someone, and will protest that someone who is innocent might be executed. In other words, it's all about the level of faith politicians have in the system. Death penalty advocates believe the system, despite its flaws, works. Death penalty protesters believe the system is too flawed to take such a chance.

And this argument always, it seems to me, swirls around in an atmosphere of panic and hysteria. Because we never really do talk about the death penalty when things are happy and people aren't being murdered left and right, do we? Nope. We're procrastinators: we wait until things are bad before we start speaking of it. This atmosphere does not lend itself to rational thought, hence this is precisely when the politicians jump in.

I don't know about you, but I don't want professional politicians deciding this one. Sounds undemocratic, I'm sure, but hey...someone's life is one the line here. Namely mine. If the theory behind capital punishment is that it's a deterrant, well, we're in trouble, kids. Because the American variant of capital punishment is nothing but a big waste of time and money. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1242 words, total size 7 kb.

For all the time and effort I expend on covering Minnesota's political scene, you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, would think that I wasn't very interested in the whole thing.

And you would be right.

I have absolutely no tolerance for Minnesota politics. It bores me to tears because it's so damn predictable. Once in a long while you'll get a Jesse Ventura who will make things interesting, but for the most part...pfft. You have your DFL'ers, who want socialism. You have your Republicans who are cheesed at anything the DFL'ers want and who have just enough clout to ensure a deadlock at the legislature. It's just so, so...boring. Every legislature session is exactly the same. There's nothing new in this battle of (supposed) wits that makes me want to pay attention. About the most worked up I ever got about Minnesota politics was wondering whether or not to yell at Ted Mondale (Former Met Council Chair and ex-VP's son) and Mike Erlandson (the State DFL Chair and a major brownnoser) as they worked out on the elliptical machines next to me at my old health club. I opted not to. It would have been too much work and I was out of breath as it was.

But I do pay some attention, because I live here. The fact that the state is trending right and will eventually go majority Republican, despite our much vaunted Scandahoovian Socialist roots, is also interesting. With a 77% turnout, Kerry only won the state by 98,000 votes. Which really isn't interesting to people who don't live here and assume we are, indeed, a bastion of Scandahoovian-rooted liberality. But if you do live here, you would have assumed simply by the biased coverage we get from our newspapers that it should have been a much greater spread.

But there is interesting news on the political front regarding Senator Dayton's re-election effort and who Normy Boy (TM) is---potentially---endorsing as his opponent.

Courtesy of First Ring, who apparently snuck into Normy Boy's (TM) fundraiser in St. Paul the other night:

{...}Not to be undone in the speculations market, Coleman also offered an endorsement, of sorts, to Congressman Mark Kennedy, on the U.S. Senate campaign in 2006.

”I’m an ambitious guy and I think that ambition is okay. I have one ambition that I’d like you to help me with and that’s to become Minnesota’s senior senate in 2006. I saw Mark Kennedy tonight…and I think Mark is one of those people who could make that possible.” Coleman’s comments were loudly cheered with shouts of “Senator Kennedy” from individuals in the room. The Second District’s John Kline also said a few words, indirectly endorsing Kennedy when asked who he thought the Republican nominee would be against Evacuatin’ Dayton.

Kennedy himself was mum on the subject. That may change sooner rather than later.

Ruminations on the possibility of this after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1486 words, total size 9 kb.

It appears to be official: Yushchenko is a victim of poisoning.

{...} A series of tests run over the past 24 hours provided conclusive evidence of the poisoning, Zimpfer said.

"There is no doubt about the fact that Mr. Yushchenko's disease — especially following the results of the blood work — has been caused by a case of poisoning by dioxin," Zimpfer said.

The 50-year-old opposition leader first fell ill in September and was rushed to the Vienna hospital. He resumed campaigning later in the month but his mysterious illness had left his face pockmarked and ashen.

Yushchcenko also suffered back pain, acute pancreatitis and nerve paralysis on the left side of his face.

He has accused Ukrainian authorities of trying to poison him ahead of Ukraine's presidential vote — an allegation they have denied.

"We suspect involvement of an external party, but we cannot answer as to who cooked what or who was with him while he ate," Zimpfer said, adding that tests showed the dioxin was taken orally.

Zimpfer said Yushchenko's blood and tissue registered concentrations of dioxin — one of the most toxic chemicals — that were 1,000 times above normal levels.

"It would be quite easy to administer this amount in a soup," Zimpfer said.

So, persons unknown dumped dioxin into his soup in an attempt to poison him.

What I want to know is this: are we going to be going back to the days of food testers? You know what I'm talking about: some expendable soul being forced to eat the King's food to see if it's been poisoned? Are we really back to that?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, joy. The politics of keeping Kofi Annan in charge so we can get to the bottom of the Oil for Food catastrophe.

{...}In what the US State Department said was a carefully orchestrated message, US ambassador John Danforth voiced confidence in the embattled Annan at a time when Washington needs UN help to organise Iraqi elections next month.

"We are not suggesting the resignation or pushing for the resignation of the secretary general," said Danforth, whose previous non-commital remarks had set off speculation that Washington wanted Annan's ouster.

"No one, to my knowledge, has cast doubt on the personal integrity of the secretary general. No one. And we certainly don't," he said. "We are expressing confidence in the secretary general and in his continuing in office."

US President George W. Bush had also declined to speak out in favour of Annan, who has been buffeted by a string of embarrassing UN scandals and targeted with calls for resignation by some US lawmakers.

While other nations were quick to defend Annan, the United States -- the lone superpower that pays more into the UN budget than any other nation -- had been conspicuously silent.

I mean, that's the only logical conclusion I can come to other than to help Tony Blair in his upcoming elections.

Still.

It just reeks of quid pro quo, doesn't it? Bleh.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.