State of Shutdown

Image via WikipediaThe age of partisan gridlock in Minnesota has reached a new nadir.  Democratic Governor Mark Dayton and the Republican legislative leaders have had six months to agree on a budget that would ease the state's $5 billion deficit.  Having found no middle ground between Dayton's wanting to tax the richest two percent and the GOP sticking to its "no new taxes" pledge, the state is (or will soon be by the time you see this) now under a partial government shutdown.

This is what will remain open, as per a Ramsey County judge's ruling:  State Patrol, prisons, tax collections, funding for the Legislature (including a special session), and payments to cities, counties and schools.

This is what will not remain open:  Highway construction projects, state parks, state lottery, Canterbury Park, tourism office, Minnesota Zoo, the State Capitol, historic sites, and places to get licenses and registrations.

Everybody loses no matter how this turns out.  Thousands of people will be added to the unemployment rolls.  The shutdown alone will cost Minnesotans millions of dollars.  And the inconvenience factor will be off the charts.

The GOP had better hope voters in 2012 have short memories of the shutdown, because their legislative seats are up next year.  Dayton's reputation may take a hit, but he's not up for re-election until 2014.  By then, he might decide that one term is enough.

The man most responsible for this mess is currently running for President, trying to get noticed.  What must Tim Pawlenty be thinking right now?

Oh, you poor, poor, pitiful creatures who inhabit the State Capitol.  All of your rigid political posturing and finger pointing has brought Minnesota to the brink of disaster, and you're acting like collective Neros fiddling away while the state burns.  You wanted limited government?  You've got it.  Just don't expect the rest of us to like it.

Corporatizing the Law

Image via WikipediaIs there any doubt that the current Supreme Court has become pro-business?  Aside from the fact that half of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents, creating a conservative majority, you could almost predict which way a case is going to go just by the court's makeup.  Here's a couple of examples:

• The Court ruled in favor of Walmart, denying a group of women the right to file a class action suit against the company on sex discrimination grounds.  The women sought billions of dollars in damages on behalf of the 1.5 million female employees who have worked there since 1998.  The Court found that that was too large in terms of numbers and dollars to sustain such a suit.  So if the women wish to continue the matter, they'll have to cut back on the amount of people and settle for smaller payouts, handled in those "buy-your-silence" agreements with the corporation's army of attorneys while little gets changed.
• The justices also struck down a California law that barred stores from selling violent video games to minors, on the grounds that it violates free speech.  Really?  So the latest game on your Xbox that depicts America being attacked by robotic aliens, or costumed mercenaries hacking their way through a crime-infested city is protected by the First Amendment?  There are ratings on those games which range from all ages to mature audiences, just like at your local multiplex.  But kids seem to prefer the mature stuff, just like they prefer to see R-rated movies.  As for the parents, they seem to think their kids can handle the violent content.  Or is it because they don't know or care?  Oh, just one more thing (as the late Peter Falk's Lt. Columbo used to say) . . . video games make more money than movies and music combined, according to CBS News.  So it wasn't as if the justices wanted to put the video game companies and its retailers out of business.

The next time the Supreme Court makes a ruling that favors Big Business over ordinary folks, check your Constitution to see if it's still valid.

Shell Game In Afghanistan

Image by Getty Images via @daylifePresident Barack Obama came a little bit closer to his campaign promise of bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a close.  He announced Wednesday night that he's pulling 10,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, with 20,000 more going home by next summer.

The President has been under a lot of pressure to wrap up the ten-year old war, which was made irrelevant by the death of Osama bin Laden (who was actually found in Pakistan).  Public opinion polls and some members of Congress seem to agree that fighting a meaningless war is costing too much, in terms of money and soldiers going home in body bags.  Besides, the economy needs a little pick-me-up.

Before anyone gets too excited, you should know that the President exhibited a little sleight-of-hand.  The number of soldiers he's bringing home just happens to be the same as the number he brought into Afghanistan as part of a 'surge', taking the advice of generals who believed the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be better controlled if there were more troops.  So there would still be 70,000-80,000 American soldiers, only now they'd be expected to help the Afghans defend their own country.  If all goes well, they could be back in this country by 2014 or thereabouts. (And that's a big if.)

Obama's also been making excuses about continuing American efforts to get Muammar Khadafy out of Libya under the NATO banner, even though he's just exceeded his authority under the War Powers Act by going past the 60-day mark.  Apparently, Khadafy doesn't operate on anyone's schedule other than his own.  And what President actually asks Congress for permission to declare war, unless it's a rubber-stamp vote?

People are rightfully sick of a war that ran its course a long time ago, with no discernible reason for it to go on other than to keep America safe from Al Qaeda.  When even that's fading, somebody will find a way to keep the war in Afghanistan going.  After all, it's only been a decade.

The "Countdown" Resumes

Image via WikipediaKeith Olbermann, who suddenly departed MSNBC last winter after yet another showdown with his bosses, resurfaced Monday night with a new version of "Countdown" on a previously obscure channel called Current TV.  (For our Minnesota readers, it is not to be confused with 89.3 The Current, an alternative music station owned by the 800-pound gorilla of public radio called MPR.)

Olbermann was back making fun of Republicans and Fox News, even if contributors Michael Moore, John Dean and Markos Moulitsas' butt-kissing the host during the first broadcast tended to be nauseating.  It's kind of surprising that "Countdown" and the "Worst Persons" segment made it through the transition, given NBC's peculiar attachment to "intellectual property" (just ask David Letterman).  But the "Oddball" segment of weird videos did get renamed "Time Marches On", which was probably borrowed from the old "March of Time" newsreels and radio program of the 1930s and '40s.  Not only that, but it uses an old Mutual Radio news theme as its background.

Even though Current TV has been on the air for a few years (it's partially owned by former Vice President Al Gore), it still looks like a startup channel that's harder to find than MSNBC.  What else is on there besides "Countdown"?  Documentaries, and lots of them.  In fact, this could have been called the Documentary Channel if someone else hadn't taken the name first.

Meanwhile, MSNBC claims to be doing just fine after Olbermann left, though the ratings are not what they once were.  Rachel Maddow has become the new voice of reason over there.  Lawrence O'Donnell, who inherited Olbermann's time period (and is now his competitor), managed to keep his job after dissing NBC for still doing business with Donald Trump while he was flirting with a White House run.  And Ed Schultz got suspended for a week for calling conservative commentator Laura Ingraham a derogatory name, for which he later apologized.

Moulitsas, the guy who runs the website Daily Kos, made headlines on Monday's broadcast by ripping MSNBC for allegedly letting Joe Scarborough influence what guests get on the network.  Apparently, Moulitsas must have offended Scarborough somehow because he says he hasn't been seen much on TV in about a year.  Olbermann extended his program past the top of the hour just to cover this bit of inside baseball. (Those three extra minutes are now permanent, in an effort to stick it to his old bosses at MSNBC, causing viewers to miss the first part of Maddow's show.)

It will be interesting to see how far Olbermann can go with his new platform.  As long as he doesn't challenge himself by inviting anyone with a different point of view onto his program, and as long as he gets along with his new bosses, he'll do fine.  Otherwise, he'll be counting himself out of another job.

Running Out of Time and Money

Image via WikipediaRemember watching those old movies where the damsel in distress is tied to the railroad track with a speeding train headed in her direction, only to be saved by the hero at the last second?

Now think of this same scenario with federal and state governments instead of the damsel, with politicians arguing over how best to rescue it.  Meanwhile, the train gets closer . . .

In a few weeks, the United States government will default on $14.3 trillion in loans unless Congress raises the debt ceiling for the umpteenth time.  Officials such as Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke have warned of dire consequences to the economy if this isn't done.

But like everything else in Washington, what needs to be done usually takes a back seat to partisan politics.  The Republicans want to see spending cuts of at least $2 trillion.  The Democrats say that's fine, so long as you don't touch Social Security, Medicare or any other entitlement program.

The same goes with state governments.  In Minnesota, if GOP legislators and Democratic governor Mark Dayton can't agree on a way to whack down the state's $6 billion budget shortfall by July 1, a shutdown is all but inevitable.

So far, both sides seem to care more about what services should remain open after the deadline instead of getting a deal done and ready for a special session.  Otherwise, the two sides remain far apart.

When you owe that much money to creditors such as China and Japan so that you can continue to provide employment and services to your fellow citizens, and you're having trouble paying it back, then there is clearly something wrong.  No one wants to face the truth over what to do about it.

We already have a fragile economy that's allegedly on the rebound.  Nine percent of Americans are unemployed, and the rest that do have jobs are afraid to spend the money they have.  Why make things worse when members of both parties can't agree on how to keep the states and the country from going bankrupt?

So what's it going to be?  Is someone going to ride in and save us all from a fate worse than death, or is that too much to ask in this day and age?  And why are we using movie cliches, anyway?

Politics 2012: Bachmann Gets Serious, Pawlenty Stumbles In Debate

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeOK, so the primary season isn't for another six months, the nominating conventions are next summer, and the election is in November 2012.  But the Republican presidential candidates held a debate anyway Monday night in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Seven hopefuls--Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain--went before the CNN cameras and an audience packed with supporters.  This was the first real debate of the campaign, if you don't count the one that Fox News did with only Pawlenty showing up among the wannabees.

It was your typical early-season made-for-TV political debate.  For two hours, all the candidates took potshots at President Barack Obama's record, and were in complete agreement on the major GOP talking points while routinely ignoring moderator John King's pleas to keep the answers brief.

Front-runner Romney won the debate just by showing up.  Nobody on the panel dared to contradict his record as Massachusetts governor to his face.

Congresswoman Bachmann stole a little thunder at the outset when she announced that she had filed papers with the Federal Election Committee, making her a candidate.  (The next day, it was also announced that Bachmann would not run for re-election in Minnesota's Sixth District.)  She impressed a lot of people by going through an entire debate without messing up, and messing up is usually what she does best.

Former Minnesota governor Pawlenty did not fare so well, looking like he didn't belong there.  He backed off of trying to explain his comment about "ObamneyCare", an assertion that Obama's and Romney's health care plans (which all the candidates, including Romney, vow to get rid of if they're elected) were similar.  Pawlenty also had to defend leaving a $6 billion budget shortfall to the new Democratic governor, Mark Dayton.

There were also the silly questions that were posed prior to the commercial breaks, intended to 'humanize' the candidates.  Who knew Bachmann had an Elvis Presley Christmas album on her iPod, Pawlenty preferred Coke to Pepsi, and Gingrich watches "American Idol"?  And the questions coming from Facebook users and ordinary folks were a lot more to-the-point than King's were.

If you missed the debate and watched something else instead (like, uh, Game Six of the Stanley Cup Finals on NBC?), don't worry.  You'll be seeing plenty more of these get-togethers as the campaign goes along, with the same candidates giving the same answers to the same questions from various news anchors.  Who knows?  One of those might actually end up in the White House instead of Barack Obama.

Sex, Lies and Politicians, Take 2

Image via WikipediaAnthony Weiner is a Democratic congressman who has been serving the citizens of his district in New York for seven terms, and has been mentioned as a possible candidate in 2013 for mayor of New York City.  Lately, though, he's become just another politician caught with his pants down.

Weiner has admitted to taking pictures of himself either shirtless or with a bulge in his underwear, then sending them to various women via Twitter.  He says he is not resigning, despite pleas from his party to do so.

To top it all off, Weiner's wife is pregnant with their first child.

This is why politicians are looked down upon by the general population.  Esteem for these public servants goes down every time they do something idiotic.  We say we want people with good moral character to run for public office.  But it's so expensive to run a campaign these days, so we get these guys instead.

Power corrupts and acts like an aphrodisiac.  Once you get elected, all sorts of temptations come your way.  It could be an individual or group waving money at you in exchange for favorable legislation.  It could be party pressure to vote their way on a certain issue instead of striking out on your own.  It could also be that hot-looking intern you've been dying to share a bed with, even though you already have a wife and a couple of kids who don't live in Washington with you.  Your challenge is to resist those temptations.  Not many succeed.

So far we've only mentioned male politicians who have been caught up in a career-threatening sex scandal.  Someday, we might be hearing about a female politician who's been sending pictures of her private parts through various social media, or has been having an affair with her best friend's husband.  This might indeed be happening, but women seem to be doing a better job of not getting caught.

However long Anthony Weiner is able to stay in Congress, he has become compromised.  Just like President Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and all the others from both sides of the aisle who yielded to temptation just because they felt they were invincible.  It may be a human trait, but it detracts from the job you were elected to do.  The voters, if they get the chance in 2012, might remind Weiner of this at the ballot box.

UPDATE:  Representative Weiner has announced that he's taking a leave of absence from his congressional duties to seek professional help.

Also, we caught an episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" over the weekend (the satellite company was offering a free preview).  In one segment, Maher and guest Jane Lynch of TV's "Glee" were reading from the sexually explicit correspondence Weiner allegedly sent.  We listened to a couple of minutes of it before deciding that (A) the mainstream media were correct in declining to report this, and (B) it was a couple of minutes too many.  Oh, and one more thing:  we saw this program on Saturday morning.  Just so you know, there's a time and place for that kind of humor, but not on a Saturday morning. 

Politics 2012: The Americans Are Coming! The Americans Are Coming!

Image via WikipediaWhether they run for the White House or not, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann have great futures as authors of alternative historical fiction.

That's the genre of literature in which a major historical event is turned into speculative fiction on what might have happened if things didn't turn out the way they did.  Such as:

• What if the Confederate Army had won the Civil War?
• What if Japan and/or Germany won World War II?
• What if the Cuban Missile Crisis had devolved into nuclear war?
• What if John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King had lived?
• What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Palin and Bachmann recently added to this illustrious canon with their statements regarding the American Revolution.  Palin said that Paul Revere had warned the British that the Redcoats were coming.  Bachmann said the first shots of the war were fired in Concord, New Hampshire.

Right town, wrong state, Congresswoman.  It was Concord, Massachusetts.  And even though Revere actually warned the American colonists on his midnight ride, Palin could technically be right because the colonists were British subjects at that point.

Not surprisingly, neither of these women are history buffs.  Palin went to four different colleges before getting her degree in communications (with an emphasis on journalism) from the University of Idaho.  Bachmann earned a Bachelor of Arts from Winona State in Minnesota, followed by law degrees from Oral Roberts University and William & Mary Law School.

Neither Palin nor Bachmann have officially announced their candidacy for the Republican nomination, but it doesn't matter.  Whatever they do and wherever they go, the two women provide entertainment for the "lamestream" media and the blogosphere no other GOP candidate can match.

But what does it say about our educational system when two high-profile female politicians, in the words of Sam Cooke, "don't know much about history"?  Women now make up a greater percentage of college graduates, but Palin and Bachmann are not the best examples.

Maybe someday, someone will write a novel speculating on what would have happened if either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann were elected President of the United States.  Or maybe it will become a reality.  Truth is stranger than fiction, you know.

Storm Coverage Chases Viewers Away

Image via WikipediaThis has been a year in which severe weather grabbed much of the national headlines, as tornadoes flatten a good chunk of the South from Oklahoma and Missouri to Alabama, leaving hundreds dead and millions of dollars in property damage.  The outbreaks have also spread north to Minnesota and Massachusetts.

Technology has evolved to the point where it's possible to pinpoint the exact location where a storm will hit next, giving the National Weather Service, local authorities and media plenty of time to warn folks of danger ahead.

So why do TV stations still persist in interrupting regular programming when only one part of their viewing area is affected by a dangerous storm?  This isn't 1980, when broadcasters had viewers all to themselves.  Today we have live streams on the Internet, digital subchannels and co-owned independent stations (also known as duopolies) that stations could move their network programming to when severe weather breaks.

But those stations won't do that.  If anyone complains that they're missing "Oprah" (as people in Little Rock did when ABC affiliate KATV chose weather coverage over Winfrey's last show) or some sports event, the station usually hides behind its "public service" mandate to keep its captive audience.  That's a rude, arrogant and condescending way of doing business.  These days, broadcasters can't afford to do that.

Is it really "public service" when you live in an area not affected by the storm or some other calamity, and your only choices are either changing the channel or reading a book?    Is alienating the audience for the sake of some geeky meteorologist showing off the Doppler that the station paid big money for also in the public interest?

Clearly something needs to be done.  TV stations should establish one channel or website either for continuous weather coverage, or for moving regular programming so viewers don't have to miss "American Idol".  Why forfeit your audience to cable?

Here's a much better idea:  Invest in a weather radio, which are usually affordable and available where electronics are sold.  Then when the power goes out and you can't watch TV or use the computer, you can listen for emergency information.  Now that's real public service.

Related articles

• FOX Weather Coverage Ruins Champions League Final For Fans in Twin Cities (epltalk.com)
• FOX 9 News Anchor Rant At Soccer Fans: "Don't Cheese Us Off" (epltalk.com)