Defining Wild Down

There was a time, perhaps not so long ago, when the employees of the City Pages would have defined a "wild" time as nothing less than a booze-fueled late brunch at a hip Uptown bistro, followed by a crypto-anarchist protest rally in front of a government building downtown, followed by post-protest bong session with some squatters in a Dinkytown tenement, followed by an in-store book signing with a dark, nihilistic, cult fave comic book author, followed by a meal of Oaxacan tacos at an acceptably grungy and ethnic Lake Street eatery, followed by drinking conspicuously downscale beer and listening to ironically popular music from the 70's on the juke box at the CC Club , followed by an Entry show by an up and coming angry, reggae-rap-ska-Mbaqanga fusion band from Japan, followed by a midnight showing of a film featuring an autopsy being performed to the music of Sleater-Keany at the Uptown, followed by all night, E-fueled, glow stick twirling rave at an abandoned Nordeast warehouse.

How times have changed. From today's City Pages:

Vice President Biden will be arriving in St. Cloud this morning for a town hall meeting about the economic stimulus and the middle class. Biden along with the Middle Class Task Force will arrive at the at St. Cloud Regional Airport at 10:15 a.m. for a 11:30 a.m. event at the New Flyer of America in St. Cloud.

Get ready for a wild afternoon!

Two theories: Either the years of fast living have finally caught up to the City Pages staff and its permanently altered their perception of reality. Or, the presence of Joe Biden is more powerful than any drug.

OK, third theory. The Barack Obama halo effect on liberals is even more powerful than we believed.

For some realism associated with the Joe Biden visit, check out the Nihilist in Golf Pants.

You Don't Need A Weather Man...

Today's blinding flash of the obvious comes courtesy of a NYTimes' story on the record number of US births in 2007. In a section of the article on the recent rise in teenage pregnancy (after years of decline), the chief executive of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy informs us that:

Teenage abortion rates have been falling for years and are not believed to be a major factor in the birth trends. "The decline resulted from less sex and more contraception," Ms. Brown said. "So the new trend must involve some combination of more sex and less contraception."

Really? You think?

Thank God, It's The Fed

There's a scene near the end of the movie "Fletch," where the corrupt police chief (played by the incomparable Joe Don Baker) arrives in the middle of a standoff between Fletch and the movie's primary villain Alan Stanwyk. Chevy Chase delivers Fletch's reaction with a deadpan:

"Thank God, it's the police."

That's pretty much how I felt when I read the news the Fed was coming to the rescue with a new plan to buy securities:

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- By committing to buy Treasuries and double his purchases of mortgage debt, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled his determination to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression and his willingness to pump as much cash into the economy as needed to end the current crisis.

U.S. central bankers decided yesterday to buy as much as $300 billion of long-term Treasuries and more than double mortgage-debt purchases to $1.45 trillion, aiming to lower home- loan and other interest rates. The Fed kept its main rate at almost zero and may keep it there for an “extended” time.

The moves sparked the biggest drop in 10-year Treasury yields since 1962, rallies in the stock market and gold and a plunge in the dollar against the euro. Economist Richard Hoey said Bernanke has created the "Rambo Fed," referring to the Sylvester Stallone character skilled with weapons.

Aren't you the same guys who helped get us into this mess in the first place by playing too fast and loose with the money supply? And now you're going to save us with more mad money?

Ready for Some Real Change?

From the Voice of America (Urdu) documentary series, Muslims' America, an interview with Rep. Keith Ellison.  Transcribed excerpt:

VOA: Is there any possibility that I might be talking to the future first Muslim-American President of the United States, keeping in view that 2020 is not that far away?

ELLISON: Only God knows that. But let me just say this, I love the job I'm doing and I believe that my goal is to be the best representative of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota I can possibly be. And that's all I'm worried about right now.

VOA: And that means that you might run?

ELLISON: It means that I'm not making any plans to run. I'm just trying to keep my eye on the ball. Like, do they play cricket there in Pakistan?

VOA: They love cricket.

ELLISON: Well, see, if you're going to try and hit that ball with the bat, you've got to watch that ball, right? You don't want to look past the ball, you want to look at the ball, right? So I'm just keeping my eye on the ball.

VOA: I'll take that as a 'yes'.

ELLISON: (laughter)

Either Keith Ellison is trying out for Pakistan's national cricket team or he's considering running for President.   Move over Rod Blagojevich!

That interview is not positive affirmation perhaps, but the dancing around, avoiding the question, and self aggrandizement is NOT a denial either. If Ellison wanted to douse speculation, the only proper response would have been something like this, from George Costanza, on asking his doctor about a suspicious white spot on his face:

GEORGE: When I asked him if it was cancer, he didn't give me a "get outta here". That's what I wanted to hear: "Cancer? Get outta here!"

JERRY: Well, maybe he doesn't have a "get outta here" kind of personality.

GEORGE: How could you be a doctor and not say "get outta here"? It should be part of the training at medical school: "Cancer? Get outta here!" "Go home! What are you crazy? It's a little test. It's nothing. You're a real nut. You know that?"

Me, President?  Get outta here!  Go home!  What are you crazy?   Until we hear that from Ellison, I don't want to hear any more lefty journalists in town implying Michele Bachmann is the most delusional member of our Congressional delegation.

Flight Risk

Tom e-mails to relate some personal experience regarding my post on the perverse impact of government attempts to plunder the golden geese:

As a native Detroiter, I am always amazed at how government at all levels fails to recognize the dangers of killing the golden goose that small and medium sized firms are. In the 60's various mayors and the city council in Detroit treated every business like they were GM with lots of cash in the vault and their only worry limited to keeping market share at or below 55%.

During the next couple of decades, when small and medium businesses headed for the exits (the suburbs, Mexico, Canada, other states, etc), tax revenues dropped. Costs didn't go down, so tax rates were increased. The firms that were left had their shoulder to the wheel that much more until those firms decided they had had enough and went out of business or moved.

When I returned to Detroit in the late-eighties as an adult to work for a unit of GM, the City of Detroit was a wasteland with abondoned, burned out (thanks to Devil's Night - a much beloved Detroit holiday), stripped-of-copper homes, factories and buildings. Honda had established a facility in Central Ohio and Toyota was moving into Central Kentucky. Both Ohio and Kentucky offered plenty of incentives to get those facilities, but mainly they offered cheap available land, a motivated/educated work force and governments that welcomed not only final assembly but all of the related members of the supply chain which are usually small and medium sized company's.

Around the same time, Chrysler got all kinds of incentives to build an assembly plant close to downtown Detroit near their Jefferson Ave plant (called Jefferson North, it was finished in 1993) which closed in 1990. The Chrysler president at the time, Gerald Greenwald, said that this would be the last time Chrysler would build a major assembly plant in a major city because major cities offer an uneducated work force and an unfriendly environment for their suppliers (again, small to medium sized businesses) who are crucial to the just-in-time assembly processes that are the key to plant success (he caught a lot of flack about his comments, which were called racist).

I left the business and Detroit in 1990, but I have seen this pattern of raiding the local employers for cash to support top heavy local and state governments then carping and moaning when the businesses decide that they are closing and moving the factory/office because the facility is in the wrong place and the local government treats them like a pimp treats a whore. The company I work for now did all it could to keep a manufacturing operation (with about 100 employees at peak) in a state in the Northeast. Most of the customers for the products made by that plant were in the Midwest and West so shipping wise, they were always an extra day or two a way from a delivery standpoint. We invested 100's of thousands dollars for environmental requirements, put up with all manner of union required work rules and high employer related taxes. It took two years to wind that facility down and the local government types did plenty of bad mouthing of our company when they realized we were leaving and they couldn't get us to stay or stop us. Some of the work this factory did was transferred to a plant in Canada and some went to other facilities in the US. More than half though is now coming out of a facility in China. Even with the added warehouse cost and inventory investment, it is less expensive than keeping that facility in the Northeast open.

Since coming to Minnesota five years ago, I'm constantly disappointed by the hubris many government officials exhibit when they state rather matter-of-factly that taxes will go up and if you don't like it, tough. At some point all businesses hit the point of diminishing returns like the apple that was bound to hit Newton's head.

Minnesota is a unique place with lots to offer. However, with energy as costly as it will get with yet more taxes on it, a winter like this one past will get people thinking - why don't I move to a place where my utilities aren't quite as high; where transportation to the growth areas of the South and West are less; where ocean ports aren't so far away. I hope that our business will stay here. It's likely to based on where customers for our products are located and the fact that we have a facility that will allow us to expand without having to acquire more buildings or land, at least during my career here. I hope that your dad's former employer also stays, but at the end of the day, a business is a living thing that has to go where the best prospects for growth are and where the owners believe they can get the best overall return (including profits, lifestyle and other non-profit & loss related items) for their investment.

Fair Or Fowl?

There seems to be an assumption implicit in the plans hatched to increase government revenues by raising taxes. It is that the individual or business who is going to be pinched is not going to change their behavior in any meaningful way in the face of being asked to pay more (usually described as "paying their fair share"). While those who propose increased taxation usually acknowledge that what they consider major changes to taxes levied would influence behavior, they seem to view the situation as far more static for what they consider smaller changes. The goose might not like it if they take a couple of more golden eggs, but it'll always be there to pluck.

Last Sunday, we had dinner with my parents. Before my dad retired, he worked for a local, family-owned manufacturing company. He's still good friends with one of the family members who runs the firm today.

The company's history is a classic American success story. It was literally started in a garage behind the founder's house over sixty years ago. Since then it has grown to become a highly regarded supplier with an impressive local headquarters/manufacturing facility and a global presence.

Some years ago, in order to be able to better supply and compete in the EU market, the company decided to open another manufacturing facility in Europe. After considering several options, they settled on Ireland. At the time, the Celtic Tiger had not yet begun to roar. But the Emerald Isle offered the company an educated workforce, a common language (for the most part), and a corporate tax rate of around 10%. So they set up shop there and the operation has been quite successful in the intervening years.

So back to our dinner conversation. My dad recently spoke with his friend and learned that his company is not happy with the way things are shaping up so far in the Age of Obama. I should add that this friend of my father's is not a man known for hyperbole or exaggeration. He's soft-spoken, unassuming type. If you met him on the street, you'd probably never guess that he runs a multinational company. Not a table-pounder or chair-thrower he.

Anyway, he told my dad that if the Obama administration lives up to their promise to end tax deferral on profits companies make overseas (essentially imposing a double tax on US companies and impacting their ability to compete) and if The Employee Free Choice Act a.k.a. card check becomes law, the family will pack up their corporate headquarters and move to another country. With them will go the jobs, the tax revenues, and all the other benefits that the local community, the state of Minnesota, and the country receive from having the company based here. Knowing my dad's friend as I do, this should not be considered an idle threat.

So to summarize, in the interests of "protecting American jobs," increasing tax revenues, and helping "working Americans," our government is planning to take actions that will in fact have exactly the opposite results (at least in this case, which I imagine is not unique). In today's globalized, connected world the danger that the government will kill the golden goose is probably not nearly a great as that its actions will cause the bird to migrate to more friendly climes. The geese do have wings.

Nous sommes tous des Américains ivres?

While President Obama seems intent on remaking America in the European mold, France is moving toward a more American approach to drinking (WSJ-sub req):

The government of President Nicolas Sarkozy has drafted the bill, which would raise France's minimum drinking age for wine and beer to 18 from 16. The government says it would reduce a dangerous addiction among youths. A vote on the bill is expected to take place Wednesday at the National Assembly, where it is likely to pass, as Mr. Sarkozy's center-right coalition has a majority of the votes. A final vote in the Senate could take place in April.

France has had a liberal approach to alcohol thus far. Unlike most other countries, France has two drinking ages: Young people can drink or purchase wine and beer from the age of 16 and hard liquor from 18. Bartenders and shopkeepers don't usually check the identification cards of their customers, however young.

The powerful lobby of French winemakers says it won't try to derail the law, but thinks the government is making a big mistake. A stricter law, winemakers say, could reverse the age-old French custom of parents teaching children how to taste and appreciate wine at the family meal.

The risk of the new law, they say, is a habit of binge drinking imported from the U.S., where the drinking age is 21, and the U.K., where studies show one in four adult men and one in three adult women are heavy drinkers.

"When I visited my daughter who was studying in the U.S., she couldn't drink a glass of wine at the restaurant because she was 20," says Marie-Christine Tarby, head of industry lobby group Vin & Société. "Back on the campus, all her friends were drunk every night -- is this what we are trying to do here?"

If past experience with the impact of prohibition on binge drinking is any indication, then that is exactly what the result will likely be in France.

Can We Talk?

Just in case you weren't able to attend last week's "great conversation" at the taxpayer financed University of Minnesota--featuring Larry Jacobs, Walter Mondale, Seymour Hersh, and a crowd of sycophant sympathizers chortling about the evils of the Bush/Cheney regime--in person or listen to it broadcast on taxpayer supported Minnesota PUBLIC Radio the following day, word has it that MPR found the dialog so compelling that they're going to rebroadcast it tonight at 6pm. It's just a shame that there aren't more ways for the taxpayers of Minnesota to help chip in to spread the word about this terrific little chat.

I also understand that the next event in the U's "great conversations" series will feature Larry Jacobs, Vin Weber, and Mark Steyn discussing the perils of the Obama administration leading America down the path to Euro-statism. Ha, ha, ha. That would be the day.

Northern Alliance Radio Network

Join us beginning at 11AM today for another episode of the Northern Alliance Radio Network.

John Hinderaker and I will kick things off at 11AM. Possible subject matter to include: the latest age of Obama outrages, the ending of the MN Senate recount and Norm Coleman's chances, Minneapolis Suicide Bombers (no that's not JB Doubtless's newest band, we're talking about these guys), "Great Conversations" at the U of MN, the death of newspapers, the life and times of Grizzly Adams, the care and feeding of iguanas, new trends in in the world of cajun vegan cuisine, tips on bluing your semi-automatic pistol, and 10 ways to drop those love handles by Flag Day. In short, to demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be. To immerse ourselves in the oblivion of actions and know we're making it happen. There will be an intensity never before known in everyday life to exchange love and hate, life and death, terror and redemption, repulsions and attractions. An affirmation of freedom so reckless and unqualified, that it amounts to a total denial of every kind of restraint and limitation. Plus, Loon of the Week and This Week in Gatekeeping.

It all starts at 11AM Central locally on AM1280 the Patriot. Streaming LIVE worldwide at the web site.

Following us, as always, at 1 PM, Mitch Berg and Capt. Ed Morrissey, then at 3PM, the dismal yet jolly scientist himself, King Banaian. Don't you dare miss it.

(The above heavily influenced by watching Waking Life on IFC as I wrote it.)

Definitely Thrust Upon Them

Earlier this week at the University of Minnesota, a very special episode of their "Great Conversations" series:

Larry Jacobs, the University of Minnesota's Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the Center of the Study of Politics and Governance at the Humphrey Institute, and Walter Mondale, former Vice President of the United States, discuss America's constitutional crisis

The most overexposed pundit in Minnesota and the only man in history to lose an election in all 50 states, pontificating on politics for an hour? Sounds riveting. And a new definition of "great", I must say. Sorry I missed it. If the next "Great Conversation" is Denny Green and Brad Childress discussing the keys to winning in the NFL playoffs, count me in.

Also of note are Professor Jacobs' titles: "Mondale Chair" and "Humphrey Institute Director" at the University of Minnesota. I suppose these are the most prominent local politicians we've got. If we must name our institutions and offices after the famous (or infamous), I guess that's what we're stuck with. (Warning to academics in future generations, before occupying the distinguished Al Franken Chair, you might want to check it for a whoopee cushion.)

Yet I'm still concerned about the message this sends to the young, impressionable scholars we send to our premiere public university. Beyond even the psychological affliction of studying under the banner of two of the most famous losers in American political history.

More importantly, there's the problem inherent in creating this crushing institutional endorsement of a political party. I submit to you that branding yourself as Democrat Party Incorporated will affect the scholarship produced by, and intellectual development of, the minds of mush we send there to be formed. It strains credulity to believe that pimply faced college students at the U will be equally likely to pursue conservative lines of thought and argument, knowing their work is being judged by the likes of the Mondale Chair at the Humphrey Institute. It's a subtle form of indoctrination and group think enforcement and it cannot stand.

Top of mind suggestions of non-partisan names for the rebranding: The Jesse Ventura Chair for Political Egotism and Ignorance and the Center for the Study of Political Irrelevance at the Dean Barkley Institute.

BONUS MATERIAL: Anti-intellectual jokes at the expense of my academic betters. Reviewing the list of other endowed chairs at the U, these caught my eye.

From the College of Education and Human Development:

Dorothy McNeill and Elbridge Ashcraft Tucker Chair for Women in Exercise Science and Sport

The patriarchal tyranny evident in promoting women's exercise with a chair is appalling

At the Institute of Technology:

Harold Sweatt Chair in Technological Leadership

You might want to wipe that one down before taking a seat!

Finally, from the Medical School:

University of Minnesota's Academic Chair in Sexual Health

According to what I've heard, this position requires one of the largest endowments on campus.

Unfortunately, their entire press release reads as similarly low comedy:

A group of sexual health advocates celebrated Coleman's appointment to the endowed position at an invitation-only reception.

That sounds like the opening of an article about a raid by the vice squad.

"With support from this endowed chair, I hope to further the Program in Human Sexuality's mission to create a sexually healthier world."

All I can say is a chair like that must have a Magic Fingers option.

Don't Toast The Revolution Without Me

Just in time for the weekend, the Fraters Libertas Beer Ratings have been updated. The update includes four new beers from Minhas, which despite its name is actually a Wisconsin brewery. The overall verdict on their offerings is a solid, "meh." Better than most of the mass-produced American counterparts, but short of the quality product that true craft breweries are putting out.

Since many of the original beer ratings were done years ago, I also took the opportunity to go back and revise some of them based on my tasting experiences since then. This lead to some beers being rated higher and others lower.

And I am happy to announce that we have inked an exclusive sponsorship deal for the Fraters Libertas Beer Ratings with Glen Lake Wine and Spirits in Minnetonka. Whenever the store has a new or seasonal beer offering available, we will receive a keg, case, 12-pack, okay 6-pack to rate and review here. Intense negotiations are also underway to reach a similar accord with Glen Lake Wine and Spirits covering Single Malt Scotches. Developing...

Lastly, Wright e-mails to hep us to a Reason TV video celebrating The American Beer Revolution:

Today, although mainstream beers still dominate the market, more than 1,400 breweries in the U.S. produce more styles of beer than anywhere else in the world, and American beers routinely dominate international beer competitions.

So the next time you're at your favorite brewpub, hold your glass up high and celebrate the American beer revolution.

Viva la revolucion!

Elegant Exercises In Wishful Thinking

One of the big hitters in President Obama's new health care proposal is his plan to push for use of electronic medical records throughout the system. He claims this will save $80 billion a year and result in better efficiency for providers and better care for patients.

On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer. But, as we're coming to discover about many of Mr. Obama's grand plans, when you start looking into the details you find that things don't quite add up.

Dr. Jerome Groopman and Dr. Pamela Hartzband did a little digging to find out exactly how electronic medical records would save $80 billion a year and penned a piece in yesterday's WSJ called Obama's $80 Billion Exaggeration:

Last week, President Barack Obama convened a health-care summit in Washington to identify programs that would improve quality and restrain burgeoning costs. He stated that all his policies would be based on rigorous scientific evidence of benefit. The flagship proposal presented by the president at this gathering was the national adoption of electronic medical records -- a computer-based system that would contain every patient's clinical history, laboratory results, and treatments. This, he said, would save some $80 billion a year, safeguard against medical errors, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and greatly facilitate both preventive care and ongoing therapy of the chronically ill.

Following his announcement, we spoke with fellow physicians at the Harvard teaching hospitals, where electronic medical records have been in use for years. All of us were dumbfounded, wondering how such dramatic claims of cost-saving and quality improvement could be true.

The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system. And, as the RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.

So we have a theoretical study backed by no compelling evidence whose conclusions have since been questioned by follow-up data. Seems like a rock solid foundation to base your claims on, no? This appears to be another case where Mr. Obama has already decided what the policy will be and almost as an afterthought tries to line up the facts to support it.

Before you dismiss this as nothing more than the latest distortion from the neo con wing nuts who frequent the WSJ's editorial pages, consider how the doctors close their piece:

We both voted for President Obama, in part because of his pragmatic approach to problems, belief in empirical data, and openness to changing his mind when those data contradict his initial approach to a problem. We need the president to apply real scientific rigor to fix our health-care system rather than rely on elegant exercises in wishful thinking.

Elegant exercises in wishful thinking. That has to be the most apt description of the Obama Administration that I've yet come across.