If it displease the Court

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, The Hon. Eric Magnuson, is unhappy that the man who appointed him to office, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, has asked him to cut his budget by five percent. To do so, the judge and the StarTribune allege, “could leave our courts in chaos.” Apparently the Chief Justice sees that the only way he can accommodate such a draconian request in a state facing a $6 billion budget deficit, is by

shutting down conciliation court, cutting hours and suspending prosecution of 21 types of cases, including property damage, harassment, probate, and more than 1 million traffic and parking cases a year.

That last step could interrupt a $200 million flow to local governments.

It appears that a $103 million budget, and a system that brings in $200 million in fines and court fees to the State, can’t absorb a five percent cut without dramatically reducing services in the most painful and attention-getting manner. Similarly, school districts always threaten to cut the most visible programs (or withdraw services, such as busing, that will create the biggest headaches for parents) if they don’t get everything they feel they are entitled to, and St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman threatens to take cops and firefighters off the street to balance his budget while while preserving redundant and less visible departments.

Very well. Since the Chief Justice favors the rule of law, let’s present the case and all the evidence. Where does the present budget go, and just how efficiently? The judiciary is a public service, fully-funded by public dollars, so show the public line-by-line where the money goes and why, and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then let a jury of the citizens of this state decide.

Furthermore, if the judge wants to try the case in the media, then the Star Tribune ought to at least make an effort to find some opposing witnesses or at least make an attempt to cross-examine the testimony. Calling only DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and DFL rep Michael Paymar to the stand suggests an agenda rather than a search for truth.

Here’s a fact: the State of Minnesota has a humongous deficit. Cuts are going to have to be made. If the Judiciary is spared, the burden must pass to another branch of government. Will we next week see the trash collectors saying they’ll only be able to collect every other week, or the dog-catchers saying they’ll no longer be able to afford to round up rabid dogs?

In my private-sector job, our business was recently forced to reduce expenses by nearly as many dollars as Magnuson has been asked to cut, on a budget only a fifth the size of the judge’s. Our mandate, however, was to make the cuts as invisible as possible to customers and to not reduce service to the consumers who are our lifeblood. Ironically, our “public servants” always seem to resort to doing just the opposite for their “customers”.

Sweet dreams are made of this

by the Night Writer

I don’t think I’ve ever written much about “sexy” on this blog, but I’ll tell you now that when it comes to music I think Annie Lennox’s voice is the sexiest I’ve ever heard on a recording. She could generate chemistry by singing the elemental tables, and she could sing the telephone book to me and I’d listen just for the chance that I’d hear my name from her lips. While I think she’s attractive in her way (she’s always had a great face for videos), physically she doesn’t turn my head the way her voice does. I don’t know what it is exactly about her voice but ever since the Eurythmics days I’ve found it mesmerizing.

I read today that her latest album (and her final one with Sony after 30 years) released this week. It’s entitled “The Annie Lennox Collection” and features the best cuts from her solo career, including covers of “A Whiter Shade of Pale” and Ash’s “Shining Star”. A noticeable omission from the collection is her Oscar-winning “Into the West” that struck the perfect note at the end of “The Return of the King” conclusion to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I’ve already got that song from iTunes, so I’ll likely download the new album and add it to the collection.

One of the interesting things from the story today is that Lennox is an avid blogger, embracing the internet as a musician and a writer. She posts every couple of days and has a nice, direct style, though I suspect she and I might not share the same politics.

Hmmm, perhaps if she were to podcast ….

Oh, well, the new album includes her hit “Walking on Broken Glass”; here’s a link to original video of the song, a “Dangerous Liaisons” take-off featuring John Malkovich and Hugh “House” Laurie. Very amusing.

A way of the gun

I sat on the edge of the bed and looked down at the gun in my right hand. It was black, with a dull gleam, a scent of oil and cordite. It wasn’t beautiful, it wasn’t ugly, it didn’t look like anything other than what it was…functional — and with a very specific function.

“My God,” I thought, “what have I done?”

If I had a hammer (or 23)

The Hammerswing blog may have gone back in the shed, but you can still have high-impact fun with a “name that hammer” quiz. There are photos of 23 types of hammers and you try to name them and guess what they’re used for (and no, “pound things” is not a sufficient answer).

Here’s a photo of something called a Nappan Knocker. I’m not sure I want to knock any Nappans, but it’s a cool-looking tool.

HT: The Lumberjack.

One day left

Okay, guys, how are you coming on your Valentine’s Day plans for your wife or significant other? Have you selected the special, highly personal playlist of songs and burned a CD or uploaded it to her MP3 player? No?

Well have you written her a poem, or a letter, telling her how much she means to you? Thought of something special to say that’s not too many words to memorize?

What, you mean you’re going to rush down to the store, find a hyper-priced bunch of roses or an over-packaged box of chocolates, or buy one of those spa packages that tells your wife, “Honey, I love you, but you need a whole day of people working on you to get beautiful!”? (Or worse, “Honey, I saw this spa ad in the sports section and the woman in the photo looked really hot, draped in this sheet and, uh, yeah, well, and it made me think of you! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”)

You might as well throw yourself on her mercy (she’s probably used to it anyway) or let yourself be led to slaughter on the altar of Hallmark by a couple of those winged FTD guys.

Wait a minute, maybe it’s not too late. Find a nice, romantic poem, type it into your computer, use a frilly font, print it out in color, buy a nice frame at Target. Voilà! What do you mean, all you can think of is “Casey at the Bat?” Okay, here’s a good one by Kenneth Rexroth. It’s been tried, tested and personally guaranteed by me.


Click to enlarge.

Adjusted for inflation

“A million trillion here, a million trillion there; pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
— Everett Dirksen

$2 TRILLION?
White House’s $2.5 trillion plan draws criticism over lack of details.

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON, New York Times

WASHINGTON – The White House plan to rescue the nation’s financial system, announced Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is far bigger than anyone predicted and envisions a far greater government role in markets and banks than at any time since the 1930s.

Administration officials committed to flood the financial system with as much as $2.5 trillion — $350 billion of that coming from the bailout fund and the rest from private investors and the Federal Reserve, making use of its ability to print money.

But the initial assessment from the markets, lawmakers and economists was brutally negative, in large part because they expected more details.

Basic questions about how the various parts of the program would work — especially those involving the unsellable mortgages that banks are holding and preventing home foreclosures — were left for another day. Some Wall Street experts criticized the plan for relying too heavily on the same vague solutions proposed by the Bush administration.

The stock market, propped up for weeks on the expectation that Washington would finally deliver a comprehensive rescue plan, dipped almost as soon as Geithner began speaking in the morning.

Comment policy

by the Night Writer

A few years ago I stopped at a local gas station and convenience store to tank up. It was a Saturday and back in the day when you had to go into the store to pay, and it so happened that I was in a hurry. I stood in line while the sole cashier seemed to take his sweet, ever-lovin’ time in handling the transactions of those in front of me. When it was my turn I felt a strong urge to make some cutting comment, or call the guy “Lightning” or something similar. Just as I was about to do that, however, I had an even stronger thought: “What if I say that and this same guy shows up at church tomorrow as a visitor while I’m ushering?”

My fiery-hot comment turned to ashes in my mouth. I swallowed hard, signed my receipt and beat it out of there. I may have lost a few minutes but I probably gained something more.

I still think of this little episode from time to time as I surf my favorite blogs and drop in on their Comment sections. Many of these have their “regulars” who engage in spirited debate, and typically the more spirited it gets the less respectful the tone of the commenters back and forth. There are times, I must confess, when funny, inventive and highly personal and derogatory ripostes have wanted to leap through my flying fingers onto the comment page to symbolically gut not only another person’s argument but his very being. Such is the anonymity and immunity of the internet. I have bitten my tongue, or perhaps my fingernails, however to keep from doing so.

When I write for this blog I often have a picture of a composite reader in my head. Not necessarily anyone in particular but someone who is obviously intelligent and who has good taste or otherwise he or she wouldn’t have stopped by. Having this sense moderates, or modulates, some of what I might type — along with the thought that stuff tends to live forever on the web like so much space junk orbiting the earth. Meanwhile some cosmic gravity will see to it that my least generous, most base and unedifying words will turn up in someone’s Google-search. Therefore my fingernails grow ragged.

Likewise in the various comment sections I always try to remember that there are real people on the other side of those electrons, no matter how cartoon-like their on-screen personas might appear. Therefore, while I may use a clever turn of phrase or pointed observation in responding to their argument, I don’t go personal or suggest that they molest collies. Sometimes I’ll type something inflammatory, take satisfaction from that sparkling eviseration, and then delete it. Whether the person I’m responding to is 5’2″ or 6’5″, if I wouldn’t say it to his/her face, I shouldn’t post it either. Someday I might actually meet that person and if he’s 5’2″ I’ll feel like a heel and if he’s 6’5″ I might get ground under his heel.

And, someday, I just might meet them at church.

A beast of a burden

Megan McArdle writing in The Atlantic

It seems to me that the burden of proof ought naturally to be on the stimulus proponents to satisfy the public that their highly theoretical models are basically sound, especially for the parts of the bill that aren’t tax cuts or transfer payments. Let’s recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)–the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

Proponents say that that’s because there wasn’t enough stimulus, which is possibly true, but not really satisfying, because first, how do we know this package is enough, and second, that leaves us with a belief in the virtues of stimulus that is essentially non-falsifiable. We might as well move macroeconomic policy to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.