Last of Nine

Defining success down

2005-12-13T18:31:00.000-08:00

You can basically count on the Star Tribune to contain something that's unintentionally hilarious every day. Today's gem was contained in an article about an experimental new nicotine vaccine, which focused on long-time smoker who is trying the vaccine after being unable to kick the habit. According to the article, "[i]n the past, he'd had pretty good luck quitting. But his relapse rate was 100 percent."

I had thought, perhaps foolishly, that quitting meant to cease engaging in the specified activity, and implied at least some degree of permanence. Mark Twain once claimed to have quit smoking cigars thousands of times. Apparently he had pretty good luck as well, even if quitting in his case simply meant putting out the stub of the cigar and waiting to light up the next one.

Maybe he should move there

2005-11-29T04:16:00.000-08:00

Aaron McGruder, the Boondocks cartoonist, was recently interviewed by the Onion. Among the other relevations from this interview was that he recently visited the workers' paradise of Cuba, about which he had this to say:

"I went to Havana, and I was like, 'Wow, there's culture everywhere!' I don't think the American government has a lot of respect for culture. That was one thing that I did notice when I went to Cuba was that artists are paid to be artists, and poets are paid to be poets, and musicians are paid to be musicians by the government. The government—and I'm not saying that the Cuban government's perfect—but the government does place a value on culture. Much more so than here, where culture is just a matter of commerce."

Now, it should be clear to anybody who reads Boondocks that part of McGruder's worldview is that American society is pretty much hopeless, so I guess it's understandable that he'd be looking for anything he can positively contrast with the hell that is modern America. And he went out and saw what he wanted to see - "look, some culture!! And there's some more culture!! Man, that stuff is just everywhere!" - and artists no longer having to convince people to spend money to be entertained by their art, since the government strong-arms the money from the people to do this on their behalf.

But is it even possible that he doesn't see the obvious problem with this, which is that it is quite unlikely that a government which funds artists and creative types will ignore the content of what's produced? This would be true in any society, let alone one run by a tyrant like Castro. We're talking about a place that noted right-wing organizations like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders routinely criticize for its oppressive policies; according to the latter group, only people with government permission can access the Internet, and owning computer equipment is prohibited. One has a hard time believing that any artist in Cuba - whether government-funded or not - is free to excoriate the Castro regime with the same fervor that McGruder applies to his anti-American diatribes.

But Cuba's not America, and America's official policy is that Cuba's bad, so automatically McGruder goes looking for what's good about Cuba. It's awfully simplistic, but on some level meaningful, to ask whether McGruder wouldn't like living in Cuba more. Of course, he has that option; Americans can leave their country, but Cubans can't. This is also probably America's fault, in his eyes.

2005-11-23T17:55:00.000-08:00

I'll preface this by saying that teachers have a difficult job that I could never do unless I got to pick the students, and that they really don't make very much money. But today's Star Tribune article about the St. Paul school district's plan to bill teachers if they use appliances at work that use what are deemed excessive amounts of energy contained two rather interesting quotes from teachers:

"I'm not going to pay the fee," said Kimberly Colbert, an English teacher at Central High School who has a small refrigerator in her room. In addition, the English teachers share a microwave. They are necessary accessories, she said, for teachers who have just 30 minutes for lunch. And, considering that she spends $300 a year of her own money for school supplies and works countless hours from home, having a fridge or microwave should be allowable perks, Colbert said.
"It's kind of a slap in the face, to be honest," she said. "I'm going to keep my appliance, and I guess I will wait to see if someone unplugs it."

Norma Jorgensen, a kindergarten teacher at Homecroft Elementary, said she was upset when she first heard about the fee. She uses her classroom refrigerator to chill not only her food, but also the lunches of many of her students. And she uses her microwave not only for meals, but also for classroom art projects and making popcorn for her kids in the afternoons.
So, Jorgensen said, she'll pay the fee rather than get rid of the appliances.
"I wonder if corporate America would do this to their employees," she said. "But instead of whining and complaining about it, I asked my husband and he said, 'Just pay it.' "

Again, I have quite a bit of sympathy for teachers - especially ones in a inner city school district who deal with limited resources, as well as often ill-prepared students. But isn't the reflexively hostile position of these teachers a bit troubling? They can't be unaware of the fact that energy prices are expected to skyrocket this winter, to the point where the cost of running an extra refrigerator is not negligible. And it is, after all, our money that's at stake here. And yet these teachers appear to instantly have perceived this as a move motivated by malice and spite. And if Ms. Jorgensen really wonders if monolithic "corporate America" would simply ignore spending an extra $100 or so per worker, she really ought to become more familiar with it.

Makes No Sense At All

2005-10-30T03:29:00.000-08:00

Jim Souhan is a sports columnist for the Star Tribune. He seemed like a really nice guy when I briefly met him when I worked there, what seems like 300 years ago. He's also really bad at his job. When he's not attempting to be really funny and not succeeding - the Original Whizzinator jokes quit being funny or original a long, long time ago - he's capable of making simply astounding statements like these in his Saturday column:

"There was a time, children, when the Big Ten not only included just 10 teams, it included only two annual contenders - Michigan and Ohio State."

"This year, the parity infecting the sports world finally reached Big Ten country . . . ."

"And in the once-predictable realm of Big Ten football, surprising Northwestern, resurgent Penn State and overachieving Wisconsin are tied with Ohio State with only one loss in conference play."

This would have been an original thought in, say, 1982. From 1968 through 1980, Michigan and Ohio State were the only teams from the Big Ten to play in the Rose Bowl. Beginning with Iowa's trip to the Rose Bowl following the 1981 season, however, there has been plenty of turnover at the top of the Big Ten conference. For example:

- Big Ten Rose Bowl representatives from 1984 to 1988: Illinois, Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State (five different teams in 5 years).

- Big Ten Rose Bowl representatives from 1994 to 1997: Wisconsin, Penn State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Michigan (again, five different teams in five years).

- Big Ten Rose Bowl visits by selected school since 1985: Wisconsin 3, Northwestern 1, Purdue 1, Ohio State 1. Note Ohio State's dearth of visits, although there would have been another had the Bowl Championship Series not had them playing in the Fiesta Bowl for the national championship. OSU has played in a grand total of 2 Rose Bowls since Ronald Reagan was elected president.

- 1987's top three Big Ten finishers: Michigan State, Iowa, Indiana.

And if the guy can remember the last few years, he might notice something about the rate of turnover at the top of the Big Ten:

2004: Michigan, Iowa (tie for 1st)
2003: Michigan 1st
2002: Iowa, Ohio State (tie for 1st)
2001: Illinois 1st
2000: Purdue, Michigan, Northwestern (tie for 1st).
1999: Wisconsin 1st

So in the past 5 years, over half of the Big Ten has finished the season in first place. And yet, Jim Souhan thinks THIS is the year parity arrived and the Big Two of Ohio State and Michigan were dethroned.

And I have absolutely no idea why Jim thinks a logjam at the top of the Big Ten is a novel thing. For example:

1990 Big Ten standings
Iowa 6-2
Michigan 6-2
Michigan St. 6-2
Illinois 6-2

In short, the main point of his entire column really couldn't have had much less of a basis in reality. Now, I'm not sure why this bothers me to the extent that it does; after all, this is the sports section, or the "toy department" of the paper. In part I guess it's because of the laziness it shows: this guy, who has admitted he's never covered college football or covered it that closely, came up with what he thought was a neat theory for a column, and did not one bit of research into whether the facts supported his theory. Or maybe because of what it shows about how newspapers are produced; apparently there are no editing safeguards in place to keep columnists from publishing things that embarrass them and the paper (although the continued existence of Sid Hartman and Nick Coleman ought to have made this clear long ago). I guess the biggest issue is what this says about the newspaper and credibility. Not every story in the paper is one where I know the factual background this well. When you've seen just how profoundly wrong a newspaper can get stuff, how can you believe what they write about stuff you're not familiar with?

Chicks on the bench

2005-10-06T08:25:00.000-07:00

Bart Simpson once said, when he was hauled before a juvenile court over which a female was presiding, that he was glad to see more "chicks on the bench." As long as they're smart and apply the law, I'm also glad to see women serving as judges (as well as freemasons, wiccans, vegans, and even fans of Michael Bolton). Something that occurred to me last week, when Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz of the Minnesota Supreme Court resigned, is that in contrast with the U.S. Supreme Court, nobody much cares whether appointees to the Minnesota Supreme Court are male or female.

Now, the situations aren't exactly identical - the U.S. Supreme Court has much more power, especially since we seem to have decided that the federal judiciary is empowered to decide hot-button issues that are arguably better left to the political process. And nobody really cares much about the Minnesota Supreme Court, the most famous member of which is not a woman, and is someone who failed the bar exam on his first try. But I think a couple important factors are relevant here. First, the Minnesota Supreme Court broke the gender bar quite a while ago, and at one point had a four-woman majority among its seven members. Gender simply isn't too much of an issue any more - competence is the main factor, and unless appointments were to suddenly revert back to an only-male pattern, things should stay this way. I think this is something everyone can feel good about.

And second, one reason gender is still such a big deal following Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation is life tenure. Because Supreme Court justices serve so long, and are replaced so infrequently, it has not been possible for the court to reflect the growing prominence of women in the legal profession. Were terms shorter, and justices replaced more frequently, very likely the same dynamic that has made gender a much less important issue on the Minnesota Supreme Court would apply.

This is just one more reason term limits ought to be considered for U.S. Supreme Court justices, apart from the obvious if impolitic one - that it is unrealistic to expect persons in their 80s or above to continue to do some of the most important thinking that is done in our society. It's not nice to say things like this, but it's also not wise to ignore reality.

Thank God he's almost done

2005-09-25T18:46:00.000-07:00

Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton is rarely heard from, especially since he announced he is not running for reelection in 2006, but he remains in office, much to the chagrin of many Minnesotans. He sounded off the other day, announcing that he will vote against the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Cout, and added this:

"I am deeply concerned that he and President Bush's next nominee will shift the Supreme Court close to the extreme right for many years to come."

Now, the part about the next justice, who will replace Justice O'Connor, might make some sense. But if he really believes that Roberts' votes, as compared to the votes that Chief Justice Rehnquist has cast and would have cast, will shift the court to the right, he frankly had no business serving as a Senator. There are principled objections to John Roberts (to which I don't subscribe), and one can make at least a plausible case against him. But there is no indication whatsoever that his views, to the extent they would differ from those of Rehnquist, would take the court to the right. If anything, he's considered by legal observers as being, if anything, rather close to Rehnquist, for whom he served as a clerk. But in the world of judicial nominations today, where they have become knock-down political fights in which the truth takes a backseat. Mark Dayton is either wholly ignorant of the actual records of Roberts and Rehnquist, or he's playing political games with judicial nominations, like so many of both parties do. In either case, his term as senator can't end soon enough for me.

Minnesotans are cheap

2005-09-19T17:34:00.000-07:00

The Vikings have apparently struck a deal with Anoka County for a new stadium, assuming that they can convince the State to ante up $200 million or so. As we are now in what seems like the 60th straight year of stadium debate (actually, I think it's only 8 years - as I recall, the Twins made their first serious stadium pitch in 1997, just 15 years after the Metrodome opened), we will be hearing again all the familiar arguments for stadium funding, pro- and anti-. What we probably won't hear, but I wish we would, is a candid explanation of the best pro-public funding position the Vikings can offer, which goes something like this:

"Hey, Minnesotans - can we say something? You're a bunch of cheap bastards. While it may, and probably does, show profoundly misplaced priorities, it is eminently clear that Vikings football is an important part of the culture of this state. When the Vikings are in the playoffs, the first ten minutes of the local news are devoted to all things Purple, and football dominates public discussion. For good or bad, Vikings football plays a huge part in the lives of many Minnesotans - it is fair to say a majority.

"And yet, except for those of you who pay the (ridiculously high) prices for tickets and actually attend games, none of you pay a damn thing for the privilege of enjoying the Vikings. Ever since the magical season of 1998, when the Super Bowl looked like a foregone conclusion, all home games have been sold out, so every game's on local, free TV. It's all there for the taking - and plenty of you take it. Local Nielsen TV ratings indicate that as many as 2 million Minnesotans watch every game - and except for the indirect costs passed on to them when they purchase items from companies which advertise during games, they don't pay a thing to do it.

"Now, we know it seems ridiculous to spend this much money for a stadium that will most directly benefit people who are already really rich. In fact, it is ridiculous. But isn't it also ridiculous that so many other people who derive a benefit from having the Vikings here - young kids who love football and haven't yet had their hopes dashed by playoff losses, middle-aged guys who never got over not being good enough to keep playing after high school, women who defy gender sterotypes and really enjoy the game (such as the middle-aged women I see wearing Vikings jerseys at work on game days) - don't pay a damn thing for something they so clearly enjoy? Minnesotans want it both ways. They want to feel like they're better than the rest of the country, where communities cough up big dollars to fund sports palaces. But they also want to benefit from having a team in America's most prominent sports league, the NFL, here. Either view is certainly defensible. But to take both, as Minnesotans clearly seem to do, is rank hypocrisy."

Now, I suppose it probably wouldn't help Zygi Wilf's case to come out and say something like this. But it certainly would be refreshing.

The looting's not the story, folks

2005-08-31T05:25:00.000-07:00

Recent developments in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast have me, for the most part, speechless. What we're seeing is hard to comprehend. But I do know that some of the news focus in the past two days on looting in New Orleans is misguided. Stories about looting do have the benefit of letting us feel superior - surely we'd never behave that way in a crisis. Certain idiotic segments of the population probably also enjoy seeing reports of looting because the looters are primarily poor black people, thus allowing them to confirm their prejudices. But I would suggest that several other aspects of this story are a bit more important:

- unless rescue efforts are heroically successful, in a way that is not currently foreseen, almost all of those looters are going to die, along with many others who are both law-abiding and stuck in the city.

- currently there are thousands of people - I've seen numbers ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 - in the Superdome, where there is no air conditioning, no potable water, no plumbing, and limited if any electricity. Unless these people can be successfully evacuated - and just how do you move that many people? - a simply unfathomable situation will soon be at hand there.

- unless the levee is somehow repaired, and soon - and again, it's not clear how this will be done or if it can - it will be impossible to drain the city. With that much polluted water sitting in the city for that long, causing untold damage, we will have to at least contemplate the tragic possibility of abandoning what is America's most charming and unique city.

These horrific possibilities, I would suggest, are one hell of a lot more important than some looting, and deserve a lot more media attention than they're getting.

I thought ignorance of the law was no defense

2005-08-25T10:13:00.000-07:00

Minneapolis Schools Superintendent Thandiwe Peebles finds herself in the middle of controversy, which appears to be her usual state of affairs. I don't know enough about most of the allegations, past and present, to offer any worthwile observations. I do know, though, that one of her supporters, Bill English, in an op-ed piece defending her in today's Star Tribune, advanced one of the most preposterous arguments I've seen in quite some time:

"We believe Peebles is innocent and should be allowed to do that work. However, if any infractions were made, they were minor and outside of her frame of reference as to what is illegal."

Ignore the awkward phrasing ("infractions were made"?). Ignore the idea that the infractions were minor - although we don't have the facts, allegations of academic fraud in work performed to obtain her superintendent's license, and using staff paid for by a cash-strapped public school district to perform her private work, are not minor. But just what in the world does it mean to say that these things were "outside of her frame of reference as to what is illegal"? That unless she specifically meant to violate the law, or ethical standards that we can reasonably expect of school district administrators, it doesn't matter? And do we all get a "frame of reference" as to what is legal? I don't even know what that means. Call me old-fashioned, but I always viewed the standards for determining what was legal as THE LAW, i.e., a set of rules. And while these rules can be ambiguous or open to interpretation, to say we all get our own frame of reference is sheer madness.

I don't know how all this will play out. I do know, though, that Bill English has made the type of argument that, in the words of one of my law professors, is so stupid that it will force people to resolve all subsequent doubts against you.

My headache is returning

2005-08-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

Every year in August I get one. And it's caused by the completely ludicrous amount of coverage that ESPN gives the Little League World Series these days. Once upon a time - that time being the 70's and 80's - the Little League World Series entered the national consciousness for one Saturday in August, when ABC's Wide World of Sports televised the championship game. Everybody got to see little people play on that cool mini-stadium in Williamsport, and generally the Taiwanese team beat the crap out of whatever American team made it to the finals. This happened so often that I can recall the first time I ever saw an American team win; in 1982, a team from Washington State, led by Cody Webster, who was allegedly 12 years old but appeared so mature he had five o'clock shadow by the end of the game, pitched and hit his team to victory.

This amount of coverage was harmless enough. But now ESPN has gone completely overboard, as they seem to do with everything. The whole damn tournament is on, and in some years I've even seen televised regional coverage. This troubles me for numerous reasons, including:

(a) the quality of play is just not that good. Yes, some of these 12-year-olds are remarkably talented, and a few major leaguers, such as Gary Sheffield, have played in the LLWS, so there's always a chance to seed a future "I saw him play when . . . " opportunity. But they are, after all, 12. Throw in the pressure these kids are under, and it's not as though you're seeing flawless, fundamentally sound baseball. Hell, you rarely see that in the majors these days.

(b) given the pressure they're under, and their ages, some of these kids are going to make Bill Buckner-esque errors. Is it really healthy for them, or anyone, if they go through this on national television? No 12-year-old who walks in the winning run should have to have his tears televised.

(c) It is not really a "national championship", as it's perceived to be. Not every community's youth baseball program is affiliated with the Little League organization, as there are AAU and other leagues in which youngsters play. So even if you want to see the best team of 12-year-olds in the country - and if you do, I suggest that you need a great deal of help - this does not provide a vehicle to do so.

(d) most importantly, it's both a contributor to, and symptom of, the absolutely insane level of sophistication that characterizes youth sports nowadays. All of this nonsense - traveling teams as early as age 6, forcing kids to pick one sport and specialize not long after that age, year-round training - cause a whole litany of problems. Why are so many pro athletes cretinous, amoral, thuggish louts? Because their lives started revolving around sports at such an early age - and all the people around them told them they could do whatever they wanted because of their athletic talent.

Why are doctors seeing an increase in overuse injuries in young athletes? Because they have to play year-round to keep up, and as a result put stresses on their bodies that are unnatural. Why do kids all over Minnesota abandon friends and their communities to transfer high schools simply to play for a better team? Because they think they have to in order to get a scholarship - and because a message has been sent by society that nothing is more important than sports. And this message is sent in a lot of ways, with one of the biggest being when 12-year-olds hitting and throwing a ball is no longer just a cute diversion, but big business.

I am truly torn by some of these issues - naturally you want kids to excel at whatever they do, so it's hard to say they shouldn't keep playing year-round if they want to. But how many want to, or are forced to either by overzealous parents or because they have to keep up? How many miss out on valuable aspects of their childhoods because they have a tournament every weekend? Sometimes I hope my son becomes a musician.

The Doctor is in - sane

2005-08-04T10:21:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean has been regularly making news for his incendiary comments about the fundamental evil that is anyone who opposes him politically. Recently he pulled out this doozy:

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."

It is quite clear he's referring to the Supreme Court's recent Kelo decision, in which the court found that a city's hopes of taking privately owned property solely for the purposes of economic redevelopment amounted to a "public use" within the meaning of the Constitution's just compensation clause. It is also quite clear that Dean has no idea what he's talking about; since President Bush has not as yet appointed anybody to the Supreme Court, it's hard to call it his court. And the three justices uniformly viewed as the most rightward leaning on the court - Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist - dissented from the decision. Objectively, this statement by Dean makes absolutely no sense.

This raises, to me, two kinds of questions. The first is, just what the hell do the Democrats think they're achieving by having this guy out there spouting nonsense as the head of the Democratic National Committee? The people who agree with this stuff are already voting for Democrats; what they need to do is attract those in the middle or on the right. Constantly demonizing those who disagree with him hardly seems likely to accomplish this. It's bad enough when he's questioning how many Republicans have ever worked for an honest living, or saying that Democrats are more moral, both of which he has done. But when he combines these sentiments with such blatant misstatements of fact, it seems quite clear to me his effectiveness as a party spokesman is rather limited.

The other question I have is this: why does none of this affect Howard Dean's reputation? It is an article of faith among much of the country that George Bush is so dumb he needs help tying his shoes (the Yale and Harvard degrees, college GPA higher than that of John Kerry, and SAT scores comparable to those of Al Gore, are conveniently ignored in this). Yet, when Howard Dean utters complete nonsense, it doesn't seem to affect his image as a know-it-all straight shooter who either thrills or terrifies people, depending on their views. What gives?

Part of this, I think, is because he's Dr. Howard Dean, and society understandably assumes a level of competence and intelligence about doctors that might not be warranted. In order to deal with the uncertainties and risks of illness and medical treatment, society generally assumes that (a) doctors are omniscient, and (b) maladies can be simply diagnosed and fixed much like a car or a computer. Neither is true, but it's a lot more comforting to pretend they are. This is not a knock, on the medical profession, by the way; doctors do amazing things every day to alleviate human suffering, and I watched in awe as they cut open my wife to extricate our son, who seemed a bit hesitant to use other means of egress. But I do think a side effect of the way in which we choose to remain blissfully ignorant of how medicine is an inexact science results in doctors being given a level of respect and deference higher than they might merit. And I think this might be part of why Howard Dean doesn't get the criticism he might otherwise deserve.

I don't want any trouble with unions . . .

2005-07-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

Organized labor can be very puzzling. At one point in my life it made no sense to me - most notably, when I was 16 years old and working at a grocery store and saw what I viewed as a rather large chunk of my wages going to union dues, and later, when I was yelled at for using a photocopier in violation of union work rules while at the Star Tribune. But I do understand why it exists, and has existed (for example, my grocery store wages would likely have been much lower absent the union, so it was a wash), and try not to reflexively assume that unions are always wrong, since a great many people owe a great deal to what unions achieved in the past.

But boy, they make it hard. Although it's kind of a bad example, as professional athletes aren't typical union workers, NHL hockey players held firm behind a union president who insisted they'd never accept a salary cap or linkage between revenues and salary, and who later turned down a $42 million salary cap. Of course, the union ultimately did accept a linked salary cap - of $39 million - after forfeiting an entire year of salary for players who have a limited career span, and also accepted a 24% across the board salary cut. And the union president HAS NOT BEEN FIRED, somehow.

Even more amazing, the Northwest Airlines mechanics' union has voted to authorize a strike, and an labor impasse has been declared, meaning that they could be on strike within 30 days. Now, a part of me understands why they'd be frustrated; the management of the airline continually seeks wage concessions from the unions, even though Gary Wilson, Al Checchi, and the like took untold millions for their services.

But - and this is a big but - THE FREAKING AIRLINE IS GOING BROKE. The entire airline industry is in a shambles, and has been since 9/11. An article in Monday's Star Tribune indicated that Northwest's debt obligations in the coming years are so onerous that bankruptcy is a near certainty unless the government allows them to make smaller contributions to the pension funds. A mechanics' strike now would seem highly unlikely to improve the airline's financial situation; in fact, it just might kill it. How this benefits the union, and its members, is beyond me. Were I advising employees of that airline, I would tell them to work as much and spend as little as possible in light of their uncertain future. Going to the brink of a strike may just be good negotiating, as long as the union pulls back and cuts a deal before the deadline. But if they actually strike, the cause of organized labor will have shot itself in the foot once more.

Hold on just a minute . . .

2005-07-11T18:44:00.000-07:00

The story of Michelle Wie is rather fascinating in many ways. It is almost incomprehensible that a 15-year-old girl can be that good, and will presumably get a lot better. And as long as she's good enough, she ought to play against the best golfers out there, be they male or female.

But there remains the risk of getting carried away, as did Sally Jenkins in an otherwise excellent Washington Post column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070802067.html) in which she reasoned that Wie ought to cut back her high-level tournament play and travel, and just be a teenager for a while. Jenkins had this to say about some of the questions Wie raises: "On the one hand, you have to love the fact that she obliterates the women's tees, and raises the thorny and fascinating question of just how long, exactly, we're going to need separate tours for men and women."

Actually, I'm not sure this question has been raised at all. As good as Michelle Wie is, she is not yet as good as Annika Sorenstam, who is without question the best women's golfer right now by a good measure - and who has been unable to make the cut in a men's tournament in two tries. Michelle Wie also has not made a cut. It would seem that when the very elite in women's golf can't make the final two rounds in the men's pro events they enter (which, by the way, have usually not featured Tiger Woods and many of the other biggest names on tour), the idea that we're even close to a need for consolidated tour in the foreseeable future is rather ludicrous.

Instead, the question Michelle Wie poses is a much tougher one, which I don't know the answer to: assuming she progresses to a point where she can beat the best men, which would not surprise me one bit, will it be (a) best for her, and (b) best for women's pro golf, if she plays on the men's tour? She'll no doubt make a very nice living doing so, but whether it's the best thing for her is something she'll have to decide. (I would think it might be best to wait until she's actually won a women's tour event to start thinking about this, though). Part (b) is where it really gets tough. If the best woman, or several women, are off playing with the men, what will this do to the popularity of the women's tour? Will it be viewed as a glorified junior varsity tour, and take a big hit in popularity (and the size of its purses)? And does this mean Michelle Wie shouldn't try to face the greatest challenges possible if she can, but rather should stay on the women's tour out of some obligation to the cause of women's athletics?

Again, I don't know the answer, and am somewhat glad that I don't have to solve that problem. But I do know that while women are closer to competing with men in golf than in most other sports, due the lesser emphasis on raw power and speed, to say that they're close to doing so right now is simply ridiculous.

Pushing me closer . . .

2005-07-10T13:20:00.000-07:00

Among the many websites I haunt is National Review, especially the Corner. Among the writers whose work I occasionally find interesting is John Derbyshire. He is a gifted writer, and a man who seems to know a great deal about a wide variety of things.

Unfortunately, he is also a blatant homophobe, which makes his writings often difficult to take. He's also given to making bold proclamations typical of someone so certain of the rightness of his position as to be frightening; witness his endorsement of the reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib, and his insistence that it is realistic, much less desirable, to remove all illegal aliens from this country. So I often wonder whether I should even bother reading him any more.

Which leads me to his latest entry on the Corner, on the subject of the Supreme Court:

"When I first came to this country, I assumed that the nine justices of the Supreme Court were taken from the absolute cream of their profession, the very best legal and constitutional brains the U.S. had to offer. Then a kind legal friend, who had actually had some dealings with the Justices, took me aside and gently explained that they are much more often mediocrities from the bulge of the bell curve, chosen to give the least possible offense to the least number of loud factions, or because, never having had an original or interesting thought in their lives, they had never made anyone angry by forcing him into the unpleasant and painful business of thinking."

This is profoundly ridiculous. Nobody - even their fiercest ideological enemies - denies that Scalia, Breyer, and Stevens are men of first-rate intellect. Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Souter, if not at that level, are products of the finest schools this country has to offer, who had distinguished legal careers. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the most prominent attorneys in the women's rights movement, who had resounding success in that area. Sandra Day O'Connor was, as has been said many times, third in her class at Stanford Law School, and succeeded at numerous levels of government before being nominated to the Court. And Clarence Thomas, despite being unfairly painted as Scalia's lackey, has provided original opinions on a variety of topics while on the court.

Further, this reflects a cartoonish view of how the real world works - the kind you'd expect from some beer-swilling guy in a wife-beater T-shirt who says "those damn politicians don't know a thing - Jimmy at the VFW and I could do better, don't you know!" Because all these issues are really simple, don't you know, and only a fool could disagree with him. Sadly, Mr. Derbyshire, for an obviously intelligent man, too frequently resorts to this kind of thinking.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that if this guy really thinks Supreme Court justices are mediocrities who rise to the top only by never offending anyone, and have never "had an original or interesting thought in their lives," perhaps there are more edifying parts of the Internet where I can find amusement and education.

I'm . . . I'm a veg, Danny

2005-07-09T11:23:00.000-07:00

One of the huge myths of modern life that pretty much all of us engage in is that we actually have some idea what celebrities are really like. This gives us something to talk about, lets us feel better than them, and allows us to entertain ourselves, so I guess it's harmless. But in some cases, I think the public view isn't far off. The general impression most people have is that Chevy Chase is an arrogant, conceited jackass. I've always agreed wholeheartedly with this (although not without regrets; despite his involvement in a mind-boggling list of shitty movies, Fletch makes up for one hell of a lot). And this quote, from a Sports Illustrated item on the 25th anniversary of Caddyshack, in which he discusses the film's continuing popularity, certainly supports the general perception of Chevy: "There was something about the relationship between Ty Webb and Assistant groundskeeper Carl Spackler and what they both represetned metaphorically relative to the country club."

I'm surprised he didn't mention semiotics or postmodernism. Anyone who discusses a film like Caddyshack on a metaphorical level is, quite frankly, as much of a stuffed shirt as the country club members at Bushwood. People don't watch movies like that to think deeply; they do it to laugh. And that Chevy Chase describes the movie in that way certainly doesn't make me think he's any less of a jerk. No wonder Bill Murray punched him when Chevy came back to guest-host SNL.

I'm it

2005-06-27T04:40:00.000-07:00

When he wasn't accusing me of drug use Swanblog hit me with the survey of reading habits going around the blogosphere.

Total number of books owned, ever: really not sure - a lot of textbooks, and other books, have been bought and then sold. Going back to the Scholastic Book Club mail order service you could buy books through in elementary school, where I bought, among others, "Ten Super Sundays: A History of the Super Bowl," I'd guess around 1,000.

Last Book I Bought: I believe it was The Rest of the Iceberg, Robert Smith's mildly interesting discussion of his life in football. This is misleading, though, since in order to have sufficient funds to clothe my child and pay my mortgage I've been primarily getting my books through the Dakota County Library, which has a surprising number of current titles that you can reserve for free.

Last Book I Read: Freakonomics.

Five (or so) Books that Mean a Lot to Me:

Friday Night Lights, H.G. Bissinger. Absolutely essential reading for those who, like me, both revel in and are appalled by the American fascination with sports.

Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain. "All right then, I'll go to hell."

Confederacy of Dunces, John Kennedy Toole.

Hudson's Map of the Twin Cities. For very odd reasons I really like knowing the geography of home.

Means of Ascent, Path to Power, and Master of the Senate by Robert Caro (3 books, I know, but they have the same subject and can arguably be considered part of a single unit, albeit a very long one). Details Lyndon Johnson's rise from absolutely nothing to unimaginable power, engineered largely through unimaginable abuse of power.

With Charity Toward None: A Fond Look at Misanthropy, Florence King. There may have been other openly bisexual writers employed by National Review, but none of them match her rancor toward mankind.

Tagged:

Jeff Dubay
My wife, if she reads this. Please use the comments, cutie.

Just to be clear

2005-06-27T04:38:00.000-07:00

I have never used cocaine in any recreational form.

Please think, people

2005-06-16T13:48:00.000-07:00

Perhaps parenthood makes you more sensitive to safety issues, perhaps not (my brother once told me that he was more likely to take a chance regarding the thickness of the ice when ice fishing before he had kids). Maybe I was only affected so much because I've only been a parent for six months. What I do know is that the willingness of people to sit with young children in remarkably dangerous seats at the Twins game on Tuesday shocked me.

I was sitting in what would have been good seats if they actually faced the pitchers' mound, instead of midfield in the Metrodome's football configuration - we were in the second row, just past the Twins' dugout about 140 feet from home plate down the third baseline. As soon as we walked in I knew we were potentially in trouble from a line drive, and in about the fourth inning my fears were realized - somebody on the Giants was early on a Johan Santana offering, and sent an absolute rocket directly toward us. As soon as it was hit I stood up, screamed, and attempted to ready myself; however, it landed one row behind us - in the chest of a middle aged man. He was a bit shaken up (although he did hang on to the ball, somewhat remarkably). The truly frightening part was that seated two seats to his right, between him and home plate, was a five-year-old girl who had not reacted at all. Had contact been made a millisecond earlier, so the hitter had pulled the ball even more, something absolutely horrific would have occurred.

Perhaps more troubling was what followed. Seated in the first row was a guy who looked to be about (a) 45 and (b) drunk as hell, who had two girls under the age of 10 with him. They were, understandably, not paying close attention; baseball can get boring for adults, much less kids. Did he move them to a safer location? At least warn them to pay attention? Of course not. They continued sitting in that spot, absolutely oblivious to the risk (albeit slim) of catastrophe.

It's of course impossible to eliminate all risk from life; as George Will is fond of pointing out, we could greatly reduce traffic fatalities by outlawing left turns, although no one thinks this would be worth the cost. Eliminating anything that could injure someone would make life as boring as it would be safe. But really, is it too much to think that people should know better than to have little kids, who you know will not pay close attention, and who even if they see the ball coming might not be able to react, sit in the most dangerous seats in a baseball park? Baseball teams issue warnings before games, put waivers of liability on tickets, and have court decisions which protect them from liability in such situations. Unfortunately, I don't think anything will ever change until some young kid gets killed.

Why is he employed?

2005-06-03T14:40:00.000-07:00

St. Paul Human Rights Director Tyrone Terrill is again in the news, http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/11801581.htm, based on his open letter calling gang crimes "terrorist acts." Mr. Terrill is obviously well-intentioned, and whether this letter will advance the desirable cause of reducing crime is an open question.

The bigger question, however, is: why is this man still employed in this position? Way back in 1999, when the Pioneer Press broke the Clem Haskins/Jan Ganglehoff scandal story, Terrill was one of several activists who were greatly offended by a Pioneer Press editorial cartoon which compared black student-athletes to slaves on a plantation. (That the editorial was criticizing the way the athletes were being treated was seemingly lost on Terrill). Terrill, in his post as city human rights director, speculated that the cartoon was a human rights violation, and had a novel solution: he proposed that all editorial cartoons must first receive city approval to ensure that no one could be offended.

That a person charged with enforcing civil rights laws could conceivably propose a prior restraint of First Amendment rights of this magnitude simply beggars belief. I mean, the example is the kind a constitutional law professor would start out with before he went down the slippery slope to more difficult questions. Again, this guy is charged with overseeing civil rights violations - and he proposed about as profound a violation of civil rights as you can imagine.

The Pioneer Press article today indicates that Terrill serves at the pleasure of the mayor. That his prior restraint plan didn't sufficiently displeasure Norm Coleman back in 1999, or Randy Kelly ever since he took office, might indicate just why it's hard to take St. Paul's politics seriously.

Say it ain't so, Joe

2005-06-02T18:31:00.000-07:00

A trip to the barber can be an odd experience. At the barbershops I tend to visit (which, unfortunately, rarely feature Cedric the Entertainer cracking wise or Ice Cube running the joint), protocol seems to be that you wait in the order you came through the door, and then you're stuck with the barber who opens up when it's your turn. Rampant Minnesota Niceness makes people, or at least me, reluctant to decline an open barber; could there be a more direct insult to a barber's professional competence?

This system works great when all barbers are equally talented, which is rarely the case. I quit going to one barbershop because one of the three regular cutters was simply incompetent. Today, there were two of the four regulars on staff; the one I wanted (we'll call him the Nazi, because he told me that's what his friends call him - only because he's of German descent, he assures me), and the Boxer (because he boxes, and looks it). Of the two, the Nazi seems to cut hair better, and also seems better able to avoid annoying me, in part because he speaks more clearly (remember, he's not a boxer), and doesn't insist on calling me "Bud." The Nazi also fascinates me because he works on the side as a bouncer despite not being very big, which I always assumed was a job requirement.

So, as I waited, things were coming together perfectly - with one guy ahead of me, the Boxer opens up, so I should be good to go with the Nazi. Only the old guy ahead of me declines the chair! So now not only do I have the Boxer, but his confidence is clearly going to be shot after such an open rejection. This is not good. However, I'm far too much of a coward to issue a second rejection in a row, which I would think likely to cause retirement rather than face the continued shame, so I sit down to take my lumps.

The haircut proceeds as normal, with the Boxer's usual level of grunts and inane conversation. He appears to be doing a good job, though, and I'm pleased. Then, right near the end, the shock: "Look, there's Joe Mauer," he says to me. Now, I don't have my glasses on, and for all I know he's making some kind of punch-drunk joke that will amuse him. Post-concussion syndrome can be funny that way. But it turns out it actually is Joe - he stopped at his old barbershop on the way home after the Twins' matinee game, which the Twins won in 13 innings and in which he homered.

This is either really cool, or really pathetic, and I can't decide which. Had I chosen a more lucrative career path out of law school I really would not be going to this barbershop; regrettably, its low cost is an important factor in my tonsorial choices. And Joe makes more than me by a multiple of . . . well, let's just say I think Joe could afford a stylist. Yet he's still going to his old neighborhood barber. Such loyalty is admirable, although it would be more so if Joe wasn't getting the Pete Rose 1974 bowl cut he favors these days.

Uncle Milton Berman

2005-06-01T17:37:00.000-07:00

The broadcast team for tonight's ESPN2 baseball telecast was a remarkably mixed bag. Steve Stone, who is easily the most insightful baseball analyst I've ever heard, was teamed with Chris Berman (don't get me started on Jeff Brantley). There was a time when Berman seemed amusing - and on NFL Primetime, when narrating highlights, he still is - but in general I find myself asking "why is this man popular, to say nothing of so handsomely remunerated?" Berman seems to do little more than constantly recycle his catchphrases - does the "back, back, back" schtick really amuse anyone anymore? - and make lame puns and references to rock bands from the 70s and 80s.

Still, it's a little unfair to overlook the fact that Chris Berman actually was a groundbreaking force in his "artistic field," for lack of a better term - before SportsCenter reached its creative zenith with the Big Show starring Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, Berman's bombast, musical references, and nicknames actually were fresh and amusing back in about 1985. He had a lot to do with creating the hip, wisecracking, too-cool-for-school style that Patrick and Olbermann perfected (and that successors like Stuart Scott absolutely wrecked. Olbermann once said something to the effect that by creating a style others misused, he felt like J. Robert Oppenheimer, who famously quoted a poem about becoming "destroyer of worlds" after witnessing the first A-bomb test). To me a good analogy is Milton Berle. People of my generation always wondered exactly how, in the world the man was employed as an entertainer, much less how he was known as Mr. Television back in the '50s. This was, after all, a man whose most famous comedic bit was cross-dressing. Nonetheless, while Milton Berle may not have been the funniest TV star, he was the first big star in the early days of the medium, and while (thankfully) changing tastes make one wonder what the hell people were thinking, it's a little unfair to judge the first big star of the TV age against later standards.

Having said that, Berman really ought to shut the hell up and drop the crap like his Swami football picks and the "nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills" inanity.

Some basic questions, hopefully answered

2005-05-31T03:40:00.000-07:00

The name? That's my birth order, and the ninth is the most important inning in a baseball game. Also, when you're this late to the party, most of the good names are taken.

Who am I? I see no need to give away the whole game. The following places, concepts, etc., will give sufficient information as to my past and present:

Hopkins Mendota Heights University of Minnesota attorney editor husband father