Pawlenty has a credibility problem

Governor Pawlenty has gotten by with a lot of dishonesty with his boyish looks and aw-shucks mannerisms. But yet again, here's a perfect example of how his credibility is really zero among anybody who actually thinks. Nick Coleman nails it in his recent column:

"At no point did anyone say the bridge needed to be closed," the governor has said.

But according to an Aug. 19 Star Tribune story by reporters Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe, state officials had "talked openly" about the possibility of a bridge collapse.

Inspection reports dating to the 1990s suggested critical issues required "immediate maintenance" and calls for that maintenance grew more urgent after the Pawlenty administration took office in 2003.

Maybe it is coincidence that Pawlenty-Molnau imposed a no-tax ideology on state government, especially in transportation, where Molnau cut back on snowplowing while laying off employees and placing loyalists in key positions.

But what we have now in the Mississippi is a bridge that was carrying 140,000 vehicles a day despite missing bolts, cracked girders, severe corrosion and a tilted pier -- a bridge with parts "beyond tolerable limits."

A leader shouldn't say he didn't know the bridge might collapse. A leader demands to know why his appointees didn't tell him it might fall.

Maybe this catastrophe will result in a few more people using their brains.

Wobbling bridge finally fell

This seems to be rather revealing: apparently the 35W bridge was felt to wobble by construction workers resurfacing it on the days preceding its collapse.

Here's a letter to the Star Tribune editors, talking about that point:

The bridge had been wobbling

In the Aug. 4 front page article "Disbelief gave way to action for first responders," there was a recounting of information gathered from Minneapolis Police Sgt. Tim Hoeppner. On page A11, the continued article reads, "Hoeppner talked to construction workers who survived the fall. They had been doing repair work but expressed concern to him that the bridge had been wobbling several days before it collapsed."

What?! This is shocking! It goes on to say, "Every layer of concrete the workers removed, the bridge would wobble even more, they told Hoeppner."

Can Star Tribune reporters find out if these workers passed this information to supervisors, MnDOT or to other government representatives?

The headline should have been, "Wobbling bridge finally fell."

LAURA THOMAS, MINNEAPOLIS

Sure enough. I just re-read that article, and here's what it said:

At the site, Hoeppner talked to construction workers who survived the fall. They had been doing repair work but expressed concern to him that the bridge had been wobbling several days before it collapsed. Every layer of concrete the workers removed, the bridge would wobble even more, they told Hoeppner.

I think that's a pretty good clue that further investigation should have been done.

Why did the 35W bridge collapse?

Virtually every state in the USA gets the majority of its money for interstate and U.S. highways, as well as bridges for such roads, from the federal government. The federal government is also the biggest fund source for all transportation projects. The majority of the money for light rail projects, such as the one completed recently in Minneapolis, come from the federal government. The federal DOT also specifies the safety and construction specifications which must be used for any projects which receive federal dollars. Despite that, the blame doesn't lie with the federal government. On-going maintenance and inspection responsibility generally lies with each state, even if reconstruction projects obtain federal dollars.

In Minnesota, the responsibility for maintenance of the 35W bridge lies with MnDOT, the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Of course, MnDOT's direction and funding come from elected and appointed politicians. MnDOT has been headed by Lt. Governor Carol Molnau, who was appointed to the position by Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2003.

The Pawlenty/Molnau administration (coming up on 2 terms now) have been in favor of tax cuts, and have strangled Minnesota's widely-praised high investments and pay-offs in infrastructure and education. Now the state's infrastructure -- highways, airports, railways, etc. -- and education system are suffering.

According to this story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

On her watch, MnDOT staff has been reduced 15 percent to 4,587. Last year, the department's professional engineering staff was down to 420, a 9 percent drop during her administration.

The union representing MnDOT's blue-collar workers contends she has cut muscle and bone, even down to short-staffing the state's snowplowing needs.

"Morale in that department is at an all-time low," said Bob Hilliker, state field director for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5.

Last year, highway contractors rebelled when MnDOT asked its construction companies to front the state up to $96 million to help finance the I-35W-Crosstown project when federal payments were delayed. The private financing plan flopped, forcing postponement of the $250 million project for a year.

The harshest criticism of Molnau, by both Republicans and Democrats, is that she has failed to advocate for the funding required to meet the state's transportation needs. By MnDOT's own estimates, there's a $1 billion-a-year gap between its anticipated revenues and needs from now to 2030 - and a $2.4 billion annual shortfall for the next six years.

She opposed increasing gas taxes to plug that gap, arguing instead for more borrowing and moving the state toward a tax based on how many miles people drive instead of how much gasoline they use - a system she acknowledges will take several years to develop. Pawlenty shared that view and vetoed gas tax increases passed by the Legislature in 2005 and earlier this year.

"I don't think she has had any vision of transportation, and she did not advocate for the department, and I think that she should," said Rep. Ron Erhardt, R-Edina, who has long supported a gas tax hike.

ANTI-TRANSIT REPUTATION

No fan of rail mass transit, Molnau hasn't shared Pawlenty's enthusiasm for the Northstar commuter rail line and light-rail lines in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

"She is very hostile to transit and transit interests, actively so in my opinion, and hostile of any inquiries that are made of her on transit," said Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, who served with Molnau in the House and now chairs a Senate transit subcommittee.

Molnau has turned the MnDOT into a train wreck in progress. Good people are leaving and have left, because of the hostile environment promulgated from the top and because of butchered budgets.

Prior to being Lt. Governor, Molnau was the chair of the state legislative committee which made all the financing decisions for state transportation spending. She held that position for many, many years. She gradually choked all the money out of the system over those years, piling up huge amounts (billions) of deferred maintenance and upgrades. People who spend hours sitting in traffic jams, wasting time and gasoline, and generating pollution can thank Carol Molnau. In the late 1990s, Molnau was asked about the increasing traffic jams in the Minneapolis - St. Paul metro area. Her reply (paraphrased from the radio) was essentially: "What traffic jams? I commute every morning to the capitol from my home in Chaska and don't see any traffic jams." Molnau neglected to mention to the reporter that she typically commuted to the capitol at 5am, before most people were even awake, so of course, she didn't see any traffic.

But Molnau was not alone in this. At the same time she was in the legislature de-funding MnDOT, Tim Pawlenty was the house majority leader, whipping the rest of his Republican party members into voting against needed infrastructure funding. Now as Governor No New Taxes, he has continued to cut into the quality of life Minnesota was famous for, a result of its earlier investment in infrastructure and education. He has twice vetoed small gasoline tax increases -- a tax which has fallen far behind inflation having not been increased in many years.

Molnau and Pawlenty are a new breed of Republican in Minnesota, cut from the same cloth as GW Bush, it seems. Past Republicans, like former Governor Arne Carlson, are in complete opposition to the wrong-headed methods practiced by the current administration. MnDOT is a sick, twisted version of its former self. Corruption oozes from the Pawlenty administration. It's no surprise that bridges like the one which collapsed are not getting the inspection, repair and replacement attention they need. The Federal government rated the collapsed bridge as "structurally deficient" in 2005. Nothing has been done to remedy that situation since. Pawlenty was elected in 2002.

Draw your own conclusions.

Plays a doctor on TV

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom thinks he knows medicine better than physicians, apparently. As physician David Lang wrote in a recent letter to the editor:

Now a top-notch study, published in last month's issue of the peer-reviewed journal Neurology, has come to the exact same conclusion that my patients have been telling me for years: Medical marijuana is an effective treatment for this kind of pain.

So I had to shake my head when I heard that Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom testified that there are "no scientific studies" supporting marijuana's effectiveness. In addition to this very recent article, supportive studies have appeared in respected journals like the American Journal of Surgery, the British Journal of Cancer and Molecular Pharmacology, among many others.

If Backstrom feels that his training is sufficient to debate with the researchers, doctors and patients who have firsthand knowledge of medical marijuana's benefits, that's his prerogative. But to claim that "no scientific studies" demonstrate those benefits is demonstrably false.

So is Backstrom an egotistical, arrogant jerk, or just a fucking moron? Why is it that politics seems to select for idiots?

When the going gets tough, Minneapolis gives up

The bonehead politicians in Minneapolis are about to commit historical hara-kiri. They seem to be all together on ramming the idiotic idea of giving the city library system to the county. Is there any other major city in the USA that has been unable to run their own library system, especially if that city happens to be the largest city in their respective states? If so, I'd like to know about it, because of all them that I'm aware of seem to be able to accomplish this seemingly insurmountable for Minneapolis task.

I'll bet even Omaha (as in "Cold Omaha") does a better job.

One library board member speaks out at this link: http://www.buzz.mn/?q=node/861

Then there is this little editorial in the Monday Star Tribune which demonstrates just what a bunch of bullshit the city hall argument about not enough money to run the libraries is. They currently spend far more to pay for the convention center than the libraries need, yet dollar for dollar, the libraries return a much higher economic value to the city.

Well said, Jim Lynskey

In a letter to the editor, write Jim Lynskey gets it spot on with regards to idiot Ron Carey, state Republican chair:

When state Republican Party Chair Ron Carey claimed that the goal of voter registration should be "quality, not quantity" (Star Tribune, Feb. 25), he confirmed my suspicion that Republicans still don't understand the word "democracy."

I bet Ron would be happy if we just went back to having a poll tax -- and maybe taking the vote away from blacks and women, too.

Dear Taxpayer: BOHICA

Dear Taxpayer: BOHICA

Here's a little proposal I'm sure all Minnesota taxpayers and voters would support unanimously: spend tax revenue on building and supporting websites for family members of elected officials. After all, the minor quibble about the voters not having voted for those family members can't be enough to complain about, right? And the state has plenty of extra money, right? All the school districts statewide are fully funded, every city and park has all the money it needs, and all the highways and bridges are in top-notch repair, are they not? Those family members would never use state resources simply as a ruse to generate positive propaganda for their elected parent or spouse.

So why not? We're a generous state, right?

What's that you say? Family members of elected officials are simply private citizens like the rest of us? And they shouldn't be abusing and using state resources that we taxpayers worked so hard to provide? (Anybody out there want to pay more taxes?)

Well then...

What the fuck is up with Mary Pawlenty, the governor's wife, having a state-created and maintained web site?

Miss Construed

Miss Construed

Nut job U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann is living up to her reputation as the premier kook from Minnesota. Joe Bodell's article on the Twin Cities Daily Planet sums up the latest contretemps (to put it lightly) Bachmann has managed to create. As one respondent put it, one has to wonder if she thinks she's hearing voices from God.

Follow the link for Bodell's spotlight story.

Latrell Sprewell Greed Award Goes To...

Latrell Sprewell Greed Award Goes To...

You may remember back in late 2004, when Latrell Sprewell, who played basketball for the Minnesota Timberwolves, announced he had a problem. He was worried about being able to feed his family. At the time, he was being paid $14.6 million a year by the Timberwolves. But what really worried Latrell was that the Timberwolves had offered to pay him $21 million for the next 3 season, a mere $7 million per year. When it comes to greed without shame, Latrell Sprewell is one of the guys leading the league.

Now I read where Investment Management president Bruce Lambrecht, who has had personal and political ties to Hennepin County Commissioner Mark Stenglein, is whining about the number of millions of dollars Hennepin County is about take from its tax payers and give to his company so that it can build a stadium on his land. Stenglein said that when the county filed for condemnation two months ago, Lambrecht said to him, "God, Stenglein, you guys are condemning our livelihood."

Richard Pogin, chief financial officer of Investment Management Inc., which represents the property owners, said Friday that the county has budgeted a maximum of $13.5 million to buy the site, which he said is far below its fair market value. County officials have declined to make public what they have offered, though county records list the property's assessed value at $8.37 million.

So basically Lambrecht helped get Stenglein re-elected specifically so that the county would buy his land and make him richer, but $13.5 million isn't enough!

Bruce Lambert gets one of our Latrell Sprewell Ten Most Selfish and Greedy Minnesotans award for 2007.

Torture in the USA

Torture in the USA

Oh my god. This is sick and scarey. And it has nothing to do with Minnesota -- unless you want to think about how ignorant right-wing idiots can elect politicians willing to torture, or elect right-wing cops who are thumpers to be county sheriff.

But torturing a college student for not showing his ID, and continuing to do so because he can't stand up precisely because you as a "cop" are repeatedly Tasering him?

What the hell has this country come to?

MN 6th district full of imbeciles?

MN 6th district full of imbeciles?

I'm embarrassed to be from Minnesota today.

Sure, I'm disappointed that Governor Tim "king of the suburbs" Pawlenty was re-elected in a tight squeaker of a race. Even though he's rotten to the core, it's easy to see how his fake Mr. Nice Guy demeanor and false advertising would delude the cotton heads that pass for many voters into thinking he was a good choice.

I'm also disappointed the transportation "pave paradise with roads for SUVs" amendment was passed, as well. Ignorance and refusal to accept reality is a common human trait.

And there are other votes that of course did not go exactly as I would have liked.

But criminy... I can't believe the voters in the 6th district of Minnesota elected that raving paranoid, right-wing fundamentalist idiot, nut case Michelle Bachmann to the U.S. House. What part of her completely insane antics in the Statehouse and in the media did people not notice? Her habitual lying and monomaniacal extremism?

To all you morons who voted for Bachmann in the 6th, may a million camel fleas infest your pubic areas.

Pawlenty Still Bad for Minnesota

Pawlenty Still Bad for Minnesota

With the run up to the next governor's election here in Minnesota, this editorial I wrote at the last gubernatorial race that was never published, is just as applicable now as it was then. It's amazingly accurate in its predictions, too. Pawlenty was and is bad for Minnesota.

Tim Pawlenty would be bad for Minnesota

Contrary to Brian Sullivan's claim that Tim Pawlenty offers the best opportunity for Minnesota, Pawlenty is demonstrably the worst possible choice among the four major party candidates.

Let's examine a few items from the Pawlenty campaign.

First, Pawlenty pledges he opposes any tax increase - period. This is a clear indication that the man is grossly ignorant, unflinchingly dogmatic holding stubbornly to impractical theories regardless the consequences, or simply lying. Voters understand that the many benefits we are afforded under our elected government cost real money, and that money does not grow on trees.

Ignorance is no crime, and the ignorant can be educated. But after 20 years in government, Pawlenty has no excuse whatsoever for being ignorant. Anyone who refuses to improve upon their ignorance seems a very poor choice for governor indeed. If he is an ignorant man, it's clear that Pawlenty would be bad for Minnesota.

Pawlenty would ruin all services which government provides -- instead of changing to meet the needs of the citizens of Minnesota -- simply to remain true to his ideology. For a select few of his followers Pawlenty presents a "pure" agenda, but most Minnesotans have lives complicated by reality. Pawlenty the idealogue is bad for Minnesota.

If a governor makes blatant lies to Minnesota citizens, there's little more to be said about it. Nobody wants such a governor. Again, it's clear that Pawlenty would be bad for Minnesota.

Anybody with common sense and the ability to balance a checkbook knows full well when the state is already running a budget deficit of more than $1 billion and many programs are already short of money, one cannot buy promised new education and transportation programs Pawlenty promises without raising taxes. So which are you, Mr. Pawlenty? An ignorant man, a dogmatist or a liar?

Second, Pawlenty complains that our transportation "system is 20-30 years behind." This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been commuting during those 20 years. What may be surprising is to learn Pawlenty and running mate Carol Molnau have year after year vigorously opposed spending needed to prevent or fix this problem during their tenure in the state legislature. As House Majority Leader (Pawlenty) and, Chair of the House Transportation Finance Committe and member of the House Transportation Policy Committe (Molnau), this pair had far more influence over the direction of transportation policy and funding the past 10 years than most other legislators. Today we reap the benefits of what Pawlenty and Molnau sowed.

In the most recent session, despite a growing cry from the public for solutions to highway problems, Pawlenty and Molnau stubbornly resisted increasing the gasoline tax, unchanged for 14 years while the price of gasoline, cost of living and other states' gas taxes increased. Molnau went so far in 2000 as to say that she did not believe congestion was a problem since she saw none while driving the highways everyday from Chaska to the capitol -- of course, that was at 5AM when most people are still asleep.

Clearly here are a pair of politicians who are uninterested in the problems faced by commuters, but rather interested only in themselves and their politics.

Third, the Pawlenty campaign itself is a good example of why Pawlenty would be bad for Minnesota. The campaign got caught red-handed breaking campaign laws, and was docked $700,000. A new Pawlenty TV ad stoops to a new low in dirty, dishonest attack ads by painting opponents as supporters of the terrorists of September 11. The ad states that accused terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui learned to fly in Minnesota -- a complete lie, as Moussaoui did not take even one flight lesson here.

Pawlenty's campaign for governor appears filled with dishonesty. He deceives voters about his real intentions by promising the impossible, such as no new taxes. Pawlenty claims that as governor he will work to solve problems he himself was responsible for causing as a legislator. This kind of politician is bad for Minnesota. Ken Pentel, Bob Moe or Tim Penny are all far better choices than Pawlenty.

Tim Pawlenty & George Bush: Same outfit, same bad results

Tim Pawlenty & George Bush: Same outfit, same bad results

Today, a volunteer for the Alliance for a Better Minnesota came by my house and asked me 4 simple questions in a poll about the upcoming gubernatorial election. It was probably one of the most pleasant encounters I've had with someone going door to door. He gave me a piece of literature that contained the following. I thought it was so well said, I'm putting it here:

In his inaugural address in 2003, Tim Pawlenty made the bold statement: "I am anti-lousy results."

Really?

Well, almost 4 years later, Pawlenty is bringing us Bush-like results to Minnesota. He even said, "I'd stand with President Bush if his approval rating was 2 percent."

On issues important to Minnesotans, Tim Pawlenty hasn't accomplished anything. From health care to education, his record is all about lousy results.

Since becoming Governor

His record on health care is lousy:
- Pawlenty forced through budget cuts that led to 38,000 Minnesotans losing their health care.
- Over 94,000 more Minnesotans went without health coverage
- Pawlenty proposed cuts in programs providing health care to seniors on fixed incomes and even proposed cutting health care for low income Minnesotans.

His record on education is even worse:
- Pawlenty cut funding to K-12 schools by $185 million.
- Pawlenty cut funding to Minnesota's colleges and universities by $386 million.
- Tuition has increased at the University of Minnesota by a whopping 33%.

We need a Governor who will stand for Minnesota, not with George Bush.

Carnage on the sidewalk, but it's ok!

Carnage on the sidewalk, but it's ok!

I'm sure tragedies like the following one happen every day. They're always sad, especially for the loved ones and friends of the injured or dead. I don't know any of the people involved, but something just tripped when I read this story on the KSTP Channel 5 web site. My question is this: why is the guilty driver not being charged with something more serious, say, vehicular homicide? Why do we continue to excuse inattentive, irresponsible driving, and poor judgement while operating a motor vehicle? Exceed the speed limit by 30 miles per hour, no matter how safely, and it's a mandatory license suspension in some states. Run over a pedestrian and kill them, and get a slap on the wrist?

FARMINGTON, Minn. (AP) - Dozens of Jacquelynn Devney's Farmington High School classmates erected a 10-foot wooden cross in her memory after a driver crashed into her Thursday.

Devney was remembered as a farm girl that looked forward to starting college at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who loved the color green and had a great
sense of humor.
...

The 18-year-old was killed while weeding a sidewalk trail along Pilot Knob Road here as part of her summer job with the city.

She was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after 8:45 a.m., police said. The driver that hit her was going home after an overnight shift, fell asleep at the wheel and then drove onto the sidewalk.

There was no evidence of drug or alcohol use, said Peter Herlofsky, city administrator.

The driver wasn't injured. Police said the driver probably wouldn't be charged with any serious criminal charges.

I think the driver should be charged with serious criminal charges. Operators of motor vehicles need to be responsible enough to make sure they don't fall asleep at the wheel. There's simply no excuse for this tragic death.

Joe Soucheray is a bumbling shill for DeLaSalle

Joe Soucheray is a bumbling shill for DeLaSalle

In his third Pioneer Press column on Nicollet Island/DeLaSalle this year ( Jan. 1 and 15, plus today), Joe Soucheray again puts his research skills on display. Here are four examples:

1. ACTUALLY, THE TEN MOST ENDANGERED LIST HAS INCLUDED STREETS


Soucheray writes, about the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota: "I looked at its Web site, and I can't for the life of me find that they ever cited a couple of hundred feet of street, especially one such as Grove, which doesn't even feature any original cobblestones. It was repaved a few years ago!"

Minnesota's 10 Most Endangered Historic Properties of 2000

The Ten Most Endangered List for 2000 follows (in no specific order of importance): Granitoid Concrete Streets (SAVED!), Duluth, St. Louis Co.; 1909-10.
http://www.mnpreservation.org/portfolio.ten00.php

About six blocks of street total: Sixth and Seventh Streets between Irving Place and Wallace Avenue, Irving Place and Clover Street between Irving Place and Seventh Street.

http://www.ci.duluth.mn.us/city/council/resord00/00-026-o.html


2. ACTUALLY, GROVE STREET HAS BEEN ON THE LIST BEFORE


Soucheray writes: "And no, Grove Street has never previously appeared on the list."

10 Most Endangered 2005:

Saint Anthony Falls Historic District
Minneapolis, Hennepin County

Many consider the Saint Anthony Falls to be the "birthplace of Minnesota." The once great cataract fueled the flour milling and other industrial activity that made Minneapolis the main economic engine of the upper Midwest, and put Minnesota on the map. The long, slow decline of riverside industry has since provided extraordinary opportunities for city leaders to remake the historically designated district into a successful mix of recreational amenities, rehabilitated housing, offices and cultural places-all created with respect for the area's heritage. But the district's successful mix of modern and historic is delicate and faces constant threats. The first comes in the form of an athletic complex proposed by an educational institution. A planned retaining wall and tall lights for the athletic field are out of scale with the nearby Nicollet Island neighborhood, and may degrade the island's unique but fragile historic character.


3. ACTUALLY, RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ON ISLAND LONGER THAN DELASALLE


Soucheray writes: "The island's residents have tried desperately to hide their true intentions behind environmental and parkland claims, conveniently ignoring the fact that DeLaSalle has been on the island approximately 85 years longer than any of them." In other words, because no current Nicollet Island resident is 107 years old, the city should give DeLaSalle a street and parkland that taxpayers paid $1 million for? DeLaSalle started in a house in 1900. DeLaSalle's campus sits on top of residential land where people lived in townhouses and mansions decades before the school existed. And in at least a dozen cases, DeLaSalle has not been on the island 85 years longer than current Nicollet Island residents, some of whom have lived there since the early 1970s.


4. ACTUALLY, AT DELASALLE, BEHIND-THE-SCENES POLITICAL CLOUT 'R' US


Soucheray writes: "It is telling of behind-the-scenes political clout that there has been little support for the [DeLaSalle athletic] field in the mayor's office and in the council chambers in Minneapolis." News apparently travels slow to St. Paul. On Jan. 4, 2006, while Soucheray was presumably catching his breath between his Jan. 1 and Jan. 15 columns promoting a stadium for a private high school stadium in Minneapolis and castigating its neighbors, his former colleague Pat Reusse quoted Mayor R.T. Rybak in the Star Tribune, saying "I do support the DeLaSalle stadium openly." (http://www.startribune.com/508/story/161493.html)

And Soucherary apparently hasn't heard that Barb Johnson, a sitting member of DeLaSalle's Board of Trustees, is president of the Minneapolis City Council, which in Minneapolis is the most powerful city office. For the record, here are some of the elected and appointed officials with ties to DeLaSalle who will or already have made decisions on behalf of the public about whether DeLaSalle, a private school, may build a stadium and parking lot over a public street and public parkland.

At the Metropolitan Council (which is being asked by DeLaSalle to break its restrictive covenant banning athletic fields to protect public open space for passive public enjoyment, and to swap land elsewhere in the regional park system to make up for the loss of regional parkland in the inner city should the stadium be built):




• Roger Scherer, who represents District 1 and chairs the Met Council's management committee, is a DeLaSalle graduate and was named to the DeLaSalle Hall of Fame in 2004.


• Michael Rainville represents Minneapolis on the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Parks and Open Spaces Commission. He is also a member of DeLaSalle's board of trustees.




At the City of Minneapolis (which is being asked by DeLaSalle for a gift of almost half of acre of public right-of-way by vacating Grove Street; permission to harm the St. Anthony Falls Historic District by closing the street and constructing a stadium; a permit to build a stadium where city zoning does not allow it; permission to build a surface parking lot on the riverbank; as well as permission to impede emergency access by closing a street):




• City Council President Barbara Johnson is on DeLaSalle's board of trustees, serving on the executive committee as treasurer. She has not abstained from voting on DeLaSalle matters.


• City Council Member Cam Gordon has abstained from voting on DeLaSalle matters, saying that his son will attend the school next year.


• City Attorney Jay Heffern is a DeLaSalle graduate and has served on the DeLaSalle board of trustees.


• Interim Police Chief Tim Dolan is a DeLaSalle graduate.




At the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (with which DeLaSalle cut a deal to turn over public parkland for the stadium project, in violation of the park board's own plans and policies for Nicollet Island):




• Park board President Jon Olson's son was finishing his senior year at DeLaSalle when the school began lobbying the park board to provide land for its stadium.


• Park commissioner Walter Dziedzic taught at DeLaSalle High School.


• Park board attorney and lobbyist Brian Rice is a DeLaSalle High School graduate.


• Thomas Johnson, who the park board appointed to its DeLaSalle stadium Citizen Advisory Committee to represent "youth sports," has been chairperson of the DeLaSalle board of trustees and has worked for DeLaSalle as Vice President of Development.

Soucheray's lying propoganda bullshit column at the Pioneer Press's website.

As usual, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is full of bullshit and lies, which I suppose is only to be expected from such a dishonest, amoral jerk. The City Pages is nicely on top of the situation:

Pawlenty vs. MPLS: Nice try, governor

City's budget guru dispels the myths behind T-Paw's bashing

Governor Tim Pawlenty was in full campaign mode this week, popping up on talk-radio shows of all kinds. Aside from hitting his talking points for re-election--calling for immigration reform, walking a fine line on any new stadiums, pumping up the state's employment numbers--Governor HockeyPuck gently poked at evil Minneapolis, always good for shoring up the state's conservative base.

Appearing on MPR on Tuesday, Pawlenty got specific on how Minneapolis should save money and put more cops on the street. Trouble is, the Governor's spouting had almost no relation to reality, let alone good governance.

Every politician under the sun has to play the public safety card these days, so it was no surprise that Pawlenty used a couple of recent murders--Uptown and downtown--to opine that what Minneapolis really needs is more cops and now.

Pawlenty disingenously insisted that cuts to Local Government Aid at his direction the last few years isn't what has caused a budget crunch in Minneapolis--forcing city leaders to shrink the MPD. Instead it was simply poor fiscal management. In short, he sang the GOP refrain heard 'round the state these days: Liberal leaders in the state's largest city are soft on crime and bad with checkbooks.

So Pawlenty offered a solution: The city should do away with its Civil Rights Department and Civil Service Commission, eliminate or consolidate its park police, and figure out a way to merge its library system with Hennepin County's.

Pat Born, the city's CFO who has helped steer the city away from financial catastrophe the last few years, reacts with bemusement: "If the governor is saying he sees ways in which that will save money, I'll gladly sit down with him."

For starters, according to Born, the city figures it will spend $75,000 a year on each new cop hired, allowing for salary and benefits, not counting equipment. The city's 2006 budget is $1.2 billion, with a general fund of $318 million. Of that, $107.5 million, or 35 percent, goes to the MPD.

"Police are already our highest priority," notes Born, who is more an apolitical number-cruncher than a political partisan.

JON OLSON HAS NO INTEGRITY

JON OLSON HAS NO INTEGRITY

We already knew that Jon Olson, president of the board of commissioners of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, was an arrogant jerk. Worse, he hung with the wrong crowd, always aiding and abetting the Dirty Five commissioners in their sacking of the public purse. Now he's got the chutzpah to run for the 5th congressional district in Minnesota. But who knew that he had sold his own family down the river just so he could spring for a new Corvette when his father died? One of his sisters tells how it is.

Joe Soucheray is a lying idiot

Joe Soucheray, of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, is complete, unadulterated fucking idiot. His latest spew about the Catholic Archdiocese' high school named DeLaSalle located in Minneapolis is full of lies, more lies, insults, bullshit, even more lies, half-truths, distortions and more insults. It is completely lacking any sort of journalism, any kind of intelligent thinking or any honesty.

I could go through his ridiculous article and rip it apart point by point, demonstrating that Soucheray probably doesn't even get one salient point correct. But I don't have the time right now to waste on such an imbecile.

Think Joe is an idiot, too? You can tell him yourself at jsoucheray@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5474.

I've respected General and President Dwight Eisenhower for a long time. I was an Eisenhower Republican until the Republican party was usurped by amoral plunderers. I recently came across this web page containing Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech. I reprint it here in its entirety because it is so great, as well as prescient:

Address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953.

In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples.

To weigh this chance is to summon instantly to mind another recent moment of great decision. It came with that yet more hopeful spring of 1945, bright with the promise of victory and of freedom. The hope of all just men in that moment too was a just and lasting peace.

The 8 years that have passed have seen that hope waver, grow dim, and almost die. And the shadow of fear again has darkly lengthened across the world.

Today the hope of free men remains stubborn and brave, but it is sternly disciplined by experience. It shuns not only all crude counsel of despair but also the self-deceit of easy illusion. It weighs the chance for peace with sure, clear knowledge of what happened to the vain hope of 1945.

In that spring of victory the soldiers of the Western Allies met the soldiers of Russia in the center of Europe. They were triumphant comrades in arms. Their peoples shared the joyous prospect of building, in honor of their dead, the only fitting monument-an age of just peace. All these war-weary peoples shared too this concrete, decent purpose: to guard vigilantly against the domination ever again of any part of the world by a single, unbridled aggressive power.

This common purpose lasted an instant and perished. The nations of the world divided to follow two distinct roads.

The United States and our valued friends, the other free nations, chose one road.

The leaders of the Soviet Union chose another.

The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only ineffective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own free toil.

The Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future.

In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all costs. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others.

The result has been tragic for the world and, for the Soviet Union, it has also been ironic.

The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.

It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.

It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever.

There remained, however, one thing essentially unchanged and unaffected by Soviet conduct: the readiness of the free nations to welcome sincerely any genuine evidence of peaceful purpose enabling all peoples again to resume their common quest of just peace.

The free nations, most solemnly and repeatedly, have assured the Soviet Union that their firm association has never had any aggressive purpose whatsoever. Soviet leaders, however, have seemed to persuade themselves, or tried to persuade their people, otherwise.

And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.

This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.

What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealthand the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honest.

It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

The world knows that an era ended with the death of Joseph Stalin. The extraordinary 30-year span of his rule saw the Soviet Empire expand to reach from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan, finally to dominate 800 million souls.

The Soviet system shaped by Stalin and his predecessors was born of one World War. It survived the stubborn and often amazing courage of second World War. It has lived to threaten a third.

Now, a new leadership has assumed power in the Soviet Union. It links to the past, however strong, cannot bind it completely. Its future is, in great part, its own to make.

This new leadership confronts a free world aroused, as rarely in its history, by the will to stay free.

This free world knows, out of bitter wisdom of experience, that vigilance and sacrifice are the price of liberty.

It knows that the defense of Western Europe imperatively demands the unity of purpose and action made possible by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, embracing a European Defense Community.

It knows that Western Germany deserves to be a free and equal partner in this community and that this, for Germany, is the only safe way to full, final unity.

It knows that aggression in Korea and in southeast Asia are threats to the whole free community to be met by united action.

This is the kind of free world which the new Soviet leadership confront. It is a world that demands and expects the fullest respect of its rights and interests. It is a world that will always accord the same respect to all others.

So the new Soviet leadership now has a precious opportunity to awaken, with the rest of the world, to the point of peril reached and to help turn the tide of history.

Will it do this?

We do not yet know. Recent statements and gestures of Soviet leaders give some evidence that they may recognize this critical moment.

We welcome every honest act of peace.

We care nothing for mere rhetoric.

We are only for sincerity of peaceful purpose attested by deeds. The opportunities for such deeds are many. The performance of a great number of them waits upon no complex protocol but upon the simple will to do them. Even a few such clear and specific acts, such as the Soviet Union's signature upon the Austrian treaty or its release of thousands of prisoners still held from World War II, would be impressive signs of sincere intent. They would carry a power of persuasion not to be matched by any amount of oratory.

This we do know: a world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive.

With all who will work in good faith toward such a peace, we are ready, with renewed resolve, to strive to redeem the near-lost hopes of our day.

The first great step along this way must be the conclusion of an honorable armistice in Korea.

This means the immediate cessation of hostilities and the prompt initiation of political discussions leading to the holding of free elections in a united Korea.

It should mean, no less importantly, an end to the direct and indirect attacks upon the security of Indochina and Malaya. For any armistice in Korea that merely released aggressive armies to attack elsewhere would be fraud.

We seek, throughout Asia as throughout the world, a peace that is true and total.

Out of this can grow a still wider task-the achieving of just political settlements for the otherserious and specific issues between the free world and the Soviet Union.

None of these issues, great or small, is insoluble-given only the will to respect the rights of all nations.

Again we say: the United States is ready to assume its just part.

We have already done all within our power to speed conclusion of the treaty with Austria, which will free that country from economic exploitation and from occupation by foreign troops.

We are ready not only to press forward with the present plans for closer unity of the nations of Western Europe by also, upon that foundation, to strive to foster a broader European community, conducive to the free movement of persons, of trade, and of ideas.

This community would include a free and united Germany, with a government based upon free and secret elections.

This free community and the full independence of the East European nations could mean the end of present unnatural division of Europe.

As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:

The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.

A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.

International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.

A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.

The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safe-guards, including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.

The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither the United States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith-the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms.

This idea of a just and peaceful world is not new or strange to us. It inspired the people of the United States to initiate the European Recovery Program in 1947. That program was prepared to treat, with like and equal concern, the needs of Eastern and Western Europe.

We are prepared to reaffirm, with the most concrete evidence, our readiness to help build a world in which all peoples can be productive and prosperous.

This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. The purposes of this great work would be to help other peoples to develop the underdeveloped areas of the world, to stimulate profitability and fair world trade, to assist all peoples to know the blessings of productive freedom.

The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health.

We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world.

We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively guard the peace and security of all peoples.

I know of nothing I can add to make plainer the sincere purpose of the United States.

I know of no course, other than that marked by these and similar actions, that can be called the highway of peace.

I know of only one question upon which progress waits. It is this:

What is the Soviet Union ready to do?

Whatever the answer be, let it be plainly spoken.

Again we say: the hunger for peace is too great, the hour in history too late, for any government to mock men's hopes with mere words and promises and gestures.

The test of truth is simple. There can be no persuasion but by deeds.

Is the new leadership of Soviet Union prepared to use its decisive influence in the Communist world, including control of the flow of arms, to bring not merely an expedient truce in Korea but genuine peace in Asia?

Is it prepared to allow other nations, including those of Eastern Europe, the free choice of their own forms of government?

Is it prepared to act in concert with others upon serious disarmament proposals to be made firmly effective by stringent U.N. control and inspection?

If not, where then is the concrete evidence of the Soviet Union's concern for peace?

The test is clear.

There is, before all peoples, a precious chance to turn the black tide of events. If we failed to strive to seize this chance, the judgment of future ages would be harsh and just.

If we strive but fail and the world remains armed against itself, it at least need be divided no longer in its clear knowledge of who has condemned humankind to this fate.

The purpose of the United States, in stating these proposals, is simple and clear.

These proposals spring, without ulterior purpose or political passion, from our calm conviction that the hunger for peace is in the hearts of all peoples--those of Russia and of China no less than of our own country.

They conform to our firm faith that God created men to enjoy, not destroy, the fruits of the earth and of their own toil.

They aspire to this: the lifting, from the backs and from the hearts of men, of their burden of arms and of fears, so that they may find before them a golden age of freedom and of peace.

Kersten's plagiarism

I was amused this evening to discover that Spot over at the cucking stool has caught pin-headed columnist Katherine Kersten using blatant plagiarism to write her crack-pot, junior-high quality columns. Spot's got some other entertaining commentary on the ever-idiotic "Katie" Kersten on his blog, too. Yay, I say.

Kersten is just one of the reasons I cancelled my Star Tribune subscription. Like others, I suspect the Star Tribune will some day regret hiring Kersten as a columnist.