Gone Mild

I can’t help it about this here blog. I try to be thoughtful and calm, I search for the affirming and positive, I hope to bring more warmth than heat – and then I start typing and words like “knucklehead” and “seductive form of idiocy” and “straight-up coward” charge onto the screen, and we’re all left with something less than gentle. I really do have kind impulses, but . . .

Deliberate Obfuscation is the yin to my yang. I rarely even mention my wife on this blog – it’s not the sort of environment she enjoys – but she has started her own blog, and, like everything else she does, I can see that it will be done with discipline, gentleness and charm.

We’ve been married 30 years, and been together as a couple for about 33 and 1/3. (People our age will recognize that as a record speed, from the days of vinyl.) I know the lady fairly well. I’ve known her since she was 18 – I can’t even do the math of how many dinner conversations we’ve had, how many breakfast musings, even how many actual letters and cards we’ve exchanged. I like to think I know her playbook; that she’s out of surprises.

But she’s not. No wonder we don’t complete each others’ sentences. I still love her voice, and want to hear things in her words.

Her blog is already good, and I know it’s going to continue to surprise and impress. She did a really nice post about listening to an old doctor tell stories from his youth, and she managed to keep the focus on the importance of listening, rather than simply recounting the tales. She does that a lot – thinks a little more and goes a little deeper than you’d expect.

A seductive form of idiocy has been circulating on Facebook, purporting to clarify the federal budget by removing some zeros and couching it in terms of a family budget.  Ahhh, now it comes clear – we have a deficit, and if my household had such a deficit, I would be in trouble.

No. Simply no. Don’t fall for this.

Don’t post this and encourage your friends to join you in your “common sense” understanding.

There are three main problems with this misleading piece of work. First, and most fundamentally, it is based on a basic false premise – the federal government does not work like a household budget. Most families do not print their own money, or have the vast majority of their debt held by members of the same family. Second, its fundamental dishonesty leads to a disastrous conclusion. Third, if you insist on analogizing the federal budget to household budget, then at least get a better grip on where the cuts would come from.

To put the silly analogy on the defense, how does it apply if a newly emancipated 18 year-old is considering taking out a student loan to launch a career? How does it apply if a family member has a heart attack, and the family doesn’t have the cash on hand to pay for a doctor that day? Why does this family insist on spending such a huge percentage of its budget on guns? This family would be just fine if it got along with its neighbors better . . .

Dave Helling penned one of the most depressing things ever to appear in the Kansas City Star this morning, obituaries included.  Sadly, Dave bends logic and truth in a vain attempt to excuse flaccid reporting, his own and that of all other reporters who have morphed into stenographers of bullshit, and feel helpless to fight back.  Helling announces his intent to abandon factual truth because it is too confusing, and arrogantly claims he will try to report on the broader implications “with the truth folded in.”

Our newspaper thinks its job is to “fold in” the truth.  Folks, that is frightening and sad.

The spark for this sad, sad “justification” was Art Brisbane’s embarrassing column “looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”  In a nutshell, the world said “duh,” and reporters were shocked.

So how can Helling plausibly defend reporting falsehoods?  Well, he can’t do it plausibly, so he starts off by trying to marginalize the critics.  It was just those pesky bloggers who reacted with incredulity that reporters don’t realize it’s their job to pursue the truth.  The “commentariat”.

That’s his first mistake.  Bloggers and commenters were merely reflecting what everyone was saying and thinking.  Helling confuses the medium with the message-givers.  Brisbane did not merely attract the scorn of the blogosphere, he earned the scorn of every thinking person who heard his question.  Bloggers just took the time to write their opinions.  If he had floated the question to the people on the bar stools at 75th Street, he would have heard the same damned thing, only louder and more profane.

Shame on Helling, but it gets worse.  Helling goes on to demonstrate that he is confused by facts.  Employing a too-lengthy (space-filling?) example of different but true statements about gas prices, Helling waves his hands in the air and cries out in pain and confusion as to whether gas prices have sky-rocketed during Obama’s presidency, “The only correct answer: It depends.”

No, Dave, no.  You are confusing conclusions with actual facts, and it is hard for me to believe that you, a grown man who has presumably had some training (though apparently little experience) can not tell the difference.  People don’t want or expect reporters to correct politicians’ conclusions, but they cling desperately to the hope that reporters will correct their facts.

Helling cannot tell the difference.  He goes on to raise other conclusions that he is confused by – “Did Mitt Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, mishandle management of a Kansas City steel plant?  Are there too many firefighters in Kansas City?  Are local taxes too high?”

Dave, those are opinions, and we don’t want you to report what you think is “the truth” on those.  It frightens us that you don’t understand that distinction.  If a politician says the local taxes are too high, that’s okay, and you should report it.  If s/he says that the local taxes are 48.36%, that’s a lie, and you should challenge it.  If Troy Schulte says that there are too many firefighters in Kansas City, that’s an opinion, and you may report it as such.  If he claims that there are 15,000 firefighters in Kansas City, then check the facts and let us know if he is telling the truth.  Are you getting the hang of this?

Sadly, Helling doesn’t understand the difference between facts and opinions, and he announces his intention to avoid facts and focus even more on sloppy “truthiness”, like some new age shaman of received wisdom.  Reporters should not report the truth – they should “fold in” the truth while “examin[ing] the broader implications of [politicians'] decisions.”

“Fold in” the truth to support examination of “broader implications”?!  That is what Dave Helling thinks reporters should be doing?!

Dave, let me be as clear and direct as possible.  I sincerely do not care what you or your fellow Star reporters think on policy issues.  I do not care.  You are not a thought leader in this community.  You have demonstrated neither wisdom nor insight, and even if you had, I choose not to place my trust in your future wisdom or insight.  I have not voted for you.

I want reporters to tell the truth.  Consistently.  Regularly.  Daily.  Not fold it in when it supports your analysis.  I want reporters to represent the truth, and let readers reach their own conclusions and form their own analysis.

I’m sad and frightened that we need to tell you this, but you’ve made it clear that I do.

When I last posted on this blog, I had directed my attention to Claire McCaskill’s support of indefinite detention of Americans without due process, and called her out on her cowardice.  At the same time, I read that Claire McCaskill refused to announce opposition to SOPA/PIPA.   (Some sites are mistakenly claiming that she was a cosponsor, but she was not.)  Of course, I immediately decided to shut my website down as a protest of her apparent silent preference for corporate profits over internet freedom, and, yesterday, other websites joined in my protest.  Even though Ms. McCaskill never actually came out in opposition to SOPA/PIPA, some of her corporate fellow-travellers did, with even Senator Roy Blunt withdrawing his support.

(In a way, I have a grudging admiration for the fact that when Claire McCaskill sells out, she stays sold even when the rest of the rats are jumping the corporate ship like Italian captains.)

Thanks to this site and a few others of similar stature like Craigslist and Wikipedia, it appears that Claire McCaskill’s attempts to harness the internet for Rupert Murdoch have been foiled.  (I’ll admit that the late-coming websites’ decision to actually notify people what they were doing was a nifty addition to my strategy of silence.)

Yesterday, Senator McCaskill voted to allow the US military to indefinitely detain Americans on American soil without giving them a right to trial by jury.  If the military says you are a terrorist, you don’t even need to be charged – you can be locked away for the rest of your life, and Claire McCaskill is okay with that.

“But I’m not a terrorist,” you say.  Well, maybe you are and maybe you’re not.  And maybe you are and don’t even know it yet.

Terrorism is a slippery concept.  It turns out that I could be labelled as a supporter of a terrorist organization because of some raffle tickets I bought in 1979.  If one of your church leaders starts talking about confronting the military for its stockpiling of nuclear weapons, or taking action against abortion providers, or questioning the behavior of the Fed, or swamping the website of a Senator, you, too, could be a terrorist.

And remember, you don’t actually even need to be a terrorist to get locked up for life under McCaskill’s plan.  You merely need to have someone in the military SAY you are a terrorist.  You don’t get to prove your innocence in a court of law.

Yes, folks, it really has come to this, and Claire McCaskill has voted in favor of the military being able to lock up whomever it chooses without even charging them.  (Roy Blunt did, too, but nobody expected better from him, did they?  After all, he’s one of those small-government types who believes the government should be able to jail anyone it chooses.)

While it’s hard to guess why Claire McCaskill voted the way she did, it’s clear that she did it out of cowardice.  Perhaps she really, truly believes that the world is suddenly too dangerous to exist without allowing the military to arrest whomever it wants.  Perhaps she lacks the resolve – the guts – to exist in a free society.

Or, more likely, she fears she will lose her election if anyone makes even the most bogus claim that she is soft on terrorism.  Perhaps she fears that she will face a commercial some day in the future that says “Claire McCaskill voted against locking up terrorists.”  It’s probably a legitimate fear – republican zealots will say and do anything to win an election.

But that’s not an excuse.  Claire McCaskill has voted to give the military rights the military should not have.  Rights that we associate with dictatorships and monarchies.  Whether she did it out of fear of terrorists or out of fear of Jeff Roe, she should have had the courage to stand up for the American public.

Mayor Sly James is in the paper today touting a new downtown hotel.  Sigh.  I told you this would happen.

There are only two groups of people who think that a downtown hotel is a good idea:  people who stand to make big money building one, and politicians who rely on the first group for donations.  It’s a pipe dream that such a hotel would ever achieve more than a 50% occupancy rate, and there is NOT A CHANCE N THE WORLD that the taxpayers will not get stuck with a multi-million dollar tab.

Who wants Kansas City taxpayers to shoulder yet another multi-million dollar failure?  Construction companies, development lawyers, cab companies, downtown landowners, and politicians who are controlled by that same group. Unfortunately, in KC, that means all politicians, even the genial ones. Oh, and the unquestioning development cheerleaders at the Star – one mustn’t forget about them!

Mayor James is wrong, horribly wrong, on the downtown hotel issue.

As I wrote just over a year ago,

First, understand that the big money wants to build a big, expensive hotel downtown, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the city. Why? Because there is a lot of money for them to make, while they bear no risk at all for the inevitable failure of their false projections.

$300,000,000. That’s the low end of what the project is anticipated to cost. That is money that will be spent – pure economic heroin jabbed into the arms of development lawyers, construction companies, consultants and landowners. Three. Hundred. Million. Dollars. (Plus the cost over-runs and change orders and litigation and – well, I would continue on but I can sense the development community reading these words as the hottest form of pornography they can imagine, and I hate to give them that much pleasure.)

Make no mistake.  If this downtown hotel idea were a good idea, it would get built with private funds.  The only reason Kansas City taxpayers are getting tossed into the mix is because somebody other than the politicians and their donors needs to be put on the hook for the inevitable failure.

I had the pleasure of meeting Jeremy Lafaver earlier this week.  He’s bright, level-headed, informed on the issues, and intent on running a clean campaign focused on reasons why he is the better candidate, rather than why his opponent(s?) are inferior.  Folks, it looks like the 44th District might be getting the kind of race it deserves.

Informed observers (that’s me) were concerned that the race to succeed Jason Kander’s seat was shaping up to be a repeat of the 2008 race.  In that race, a bright young attorney ran against a lobbyist preferred by the insiders, and the insiders responded with vile attacks and disgraceful behavior on their way to a humiliating defeat.  A repeat of that race would be a disservice to the district and to Democracy itself.  Fortunately, Jeremy Lafaver has a better plan.

In our conversation, Lafaver focused on what he sees as his key issues.  Education, Child Welfare, Quality Jobs, and Health Care will be his focus during his race, and those issues are forthrightly set out on his website, which launched yesterday.

In a prior post, I had described Lafaver as a lobbyist, and I was pleased to hear that he doesn’t shrink from the description.  ”I think experience in the legislature is a positive, and I’m proud of the work Partnership for Children has done for Missouri’s children,” he explained.  It was refreshing to meet a lobbyist who doesn’t view his occupation as a slanderous label.

My earlier concerns that 2012 would echo the prior contest are calming.  Both Lafaver and his opponent Chris Miller seem focused on the issues, and both have learned from Jason Kander’s positive example that the way to win this race is by knocking on doors and engaging with voters.  Lafaver specifically pointed out the Burke/James mayoral race as worthy of emulation for being a contest that managed to stay positive until the closing moments (when Jim Bergfalk slimed the city).  If their mutual supporters show the same level of dignity that the candidates themselves demonstrate, the 44th District will go to the polls with two good options to choose to step into Jason Kander’s massive shoes.

I wrote about this topic a couple years ago, but my tastes have changed, and the beers available have changed.  So here’s a mildly amended list of beers to serve up with turkey on Thanksgiving.  But, as I said back then, the best choice is whatever sounds good to you.  There is no wrong call on this, or in any other beer match-up.

1)  Tank 7, by Boulevard.  This stuff is perfect for a rich turkey dinner.  Light in body, flavorful, effervescent and hoppy enough to cut through the fats in the rest of the meal.  If Tank 7 isn’t available, ask your beer vendor for a Saison – it’s a French farmhouse style ale that goes great with almost any meal.

2)  Dead Guy Ale, by Rogue.  This is a rich, malty, ale version of a Maibock. It is tasty enough to stand out, but won’t dominate the meal.  If you can’t find Dead Guy, ask for a maibock.

3)  Blue Paddle Pilsner, by New Belgium.  This looks like a typical pilsner, but it is bursting with hop flavor.  The malt body is really pretty impressive, but the hops steal the show, and will awaken your palate between bites.  If you can’t find Blue Paddle, ask for an American-made hoppy pilsner.

4) Boulevard Pale Ale, by Boulevard.  One of the most under-appreciated beers in the land, this has the balance between malt and hops to wash down the whole plate of turkey, stuffing, potatoes, and pumpkin pie.  If you can’t find Boulevard Pale Ale, Sierra Nevada is a great choice, too.

5) Baltika #6, Baltic Porter.  This beer doesn’t get the love it deserves – you can usually find a 16.9 oz bottle for a couple bucks.  This is a big, rich beer, so don’t mess with it unless you are wearing loose sweat pants and going for the sheer gluttony approach to the meal.  It’s not subtle, it won’t clean your palate, and it will coat your tongue with another level of richness after turkey meat, stuffing, and pumpkin pie.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone!

When I heard who the Republicans were turning to for a second-string Lieutenant Governor candidate, Brad Lager’s name triggered a vague negative connotation.  When a Republican friend posted an Facebook status praising Lager for being a “good family man” and an “outstanding fiscal conservative”, I dug through the archives of the blog and unearthed my first contact with the guy - a little over 5 years ago, on a not-fast-enough-for-a-VIP stretch of highway.  Not exactly a big scandal, and I’d be shocked if there aren’t Dems who have done that and worse, but it struck an impression that his subsequent 5 years of participation in Jefferson City Republican politics haven’t erased.

The Missouri legislature is considering putting toll booths on I-70 to raise funds for highway maintenance. Implementing toll booths would require a legislative vote and a voter-approved amendment to the Missouri Constitution, but it’s possible we could see that vote in the coming year.

My predilection is to oppose toll booths.  It’s not so much the money – I would willingly pay increased taxes to have better roads in Missouri.  I don’t like the hassle of stopping for tolls, nor the “big brother” devices that could allow me to zip past the booths while having my movements recorded by bureaucrats.  The prospect of facing toll booths would discourage drivers from exiting to visit the various businesses along the highway, and our flea markets, tobacco shops and porn emporiums could suffer an economic hit.

To be fair, though, I’ll acknowledge that imposing a toll would distribute the cost of highway maintenance to those who benefit, though rough justice in that regard is already accomplished by funding the maintenance through gas taxes.  There are a host of details to be worked out – including the possibility that the work would be done by a private company, with the inevitable corruption and insider dealing that would arise from the collusion of Jeff City republicans and their big-business donors.

This bad idea has been around since at least 2002; will 2012 be the year for tolls?