1)   The sun rose, Armageddon had not arrived, and fire, brimstone and locusts appeared to be in short supply;

2)   I was still married, despite the unsuccessful defense of my marriage;

3)   Thousands of Minnesotans had not converted to gayism, as per the alleged “Gay Agenda.”

This had to come as a relief to opponents of same-sex marriage, who had long feared the aforementioned.  With those concerns allayed, I hope they’ll now be less stressed out about marriage equality.   If you’re a gay marriage supporter, today’s a new day.  If you’re not, life goes on.

The Minnesota Senate passed a law extending the freedom to marry to gay people.  A few hours later the Minnesota Vikings presented a stadium design that is more likely to be featured in the Hirshorn Museum than the Football Hall of Fame.

I feel for my conservative friends, who are hopelessly nostalgic for the glory days of their youth, when Ward and June were prototypical couples and football was played in Met Stadium’s glorious mud, wind and ice.  Yesterday, they were served a heapin’ helpin’ of contemporary change, and I know it was jarring for them.  As of this post, shrapnel from Joe Soucheray’s head reportedly has been found in three neighboring states.

Yesterday, my conservative friends were told that some married couples will look like Ward and Ward, and June and June.  That does take some getting used to.  But as one who had to get used to the idea myself, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there is a lot to admire about this new brand of married couple, such as a love so strong it has survived waves of ignorance, bigotry and hate.

On the same day that the legal definition of marriage was broadened by the Legislature, my conservative friends were also told that they would not be able to watch football the way they say it was meant to be watched — in crappy weather in a traditional stadium whose architecture has only slightly evolved since the Flavian Amphitheatre.  Call it Lambeau envy.

Admittedly, the new Vikings stadium design is “different,” a word that passive aggressive Minnesotans tend to use when they actually are meaning “sucky,” but, little known fact, is actually defined as “not the same as others.”

The new Vikings stadium definitely is “not the same as others.”   It looks a bit like a football field grown inside of Reverend Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral, or a hog confinement building after a tornado, or a half-assed green house constructed of scrap materials, or the Walker Art Museum on bovine growth hormones.

That does take some getting used to. But as one who crinkled my nose the first time I saw the asymmetrical design, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there are a lot of things to admire about this new brand of stadium — stunning skyline views from inside, sunshine to replace the Metrodome’s perpetual dinge, windows that crank open on the rare nice day, a blissfully clear path to spacious bathrooms, and climate control in a land of mostly “different” climate.

Yes, change takes some getting used to, and we won’t all love these changes right away.  But if we keep an open mind, I bet we will adjust to symmetrical couples and asymmetrical stadiums quicker than we think.  Onward.

- Loveland

Those are all good and important changes.  But of all the things that DFLers could do to impress Minnesota the swing voters who will determine in 2014 which party remains in control of the Legislature, I submit that the most memorable and impressive achievement would be to adjourn early.

I’m serious.  Declare victory and vamoose early.  Voters would adore legislators for it.

While  complex policymaking is sometimes difficult for voters with busy lives to appreciate, all voters appreciate the keeping of deadlines. We had deadlines in school.  We have them at work.  We have them for our taxes and fees.  Our spouses give us deadlines.  We have them for our household bills.   Every Minnesotans has to relentlessly meet deadlines throughout our lifetime, or we will face serious punishment.  Like it or not, deadlines shackle our lives.

Regular citizens appreciate deadline-making at a gut level.  For this reason, it makes us absolutely bananas when the Legislature regularly and cavalierly blows deadlines.  At school meetings, church gatherings, youth sporting events and backyard barbeques, I hear more complaints about this legislative habit than any other substantive issue.  Missed deadlines, or even nearly missed deadlines, make incumbents look like irresponsible and incompetent children.

I understand why pushing policymaking decisions to the last moment or beyond can be an advantageous move for a legislative strategist.  They employ brinksmanship to achieve their policy goals.  “Nothing focuses the mind like a deadline,” the saying goes.

This makes perfect sense inside the walls of the State Capitol, but leaders need to understand the optics outside the walls of the Capitol.  Voters get punished for missing deadlines, so they have a visceral feeling that legislators should as well.

Imagine how surprised and delighted Minnesotans would be to awake next weekend to news headlines like this:

“Legislature Surprisingly Finishes Work A Day Early.”

This news would be a stunner, one of those unlikely “man bites dog” type stories that voters never see.   Such a headline would disarm the perennial political challenger critique: “Legislators spent all their time on X, which prevented them from getting their  work done on time.”  It would send a signal that the grown-ups had arrived in Saint Paul at long last.

With the news this weekend that legislative leaders have reached agreement about the broad outlines of the fiscal end-game, finishing on time might seem more feasible than usual.  Still, legislative leaders are refusing to let go of pet initiatives that fall outside the agreement, so it still seems likely that negotiations will go right up to the deadline abyss.  Legislators probably will finish on-time, but just barely.  Just as they do nearly every year, they will look like children turning in half-assed assignments at the very last minute, and swing voters’ eyes will collectively roll.

If DFL legislators want to survive difficult mid-term elections in 2014, they should heed the sage advice of Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Bobby Womack about when to exit the stage:  “Leave them wanting more and you know they’ll call you back.”

- Loveland

My first exposure to homosexuality was being called a “fag,” “queer,” “homo” or “mo” on the playground of my Catholic elementary school.  Before I alarm people, this isn’t a confession, at least not the kind you may be thinking.

I was never accused of having romantic or sexual interests in boys.  In the 1970s, those epithets were liberally used by boys on the playground to describe general displeasure for wide variety of sins, such as when a classmate had poor performance in kickball.   In the language of the playground, those slurs, in that place in time, translated roughly to “you suck,” in the non-sexual sense.

At that tender age, there was nothing sexual about the anti-gay slurs. But there was nothing positive about them either.  The lesson we were teaching each other, and passing on down the grades, was clear:  Being called a homo was an insult, so being a homo obviously must be a really horrific thing.

I can’t begin to imagine how hearing that barrage of slurs must have felt to gay kids, and how many young straight minds it warped, like mine.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

 Through my childhood, I honestly never really thought that gay people existed in my home state of South Dakota.  I’m not joking or exaggerating.  I literally thought gay and lesbian people only existed in a few isolated parts of the world.  Maybe those people were in Paris and San Francisco, but not in the “normal” parts of America, and certainly not in my circle of family, friends and neighbors.  For that reason, I was indifferent about how gay people were being mistreated.

This wasn’t as parochial and mean as it sounds now.   Gay people in my life weren’t coming out of the closet, and I was neither a mind reader nor socialized in a way that would give me even a rudimentary “gaydar.”  So, out of sight, out of mind.

The Power of Personal Connection

That mindset slowly began to change when two astoundingly courageous guys in my hometown went to the senior prom in 1979.  This was big national news, a highly unlikely first to come out of a place like Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  I don’t remember making cruel jokes about it, but I’m quite sure I did.  I didn’t hate the brave gay couple.  But I certainly didn’t stick up for them either.

But this teen couple’s coming out did slowly start to shift my thinking.   I remember thinking:  “Could there be a few more gay people in South Dakota that I don’t know about?”

Not too long after that in a college psychology class, I read that as many as 10% of humans were homosexual.  The fact that it might even be half true rocked my worldview a bit.  But even knowing that, as incredible as it seems now, it still never really dawned on me that there were gay people in my midst.

When I moved to Washington, DC after college, gay culture was more prominent.  There was a neighborhood that straight people made snarky jokes about. There was the AIDS crisis, which struck me as horrible, but in an impersonal way.  Again, no one in my immediate circle of friends was saying they were gay, so I didn’t get too concerned about issues impacting “those people.”

Until I had a close friend who was gay, I didn’t once stick up for gay people.  I’d like to come up with even one heroic story for you, but I have none.  The golden rule was sitting right there to guide me, but I ignored it.

But again, part of the reason I couldn’t get sufficiently motivated about the injustice all around me was that the issue wasn’t close and personal to me. When that changed, I changed.  When some of my favorite people had the courage to tell me and the rest of the world that they were gay, I suddenly cared a lot about how American society was treating gay people.

Quite suddenly, it was no longer about gay rights.  It was about friends’ rights, co-workers’ rights, parents’ rights, and relatives’ rights.  Then, after a little flirtation with the notion of civil unions, it all became very clear what needed to happen.  My friends, co-workers, and relatives obviously needed to be treated equally and fairly.

The important point here is that I didn’t change myself.  My gay friends’ courage changed me.

The Real Heroes of the Marriage Movement

As the freedom to marry legislation is debated at the State Legislature this week, a lot of straight people will be congratulating ourselves about how righteous and courageous we are for fighting for LGBT freedom and equality.

We need to get over ourselves.   Heterosexuals clearly wouldn’t be where we are today if gay people hadn’t had the unfathomable courage to stand up and tell a hostile world who they were.  Straight people like me failed the courage test for decades, and it took dauntless gay people to finally get us to change.

Straight leaders, activists and constiuents are playing a role in the history being made at the State Capitol this month.  Good for us.  Finally.  Good for us.

But let’s be honest with ourselves, heterosexuals.  We are playing a small supporting role in this freedom to marry movement.  The real heros are not the heteros.  The real heros are the people who had the courage to speak truth to power when it was difficult and dangerous:  “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.”  That, much more than straight people’s belated courage, is at the core of what is changing America.

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Public Health Claims.  Public health advocates point to price elasticity research showing that taxing cigarettes, and thereby increasing the cost of cigarettes, is the most effective way to motivate smokers to quit and prevent teens and young adults from starting down the path to addiction.  Consequently, increasing the tax on tobacco is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco-related death and suffering, and the related costs.

Smokers’ and Political Reporters’ Claims.  But smokers, and political reporters, portray the tobacco tax very differently.  They describe the tobacco tax as nothing more than a politically expedient way to raise money.  Because only about 19% of Minnesotans smoke, they say politicians are just picking on an oppressed minority.  Moreover, smokers’ rights advocates scoff at arguments about the tobacco tax reducing tobacco use, saying “people will continue to smoke regardless of the tax.”

What About The Tobacco Industry Experts?

 But what about  tobacco industry officials themselves?  In their private unguarded moments, what do they say about the impact of the tobacco tax on smoking behaviors?  After all, probably no one has studied this issue more carefully and thoroughly than them.

Fortunately, we don’t have to speculate.  We know.  The answer can be found in an office park in north Minneapolis.  As absurd as that sounds, I’m not kidding. To be precise, the answer is at 980 East Hennepin Avenue.  This is the entirely underwhelming home of something called the “Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository.”

A little background might be helpful.  A few years back, you may recall that Minnesota went after the tobacco industry over violations of Minnesota consumer fraud and anti-trust laws.  As a result of that action, the tobacco industry agreed to pay Minnesota a $6.1 billion settlement.

Unfortunately, Minnesota state legislators have shamelessly frittered away most of the lawsuit proceeds like drunken sailors.  However, we do have something left over from that lawsuit settlement — a mountain of internal tobacco industry documents that tell us precisely what the tobacco industry has learned about a wide variety of subjects.

So, I looked back at some of those documents.  It turns out that tobacco industry experts  know a lot about the impact of tobacco taxation on smoking behavior, probably more than anyone in the Minnesota Legislature could ever know.

So, let’s let the industry experts speak for themselves:

“When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back.” – Philip Morris, 1994

“Of all the concerns, there is one – taxation – that alarms us the most. While marketing restrictions and public and passive smoking [restrictions] do depress volume, in our experience taxation depresses it much more severely…” – Phillip Morris, 1985

“If prices were 10% higher, 12-17 incidence [youth smokng] would be 11.9% lower.” – RJ Reynolds, 1982

“It is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers, and that the goals of reducing teenage smoking and balancing the budget would both be served by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes.” – Philip Morris, 1981

“A high cigarette price, more than any other cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic impact on the share of the quitting population…price, not tar level, is the main driving force for quitting.” – Philip Morris, 1993

There you have it.  If Minnesota legislators want to motivate more smokers to quit and discourage young people from starting, increasing the tobacco tax works like a charm.

On the other hand, if  legislators want to keep the price of cigarettes lower — in the name of gallantly “protecting smokers” — more Minnesotans will remain smoking, become addicted to smoking, and ultimately suffer and die from smoking-related diseases.

That’s not some public health do-gooder’s earnest claim.  That’s not some political reporters’ cynical analysis of legislative gamesmanship.  That’s straight from the camel’s mouth.

Loveland

Note:  The author was the communications director for the Minnesota Attorney General’s office during part of the tobacco lawsuit referenced in this post.

Note:  This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Yet this weekend, the Vikings used a high draft pick — high for a punter anyway, a fifth rounder — to potentially replace Klewe. The Vikings say this move is strictly about Mr. Klewe’s on-the-field performance, and has nothing to do with any off-the-field issues.

As noted, Klewe’s punting career statistics just don’t warrant a firing.  Moreover, Klewe is not trending downward.  He is coming off his best statistical year of his eight year NFL career, averaging a net 39.7 yards per punt.

Still, Klewe may be in trouble because of other non-performance issues:

It could be about money, as it so often is in the NFL.  After all, the Vikings replaced placekicker Ryan Longwell last year, in part because his veteran salary was higher than a rookie salary.  But remember, Longwell’s on-the-field statistics had also started to slip.  Longwell was becoming both expensive and mediocre.  If Longwell had been on top of his game, as Klewe currently is, he likely would not have been replaced with a rookie.

This could be about age.  At 31-years old, Klewe’s age clearly isn’t hurting his punting now, but it could be in the next five years.  So, the the theory goes, why not preemptively replace Klewe, before age-related degradation of skills begins.  Then again, it isn’t unusual  for punters to remain viable in the NFL well into the second half of their thirties.    Of all the positions, punters and kickers have the longest careers.  And remember, Klewe is a full six years younger than Longwell was when he was replaced by the Vikings.

Given all of that, I’m just not convinced this isn’t at least partially about something other than the usual reasons for getting rid of an NFL player — performance, age and money.

Mr. Klewe, a libertarian, has been a highly visible champion for extending the freedom to marry to gay people.  That’s not the sole reason this highly accomplished professional is suddenly fighting for his job, but it, along with money, is part of the reason.

The NFL has a macho player culture.  It’s locker rooms are famously homophobic.  It also has a macho fan base, and team owners don’t like players sullying their brand with politically divisive issues — particularly, you know, THAT issue.  They especially don’t want to hear it from punters, the least macho position on the field.  Star running back Adrian Peterson could say virtually whatever he wanted about a political issue.  But a punter, come on?  Punters don’t sell a lot of tickets or jerseys for the owners.

Klewe is the best punter in Vikings history, with good years of punting ahead of him.  But he is probably going to lose his job with the Vikings to an unproven NFL punter, unless the rookie  puts on a shank-fest during his tryout.  You can’t convince me that Mr. Klewe’s gay rights advocacy doesn’t have something to do with that.

- Loveland

Note:  Photo from www.gaygamer.net.

But I’m also a parent who is one-third of the way into a grueling 12-year a college tuition march that will cost well into the six figures.  I don’t want to get melodramatic, but higher education officials need to understand how difficult the tuition burden has become for many families.  As we say in our household, “tuition is the new retirement.”  It is a statement of fact, not a joke.

Still, I have no regrets about my decision to prioritize paying for my kids’ higher education.  “Teach a man to fish,” and all that.  When I die, one of the things I will be most proud of is that I have been able to get my kids through college, so they can start their adult lives with a relatively full brain and empty credit report.  It will be among my most treasured gifts to them.

But while I’m truly proud to be do my part, I do expect higher education institutions to do their part, on the cost-containment front.  I agree that “you get what you pay for” when it comes to facilities and faculty, so I’m not a skin flint when it comes to higher education funding.  Still, there are some financial decisions in academia that just don’t pass the smell test to this beleaguered tuition payer.

For instance, a Wry Wing Politics reader recently shared a newsletter from the Dean of a University of Minnesota College.  Before I whine about something in that newsletter, I want to say that Minnesota would be a worse place if we didn’t have this College doing tremendous work, with all too little fanfare.  Rah, rah, rah for ski u mah.  Keep doing amazing work, College Who Shall Not be Named.

BUT, back to the Dean’s newsletter.  Among many other news items, the newsletter notes, without a hint of self-consciousness:

X and Y will be on sabbatical next year and then return to their respective departments.

It goes without saying that a paid year off is pretty much unheard of in other lines of work.  I’m a sole proprietor consultant, so I don’t get paid for years, months, weeks, days, hours or minutes off.   I’ve worked in other positions in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and there are no sabbaticals in those worlds either.

There is a good reason why sabbaticals are so rare outside of academia.  They are mega-expensive.  It is an enormous investment for any organization to make, so, like any large investment, it should be thoroughly evaluated.    If University administrators can make the case that a paid year-off will lead to significantly better research and/or teaching for many years to come, I could be persuaded.  I’m guessing that some sabbaticals are worth the investment, and some are not.  My point is simply that I hope that something that expensive is being used sparingly and thoughtfully.

However, this is where the Dean  loses me:  The reader who shared the newsletter tells me that one of the two professors is taking their paid sabbatical preceding an upcoming retirement.

A pre-retirement sabbatical isn’t a sound investment in education, because whatever benefit comes from the sabbatical will not be realized by the University for very long.  A pre-retirement sabbatical sounds a lot like a platinum parachute, not unlike the kind that University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler has, to his credit, promised to limit in the case of University executives,  because they “may have hurt the public’s trust in our stewardship of this great university.”

At a time when scores of  families are forgoing retirement to pay skyrocketing college costs, I can’t see a case for allowing university officials to use taxpayer-funded sabbaticals to significantly enrich their own retirement.

So again, higher education administrators, I’m willing to hold up my end of the higher education finance bargain.  Are you willing to hold up your end on the cost-containment front?  How about a comprehensive and fully transparent audit of how University of Minnesota sabbaticals are being used?  As a follow-up to the audit, how about a set of standards for identifying when sabbaticals are, and are not, worth the substantial taxpayer investment they require?

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.  It has also been republished in MinnPost.

Still, some of it gets a little maudlin and over-the-top.  It’s worth noting that the ultimate point of terrorism isn’t actually killing.  It is terror.  Terrorists want their killing and maiming to get blown out of proportion by the news media and our leaders, so that it dominates our psyches and disrupts our freedom and pursuit of happiness.

In other words, the only thing terrorists have to fear is the inability to promote fear itself.

Which is why I pose this question:  Should Americans be afraid about what happened in Boston?  We definitely should feel outrage, compassion and commitment to prevent future attacks.  But fear?  Terror?

Is Fear Of Terrorism Rational?

The Reason Foundation did an interesting analysis about the odds of suffering various calamities, which helps us understand what is most logical for us to fear.

• Chances of dying in a car accident:  1 in 19,000.
• Chances of drowning in a bathtub:  1 in 800,000.
• Chances of dying in a fire:  1 in 99,000.
• Chances of being struck by lightning: 1 in 5,500,000.
• Chances of being killed by a terrorist:  1 in 20,000,000.

I don’t know anyone who is enjoying life less because of their consuming fear of getting hit by lightning.   But many Americans are enjoying life less because of their consuming fear about terrorism, something that is four times less likely to happen than a lightning strike.  With them, the terrorists are winning, because they are giving terror way too much cognitive real estate.

According to researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Newcastle (Australia), we’ve spent well over a TRILLION dollars trying to prevent terrorists attacks since 2001.  We’ve stopped a lot of attacks, but even that Herculean effort can’t stop them all.  So that leaves us to ponder, how do we react when terrorist acts still happen?

Is Fear of Terrorism Helpful?

President George W. Bush was criticized for counseling Americans to go shopping after the 9-11 attacks.  Though President Bush never actually said those precise words, I frankly would endorse anyone who counsels us to get on with our lives in the wake of terrorist attacks.  Just as the British propaganda campaign urged British citizens to “Keep Calm and Carry On” during massive Nazi air attacks on their homes, I wish our leaders would do more to quiet citizens’ irrational levels of fear.

“Go shopping,” if Bush had actually said that, would have been a little too trivial a rallying cry.  But “go on living and loving” is sound advice. It’s a cliche, but life truly is way too short to spend it consumed by fear. We need to support our neighbors in Boston who are hurting, but we also need to keep it all in the proper perspective and move on with our lives.

Standing on the rubble pile in the wake of the horrific 9-11 attacks in New York City, President Bush famously cried into his bullhorn:

“I can hear you.  The American people can hear you.  And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

That little bit of sabre rattling was cathartic for a mourning nation, and great political theater.  But for the deranged terrorist who packed those pressure cookers with nails and ball bearings, I have a feeling that the reaction that would be most discouraging is not cries of retribution, but the murmur of a courageous nation being calm, and carrying on.

- Loveland

In Minnesota, Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) has been beating that drum as well:

You can’t afford to completely encase your schools with bulletproof windows and steel locked doors — but you can afford to share the cost of an officer with the city or county, as some districts are doing.

Sometimes schools use armed guards to protect students, rather than allowing the headmaster to wield a Bushmaster.  Last week, a New York Times reporter looked into how that whole armed guard thing is going:

… the most striking impact of school police officers so far, critics say, has been a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially nonviolent behavior — including scuffles, truancy and cursing at teachers — that sends children into the criminal courts.

“There is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety,” said Denise C. Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland who is an expert in school violence. “And it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.”

Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are arrested or given criminal citations at schools each year. A large share are sent to court for relatively minor offenses, with black and Hispanic students and those with disabilities disproportionately affected, according to recent reports from civil rights groups, including the Advancement Project, in Washington, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in New York.

There are serious safety concerns associated with mixing guns into chaotic, emotional school environments.  But beyond safety, this analysis shows that armed guards also tend to escalate punishment much faster than principals do.  Therefore, if we put more armed guards in schools, we better be prepared to put more tax dollars into state and local government budgets for more law enforcement, courts, and jails.

Damn you, Law of Unintended Consequences.

But Senate DFLers are going a step further, and it’s a step too far.  They’re proposing to charge a sales tax on clothing items under $100.  I’m fine with their “soak the rich” income tax proposal, but this “soak the kitsch” tax is an outrage.

This would be a devastating blow to those of us who have found that one can build a kick ass wardrobe at Mennards and Fleet Farm, and never exceed a $20 per item threshold, much less a $100 per item threshhold.  Truthfully, my Carhartt ensembles looks better than the pretentious crap the swells buy at Nordstrums and Nieman Mark-up.  I swear, NO ONE can tell the difference.

If the DFL’s Tacky Tax goes into effect, I will be forced to join millions of Minnesotans who will surely be flocking to New York, New Jersey, Vermont, or Pennsylvania to avoid paying a crippling 90 cent tax on my next pair of $14.99 grandpa jeans.

What has happened to my party of the common people?

Note:  This post also was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.