Walk in the Sky: An Amazing Park, and a Discussion on the Role of Government and Spending

I have an interest in public policy and public art, including public arts funding which I have written about here. I saw something about this park this morning, of all places, on BBC World News,under their U.S.& Canada coverage, but unfortunately, I could not post their excellent video here, and without that video, the article was not very effective or informative. So here instead are a couple of videos from Youtube about this amazing place, and about the development of it. I find this an exceptional instance of vision and creativity, and I applaud it as something we should all consider further in debating the function and role of government in our lives, particularly the benefits of publicly funded projects using tax dollars.

For a better idea of what this park looks like, I offer you these additional videos:

This seems to me one of the best examples of the benefits that can come to the public with investment in public art and the development of public spaces.  The resulting revenue numbers are as inspiring as the views.  NOT funding such investment is penny wise and pound foolish, but it appears to be very much the premise of the Tea Party and the more libertarian-leaning members of Congress and members of the same political ideology at the state and local level.  They are wrong, they are mistaken; their ideology is flawed in practice.

Congress Limiting Rape to Forceable Rape ONLY for Abortion: the Republican Culture Wars against Sex and Women

Under Sweden's stringent rape laws, Julian Assange is facing rape accusations, in part for having initiated sex with a woman who was sleeping in the same bed, on the premise that a sleeping woman (or depending on the account you read, half-sleeping or dozing after having gone out to buy orange juice and other groceries for breakfast and then returning to bed) was unable by virtue of her somnolence to give consent to sex.  I find it ludicrous that being half-asleep or even fully asleep in bed, where a man or woman can wake up, and can consent at such an early stage of coitus to equate to a woman (or potentially a man) being incapacitated by either a date-rape drug, or some other pharmaceutical, or alcohol.  I am not a supporter of Assange, but I believe he should be faulted for what he has done wrong, not for a stupid trumped up charge that equates wake-up sex with rape.  That dilutes and  diminishes the seriousness of real rape by making such a charge a joke.

And as the second item of business in Congress, instead of working on legislation relating to jobs or other economic issues, Republicans are addressing rape and abortion in their continuing culture wars, inserting provisions to make rape laws less stringent in the context of abortion funding.

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

BLEEP My Dad Says

There is a new television show starring William Shatner titled "$#@! My Dad Says." As you might expect, it is a show about the tensions and situations between a Dad (Shatner) and his sons. I watched one episode.  It was not nearly as clever as the last Shatner vehicle, "Boston Legal".

It brings back memories of my upbringing. My father is an impeccably honest and decent man. I've had my rocky times with him; he is like Shatner, he says things which are harsh and critical, but meant to teach,  said always in love. He is very bright, and has made a number of observations which I carry to this day that I've heard no where else. One he made a long time ago, I still use as an ethical yardstick.:

The difference between a true conservative and others is that when asked for food (or money for food) by a starving man, if the conservative feels the man could otherwise work, they will say "no."

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Passes both House and Senate

What's Love Got to Do With It?

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting? ~The Value of Families

What are you trying to protect heterosexual marriages from? There isn't a limited amount of love in Iowa. It isn't a non-renewable resource. If Amy and Barbara or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean that John and Mary can't. ~Ed Fallon

In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation. ~Simone de Beauvoir

The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. ~Thomas Szasz

Minnesota Public Radio's station, KNOW, recently broadcast an interview with Paul Landskroener on the subject of gay marriage. Landskroener is the clerk of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting (St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN). The religious group, perhaps better recognized by the name "Quakers", is one of a handful of Quaker Meetings nationwide that has made the decision to stop signing the marriage certificates for opposite-sex couples until the state of Minnesota legalizes gay marriage.

While a recognized religion, Quakers, or Meetings of Friends as they are also known, do not ordain ministers. Marriages are conducted by couples reciting their vows in front of the congregation, after which witnesses sign the marriage certificate. In the context of this new decision, the signature of a Justice of the Peace or Judge or other officiant will be required to make the ceremony legally recognized. The Quakers have been holding wedding services for both same sex and opposite sex marriages, despite the lack of recognition for those same-sex wedding ceremonies.

After a three year period during which this new decision was considered, this group of Minnesota Quakers made the decision that this form of protesting the lack of gay marriage recognition was consistent with how they perceived the will of God.

Some Meetings of the Friends feel that not recognizing gay marriage is unjust. Others do not. There is much less centralization within the Society of Friends, each local group sets their own policy. A web site for an Ontario group, Religious Tolerance.org, addresses the range of positions held by the local meetings which are similar to the range of positions professed by other Christian denominations regarding homosexuality and bi-sexuality.

For example, according to the web site, as far back as 1963 in the UK, British Quakers published the book "Towards a Quaker View of Sex" embracing the position that God can be present in any relationship "where there is a measure of selfless love", and the Westminster UK Quakers accepted the view that God loves all people regardless of their sexual orientation, and that sexuality was God-given.

In the United States, the Hartford, Connecticut Quakers as far back as 1986 issued a statement recognizing both same-sex and heterosexual celebrations of marriage, and in 1988 the Beacon Hill Quaker Meeting of Massachusetts also issued a statement in support of recognizing same-sex marriage ceremonies. The Beacon Hill Quaker Statement says, in part,

"Mindful that only the heterosexual couples among us currently have the right to legally sanctioned marriages and its privileges, the Meeting asks Friends, and particularly couples preparing for marriage, to examine how best to respond and bear witness to the inequalities still present in the system."

The Quakers in Madison issued a statement, "Madison Affirmation on Homosexuality and Christian Faith", declaring they believe homosexuality was "neither a sickness or a sin", and finding that "homosexual persons have been condemned and mistreated by the followers of Jesus Christ".

In New Zealand, the Aotearoa Quaker Meeting in 1995 similarly pledged "to seek formal ways of recognizing a variety of commitments, including gay and lesbian partnerships." That statement also asserted the beautiful words "Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It cannot be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation,"

Other Quaker groups just as emphatically do NOT share this view of marriage and sexual orientation. In 1992, the Evangelical Friends Church Mid America Meeting affirmed an opposing position, comparing homosexuality to adultery, condemning both. They issued the statement, which included the view "Homosexual activity, like an adulterous relationship, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures." and "We as Evangelical Friends believe that sexuality has moral implications unlike race, gender, and or national origins."

Although certainly 'Mid-American' here in Minnesota, the Friends Meeting of the Twin Cities has sided with their co-religionists in Madison, Wisconsin rather than the position of the Evangelical Friends.

Soul Searching

"A blow to the head will confuse a man's thinking, a blow to the foot has no such effect, this cannot be the result of an immaterial soul. "
- Heraclitus of Ephesus
pre-Socratic Greek philosopher
535 - 475 BCE

"Whatever that be, which thinks, which understands, which wills, which acts, it is something celestial and divine; and, upon that account, must necessarily be eternal. "
- Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer and orator, politicl theorist & constitutionalist, linguist & translator,
106 BC - 43 BC

"For it is unknown what is the real nature of the soul, whether it be born with the bodily frame or be infused at the moment of birth, whether it perishes along with us, when death separates the soul and body, or whether it visits the shades of Pluto and bottomless pits, or enters by divine appointment into other animals."
De Rerum Natura (I, 113)
- Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus),
Roman poet and philosopher
99 BC - 55 BC

"The soul, which is spirit, can not dwell in dust; it is carried along to dwell in the blood." [Lat., Anima certe, quia spiritus, in sicco habitare non potest; ideo in sanguine fertur habitare.]Decretum (IX, 32, 2)
- Saint Aurelius Augustine (Augustine of Hippo),
philosopher and theologian, early latin church founder and saint
354 -430

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. "
"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."
- Rene Des Cartes
French philosopher, mathmetician, and physicist
1596 - 1650

"But whither went his soul, let such relate
Who search the secrets of the future state:
Divines can say but what themselves believe;
Strong proofs they have, but not demonstrative:
For, were all plain, then all sides must agree,
And faith itself be lost in certainty.
To live uprightly then is sure the best,
To save ourselves, and not to damn the rest."
- John Dryden
Poet Laureate, play write, literary critic, translator,
member of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement
of Natural Knowledge (aka 'the Royal Society')
1631 - 1700

"One certainly has a soul; but how it came to allow itself to be enclosed in a body is more than I can imagine. I only know if once mine gets out, I'll have a bit of a tussle before I let it get in again to that of any other. "
~Lord Byron, poet and member of the Royal Society
1788 - 1824

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (ĭ-pĭs'tə-mŏl'ə-jē)n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
[Greek epistēmē, knowledge (from epistasthai, epistē-, to understand : epi-, epi- + histasthai, middle voice of histanai, to place, determine; see stā- in Indo-European roots) + -logy.]e·pis'te·mo·log'i·cal (-mə-lŏj'ĭ-kəl) adj., e·pis'te·mo·log'i·cal·ly adv., e·pis'te·mol'o·gist n.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

In the great debates over health care reform specifically, and more widely on the subject of abortion, the argument returns to the premise that abortion is wrong because of the belief independent individual life begins at conception, including the presence of a soul. Representative of that is the greater than usual number of quotations, including the definition and origins of 'epistemology', because of its relevance to my examination of the topic. I had many more, including Plato and Aristotle, Einstein and Jung, and a variety of theologians, which I pruned to the current several here.

I have read widely on the subject of our human soul and spirituality, and listened to many different voices pontificating ther dogma on the subject in the course of satisfying my own curiosity. The identification of a special essence, a special quality, that we generally term a soul exists across a wide range of cultures, around the world and across the span of our history. The identification of what we call 'soul' exists in the religious beliefs of the most primitive of cultures across the spectrum to the most sophisticated societies, as we define them by technology and science, literacy, political development, affluence, and a plethora of other criteria (take your pick).
All of which strongly suggests the existence of something we as humanity define, more or less, as our souls. This breadth of recognition might suggest some sort of consensus, some unanimity of understanding, a clarity and agreement on definition, right?

Not even close; as always, there are details rampant with devils, lots and lots of little devils.

There is no consensus across history or across the geography of our planet on any single specific aspect of that essence we name souls. We don't agree on what it is; we don't agree on when it is inside of us; we don't agree on the origins. We don't even fully agree on whether or not the soul is immortal or eternal; some believe that the soul can die, others that it grows as the body grows, with experience. We don't agree on how, where, and from whom our souls derive. We don't agree on who or what possesses a soul.

The Christian tradition is contradictory. The roots of early Judaism posited that animals, at least some animals, had souls, as do other religious and spiritual traditions. In Islam, the belief is that the soul enters the body of a fetus in utero after 40 days. Not 90 or 180 days, not 30 minutes, and not at conception; they are quite definite on the 40 day figure. But then, in the Islamic faith, not only humans have souls either. Djinn and angels also have souls in that faith's traditions. In the Druidic tradition, and in many other traditions (the many irreverent verses of "Give me that old time religion" are playing in my head) so do some trees and other inanimate objects.

Ethnocentrically, most of the people I know (but not all by any stretch) would argue for accepting only the more conventional and recent Judeo-Christian notions of souls. So.....that simplifies the concept entirely right? Hardly. Not only is there no consensus, if you ask the question not when is the soul first present, but rather when was the soul first present in the earliest human body, it presents an entirely different range of questions to be answered.

Recently I re-read a book I found very influential, "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jarod Diamond, a book about the comparative development of different societies, the how and why some developed greater technology and sophistication and others did not. Diamond covers the migrations of populations from Africa into the other continents on our planet, and briefly addresses the progression of what we know about Australopithecus Africans, through homo erectus, homo habilus, and homo sapiens. He addresses the development of and competition between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon "man". So........who had souls? Did the Australopithecus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon? If you reject the science of evolution in favor of creationism, were the individuals whose remains we have discovered not at the very least been created by God as well, and therefore have souls too? Were they human enough?

I remember I was in elementary school the first time I saw the images of the Lascaux cave paintings; I thought they were beautiful. There are theories which equate the earliest origins of cave paintings and figural art, like the Willendorf 'venus' and the Hohle Fels 'venus', and the various cave paintings around the world, as indicative that our progenitors had developed the beginnings of religion and abstract concepts. The artistic figures were contemporaneous with the earliest formal burial customs (that we know of) which suggest belief in an after life, the beginnings of faith in something greater than ourselves. While there is not complete agreement in the significance of these paintings and sculptures, the overwhelming majority of the sculptures are female, and appear pregnant (although all of the figures, male, female, child, and animal from this period are included in the term 'venus'). There is a large segment of the experts who believe that the figures are indicative of a belief in one or more deites, especially some sort of fecund earth godess from whom life originates, and in belief that we are in the same general form as our deities.

In analyzing the progress of our species, who won, and who lost disappearing into history, Diamond further pursues the pressures and influences which resulted in our cultural and technological differences. He compares factors such as the difference in spacing the birth of children between nomadic peoples and settled/ sedentary societies, including the practices of contraception and abstinence, abortion and infanticide, and even castration of a percentage of male infants, as necessary to their survival as individuals, and as a group, because their way of life could not support or move more than limited numbers of people.

Someone, on another blog not so long ago accused me of "loving baby killing". The truth about me is far from that, and yet it was posited to me that the individual who made that statement was 'highly principled', the implication I took from that was that if I disagreed I must be less principled. I do not assume from the actions taken out of necessity for survival these earlier groups of people, who some would no doubt dismissively term 'dirt worshipping heathen', were enthusiastic about their options - that they loved killing babies, or that they were immoral or unprincipled.

Understanding and taking control of our reproduction is an important part of what differentiates human society from animals. The use of abortifacients is common to the earliest human medical knowledge, everywhere on the planet, at every time in human history. The ideology that abstinence will be practiced sufficiently that no other form of controlling reproduction is needed, is folly; it denies our history, it denies who we are, it denies the importance of the urge to reproduce that is inherent t0 human survival. I have pursued a certain interest in these materia medica used in humans and other species, as part of a larger interest in the area of reproductive science. They are found on every continent except Antarctica.

But it is not only a study of theology, history, literature, philosophy, art, archeology, anthropology, the history of medicines (primarily but not exclusively botanicals) that informed my thoughts on this subject. Besides the time spent in performing castrations and semen collection, and various efforts helping other species bring new life into the world, I've spent a good few hours in front of microscopes. I find semen fascinating; I have counted sperm in samples and evaluated it for the three "M"s - morphology, motility, and morbidity. I have differentiated mature sperm from immature (the immature have larger heads in relation to the tails). It never fails to inspire in me a sense of awe at the vigor and vitality of the stuff.

When I first had the opportunity to examine healthy semen under a microscope, observing the extent of the almost vibrating movement, I made the inadvertant comment that it was surprising that with all that motion observable under the microscope, it should tickle when you touch it. The response of the supervising professor was coffee expelled nasally; and another student observing that it did tend to explain why men seemed to scratch certain parts of their anatomy so often. (We were an all female group, otherwise we might have been more prudent in our observations, out of concern for making any male colleague uncomfortable.)

Nature is wasteful and redundant; it exists and thrives through excess. For every ova fertilized by a single spermatazoa, many millions fail. (I will skip expounding on capacitation and activation, on the presumption that not everyone shares my fascinaion.) An unknown and unknowable number of gametes - fertilised ova - fail to implant or otherwise fail to thrive. No count is kept of the women who only discover they were probably pregnant at some point only when their doctors happen to note the change to their cervix. No one can know how many more women are similarly affected by failures to implant or spontaneous abortion who do not have regular medical care that includes pelvic examination. That every failed embryo has a soul is to me incomprehensible; that every possible embryo equates to a fully developed human is even more unreasonable.

Beyond those failures of conception developing to term in vivo are those in vitro. Not only have we mastered the art and science of test tube babies, but we have cloned human embryos from human skin cells, and grown skin cells from foreskin. Those efforts are in pursute of creating pluripotent stem cells for research and therapeutic treatments. If we need more skin for skin grafts, we grow that from the circumcised foreskins of infants; about 4 acres of skin can be grown from a single foreskin (and like embryos, they can be frozen for storage).

The one constant for the development of any embryo to maturity, regardless of origin, is the requirement for it to be implanted in a woman in order to gestate. That fact suggests to me that women have a significance, an importance, that is greater in the consideration of reproduction than the value of any embryo, up until a sufficient cellular differentiation to survive independently. Further, I would argue that in the undifferentiated cellular state, as reflected in the first quotation from Heraclitus, that there is a lack of individuality as evidenced by a lack of neurological tissue - the lack of a brain, which seems an essential quality of being a human individual.

No embryos, of any species, have ever grown entirely in vitro. Do those embryos, those clumps of relatively few cells, largely undifferentiated, which are not implanted, which instead are frozen or discarded, all have fully equal souls to the rest of us, regardless of how the conception occurred? Some would say yes, many would say no. The reality is that people believe what they choose to believe; no one has proof, no one definitively KNOWS. The soul is the subject of belief, but it is not demonstrable, tangible, provable; it is at most a theoretical construct in which we decide to believe - myself included.

There are those in our society who would impose their beliefs on others. People who believe they know better than everyone else what is correct, who feel they need to enforce their beliefs on people who cannot be trusted to think for themselves, who cannot be allowed to believe differently. They demonize anyone who disagrees with them. They are willing to penalize them, sometimes to a draconian degree. They are willing to interfere with and disrupt the direction of people's entire lives, all the while congratulating themselves on their supposed moral superiority. Many of those same people are willing to enforce their views on all aspects of human sexuality on others, no matter how ignorant and uninformed by fact those views might be, or how fraught with unsupported assumptions.

They do not and cannot admit that someone could hold a different point of view that is valid or legitimate or moral based on different information or on different beliefs. This is the height of intolerance and hubris, and antithetical to the concept of separation of church and state, imposing a view that is both fundamentally religious and spiritual in nature, and specific to one or more religions at the expense of equal respect for other religious or moral beliefs, or the views of those who choose not to embrace any religion.

My friend and colleague here, ToE, wrote a while back in the comment section to something else I'd written, a sentiment I've heard expressed by many others:" when a woman makes a choice to engage in sexual relations, she bears equal responsibility for making sure that she does not become pregnant, and if she does, then she became pregnant because she chose to become pregnant or chose to not take suitable precautions against it." With the greatest respect and friendship for my friend and colleague, and for those others who share the view expressed in his statement, this is an oversimplification for the many and various circumstances under which women have sex. Some of those circumstances are less voluntary than others; some pressures are powerfully subtle and insidious, and women often are not always in control of those decisions because of disparities between men and women.

I cherish, respect and value those men I have known who care deeply and protectively about women and about children, including those not yet born. That protective concern is one of those qualities most essential (imho) in differentiating men from those who are merely male. Likewise, I believe a concern for nurturing others is similarly an important quality in women. So clearly, while I may differ in my point of view, unlike those who are vehemently judgemental of those who differ, I do value those who are in disagreement with me.

But in conscience, I cannot disagree with them any less intensely, or agree to the disruption and alteration of peope's lives they would so blythely impose. It is a matter of integrity, and of the most profound morality, to acknowledge the difference between what we know and what we believe, and to respect that each and every one of us deserves to act according to our respective conscience. It is one of the most profound principles in the founding of this country.

The Stadium and Jimmy Lileks

StarTribune Columnist James Lileks is a far better writer than Katherine Kersten. He's actually funny, and seems to be pretty smart besides.

Now, understand his writing isn't terribly deep, in fact it's normally on par with Entertainment Tonight - and perhaps his role at the Strib is to simply fill column inches. If so, he does an excellent job.

On the other hand, if he's actually trying to say something meaningful, I am afraid poor Jimmy (as he calls his alter ego) and James could both stand a lesson in writing about something meaningful. Namely, say something with guts. Take a real stand, stick your neck out, and then support it.

Today James commented on the new Viking Stadium initiative. Lilek's "gutty" commentary (synthesized down) was "Ok, I want a stadium too, but how are you going to pay for it?" Wow, Jim, I mean, wow - rough question, tough, bold position. Wow. Bluntly, your question is no better than the question the guy emptying garbage in your building could have thought of in 5 seconds, but, hey, I mean, it's a job - go milk it and all.

Now there are about a dozen things someone could say which would be actually taking a stand - and to try to help, I'll list a couple below:

1. Timmy P (as I like to think of our Governor) - where the hell is your leadership on this point? You were Puhlenty happy to piss away tax dollars on a stadium for the Twins when the state was in a budget crisis. We're in a worse one now, but considering the threat of the team moving is so much more real, why are you so absent? I mean, you're "Mr. Business", and if it was good business to build a stadium for the Twins, why not the Vikes who generate more tax dollars? Maybe it's because it's not politically convenient? I mean, you'd NEVER chose to duck an issue which you were willing to throw tax money at before would you, just because it would look bad? I am sure it's not that you're just a political opportunist - no, no, that can't be it. Oh, that's right, you're busy running for President based on your sterling record of ash-canning state social services because you hamstrung the state for 8 years with a tax system designed during high-flying economic times when costs were low and receipts were high - a tax system designed by YOU.

2. Ziggy Wilf - you bought the team knowing this was the situation, knowing you could hold the state hostage in 2010, and you clearly planned to do so. My comment to you, in the midst of a terrible economic downturn is simply this, "Have you no shame, sir?" Really, the Vikings already make you a TON of money. With revenue sharing you're probably making (conservatively) $30M a year, maybe more. Certainly in this time of extraordinary privation, the thing to do, the class move, is to demand the people of this state shell out more in taxes for you. Now don't get me wrong, that's how gov'mint works in the land of Republimania - government is a spigot for business, but right now Ziggy, honestly, we're broke - you're gonna have to wait. A person I respect a lot made a wonderful observation, Zig, specifically, you are the Marie Antionette of our age, (insert crappy french accent here) "if Zey have no homes, let them go to de Football Stadiums, no?!"

I support building you a stadium if you are willing to include in the building: a homeless shelter, a school, a soup kitchen, and offer to allow any high school team which chooses to, the FREE access to play in your little playground on any Friday or Saturday, without restriction, all facilities to be maintained by YOU for the life of the stadium which itself shall not be less than 40 years. You see, Zig, that's the choice you are asking us to make - drop band, football, soup kitchens and homeless shelters, so that you can make more money personally off of luxury suites.

3. On a more serious note - if the Vikings leave, and they darned well might, Los Angeles is a better market than Minnesota, we will become the instant poster-child of cities where OTHER teams will move. Teams like the Chiefs, the Saints, and even the Cardinals will threaten to leave to go to far bigger revenue markets (for the former) and a big fat payout (for the latter). The city will have to pay a huge bill - which even adjusted for inflation will exceed the cost of a new stadium. And the thing of it is is - the people of Minnesota are likely (read almost certain) to NOT agree to let this happen.

Instead they are going to agree to "bail-out" multi-millionaire football players and multi-billionaire owners. The NFL makes FAR more than enough to build this and every other stadium it "needs" 10 times over and then some. It is 'King of the Hill' in sports, raking in billions annually in profits alone. Why Wilf (and the NFL) want this stadium is pretty simple, for Wilf it's because (iirc) he doesn't have to share revenue on luxury box receipts, so he PERSONALLY will make a LOT more money. His comment about how he can't compete because of lower revenue is crap - the NFL has a salary cap which makes up the vast majority of his costs (he gets use of the stadium for nearly free), and revenue sharing alone nearly ensures he has enough money to cover the cap. He is making money, he's just not making as much as he wants to. The NFL wants shiny new stadiums paid for by the public because it makes it's ownership more wealthy (and after all, it is just a collection of good ole' boys). These guys need a bail-out about as much as Goldman Sachs needed TARP money to pay bonuses. Besides that, when a team moves, the NFL - ALL the teams in the NFL - get typically tens of millions each in payments by the city that pays the NFL license fee to get the team to move there.

But, we'll be sold a bill of goods by the likes of the StarTribune, that this will create jobs, or increase tax revenue (which in flat terms, revenues are higher of course, but then again they go to PAY for things like, oh, stadiums). There won't be hard questions like - "So Ziggy, isn't there a salary cap, and don't you get plenty of money from revenue sharing that in fact you're MORE than turning a profit?" We won't because the "Strib" isn't interested in meaningful journalism on this subject, they hold pretty sizable chunks of land downtown on which any new stadium development will drive up the value, and we won't because supposed "Conservatives" like Lileks, the ones who ought to be hawks about gov'mint spending, will once again show they have no balls other than baseballs or footballs, and will use their columns to poke a little at politicians all the while hoping no one notices the vast hypocrisy of questioning the politicians while hoping like hell they (the Politicians) bite the bullet and in fact DO pony up the cash.

We as a state need to decide whether aiding the indigent elderly, the Downs syndrome kids, or even just keeping our state college tuition within reach of the average middle class family, is more or less important than our very cathartic release brought to us each Sunday by the Vikings (or any other team we'd be held hostage to bring here). It's time we to take a 'gut check' and make the right call. Clearly our political leaders won't, and equally clearly, neither will our journalistic conscience's like Lileks. Sports is the vast pablum of the masses, but that doesn't mean we get to sleep ALL the time - we as a nation (and state) face a vast problem of dwindling paychecks and soaring costs - shall we add yet another to make a set of wealthy old men a little more wealthy? If James Lileks wants to know how to pay for this, there is a simple answer, start a trend that MAYBE the rest of the country will learn from. Show some guts, gets some literary cojones (sic) and tell em' to do it with their "own" money! Consider it your DIY project for the 2010's. After all, between paying the gate receipts, parking, for NFL merchandise and advertising portions of the products we buy, we've already paid you more than enough money to freaking build it yourself!