Obligatory warning: Political opinions ahead...

Al Franken is running for one of the Minnesota Senate seats this year. I never much cared for Al Franken as a comedian (although Stuart Smalley was pretty good), but I cannot stand the man as a politian.

Aside from the fact that he is left of liberal, his stance on workplace union elections is enough to send me scurrying the other way. The issue is this: Today, workplaces that hold elections to determine if the worker will unionize or not, or other similiar decisions, are conducting by private vote, just like political elections. There is a movement (not sure if it's a bill, yet) to make those elections public. I am not actually sure what the legitimate rational is for that, but it is easy to see why certain elements would like that. Elements that would benifit from unionization. Elements that might be willing to apply certain 'pressure' on individuals who would vote against unionization. And by pressure, of course, I mean anything from nasty looks, to veiled threats, to 'unfortunate incidents' that involcve cement overshoes.

No, to me this is a fairly indefensible position. Hence I was interested in a radio commercial that I just heard in favor of Franken and this proposed law. "Now," I thought, "I will be able to know what they are thinking." However what I heard was a perfect example of an ad hommenem arguement. The radio commercials you have heard, said this ad, against Al Franken and the public workplace elections are paid for by Washington lobbyist working for the big corporations; The same corporations that are responisible for high oil prices and the home mortgage crisis.

OK, let's disect. First, the ad says nothing to counter the charges from the other side that open workplace elections are ripe for corruption. Charges that seem quite valid to me.

Second, corporations are responsible for high oil prices and the mortgage crisis? Really? Because I thought that high oil prices were the natural result of increased demand (from the emerging markets in China and India) with decreases, or at least no increase, in supply due to the inaccessibility of domestic oilfields or domestic refining capability. "But what about the record profits from Exxon and others?" Well, I just said that there is a shift in the balance between demand and supply. Exxon is cashing in on that. Good for them. There has been no evidence of collusion or price-fixing, so more power to them. In fact, reports that I have heard indicate that the profit margin for Exxon is a very resonable 4%.

And regarding the mortgage crisis... We do not live in a truly free market economy. It is mostly free, but not entirely. The key to the system is that the Federal Reserve controls the supply of money. They decide what the interest rates will be. If those interest rates are low enough, for long enough, some people will assume that they will be that low forever. They will take out loans that they can barely afford at the low interest rate, and cannot afford at a higher interest rate. In addition, certain Fairness in Lending practices require that lenders offer loans to individuals that they might not normally, or at least to ignore certain criteria that would normally disqualify some. So is the government solely responsible for the mortgage crisis? No, it was definitely a bubble and a correct was needed. But that correction is much worse due to govenmental interference.

So, to sum up: Don't vote for Al Franken. California, it seems, can pick celebrity politicians (Reagan, Sonny Bono, Eastwood, Schwartzenagger), but Minnesota does not appear to be able to.