Um, uh, Mr. Berg?

"Does the Star/Tribune want this point of view representing them to the public?"

Have you, uh, READ the Star/Tribune lately?

The question is, to some extent, mootly rhetorical.

In a previous post somebody named B(MN) asserted that he/she was "hard" because they lived in Whittier and that I was soft because I lived in a nicer neighborhood.

1) Whittier is full of art students and slackers and artists. Pretty rough neighborhood, huh? Not even barely any black people, except my girlfriend.

2) I know becaue I live in Whittier, xxxx First Avenue South #4 MPLS MN. Don't make assumption B(MN), because this one made you look like ass.

(MITCH NOTES: I redacted the address that "Stacey" added to the post. Allowing personal addresses exposes me, the blog owner, to a level of liability I'm not really cool with).

isn't this a great country where people can go first to a liberal website and next to a conservative website and wind everybody up? Maybe if we get lucky we'll have a civil war and the conservatives can move to the suburbs and the liberals can move to the cities and be with the blacks and gays and druggies where it's safe. Or, maybe the smart ones who aren't greedy and capitalist pigs can move to Canada or Amsterdam!

Love,
Stacey Graham

p.s. See, at least when I'm lipping off I leave my real name and address, match it up in the phone book if you wanna visit me with your concealed weapons. Death just means not having to pay bills next month!

"isn't this a great country where people can go first to a liberal website and next to a conservative website and wind everybody up?"

It speaks less to the country than to the amount of time you'd seem to have on their hands.

" Maybe if we get lucky we'll have a civil war and the conservatives can move to the suburbs"

Nah. I'll hold my corner of the city, thanks.

"Or, maybe the smart ones who aren't greedy and capitalist pigs can move to Canada or Amsterdam!"

Oh, I see how we're doing this. OK. Statistically, conservatives are better-educated, smarter, and more accomplished at their careers. And from my experience, conservative women are vastly better in bed.

Woo Hoo! This is fun! Get worked up!

"p.s. See, at least when I'm lipping off I leave my real name and address, match it up in the phone book if you wanna visit me with your concealed weapons. Death just means not having to pay bills next month!"

Statistically very unlikely; CCW permittees commit crimes VERY rarely. But keep your address to yourself on my site, please.

Well Mitch, a few of us are thugs. At least us U of M-ers

"Death just means not having to pay bills next month!"

Just a point of order, Stacey, my dear. Just because you're shot by some random psycho doesn't mean you automatically die. The bullet could miss all vital organs and lodge in your spine, causing paralysis, for example. Should that happen, and you find yourself in a wheelchair, drinking your food through a straw, I wonder if you'd find yourself wishing you had had a legally concealed weapon on your person that day for protection.

Your arguments against concealed carry make less logical sense by the post. At this rate, you'll have me convinced come Monday that guns should be available at supermarket check-out lines, stacked up alongside Vogue and Esquire magazines.

"Maybe if we get lucky we'll have a civil war and the conservatives can move to the suburbs and the liberals can move to the cities and be with the blacks and gays and druggies where it's safe." <--- Obvious Sarcasm, correct?

What does this mean? Blacks, Gays, and Druggies are all classifications of people that present unsafe environments? Maybe druggies, but come on.

I'm with Mitch, I'm happy to remain in the city and I feel plenty safe, despite all the "undeirable" demographics.

My letter to the Strib...

I am writing today asking that you either terminate Nick Coleman employment with your newspaper or you publicly distance yourself from his comments. As a radio host on Air America Minnesota, Mr. Coleman makes numerous daily references to his employment with the Star Tribune as a columnist and he plainly indicates that his radio commentary and newspaper columns are interrelated.

I am thoroughly disgusted with Coleman’s latest rants against free speech.

On today’s (5/20/05) show Coleman commented that the right-wing bloggers meeting with Gov. Pawlenty is the modern day equivalent of “backing the bus up to the bar and getting the drunken thugs to go out and beat up your opponents”. In addition wanting to stifle conservative opinion, Coleman is obviously drawing inference to the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 and once again comparing Republicans to Nazi’s.

I realize that the Star Tribune’s management, reporters, columnists and editorial board is overwhelmingly and unapologetically composed of extreme liberals. However, I’m sure you don’t want your newspaper associated with an employee publicly equates an individual exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech with being a thug. I was under the impression that news organizations not only encouraged free speech but actively and aggressively fought for everyone’s First Amendment Right.

Please provide me with the courtesy of a reply.

Don't feed the trolls!

RRudd: you're "disgusted with Coleman's latest rants against free speech", yet you call for his termination because Coleman exercised his right to free speech?

Speaking of connecting dots, isn't it about time for Nickboy to either connect some financial dots, or shut up about bloggers on the right? Either put the Powerline guys' hand in Karl Rove's wallet somehow, with some solid evidence, or stop all the lying BS, Nick.

RBMN: No kidding. His famous kiss-off column after Powerline won the Time award, where he assured everyone that right-wing bloggers are all on the take from big foundations - still waiting on either the evidence or a big check from Karl Rove.

Tim:

Nobody's curbing his free speech; merely trying to hold him accountable for the lies he tells people.

RRudd:

Good letter. Two things: I don't think he's referring to the Putsch. I bet he doesn't know jack about it. He's referring to the crowds of goons that machine politicians used to retain. Y'know - like the union guys that went around beating up GOP volunteers last fall.

And the media as an institution doesn't give a rat's ass about YOUR First Amendment rights. In fact, since most of them believe in a collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment, it'd stand to reason they'd feel the same way about the First; the military get the guns, the press gets the speech.

Oh, I know. It's rhetorical overreach.

"you're "disgusted with Coleman's latest rants against free speech", yet you call for his termination because Coleman exercised his right to free speech?"

This type of logic always just floors me. It continually astounds me that people can't seem to grasp that freedom of speech can have consequences. I'm perfectly free to say something like "Gosh I love Nazis; Nazis are great." It's perfectly okay for me to say that. I can say it quite freely. But, let's say I go outside and start shouting it. It's still free for me to say so, but now I'm putting my words out there for public consumption, and given the words I'd be spouting, I would expect some people to be annoyed, and I may even get a rotten apple in my face. Free speech, meet consequences.

So, let's segue on over to Nick Coleman. He was perfectly free to say that Republicans exercising free speech are thugs on the radio. And he had a perfect free speech right to question the various manhoods of the guys at Powerline. But, you know what? If someone takes to the airwaves and calls me a thug, or if I see a longwinded rambling column that basically insults my manhood, I'd probably use my free speech to demand some consequences for that kind of unsubstantiated, libelous crap. And you know what else? I'd be correct in doing so.

I've been reading Coleman for some time now, because I apparently have a high tolerance for pain. He's quite possibly the worst columnist to write for a daily metro paper in the history of the world. Even neanderthals scribbling on cave walls wrote more compelling narratives than Coleman has ever strung together. He's been exercising his freedom of the press/speech for so long, with no repercussions, he's grown to believe he's immune to critcism and that he's always righteously right. He should have met the free speech consequence of unemployment years ago.

Good Lord, Rush Limbaugh got booted from Monday Night Football for exercising his freedom of speech regarding a black quarterback. Trent Lott got nailed for his free speech about Strom Thurmond. Sooooo, I don't think RRudd was too off the mark calling for Nicky Boy's termination.

And, oh look, Tim, I just used my freedom of speech to digitally call bullcrap on your exercise of free speech. That's your consequence, as insignificant as it is.

Speaking of Air America, I saw a beggar (hobo? homeless?) on the corner of the Hwy 62 exit at Xerxes in Edina. He had a sign that asked for something, and part of it said "Peace", but right in the middle in big letters was "AM 950", Air America. I tried to get a picture with my cell phone, but it didn't turn out. Have they stooped so low as to advertise with bums?
For a local slant on Star Trib, Nick coleman, etc, check out: http://rambix.blogspot.com/

That's talk radio. Nick says over the top things on talk radio. So do most talk radio hosts.

This post sounds like so much whining.... Oh that Nick Coleman, he was SOOO mean....

As usual, Eva, your perceptions are myopic and inadequate. Mean, schmean. I'm meaner, and it's irrelevant.

Point being, he's a liar. There's "over the top", and there's lying through one's teeth.

Wow, Eva - he puts you on the air a few times, and suddenly you're best pals! Hey - have you heard how he uses gay-related gigglies to dig at people who displease him? Funny how quiet you've been about that.

Mitch-

RRudd is correct that Coleman was making a reference to Nazis. He described conservative bloggers as "beer-hall short pants guys who like to drive around in their trucks singing songs and looking for people to beat up" or something very similar. Clearly, this is a reference to Nazi actions. Probably not necessarily to the Putsch in Munich in 1923 as much as to the later street violence of the late '20s and early '30s.

On rereading Mr. Rudd, Elder, I agree.

Wow. Shows what I get for trusting that Coleman has ethics and is not an idiot.

Seems like I've struck a nerve. I've heard your reports of how he's used gay related giggles to put down his opponents.

I don't listen to Coleman regularly. I've heard him make fun of the Powerline bloggers names - Hindrocket and Big Trunk - and give me a break - those names certainly are open to redicule. I've also heard him talk about the Gannon/Guckert story. That one has the prostitution angle there.... Then you talked about Coleman talking about how Bachmann was a Lesbian Until Graduation. Since I didn't hear that one myself, I wrote Coleman to ask about that, and did not hear back from him. I did write a post on Dump Bachmann criticising him for that assuming you were correct in describing his show.

I appreciated Nick Coleman having me on his show. I've also appreciated Joyce Harley from KKMS having me on her show to debate Michele Bachmann.

http://www.twinpinefarm.com/downloads/EvaRadio.mp3

I appreciated it when Jason Lewis had me on his show when he was still doing a show here in the cities.

Where was Coleman lying through his teeth? The quote you gave suggested he was using an analogy... The analogy seemed over the top - but that's the nature of talk radio.

Stating in his column that the local conservative bloggers get funding and marching orders from big think tanks and, presumably, Karl Rove.

We are more independent than Coleman is; that is an unarguable fact.

And picking pointless fights over strawmen is "the nature" of talk radio when it's done by unimaginative hacks.

I was reacting to this particular post - and in the post you describe Nick saying:

Then he said (paraphrasing closely) "This is the modern version of backing the bus up to the bar to get free beer to all the thugs, before they go out to beat people up".

That's what I said was a typical hyperbolic statement made on talk radio.

Now you are bringing up another Nick Coleman column - not what you were addressing in this post - and that's what I was reacting to.

That being said, there certainly were SOME right wing bloggers who were on the take - the Thune bloggers in South Dakota come to mind.

You've also had things that were bald faced lies on your site. A rather prominent example was repeating Swiftee's lie that the bathroom used by Michele Bachmann in Scandia was a "single occupancy bathroom".

Eva,

You're becoming hysterical again. The single-occupancy bathroom schtick was what most people call a "mistake".

Referring to a bunch of people exercising their first-amendment rights as nazis, or claiming some infernal connections of which he has no evidence just to whip up his none-too-bright "fans" is a "Lie".

Howver, Eva - now you've stepped in it. Show us a "bald-faced lie" - something I've told people, outside the bounds of satire, that I wrote here with the express intent of deceiving people.

Do it now.

A friend of mine (quite liberal) who used to be an editor at the Strib was my house guest over the weekend. While I'm sure he embraces some of the same viewpoints that Coleman would, my friend went on & on & on as to Coleman's collection of poor qualities - not the least of which was hopeless writing.

The simple question: can't the Strib do better? I mean...LOTS better?

Peg K: I've heard the same thing from other newspaper people. Last month's thread at PressThink was hilarious, noting the depth and breadth of opinion agreeing that Coleman is a clown.

Eva: Still waiting on those "bald-faced lies".

The "single occupancy bathroom" story would have been a simple "mistake" if you had corrected it. It's a bald faced lie, when you refuse to correct it.

Repeating Bachmann or her staff's lie that the number of words in her piece was about half of what was in Boucher's piece - a mistake, if corrected when the error pointed out. A lie, when uncorrected.

And by the way, folks here can very rightly get a good laugh at my expense about my question of whether Allison was a Mitch nome de plume.

Second try at the Bald Faced Lies examples:

The "single occupancy bathroom" story would have been a simple "mistake" if you had corrected it. It's a bald faced lie, when you refuse to correct it after having the error pointed out to you.

Repeating Bachmann or her staff's lie that the number of words in her piece was about half of what was in Boucher's piece - a mistake, if corrected when the error pointed out. A lie, when uncorrected after having the error pointed out directly to you. You can't be expected to correct something if it's not pointed out to you directly.

Now on this:

Mitch: Stating in his column that the local conservative bloggers get funding and marching orders from big think tanks and, presumably, Karl Rove.

EY: Did Coleman claim in his column that Powerline got marching orders from Karl Rove? I think he said something about funding from think tanks. He was sloppy on that one. It's true that Hindrocket and Big Trunk sit on the board of the Clairmont Think Tank - but Coleman didn't make the case that Clairmont provided funding for Powerline. There are connections there, but there's no clear follow the money trail. I believe the biggest problem with that column, was Nick making a claim about the Strib's endorsement of Perpich - and whether Roger Parkinson had anything to do with it. Parkinson later wrote a letter to the editor.

I listen to Coleman occassionally. More often, I read about his shows on MOB blogs.

"And from my experience, conservative women are vastly better in bed."

That's what guys who haven't been laid in a long time say--"from my experience." Either that, or they're closeted gays.

OK, Mitch. This is my last comment. This post proves once and for all that you are a genuine idiot. Do you ever read or do you get all your information from KSTP? How on earth did you glean that Coleman is against first amendment rights. Either you're pandering to fear or you really are stupid. If Anders Gyllenhall doesn't answer you, it's because you are too stupid to understand anything? How did someone like you get a blog? Oh, that's right. Any idiot can get a blog.

Either way, you're off my bookmark. Say hi to Hugh Hewitt.

"blogesota"

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your writing. And cut the crap, I was never on your "bookmark".

Bye!

"That's what guys who haven't been laid in a long time say--"from my experience." Either that, or they're closeted gays"

Untrue on both counts, although "your experience" is no doubt as credible as your online identity, Mr. Anonymous.

Sorry to disappoint.

Awww, Mitchey Poo, you're the one boasting about your sexual prowess, not me. Do you think anyone really cares how many glory holes you've visited recently?

I bet you think Michele Bachmann is "hot" just like the horny little boys over at KQ too.

"Mitchey Poo?" I'm "arguing" with a guy who gets his rhetorical chops from Hannah-Barbara cartoons?

And let's do try to work on our "reading comprehension", little fella. I wasn't boasting about my prowess - merely that of Republican women.

Try to follow the fine distinctions, OK?

Hey, Eva - THIS is your audience? :-)

Barnyard went on about "that hot sexy minx" Michele Bachmann.... What's she trying to do - "de-fag the capitol"?

Michele Bachmann called in the next day - and said she didn't want to amend the constitution. Funny isn't it - because I thought that was the whole point of her bill.