As The Orcs Breach The Final Wall

I love the English language.

I earn a living in the world of business.

I hate what business has done to the language with the heat of a billion suns.

And it’s not getting better.  The decline is accelerating.  Lucy Kellaway has been documenting the decline for decades – and is finding that the worst offenders are prospering from their crimes against clear, concise language:

Howard Schultz is a champion in the bullshit space. The Starbucks executive chairman has provided me with more material for columns than any other executive alive or dead. Yet he is still at it, and still out-doing himself. Earlier this year, he announced that the new Starbucks Roasteries were “delivering an immersive, ultra-premium, coffee-forward experience”.

In this ultra-premium, jargon-forward twaddle, the only acceptable word is “an”. Mr Schultz has brewed up a blend of old and new jargon, the fashionable and the workaday, adding a special topping of his own. “Delivering” and “experience” are grim but not new. “Ultra-premium” is needless word inflation. “Immersive” is fashionable, though ill-advised if you are talking about scalding liquids. The innovation is “coffee-forward”. Sounds fantastic, but what is it?

And it serves their purpose:

Over the years, Mr Schultz has consistently proved just how bad language serves business people well. So when an analyst asks if you are going to acquire anything, you can either say no, which is a bit too bald and clear, or you can say 34 words instead, as he did a few years ago: “I would say that we have enough to digest in the near-term, and there’s nothing candidly in our sightline that would suggest that we’re involved in engaging anything that we’re going to acquire.”

Bingo. The audience will be so bored, you will never get called to account.

50,000 foot view?  It is what it is.

 

Today’s DFL: Never Waste A Crisis

Tragic shooting in South Minneapolis;  woman from Australia killed by cop originally from Somalia.

Steve Cwodzinski – the teachers union foot soldier who “replaced” Dave Hann in the MN Senate seat representing Eden Prairie, follows Rahm Emanuel’s dictum to a fault:

“Two immigrants came to the United States searching for the American dream. One came to heal; the other, to protect. Now due to the fear and violence surrounding firearms, both have realized the American nightmare.”

The mission of today’s DFL:  Deflect the glare from:

  • the problem with police powers, especially qualified immunity
  • an apparent problem with officer training (Minneapolis cops, I’m told, are trained to keep their fingers on the trigger at all times, in and among any number of other issues in the incident)
  • suspicion about affirmative action hiring in police departments
  • the extent to which the mayor and council’s embrace of Black Lives Matter has caused the police to “stand down” – taking action only when they see a felony in progress
  • the social collapse of much of Minneapolis

…by jabbering about “fear and violence surrounding firearms” that were present only in the hands of the cop, whom the DFL would have us believe are the ones who can be “trusted” with that constitutional right.

People of Eden Prairie;  you sent him to Saint Paul.  Take him back.

That’s Gonna Leave A…Er, Mark

Just when you think you’ll go your entire life without seeing a Minnesota judge take a stance against tyranny, this goes and happens?

A Ramsey County judge ruled Wednesday that Gov. Mark Dayton violated the Minnesota Constitution when he vetoed funding for the legislature earlier this year.

“The court concludes that the Governor’s vetoes violated the Separation of Powers clause of the Minnesota Constitution because they both nullified a branch of government and refashioned the line-item veto as a tool to secure the repeal or modification of policy legislation unrelated to the vetoed appropriation,” Judge John Guthmann wrote in his decision.

Dayton vetoed the funding for the State Senate and House at the end of May. He did so in an attempt to force Republican legislative leaders into a special session, where he hoped to see tax breaks and language barring illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses repealed. He had signed those provisions into law because a provision in the State Government Omnibus bill would have defunded the Minnesota Department of Revenue unless the Tax Bill was signed into law.

Please, Governor Flint Smith Dayton – I beg of you.  Appeal.  You have to.

Our Lying Eyes And Portfolios

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

“Hoarding.”  Americans are “hoarding” cash in their checking accounts, rather than invest in the stock market.

The analysts quoted in the story say the economy is wonderful, the recession is over, incomes are up so people should be spending like crazy but those darn backwards fearful idiots aren’t even putting money into savings accounts that pay .0000025% interest, they’re leaving it in checking.  Morons.

Or, it could be that ordinary Americans hear the phony economics reports but see the economy around them and choose to believe their eyes.  The economy is not wonderful.  The fact they’re claiming it is, provides evidence we cannot believe them.  A bigger nest egg is a wise precaution.

Next up, watch for Liberal politicians to suggest that banks should assess a “surplus savings surcharge” on hoarders’ bank accounts, then deposit the proceeds into the accounts of non-profit companies ostensibly working for low-income clients but actually donating to Democrats.

Joe Doakes

Today’s quips are tomorrow’s Elizabeth Warren bills.

Dhim And Dhimmer

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is pumping gas at the corner Superamerica when Polly LITTELL – proprietor of the Facebook page “Makeng Minnessota GRAET AGEN” page, pulls up to the next pump. 

LITTELL:  Merg!

BERG:  Oh, hey, Pollly.  (Eyes the meter on the pump, shakes the handle in a futile effort to get it to pump faster).

LITTELL:  So a MUSLIN cop, Mohammed NOOR, murdered a white woman in South MInneapolis!   It’s terrorism!

BERG:  Er, OK – why do you say that?

LITTELL:  Because it’s in the Koran that THEY are supposed TO attack us when THEY CAN.

BERG:  OK, Polly.  So it was terrorism.

LITTELL:  Yes.  Just like they are told to do IN THE Koran.

BERG:  So this “act of terrorism” involved shooting one woman.  Not his partner.  Not every other bystander, and every cop that responded.  And then, surrendering and apparently following the standard post-shooting process that a non-Muslim, non-terrorist cop would follow.

LITTELL:   Why do you hate America?

BERG:  Naturally

(And SCENE)

The “Brilliant Victory”

We’ve fallen a little behind on our World War I series.  Over the next few months, we’re going to work to get caught-up to the calendar.

Night had only begun to settle over Gaza for the ANZAC Mounted Division on March 26th, 1917.  The division, part of a 22,000-man operation to build upon the British victory at Romani in the summer of 1916, had accomplished its objective of defending the main advance of British infantry against any Ottoman counterattack.  Only 12 hours into the offensive, Gaza had been effectively surrounded, and by dusk, units such like the Mounted Division had even captured outlying portions of the city.

Despite the ferocity of some of the German-led Ottoman counterattacks, the Commonwealth units held their ground.  The British infantry had captured the hill of Ali al Muntar, overlooking the rest of Gaza, while holding over 460 German and Ottoman prisoners, including a divisional commanding general.  The British held the high ground and all the access points to the city.  The campaign for Palestine might be over before it even started.

Instead, the ANZAC Mounted Division – along with the entire defensive screen of forces – were told to retreat.  The threat of 12,000 Ottoman soldiers to the battle’s east had been deemed too great a threat to the British supply lines.  Rather than risk a fight, the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) command chose to disengage.  The irate men of the Mounted Division cursed that “victory [had been] snatched away from them by the order to withdraw.”

In addition to the elements and the Ottomans, Britain would have to confront its own generals in the Middle East.

The Ottomans on the march – the Empire was in retreat on all fronts and their men were asked to hold Palestine against a growing British force


With revolution in Russia, and strategic inertia in France, the Middle East appeared to be the only front that saw the armies of the Entente victorious at the start of 1917.

Following the debacle at Kut, a joint British/Indian army had successfully marched to Baghdad by the spring of 1917, putting a practical end to the Mesopotamian campaign with the capture of the city in early March.  And the Arab Revolt of the summer of 1916 had managed to drive the Ottomans out of a series of coastal towns dotting the Red Sea, while sowing rebellion among the various tribes of Arabia.

Yet these campaigns, while providing much need victories for a war-weary Entente, had proved themselves to be little more than costly distractions.  The Arab Revolt had to be completely underwritten by London, and (thus far) hadn’t been able to win without British support.  Baghdad had been the first prominent capital within the Central Powers to fall, but the operation had required over 800,000 men with 250,000 casualties – and the Ottomans looked no closer to surrender as a result.    Continue reading

Our Ignorant Totalitarian “Liberal” Overlords

State Representative Alice Hausman, on Facebook:

Kommissar Hausman:  perhaps you’ve heard of the Fifth Amendment?  Nobody can be compelled to testify themselves?

Also – the “qualified immunity” laws that you, in the legislature, continually pass and expand to keep the DFL’s benefactors in the (are you ready for this) Police Union happy pretty much spell out how officers are treated after an officer-involved shooting.

Rep. Hausman:  it’s starting to occur to me that HD66A didn’t lose out on all that much expertise when you fobbed your job off on Heather Martens.

How’s That, Now?

At the end of a generally good review for the upcoming Dunkirk in USA Today, the reviewer writes (with emphasis added by yours truly):

The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.

Hm.  In a war fought almost exclusively by men, in Northwestern Europe which was, in 1940, almost entirely white1, go figure.

[1] In fact a large part of France’s army was colonial troops – including many of their best and a significant part of the covering force that allowed the evacuation to happen at all,- were colonial troops from Chad, Morocco, Cameroon, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam and, especially, Senegal.  It’ll be interesting to see if they turn up.

Northern Man

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Went to a birthday party this weekend, turns out it was a Klan rally.  Everyone was talking about how much they hate Black voters, how stupid they are,  what their favorite media person called them and how best to undermine their success.  I didn’t know what to say to fit in so I smiled a lot and left early.

Oh wait,  did I say Klan?  Sorry.  I meant Democrat.   It was Trump voters they hated.  Hard to tell the difference when they take their robes off.

Joe Doakes

The most gleefully racist person I ever personally met was a DFL organizer from the East Side.  No, I don’t transfer his behavior to all DFLers – but if I did, boy, would I think DFLers were racists.

Still, you get some urban progressives talking about Republicans, and it’s hard to use a term other than “bigotry”.

The New Phrenology

“Protect” Minnesota is having a “conference”, and they’re soliciting speakers:

Well – certain speakers:

The Northstar Conference Planning Committee is seeking proposals for presentations of 20, 30 or 60 minutes by individuals with appropriate academic credentials and/or recognized professional expertise related to the study or field of gun violence prevention that:

1. Present data-driven and evidence-based research or information about gun violence and its prevention.

2. Relate to one or more of three general subject blocks:
• health care, mental health, suicide prevention
• domestic violence, criminal justice, policy and legislation
• socioeconomic factors, disparities, urban gun violence

3. Have clearly-defined educational objectives that align with continuing education goals for public health, health care, mental health, law enforcement, or other professionals.

4. Are culturally sensitive and take into account the diverse backgrounds and outlooks of those in attendance.

The Planning Committee is particularly seeking presentations that address the following topics:
• racial and ethnic disparities
• adverse childhood experiences
• suicide risk factors and prevention among veterans, seniors, youth, and the LGBT community
• domestic violence risk assessment and prevention
• opioid addiction and gun violence
• the effects of mass incarceration on gun violence
• gun violence in the media
• successful community policing strategies
• effective legislation, public policy, and legal practices

Huh-wha?

Fortunately, a friend of the blog took the time to translate that description into clear, culturally-oppressive English:

Let me summarize that job description:

1. must hate guns with the passion of 1000 suns. Have plan to strip them from law abiding citizens.

2. Find ridiculous way to link gun control to something legit, such as health care and make it appear as yin and yang.

3. Experience with organize protesters and resistance parties in different peoples parents basements.

4. Make sure white people with guns are the enemy as often as possible.

Disregard minority on minority gun violence in its entirety.

Remember – “Protect” Minnesota has never, not once, made a single substantial, original, true statement.  This “conference” looks like it’ll push that to new levels.

Ripped From Social Media

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A:        I have a question.

B:        I’m sorry, I’m not giving you an answer.

 

A:        Why not?

B:        Because you don’t want to hear it.

 

A:        Yes, I do.  Why won’t you tell me the answer?

B:        Because I’m an Old White Male and therefore disqualified from having an opinion, any opinion, about anything whatsoever.

 

A:        You don’t even know what the question is.

B:        Doesn’t matter.  If I answered it, that would be “mansplaining” which is a hate crime.

 

A:        I bet you don’t even know the answer.

B:        I do, but it’s not a sensitive and empowering answer; therefore, to protect your feelings so you don’t feel threatened and need to  retreat to a safe space, I’m not telling you the answer.

 

A:        You just won’t tell me because I’m a woman/Black/gay/left-handed/poor/Muslim.  That’s racisssssssssssss.  You’re too hateful to be allowed to have an opinion and even if you told me the answer, I wouldn’t listen to it because you’re such a hater.

B:        Told you.

Joe Doakes

You might call it fiction.

I call it the Hamline-Midway Facebook page.

RIP Greg Thomas

It was at Holes for Heroes back in 2016 that Brad Carlson and me got to interview Greg Thomas, a man in Montgomery, MN who, when given a terminal diagnosis and mere weeks to live, decided to restore a crumbling country church.

His story was spellbinding – it was one of the most interesting interviews I’ve ever done.  And it chronicled a quest that had gone on (if I recall correctly) for seven years, at that time.

Which isn’t bad for a guy who’d been given, as I recall, three months to live.

As we parted ways, I told him to come by next year and update us.  He said he hoped he could – but he’d just gotten more bad news about his prognosis, and would be lucky to be around in months, rather than a full year.

He was finally right.

But then we all are, eventually.

Thanks for the amazing story, Greg, RIP.

When We Say The Roots Of “Gun Control” Are Racist…

…we aren’t just referring to its historical roots, the attempts to disarm blacks after the Civil War and the urban riots of the sixties.

Los Angeles – which still has the “discretionary issue” system Minnesota ditched in 2003 – gives fewer permits to blacks, Latinos and women.

Gotta show ’em who’s boss.

When government controls who has the right to be a citizen rather than a subject, then everyone’s a subject.

Don’t Parc The Arc

I saw this on social media over the the last week or so – a quote from Martin Luther King…:

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

…followed by a list of moral advances that’d seem to prove the proposition:

1776: Do we really need a king?
1863: Should people own slaves?
1954: Should schools be desegregated?
1967: Can a state legally prohibit interracial marriage?
2017: Is taxation theft?

The guy who wrote the post – who I think would fairly describe himself as an anarcho-libertarian –  meant well.  So did the guy who made the original quote, Martin Luther King.

But can there be a more toxic, wishful, pollyannaish platitude than this one?

Kevin Williamson reframed it well – the moral arc of the universe bends inexorably toward tyranny and barbarism.   

Look st the list of moral advances of the past 241years.  through the good graces of pushback against *that* moral arc, often at huge risk (like the signers of the Declaration of Independence); the king and slavery were removed with an exceptional amount of bloodshed; desegregation was neither bloodless nor inevitable.   The fact that some struggles don’t require bloodshed show that our society can, often, work out issues without going to war.

Not sure that aphorism recognizes what an anomaly modern Western civilization is.   Definitely sure people who casually use the saying don’t know it.

Narrative Check

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Trump claims John Podesta barred the FBI from looking at the DNC computer.

You remember that computer – not the one in Hillary’s bathroom that she wiped with a cloth, this is the DNC server that supposedly got “hacked” by the Russians to steal the Democrats’ emails, which the Russians then released to the public through their shill, Wikileaks, in an effort to make Hillary look bad so voters wouldn’t like her, all the while colluding with the Trump campaign to steal the election from Hillary.   Trump claims the FBI never saw it.

Naturally, the Liberal media is covering for the Democrats.  Politifact rated Trump’s claim a LIE:  John Podesta did NOT bar the FBI from looking at the DNC computer.  Somebody else did that.

Missing the point, people!  The essence of the claim remains true: the feds never saw the computer.

The only evidence the Russians had anything to do with the massive leak of embarrassing emails comes from the private IT firm hired by the Democrats.  The leak could just as easily have come from a disgruntled DNC employee, perhaps an IT specialist who downloaded the emails and offered them to Wikileaks right before he was murdered in a ‘robbery gone bad’ in which nothing was stolen, that the D.C. cops refuse to investigate.

Since when does the FBI out-source criminal investigations or national security breaches?  But the Democrats assured James Comey the Russians did it, and that’s good enough for old Jimbo. And the rest of the nation blindly follows the false trail down the rabbit hole.

Joe Doakes

If Democrats defended this nation like they defend their narrative, ISIS would be hiding under a rock in the Hejdaz.

NARN Is The Answer

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air!

Today on the show:

  • John Hinderaker joins me to talk about the parents in Edina who pushed back against the liberal indoctrination in their schools.
  • What’s going on at the Capitol?

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1440, and Brad Carlson is  on “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 2-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

I’m Done Pretending To Call This Sort of “Feminism” Anything Other Than Child Abuse

Back in the ’00s, when there were a lot more blogs, I used to amuse myself by calling myself “The Twin Cities’ Best Feminist”.

I did it partly – OK, mostly – to troll the local feministbotblogger community; so un-self-aware were they, and so seriously do they take themselves, that they found countless ways to spin their underwear into knots when I wrote that.  (“The Twin Cities ‘Best’ Feminist?”  Really?  What does that even mean?)

Background:  I did it partly because it was true.  Well, partly – because “Feminist” doesn’t just have one meaning.  Because as Camille Paglia noted around twenty years ago, there are really two branches to “Feminism”.

There’s “equity” Feminism – the idea that women should have the same opportunity to go as far and do as much as their merits and talents can take them.  It’s the feminism that killed off the “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” thing; the one that advanced the world out of the “Mad Men” era.  I think any father with a daughter qualifies on one level or another.    Am I “the best” at this?  Sure, why not?

Then there’s “Identity Feminism” – the idea that women are an identity group, like blacks or Armenians or Jews, with an agenda and history and grievances against long-time enemies and oppressors, and a collective (and to one extent or another, retributive) political interest.  I’m proud to say, I’m no good at this.  l

So we have – again, Paglia’s idea, not mine – the “feminists” who seek equality, and the “feminists” who seek demagoguery and political power.

We’ll come back to that.

Boys Without Mothers Won’t Quite Be Boys:  There’s a huge body of research about what happens when girls grow up without fathers – because our society is rife with it, thanks to our family court system and an urban culture than systematically devalues fatherhood.   Such girls grow up much more likely to fail in school, to get pregnant while a teenager or single, to have trouble with guys, and to suffer from depression and other psychological issues in adulthood.

The study of boys without mothers – or whose mothers systematically devalue their relationships with their sons – is a lot newer, since it happens a lot less often   But it’s starting to happen.  And it’s not pretty.  Boys whose mothers are absent, impaired, or who just undercut that relationship in favor of other things – other relationships, addiction, or dysfunctional addiction to career – grow up very likely to act out, to be violent, to have trouble in school and at work, and to have the same raft of psychological issues as girls whose fathers do, basically, the same thing.

We’ll come back to that.

Meet The Mother Of The Year:  Jody Allard is a feminist writer in, where else, Seattle.   And her sons are going to make some psychologists very wealthy,  Ro judging by this article, “I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons).

I have two sons. They are strong and compassionate—the kind of boys other parents are glad to meet when their daughters bring them home for dinner. They are good boys, in the ways good boys are, but they are not safe boys. I’m starting to believe there’s no such thing.

A psychologist once told me there are two lies that everyone tells:  “I never doubted my sexuality” and “I’ve never ever even once thought about suicide”.   Without arguing about the point, I’d add a third; “I’ve never thought things about my kids that concerned, worried or scared me”.

But one thing most parents don’t do is tell it to their kids, even directly.

Not Allard (emphases added by me):

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture. The struggle I wrote about was universal, I thought, but I was wrong. My essay went semi-viral, and for the first time my sons encountered my words about them on their friends’ phones, their teachers’ computers, and even overheard them discussed by strangers on a crowded metro bus. It was one thing to agree to be written about in relative obscurity, and quite another thing to have my words intrude on their daily lives.

Can you imagine – one of your parents considering you guilty until  proven innocent (not to mention with no actual avenue to prove yourself innocent(?

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so.

And have it wind up in the Washington Post in a few months?  I’d take a pass, too.

He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls.

Let’s just take a step back and reassess:  “Mom” has called her sons, essentially, rapists in training – because of traits their mother insists are in them, never mind their lying eyes, brains or senses of self.  

It seems to astound Ms. Allard that her son has reacted:

He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

His problem is not an “ungrateful woman”.  It’s one, apparently narcissistic woman who he has, luckily, discovered has been trying to gaslight him – to convince him, via .

I teeter frequently between supporting my son and educating him. Is it my job as his mother to ensure he feels safe emotionally, no matter what violence he spews?…When I hear his voice become defensive, I back off but question whether I’m doing him any favors by allowing his perception of himself to go unchallenged. When I confront him with his own sexism, I question whether I’m pushing too hard and leaving him without an emotional safe space in his home.

Am I the only one who suspects that poor kid hasn’t had “emotional safe space” since he was a zygote?

I’ll leave the rest of this exercise in narcissism – in the full, clinical sense – to you to read (or not.    And I hope this woman’s poor sons find some way to fill the hole she’s no doubt left in their lives from prioritizing them below her yapping ideology; I hope they can find some sense of themselves outside of her gaslighting.

But for a parent to marginalize their children in the face of their ideology?

It might be mental illness, of a sort (my vote is for Narcissistic Personality Disorder).     Is it exacerbated by an ideology that treats men as an enemy to be vanquished – even one’s own children?

Which came first:  the mental illness or the ideology?

UPDATE:  Kurt Schlichter notes that one of Ms. Allard’s sons has given indications of being suicidal – which, naturally, “she” used as fodder for her self-adoration:

In a post as recent as May, the feminist wrote in Role Reboot about her and her suicidal son watching 13Reasons Why, a show that has been argued to glorify suicide.

Someone get this chick a Mother of the Year award.

Curiously, Allard also has at least one daughter about whom we can’t find any public shaming pieces.

I have no words to describe my revulsion for this “person”.

 

Trolling Level: PhD

There are reports that ISIS’s putative caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, is pining for the fjords.

The Pentagon is treating the reports as unconfirmed.

But that’s not stopping Mattis’s Pentagon from talking some grim, pointed smack with the story:

A spokesman for the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition told CBS News in an emailed statement that, “we cannot confirm this report, but hope it is true. We strongly advise ISIS to implement a strong line of succession, it will be needed.”

Burn.

No True Muslim

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Everything was going fine until the neighbors voted for the wrong guy.

The doctor in this article intentionally moved to Dawson, which is about as far from Georgetown as you can get, culturally.  This is fly-over rural America, farm country.  He knew he was the first Muslim to set foot in town but he chose to anyway.  And the people were welcoming to him.  They knew his religion was Islam but they didn’t care; to him, he was their doctor, not some nutjob with an assault rifle.  They could see the difference and accepted him fully.

But now he can’t accept them.  Not anymore.  He can’t accept that they voted for the candidate they thought would do the best job of defending the nation from the terrorists that they – and he – want kept at bay.

I’m not one of those who is suspicious of all Muslims.   The fact majority come here for exactly the same reasons my great-grandparents did.

And most Americans get that.  A vocal minority don’t – but then a vocal minority has had  a problem with every wave of immigrants, ever.

The problem, of course, is that this wave of immigrants does harbor some bad actors:

The doctor lectures locals about Islam but his argument is unpersuasive because it’s a logical fallacy that goes like this: Speaker One: No Scotsman would do such a thing.  Speaker Two: Angus just did it.  Speaker One: Well, then, Angus is not a TRUE Scotsman.

By throwing Angus out of the group, the Speaker has arbitrarily limiting the pool of True Scotsmen to “people who don’t do such a thing” which makes his conclusion self-fulfilling.  But in real life, the Speaker has no power to decide who is a True Scotsman and who is not.  We cannot accept his conclusion because he’s artificially limited the terms.

No True Muslim is the argument used by every Muslim ‘moderate’ including this doctor.  He arbitrarily defines Islamist terrorists as Not True Muslims so therefore we should have no fear of True Muslims because True Muslims are not terrorists.  Yes, but the doctor doesn’t have the power to decide who is a True Muslim and who is not.  As a nation, we can’t tell who to fear and who embrace.  At the local level it’s easy and the towns folk did embrace him.  At the national level it’s much trickier so they embraced the hard-line candidate who promised the most protection.

At a national security level, how can we tell what a True Muslim looks like, versus an Islamist terrorist?  You quote the Koran, they quote the Koran.  You pray, they pray.  Your women cover their heads, their women cover their heads.  From this angle, everyone who claims to be a Muslim looks and acts the same right up until the day the terrorists break cover and slaughter everyone at the Christmas party, or everyone at the dance club, or set off bombs at the marathon.  At that point, it does no good to say: “Oh, well, they weren’t TRUE Muslims.”  If we can’t tell them apart before the killing starts, then keeping out all Muslims is safer for America even if it’s unfair to True Muslims.  That’s a national security compromise most Americans are willing to make.

Accepting a Muslim doctor in Dawson and voting for Trump for President are not inconsistent.  They’re not signs of hatred, bigotry or racism.  They’re signs that ordinary, normal people can make rational decisions about their personal welfare and about the welfare of the nation.

This article will make people in the Dawson area uncomfortable.  I wouldn’t be surprised if his patient case-load drops off and his employer seeks a less controversial replacement.  That won’t be a sign of rural Minnesota hatred, bigotry or racism, either.  That’s what happens when you loudly and publicly burn your bridges.

I wonder if his family found rural life unappealing so he was looking for a way out of his contract?  What else could motivate a rational professional to destroy his chosen career?

Joe Doakes

Hmm.