Peak Left

It’s been my theory that Minnesota “progressives” – especially here in the Metro area – are incapable of debating conservatives on a level deeper than ad-homina and strawmen because they never learn what it’s like to deal with dissent.  They grow up in “progressive” families, sure – and then go on to 12 years of public education run by and for the left.  Then 4-8 years at a U of M or a Saint Olaf or a Macalester, where conservatism is treated as a villain in a melodrama, all but twisting its mustache in sadistic glee, and where no realistic debate is tolerated.  Then they go on to careers in academia, public education, non-profits, or public sector unions, where people marinade in unquestioned “progressivism” for decades without a break.

In other words, for Minnesota “progressives”, their entire life is a “safe space”.

Robert Tracinski at The Federalist thinks that’s a bad sign for progressivism – that it will lead, eventually, to “Peak Leftism”.  In fact…

At the beginning of the year, I speculated that we may have reached “Peak Leftism,” the point at which the left has achieved such uniform control of the commanding heights of the culture that they have no place to go but down. Their mania for soft ideological conformity suggests a mechanism for this decline. They are growing so accustomed to living in an ideological “safe space” that they will no longer understand what it means to debate their positions, much less how to win the debate.

And this is bad for “progressive”ism because… (emphasis added):

The most powerful historical precedent for this is the totalitarian creed of the Soviet Union—a dogma imposed, not just by campus censors or a Twitter mob, but by gulags and secret police. Yet one of the lessons of the Soviet collapse is that the ideological uniformity of a dictatorship seems totally solid and impenetrable—right up to the moment it cracks apart. The imposition of dogma succeeds in getting everyone to mouth the right slogans, even as fewer and fewer of them understand or believe the ideology behind it.

Go ahead.  Talk some some Sanders supporters for a while.  Tracinski’s thesis doesn’t seem so far out.

Cultural Appropriation

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is in his car, at the drive-through at Taco John’s in Little Canada.

Suddenly, Moonbeam BIRKENSTOCK steps around the corner and up to BERG’s driver window.

BIRKENSTOCK:  Merg! Stop the cultural appropriation!

BERG:  What are you talking about?

BIRKENSTOCK:  Places like Taco Johns that prepare ethnic food outside its original cultural context are practicing cultural appropriation!

BERG:  So?  All cultures practice appropriation.  And by the way, who are you – a twenty-something graduate of Saint Olaf, and of Camp Wellstone, who works as a telemarketer for “Minnesotans United for All Progressive Causes”, and is as white as the driven snow – doing jabbering about “cultural appropriation”, anyway?

BIRKENSTOCK:  I identify as a wise Latina!

BERG: Huh.  OK.  So no member of a culture can use anything from another culture without, what?  An accompanying certificate of authenticity?

BIRKENSTOCK:  Don’t be a smart-aleck, Berg.   Appropriating other cultures diminishes them!

BERG:  Huh.  Well, OK, then.  In for a dime, in for a dollar.

BIRKENSTOCK:  What does that mean?

BERG:  Well, people from other cultures should stop appropriating things that are identified with a European cultural context.  Universities.  Voting.  The emphasis on the rights of the individual.  The idea of democratic government and one-person, one-vote rule and equality of all people of all classes before a law that is written by consent of those governed.  The ideals of free speech, the right to petition for the redress of grievances, fair trials, enumerated powers and unenumerated rights – all of them are Western, “white” ideals, most of them American.

BIRKENSTOCK:  Nonsense.  All of them were invented by the Iroquois.

BERG:  And are you Iroquis?

BIRKENSTOCK:  I have always identified as Iroquis.

BERG:  Iroquis and Latina?

BIRKENSTOCK:  Don’t mansplain!

BERG:  Do you also identify as Hindi?

BIRKENSTOCK:  Huh?

BERG: That toe ring you’re wearing is “appropriated” from South Asia.

BIRKENSTOCK:  Check your privilege!  You’re a white male who’s trying to mansplain!

BERG:  Now you’re appropriating elements of our linguistic heritage; “Privilege” is from the Norman French, while “Check” comes from Saxon roots.

DRIVE-THRU SPEAKER:  May I take your order?

BIRKENSTOCK:  Just a small Potato Olé, please.

BERG:  Hey – I was in line.

BIRKENSTOCK:  I identified as ahead of you, so I appropriated your spot.

And SCENE.

 

For Those Living In Saint Paul

The city is looking for feedback (or, possibly, “looking for feedback”) in re a new police chief.   Here’s where to give that feedback, if you live in the city.

Outgoing chief Tim Smith seemed to regard the law-abiding gun owner as a bigger nuisance than criminals – notwithstanding that the law-abiding gun owner has a crime rate of roughly zero in this state.

It’d be nice to get a pro-shooter chief – but given that the city is generally run by and for the Volvo-driving, Macalester-attending, Whole-Foods-shopping set, I’d be happy to get a chief who was knowledgeably neutral.

So if you live in St. Paul, by all means provide your feedback, for whatever good it’ll do.

Those Gun-Toting White Christian Terrorists Strike Again

Gun toting white Christianist terrorists armed with carry permits and a perfectly legal semiautomatic handgun and lots of hatred shoot a gay man seven times outside a gay bar in Lubbock Texas.

Clearly, that wave of white Christianist terror that Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and wave after wave of earnest lefties have been warning us about is upon us.

Well, no.

They were Muslims.

And the attack happened in Sydney, Australia – where, President Obama assures us, hate crime can’t turn into a handgun homicide because law-abiding people can’t get those kinds of guns.

One thing’s for sure; when Mark Dayton says “if you don’t like immigrants, leave the state”, there are people out there who are ready to put some teeth into the demand!

Messages

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Al Sharpton is upset the Oscars didn’t recognize a Black actor.  It makes the awards “fraudulent.”

For crying out loud, how dense are they?  There’s an award for every category down to Junior Lunch Caterer’s Assistant, why not add one more?

And let’s be blatant and clear about it – this is not an award for excellence, those awards went to Best Actors.  This is an award to shut up critics.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, this year, the ‘Token Award for Black Actor’ goes to . . . .”

Joe Doakes

It’s all about “sending messages”. `

Check Your Urban Liberal Privilege

Minneapolis ninth Ward representative Alondra Cano likes to paint herself as the champion of the underprivileged…

…while availing herself of that most excellent privilege, awesome vacations on the taxpayers dime.

(And that other awesome liberal privilege, using the government she works for to strong-arm those she disagrees with, all the while claiming to be the victim).

An Army Travels On Its Stomach; College “Progressives” Travel On That Blazing Sense Of Grievance

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Students at Oberlin College are upset at the food in the cafeteria.  Not because it sucks – it’s institutional food, suckage is a given – but because the recipes aren’t as good as Mom’s and that makes the college guilty of a ghastly infliction of culinary cultural appropriation

 I wonder if the bad food is helping them keep off the Freshman Fifteen, or if they’re like the Marine who wrote a letter to his mother: “The food here is awful, and such small portions!”

 I note the contrast between the student’s petition and my Dad’s favorite tune from the Army:

 The sushi at the college

They say is mighty keen

The fish is hard, the rice is mush

And tastes like kerosene

 Oh, I don’t want no more of college life

Gee, but I want to go,

But Mom won’t let me go,

Gee, but I want to go, home.

 Soldiers faced bad food with humor; students pretend bad food justifies moral outrage, I scoff at whining students as crybabies.  God help them the first time they tell their spouses “It’s not as good as my Mom’s cooking.”

 Joe Doakes

“Mothers” are a form of cultural appropriation.  Trigger warning.  Check your privilege.

Check and mate.

Alondra Cano Doxxes The Halls With Abuse Of Power. Fa La La La La, La La La Lawless.

Minneapolis City Councilwoman Alondra Cano makes no bones about the fact that she’s a progressive.  Her Twitter bio begins “Daughter of the Third World Feminist movement”, which may or may not be true, but she’s certainly a product of the sort of unbridled prosperity that First World free-marketeering has wrought; it takes a lot of prosperity to make a public life like hers sustainable.  And thank goodness for that prosperity – since her future as an industrial engineer looks dim indeed.

At any rate, she spent a good chunk of yesterday on social media rooting for Black Lives Matter’s protest at the Mall of America.  And while Ms Cano seems as confused about the distinction between public and private property as the rest of the City Council usually does, I’ll certainly defend her right to protest in favor of or against anything she wants.

Provided, of course, she doesn’t abuse her office to do it.

And we’ve got a problem, there.

Chicago-y:  On her Twitter feed yesterday, she went around and around with some of her critics.

Including, as it happens, some who’d written to her on her City of Minneapolis feedback form – the one people use on the City website to send her feedback.

She took to posting some of the responses she disagreed with.  Note:  While I redacted personal information, including phone numbers, email addresses and home addresses, from the screenshots, Ms. Cano did not:

Cano 1

Cano 2

Cano3

And this condescending little jape:

Cano4

When people tried to call “foul” on Twitter, Cano responded:

CanoAccountable

Emails may be public – but one might ask why a public official is posting citizens data on Twitter, when they contacted her via the City’s contact form.  Because she expects them to be reading Twitter?  Seems unlikely.

And while she pleads “public data”, you’ll note that she only published the names, email and home addresses of detractors, not supporters.

In short, Cano used her city social media presence and city-supplied data to try to intimidate constituents who disagreed with her.  Furthermore, she used city-supplied data to stump for Black Lives Matter.  While Cano has every right to believe what she wants, and protest on their behalf, using data from a city web form to intimidate citizens is grossly inappropriate.

screenshot-twitter.com 2015-12-23 20-44-40

It’s hard out there for a member of a major urban political elite.

So while Ms. Cano – an elected officeholder and high-ranking member of a power structure that has boundless power over a major American city – may try to eke out a shard of victimhood out of the fact that anyone would ask…:

screenshot-twitter.com 2015-12-23 21-13-27

I haven’t seen the term “womyn” used unironically in twenty years. Minneapolis is truly a commemorative museum of progressivism.

…I’m going to ask anyway.

I posted four questions to Ms. Cano – although I suspect I’ll be blocked from her Twitter feed long before she reads them, even if she did.  But for the record, here they are:

  1. Why are you, Ms. Cano, using Twitter to respond to feedback that came to you via the feedback from on the city website?  She can’t possibly believe that the correspondents were going to read her on Twitter, did she?
  2. While it may be true that emails from the feedback form are “public”, Twitter is hardly a data practices request, now, is it?
  3. Is it proper for a city councilwomen to use data from a public website to shape opinion for a private group?  Black Lives Matter is not city business!
  4. In what way is posting citizens’ home phones, addresses and email addresses not intimidation?  And is it proper to use social media to intimidate people at all, whether on behalf of government or someone completely different?

If you live in Minneapolis, I urge you to ask Ms. Cano exactly that.

And maybe tell her to check her urban liberal privilege.

Today’s Academic Hero

The president of Oklahoma Wesleyan says what’s needed to be said:

“This is not a day care,” Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, wrote in a fiery blog post on the school’s website last week.

“This is a university!”

His critics will no doubt home in on the fact that OWU is an evangelical school, and that Piper has spoken out in favor of Kim Davis, against transgender activism and gay marriage.

To which I reply “put on a helmet, bucko – that’s the point.  In real life, you’re going to encounter things and people you disagree with, and – scariest of all – who disagree with you.  And some of them are going to be smart – even smarter than you, maybe.  And you will have to learn how to deal with this cognitive dissonance.  Or – if you’re one of the students that’s whinging about “safe spaces” these days, I guess not to learn to deal with dissonance – like, for example, pretty much every liberal in the Twin Cities under the age of 70″.

First Amendment: Abolished In Saint Paul

I’m not a big Donald Trump fan.

No.  Really .  Not.  A.  Fan.

But I’m reminded of Churchill’s statement about Stalin; he didn’t care for him, but if Satan were Hitler’s enemy, Churchill would at least do lunch with him.

And so the Saint Paul City Council might be responsible for me doing  lunch with The Donald, after they put their own special carve-out in the First Amendment:

The St. Paul City Council will vote Wednesday on a resolution that condemns presidential candidate Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and declares Trump unwelcome within the city limits….[Councilman Dai Thao] acknowledged on Thursday he had not yet touched base with fellow council members on the resolution. “We think it will pass,” he said. “St. Paul has always been welcoming to immigrants.”

But not, apparently, dissent in any form.

Dear Mr. Trump:  While I won’t be voting for you at caucuses, I beg of you; please, please, please come to Saint Paul (aka “Chicago on the Mississippi”).  Call these morons on their bluff.

It’d be the show of the century.

It’s another big win for urban liberal privilege.

God Save Us From Our Progeny

Lately, the academic left has been hotly engaged in an Orwellian airbrushing of history – trying to cut the legs out from under great figures in history, based on a modern reading of their deeds, beliefs, ethics and morality.

Thus, Abraham Lincoln was a racist first and a bunch of other stuff way, way down the list  

…provided they’re white and American, naturally; Gandhi’s racism and anti-semitism and Che Guevara’s sexism, racism and homophobia don’t rise to the level of retroactionable.

This is hardly a new phenomenon, of course; I remember having this argument with the PC warriors nearly thirty years ago; “I’d be interesting to see how people 100 years from how judge us”, I’d howl into the void.

Victor Davis Hanson says it better, naturally.  Here’s the conclusion…:

On campus, violations of the Bill of Rights, obsessions with race rather than character, inflated and puerile self-regard, adolescent self-indulgence and materialism, along with epidemic factual ignorance, inability to speak and write coherently, and the loss of inductive reasoning may ensure that the early 21st century will be judged as an era of anti-Enlightenment ignorance — with the twist that never have such pampered people so little deserved all that they inherited.

…but read the whole thing anyway.

Blood On The PC Merchants’ Hands

In 1994, in a church parking lot off of Sixth and Arcade on the East Side of St. Paul, Guy Harvey Baker, a deranged Gulf War veteran, shot and killed a Saint Paul police officer – Ron Ryan Jr.

Baker then drove towards a woman, standing in the door of the nearby apartment building across the parking lot, to eliminate the only eyewitness.

A man in an apartment building across the street, Lyle Granlund, who happened to be an expert marksman – and had a loaded handgun at hand – considered shooting the murderer.  But then, he reconsidered – thinking that Tom Foley, the Ramsey County attorney and Wahhabi DFLer – would likely prosecute him with just as much zeal as he would the cop killer.

So instead, Granlund shot to mark the car – putting rounds through the back windshield, lodging them quite intentionally in the dashboard and glove box, saving a round in case Baker came after him next.  Baker took off, to be found later that day (via the broken back window), leading to a further shoot out that killed another St. Paul policeman, Officer Tim Jones, as well as his dog Laser.  Had Granlund not feared prosecution (quite legitimately – Foley did, in fact, try to prosecute him, and stopped only when the St. Paul police refused to cooperate), Baker would have ended his spree in that parking lot, with one dead, and Officer Jones would have lived to serve another day.

Political correctness killed a police officer.

And it’s tragic to see that we have learned absolutely nothing from the event. It’s entirely likely that 14 people are dead in San Bernardino because people fear politically correctness-induced repercussions is on the part of the authorities more than they do criminals.

My Virtual Client Is Obviously Guilty

Joe Doakes from Como Park – who, let the record show, is an attorney – emails:

I don’t understand Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman’s legal analysis in charging the BLM shooter with assault with a deadly weapon.

When Black people protest, it’s a Constitutionally protected right.  If White people counter-protest, it should be just as protected, right?

Yes, I know, the White people said they were going to stir up trouble.  They know somebody who owns a Confederal flag.  They talked trash on video.  That’s bad manners, agreed.  But filming Black protestors and even calling them names is no less protected speech than burning a cross in somebody’s yard and we know that’s constitutional, decided decades ago in RAV v. St. Paul.  So going to the protest should be good.

If the White guys were racially offensive in implementing their counter-protest, does that negate the shooters self-defense claim?  The standard is:

  1. Did not initiate the physical conflict, must be a reluctant participant.
  2. Attempted to retreat by running away
  3. Reasonably believed they were about to suffer great bodily harm at the hands of an enraged mob
  4. Used reasonable force to repel the attack by firing a few rounds, only one of which injured anybody

I’m sure the prosecutor and the media will portray the White men as the aggressors, not as reluctant participants.  But that doesn’t sound right to me.  If you and I are having a heated discussion, the guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor, regardless how annoying the words are.

There might be such a thing as “fighting words” to justify a quick punch.  But there’s no such thing as “chasing-down-an-alley” words to justify a mob beating.  The Black mob initiated the threat of physical violence, the White men attempted to retreat and used reasonable force as a last resort.  I would think the shooter has a pretty good case for self-defense.  I would expect Mike Freeeman to see that.  I therefore conclude the assault charge is grandstanding to pacify the same mob that initiated the violence.  That’s not a good long-term strategy for maintaining public order.

Joe Doakes

“Progressive” politics is always a matter of balancing respective mobs of constituents, usually against each other.

Topic Number One And Only…

…in the media, these days, seems to be the idea that “the GOP is racist”, since Donald Trump, who has certainly brought out more than his fair share of the angry and the ignorant (sort of the flipside of Bernie Sanders, who, let’s not forget, is pimping xenophobic socialism himself) and who will be out of the race in a couple of months, is being closely tailed, and in the aggregate outnumbered, by two Latinos, a woman, and an African-American, all vying for the chance to take a shot at one of the three geriatric honkies on the Democrat side.

Which, in turn, is the sum, total, entire reason the media is obsessing over “racism”.

 

Gatekeepers

I’m all for taking in refugees from other countries.

One of the greatest influences on my 18 year old life was a family of Polish refugees who came to North Dakota.  Seeing and hearing about life under Soviet rule was one of the things that set me on the glide path toward voting for Ronald Reagan when I was a few years older.

Anyway – I’m all for taking in people who genuinely have no place else to go. And yep, you can hear a certain fringe of anti-Muslim animosity and, yeah, racism among some opponents of throwing the floodgates open to immigration from the Middle East (and everywhere else), but the fact is that the US has taken in 70% of the UN-designated “refugrees” that have actually been resettled in recent years – and it’s the Obama Administration that has been picking and choosing the refugees it wants to take; out of 3.6 million refugees from Afghanistan, South Sudan and the Central African Republican in the last couple years, the Obama Administration has accepted less than a thousand.

But let’s not focus on the administration for now.  Let’s focus on organic criticism.

Racism is in the minority,  among a lot of people who say “look at what’s happened in Europe” and “have we learned nothing from the Somali influx”, where the government essentially dumped thousands of Somalis here without any support, with thousands of passive Jihad sympathizers and where dozens, maybe more, have gone off to join ISIS and/or Al Shabab,?

At any rate – advocate for immigration if you want. I’m with you. My beef isn’t with immigration, or taking in refugees, or even Islam at large.  It’s with the avalanche of emotional, illogical, logrolling arguments we’re being subjected to by immigration proponents.

So – if you’re passing any of the arguments below, especially with the air of suffocating self-righteousness that seems to be so in fashion with these sorts of arguments these day, we may have to talk.

“We HAVE to take in refugees! There are women and children among them!” Sure – but a disproportionate number are men, especially men who are of military age.

“Have you seen the state the children are in?” So give them a leg up on getting in to countries. Why is this an all-or-nothing proposition?

“But they’re fleeing WAR”! Many if not most of the “refugees” in Europe right now are economic, not war, refugees, from places like Somalia and Sudan that may be pretty miserable, but aren’t war zones.

“It’s just like the WW2 Internment camps!” No – the camps interned American citizens. The refugees are not citizens, and there is no human right to enter this country. None.

“None of them have attacked anyone yet!” Well, that’s just awesome. On 12/6/1941, no Japanese plane had ever attacked American territory. On 9/10/01, it’d been 56 years since any American had been killed by a deliberately-crashed plane. As they say in investing, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

In fact, let’s say, hypothetically, that not a single would-be terrorist infiltrates the US via this wave of immigration. It could happen!

But then let’s say the refugees are resettled in the same manner than the State Department is handing Somali refugees; paying social service non-profits to put them in communities, supporting them for a year, and then washing their hands of them.  This leaves communities of unacculturated immigrants with little skill in English (or, what the hell, Spanish), menial job skills, and little contact in the larger community.  What happens to them?

If they’re lucky, they get a decent job with neighborly Americans who introduce them to American life.  Or they land in a community that has some Somalis that’ve established  themselves, and are among the 85-90% of Somali that are not Jihad sympathizers, and who’ll help them complete the transition as relatively cleanly as possible.

If they’re not?  They’re alone, stranded in a strange country, poor and dependent, speaking the language poorly if at all, and ripe for the picking by the thin film of opportunistic, Jihad-sympathetic imams that are working that population even as we speak.  Which brings us to the next point:

“All of the Paris terrorists were French Nationals!” – Oh, goody – so the fact that people who have been in the west for a while, long enough to gain or be born with citizenship, are blowing up their countrymen is the good news?

If the Administration plans to use the Somali influx as its model – dumping masses of poor immigrants into our communities, unsupported – how do we avoid these new communities turning into the the like of the Arab suburbs of Paris, Lyon, Brussels and Stockholm, which were in fact the breeding grounds for the last few waves of Paris attackers?

“It’s just exactly like when the Jews tried to flee Nazi Germany”: Not even close. The Jews of the 1930s had *nowhere* to go, and no state of their own to take them in. They were excluded from the US due to pure anti-semitism. The VAST majority of this wave of refugees are already someplace safe; Greece, Germany, Jordan, Egypt, wherever. Nobody’s going to ship them to a concentration camp, or kill them (unless ISIS takes over Greece, Germany,Jordan, Egypt or wherever.  The Arab world is chock full of countries with immense wealth and space – but no impetus to take in refugees. We can not forever be the world’s safety valve.

“They’re just looking for a safe place” Some, maybe most, are. But they’re also making beelines for Germany and Sweden and France, as opposed to safe places like Poland or Slovakia or even, for crying out loud, Lithuania, which is rolling out the welcome mat but doesn’t pay welfare benefits to refugees. Why do you suppose that is?

“Look at this photomeme of the Indians and Pilgrims! Ironic!” Well, yeah. I guess you could say it’s ironic that your dimbulb photomeme supports *my* point better than yours, ja?

“Mary and Joseph were refugees looking for a place to stay!” No, they were paying their taxes at the behest of the government. The Judean IRS was apparently even worse than ours.  But let’s say they were refugees; that was a pretty gutsy innkeeper, what with that Judean movement that was beheading Nazarenes in the streets.

“It’s just fear!” – That’s not an argument. That’s bullying. By the same “logic”, owning a fire extinguisher and looking both ways before you cross the street is “fear”. No, “fear” is a chanting point, intended to emotionally bully people into doing what they’re told.

“It’s racist to oppose the resettlement” Look – see above.  Historically and in recent years, we’ve taken in more of the refugees that have been taken in than the rest of the world, twice over.  And that’s on top of the illegals.  America’s Muslim population is on track to exceed its Jewish population – the largest outside Israel – very shortly here. If there’s “racism” out there, it’s taking its sweet time manifesting itself. Beating people over the head with accusations of “bigotry” isn’t an argument; it’s browbeating and bullying.

It’s logrolling – the same cheap emotional bludgeoning that supporters of same sex marriage used to browbeat anyone who said “er, maybe we want to think a little before we fundamentally alter society’s fundamental building block” into compliance. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not (I barely agree with straight marriage), it was depressing, seeing society decide a crucial issue the exact same way the Mean Girls did back in junior high.

And I’ll tolerate none of it.

A Lesson From Paris

In the Charlie Hebdo attack, Muslim terrorists slaughtered some deeply unsympathetic characters; “journalists” whose entire milieu involved whizzing in other peoples Wheaties.

And they attacked a kosher market – in other words, Jews.

So if you’re not a smug confrontational “journalist” or a Jew, you may have felt you were safe.

And their targets in the US, so far, have been similar; military installations of various types, full of unarmed servicepeople and dependents, for the most part.

Last Friday’s attacks “targeted” nobody; they were completely indiscriminate.

But the casualties were disproportionally younger people in the hipster parts of the 11th Arondissement of Paris; patrons at bars and sidewalk cafes, heavy metal fans at Baclaban, and soccer fans.

In other words – not only pretty much anyone, but especially at the four different attacks on bars and shopping areas, disproportionately people who, it seems likely, were likely than average to support aggressive, anti-ISIS policies.  I’m going to speculate, not without good reason, that many of the victims would have been actively hostile to hardline politics.

In any case, certainly none of the victims were within spitting distance of the French power structure.  Being neutral, or even opposed to the French counterterror policy, was no protection; any random passerby it was a bone to be chewed.

Moderation Is No Virtue:  If you read about the Middle East in any depth, you know that the single most dangerous thing to be is a “moderate Muslim”; it is they that the radicals kill off first, before the Americans, before the Brits, before even the Israelis.

That is pretty standard behavior among radicals; the Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks; the Nazis muscled out lesser fascists; the Obama people turned the rhetorical long knives on Hillary.

But it is, literally, a matter of religious doctrine for ISIS; not only is failing to follow the Koran a crime, but failure to exact punishment by Koranic standards is punishable under Koranic law.  That includes the leadership; the Caliph must wage war on apostate Muslims (Shi’ites, and secular Muslim governments, to say nothing of secular government of any type), or be subject to penalty under a strict reading of Islamic law.  Don’t take my word for it; read this.

Your own moral neutrality on the subject is no defense.

Whose Privilege, Now?

The protests in Missouri have brought the notion of “Privilege” out in the open with full red-faced screaming anger, and jabbed it straight into our faces.

PC Alert!

Oh, sure – “white privilege”.  Yep, that too.

In seeing the iconic photo of Professor  Click calling in “muscle” to eject a student “journalist” from public space, as he tried to cover a protest about “privilege”, I’m reminded of an episode I had recently with a local “Black Lives Matter” sympathizer/activist.

We were on a neighborhood Facebook page, discussing a BLM rally that’d just happened in my neighborhood.

I asked the woman a simple question; with the stipulation that “white privilege” exists, I asked her “what should we do about it?”

Her answer was the sort of condescension that comes from deep insecurity; “you wouldn’t understand, because of your privilege”.

I bit my tongue and refrained from responding “Ma’am?  You’re a professional in one of the soft sciences; you have an advanced degree, a practice, an upper-middle-class income by Twin Cities standards (which means you’re phenomenally wealthy by world standards), and an entree into upper-middle-class society.  I’m a freelance IT user experience consultant.  Who’s got the “privilege”, here?

It’s like when Nekima Levy-Pounds blows up an interview by pulling the “white privilege” lever; she’s a woman with a PhD in a very soft humanities area, and a tenured, all but unemployment proof job and an upper-middle-class salary and lifestyle, lecturing white roofing and siding contractors, delivery drivers and overnight Target shelf-stockers about their “privilege”.

There is all sorts of “privilege” out there; I was privileged to grow up in a family with married parents that stayed together until I was an adult; I’m privileged that my ancestors came to this country of their own free will, from a society with a history of stabbing and burning anyone who’d tried to enslave them, thus avoiding all the social pathologies that befall people with long histories of brutal persecution (white southern Scots-Irish, Armenians, and yes, even Jews).

And above all, class – a “privilege” that most of the American Left shares.  The essential Victor Davis Hanson notes that the left is harping on “white privilege” to draw attention away from  the “class privilege” that affects so much more of society – but benefits the left pretty handsomely.

Why We Never Call Gun Grabbers “Gun Safety Advocates”

Because they don’t give the faintest whiff of a rat’s patoot about gun safety.

When I was a kid, someone came into the school and gave us a quick demo and (IIRC) a film strip on actual gun safety.  It included a couple of simple rules that any kid can remember – and that I still do.  If you’re a kid, and you see a gun – your friends bring out their dad’s hunting rifle or grandpa’s WW2 pistol – and your parents aren’t there:

  • Stop
  • Don’t touch
  • Run away
  • Tell a grownup

That’s it.   That’s gun safety for kids.

There’s no way of knowing how many kids in my elementary school’s lives were saved by that lesson; not a single kid in my school died in a gun accident.  Zero.  There was a drowning, a couple car accidents, an alcohol poisoning, and a suicide right after graduation – but no gun accidents.

And this, in a part of the country where there are likely more guns per-capita than on bases for some branches of the military.

It’s a pretty standard program; many hunting groups, along with the NRA, teach gun safety in schools.

Y’know – because it keeps children from getting killed, accidentally.

You’d think moms (not to mention fathers) would be all over it.  And in the parts of our society ruled by common sense, they are.

But not I Moms Want Action (a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown For “Gun Safety”, the billionaire’s gun-grabber group),   To them, “gun safety” is, in their own words, “atrocious”:

Moms Demand Action’s Jennifer Hoppe recoiled at the news that Forest Hills was teaching children about gun safety. She said, “It’s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children — this is an adult problem. Every gun that’s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.”

In a further effort to make her point, Hoppe added, “Accidental gun deaths among children are not ‘accidental,’” suggesting that the focus should be on how they are “preventable” if adults store guns properly.

Which is the sort of calm, cool, rational logic we’ve come to expect from Moms Want Action.  No, seriously.

Because in a world where our leftist entertainment industry gives money to gun-grabber groups with one hand, while glorifying consequence-free violence with the other, there are plenty of irresponsible parents out there, leaving guns in easy reach of kids.  And that is certainly a moral, and often literal, crime – which is nice, but what does your kid do when he or she comes face to face with their kids, acting like kids?

Question for you, Jennifer Hoppe, Jane Kay, Michael Bloomberg and Heather Martens:  would you be happier if your kid knew to stop, run away and tell an adult, or would you prefer the county attorney sort it all out after the funeral?

The article points out something I’d missed.  Usually, when a gun-grabber yaps about wanting a “conversation about guns,” what they mean is “you shooters shut up while we shriek at you”.

But Mark Kelly – wife of Gabby Giffords, and certainly no gun-rights advocate – actually indulged in that rarest of treats; he actually conversed about guns, complimenting the NRA’s exceptionally-effective child safety program.

The results were…predictable:

Ironically, it was just months ago that Huffington Post went comparably apoplectic after gun control proponent Mark Kelly praised the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program for its effectiveness with children. On April 14, Kelly tweeted: “I don’t agree w/ the NRA on some big issues, but they deserve a lot of credit for teaching kids about gun safety [via] Eddie Eagle.”

The reaction from the left was predictably emotionally-thud-witted, intellectually barren and morally bereft.

Dear Moms Want Action:  the blood of every child accidentally killed for want of commonsense gun-safety education is on your desiccated talons.

Just Another Day In The Life Of Every Saint Paul Conservative

I got this via email yesterday, in response to Tuesday’s SITD Saint Paul Voter Guide:

Mitch
You are quite mean spirited aren’t you.
[Redacted]

Because in the world of the Saint Paul DFLer, dissent, satire, humor (even if not all that good) and criticism of the Dear DFL Leadership is “mean”.

Guess I’m lucky it wasn’t “hate” this time.

The World Is Their Safe Room

There’s an old saying, which experience as a conservative in a liberal city shows to be utterly true:  “Conservatives believe Liberals are wrong; Liberals believe Conservatives are evil”.

PC Alert!

Further evidence:  Liberals are vastly more likely to unfriend social media contacts over politics than conservatives are.

I’d extend that;  conservative blogs, like mine, are highly likely to tolerate dissent in our various social media feeds; check and see how much dissent the likes of “Protect MN” or Sally Jo Sorenson tolerate in their online worlds when you’ve got time for an experiment.

A very brief experiment.

Like Satire, Only Serious

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A Facebook friend told me she would vote Democrat because Jesus would support most of their platform. I suppose it’s a matter of interpretation.

See, when Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” that was not a request to let a bunch of scruffy urchins sit by him as he preached (stupid disciples were so literal); what he meant was “send Me your children when I get back to Heaven” or more succinctly “kill the children.” Plainly, that’s Divine endorsement of taxpayer funded abortion on demand, a key plank in the Democrat platform. He didn’t specifically mention carving up dead children’s corpses to sell their body parts, but presumably that’s covered by an emanation of the penumbra of actions He approved.

And when He told His disciples to sell all they had to give to the poor, He didn’t mean they should sacrifice by digging into their own pockets, He meant politicians should take Other People’s Money out of those other people’s pockets to give to the poor. Redistribution of wealth to reduce income inequality is another Democrat ideal.

Finally, the story of the Good Samaritan is not about one stranger helping another, it’s a lesson about affordable health care. How much clearer could Jesus be: God approves the Obama-care individual mandate?

You know, she might be onto something. If I vote Democrat, I not only get to be on the winning side of a Minnesota election for once, my salvation is also assured, all without lifting a finger. Tempting.

Joe Doakes.

Amd the whole Lowes and fishes thing? That’s right – supports and was spending without regard to the source…