Question: will the media force Elizabeth Warren – putatively the Democrat second choice after Hillary! – to meet with Cherokee women who’d like to talk with her about her phony claim to being a member of their tribe?
And profiting from it?
(Answer: Sure they will. When they get done holding Ryan Winkler accountable for turning a SCOTUS justice into Stepin Fetchit).
Joe Doakes from Como Oark emails:
The Complete Makeover of Society to Pamper Liberal Women Act is proceeding through the DFL dominated legislature. How many boondoggles can you find in this law?
I lost count at “a doodoo load”.
I may have boondoggle fatigue.
UPDATE: Welcome, MPP readers. Stop by. Ask a question or two. Find out all the ways the MPP “writers” have lied to you.
If you approach things with an open mind, you’ll find that my old friend DG probably means well, but for all of her talking a about “fact-checking” really does little but filter things through her prejudices, and gets everything generally wrong.
But hope springs eternal!
Anyway, welcome.
The bill that the Metrocrats chose to call the “Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act” passed the Senate.
Let’s look at what’s in a name. Because the name “Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools Act” is intensely misleading – almost to a geometric fault.
There are so many names for this bill that are more appropriate:
The Redundant Feel-Good Act: Every school district already has a bullying policy. It’s the law.
The PC Payoff Act: This bill - probably soon to be a law – is a chit being paid back to the DFL’s supporters by the party currently in power, creating not only a protected class of students, but a super-di-duper protected class.
The Full Employment For Bureaucrats Act: This bill – which creates a huge unfunded mandate on top of all the others foisted on our school systems, to the point where many districts are nothing but mandate delivery systems with occasional spurts of “education” – will create a whole new class of administrators. And they’ll belong to unions, who donate their dues money to the DFL.
The Full Employment For Trial Lawyers Act: The bill makes the entire process of dealing with “bullying” even more legalistic than it already is. Legalistic means “designed to be controlled, and especially litigated (at an exquisitely expensive hourly rate) by lawyers”.
The Type-Cast Your Child For Life Act: Everything related to everything that can be defined as “bullying”, no matter how torturously, will become part of a child’s permanent academic record. Which will affect childrens’ future chances at higher education, jobs, the military, jobs requiring security clearances and the like, long after the child has grown out of whatever phase they were in when they were bullies (and that’s assume they were rightly and justly accused of “bullying”, since the bill is also…)
“Stasi Had The Right Idea!” Act: Anonymous informants? Giving those who accuse others of bullying complete immunity from consequences if it turns out that the accusations were fabricated?
The “Further Proof That North Dakotans Are Smarter Than Minnesotans” Act: Other states – including our grown-up neighbor, my home state of North Dakota – address bullying by addressing bullying, passing laws that address actual behavior rather than creating the infrastructure for a network of secret denunciations and…
The Ideology Police Act: …making all beliefs that don’t toe the PC line, especially personal religious beliefs, however manifested or stated, a form of behavior that needs to be watched and suppressed, overtly or subtly, “for the good of the children”.
The “Let’s Have More Bullying, Not Less!” Act: Bullying tends to go up, rather than down, in places with bullying bills.
The Metrocrat Power Grab Of 2014 Act: The bill – which does nothing to address bullying of children that isn’t already covered by existing policies – does coalesce more power to indoctrinate, to punish dissent from the state-sanctioned social views, and to extort more from the taxpayer in the bargain. And it does it during the last session during which the DFL is guaranteed absolute power.
Could someone in the legislature please see to this?
Jon Stewart has his moments – but I’ve never, not once, thought the “Colbert Report” was funny.
I know – he’s basically satirizing Bill O’Reilly, and that’s something that desperately needs to be done well. Colbert isn’t it.
Yesterday, Colbert got into trouble for a “racist” shot at Asian-Americans, exhaustively documented at “The Twitchy“.
Here was the original tweet:
The worst part is that he and (worst of all) his defenders will say “It wasn’t really Colbert! He was acting the way a conservative host on Faux News, har di har, would act!”.
Except that Colbert and Ryan Winker and Maxine Waters do act that way. And it’s happening more and more lately – to the point that the lefty noise machine is spending more and more time digging back to find objectionable japes on the right. The other day, some lefty bobblehead on Twitter tried to tie gun owners to a remark Ted Nugent made…
…in 1990.
Sorry, guys. After you’ve dealt with Ryan WInkler in 2013, we’ll talk about Ted Nugent back during the George HW Bush administration.
Percentage of women in the federal civilian workforce drops sharply under The Lightworker:
Since Obama has been in office, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management, the percentage of women in the civilian federal work force has been shrinking. Before Obama took office, it was already smaller than the percentage in the overall national civilian labor force. Under Obama, it has gotten smaller still…about 44.4 percent of civilian federal workers were female in 1998.
In 2013, only about 43.5 percent were female — the lowest percentage in the sixteen years available.
In 1998, nationwide, about 46.3 percent of the civilian labor force was female — about 1.9 points more than the female share of the federal civilian labor force. In 2013, about 46.8 percent of the nationwide civilian labor force was female — about 3.3 points more than the female share of the federal civilian labor force.
The economy is worse for minorities, worse for women…
…and a never-ending spiff for DC residents.
Was I the only one who noticed – California Senator Diane Feinstein was silent during the part of the NSA scandal when it was just the peasants getting spied on…
…but she swung into action like Batwoman when it was her getting snooped?
For Sen. Dianne Feinstein, regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles has gotten personal.
In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” that aired on Sunday night, the California Democrat said a drone spied into the window of her home during a protest outside her house, and that privacy concerns for the technology were “major.”
…now.
Can anyone help but remember Feinstein’s time in San Francisco, where she moved to revoke all civilian handgun carry permits…
…after having herself issued a police permit?
When it was her life being threatened?
I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
In the world of the left, only the right people actually need civil rights.
Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – brings you the best in Minnesota conservatism, as the Twin Cities media’s sole source of honesty!
(All times Central)
So tune in to all six hours of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, the Twin Cities’ media’s sole guardians of honest news. You have so many options:
Join us!
Senator Roger Chamberlain has been leading the push to try to replace Senator Dibble’s “bullying bill”, HF 826, with a bill that addresses bullying rather than serves as a bludgeon of indoctrination.
He wrote a piece on Facebook (among, I’m sure, other places) earlier this week that I think sums things up well. I’m going to excerpt it below, with a few bits of emphasis added by me:
———-
I need to be blunt. HF 826 will turn our schools into indoctrination camps; it will create a climate of fear. Our children will be stripped of their innocence and humanity; HF 826 looks at children as nothing more than programmable machinery. Parents will lose more control, school districts lose control, and communities will lose control.
Another sad and disturbing fact is some elected officials and lobbyists do not care about the larger issue, the overall harm the bill will cause to children and parents. They will work to cut deals with the bill’s author and when they achieve their specific objective, and then they will walk away. One lobbyist said they will simply live with the results of the session.
What happened to the idea of doing what is right? Unfortunately it’s a fairly rare concept in government.
There is an alternative, senate file 2411 (SF 2411) it is based on North Dakota law, which, in 2011, was endorsed by our Attorney General Lori Swanson. It is short, 4 pages not 20 pages, clarifies the issue but most importantly it protects all kids equally, retains parental rights and local control.
HF 826 is not just another law people will learn to live with, it’s not MNSure, and these are children, your children and not some abstraction. People have no idea the damage this will cause; they have no idea what they are asking for.
———-
If you take action on no other issue this session (and I know this blog’s audience is prone to taking action on political issues), do it for this one.
The other day, a pack of the usual crowd of waxy yellow Leftyblog and Leftytweet buildup teased themselves to ecstasy over this photo:
It’s a group of “Trail Life” boys – from a breakaway sect of Boy Scouts that bars openly gay members – “giving a Nazi salute” as they recited their creed.
Except it wasn’t:
But it turns out that the boys were not saluting Hitler and contrary to the first Associated Press caption, they were not reciting a creed. The boys were singing “Taps,” a longtime Boy Scout tradition that the Texas Trail USA troop had adapted as their own.
The boys had gathered in a circle with their hands raised straight into the air. They gradually lowered their hands as they sang the song. It concludes with their hands flush against their side.
“It really misrepresented what was going on,” [John Stemberger, chairman of the board of Trail Life] told me. “There are children involved and that made it more outrageous. They were exploited and misunderstood.”
The picture accompanied what was actually apparently a relatively fair story.
But when it comes to the un-PC, “fair” isn’t part of the left’s playbook.
Find one of your children.
Wait for when it’s super cold out – like, below zero.
Soak them with a super-soaker. Then force them outside, and don’t let them back in the house, or any cars, or into the neighbors’ houses.
When (hopefully) someone calls the cops, you’ll be thrown into jail for child endangerment. And you should be.
Because “idiot” wouldn’t describe it – but “evil” pretty much would.
Most of you have no doubt seen this story; a Saint Paul middle school forced a junior high kid to wait outside, in a swimsuit and towel, in -2 weather and -25 wind chill. There’d been a fire drill while she was in the pool, and the teachers didn’t let her go to her locker, grab a coat, or anything but a towel (emphasis added):
[The girl] asked to wait inside an employee’s car, or at the elementary school across the street. But administrators believed that this would violate official policy, and could get the school in trouble, so they opted to simply let the girl freeze.
Let’s try to go through the “minds” of these hamsters: Given a choice to “violate policy” and “endanger a child’s health and safety”, the kid got chucked under a bus.
What does it say that a bunch of junior high kids are smarter, and have more moral clarity, than their administrators?
Her fellow classmates, at least, huddled around her to try to keep her warm. And one teacher did eventually lend her a coat.
There should be arrests. Idiot school administrators should be frog-walked out of their building in handcuffs. Their mug shots should be splashed all over the TV, so parents can keep their children away. Licenses should be slowly torn into long, thin strips.
But that’ll never happen.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
I found “Robin Hood” on Netflix, the updated version released by the BBC in 2006. The casting was more interesting than the show.
The BBC modernized the story but only up to the 2006 Code of Stereotypes: the Bad Guy Sheriff of Nottingham must be a White male, Maid Marian must be a butt-kicking, wise-cracking feminist, the hero’s side-kick must be a dumb White guy to serve as the butt of all jokes, all war veterans must have PTSD and be ticking time-bombs for violence, at least one racial minority must play a supporting role as Member Of The Merry Band (Hispanic preferred) and most important of all, no Black may be cast in an unsympathetic light.
In 2014, that Code has been updated to require at least one gay character and, if at all possible, a disabled person, e.g. “Glee.”
In this “Robin Hood,” there is no Friar Tuck in the Merry Band (religious characters are forbidden under the new Code), but there is a Saracen woman named D’jaq and of course, she’s smarter than all of the White males put together. But get this – D’jaq is supposed to be slave captured by King Richard’s armies fighting Saladin in the Middle East. She ought to be an Arab Muslim. But she’s played by an English actress of Indian descent using a Pakistani accent to sound foreign. Why? Probably because there is a giant immigrant population in England from former Crown colonies like India and Pakistan and the BBC Code must acknowledge them by substituting a Paki for a Hispanic in the Member Of The Band slot.
The most amazing thing of all? The Master-at-Arms, who kills innocent women and children so the Sheriff can blame Robin Hood for it, is a Black man. The fake Abbess who’s really a con artist, is a Black women. Black people are criminals! That would never happen in an American series.
Rearranging the priority of victims to cater to local sympathies makes business sense for the film maker. But it also reflects a certain callousness. Casting a show to fit the Stereotype Code means you don’t actually care about the people being stereotyped, only that the correct boxes are checked to meet your quotas.
Joe Doakes
I think I wrote about that a few years back, when my kids were still watching the Disney Channel (back when I’d still let kids watch the Disney Channel); all of the cookie cutter “Disney Movies” had the same basic characters:
…and a painstakingly-mixed bunch of supporting characters.
The Strib’s headline says “Minnesota legislators try to clear confusion over e-cigarettes“.
Let’s be clear, here.
The only “confusion” about e-cigarettes is in the legislature; “do we tax them, do we ban them, or both?”
And around those questions, it’s the legislature – not the state – milling around like stunned cattle.
Glad we could clear that up.
Minnesota. The state where everything that isn’t mandatory, is banned.
Or at least someone will be busy trying to ban it.
Phyillis (who else?) Kahn is tackling Big Flavored Water, and the scourge of second-hand water vapor:
The bill would mean you could not use an e-cigarette in indoor buildings or public spaces that ban smoking, just like traditional cigarettes.
E-cigarettes have exploded in popularity. So far, there have been no conclusive medical studies on their health impact and that has e-cigarette fans saying let’s wait before we put on any restrictions.
There is no evidence that they harm even the consumer (at a level beyond that caused by coffee or energy beverages, to say nothing of alcohol), much less anyone else.
And people enjoy them – which, in Minnesota, is a big red flag:
Since she opened her e-cigarette shop in Uptown, Sina War, an ex-smoker herself, has seen a surge in business.
“Electronic cigarettes allows me to have the same habits and allow me to cut the nicotine level down,” War said.
War says Rep. Phyllis Kahn’s bill will hurt those trying to quit traditional smoking.
“Having her include this in the clean air act makes electronic cigarette smokers who use this to quit smoking, go back to where they were 10 months back,” War said.
But it’s for your own good! Because the DFL cares!
Kahn says she is concerned about the explosion in popularity of e-cigarettes.
“They are everywhere. Now, just think were they are going to be a year from now,” Kahn said. “Just remember, we are not banning it. We are just regulating it the same way cigarettes are.”
“Just think were they are going to be a year from now”
Enjoying flavored water vapor and, maybe, quitting smoking?
I suspect tobacco tax revenue is playing its role.
(Title courtesy Gary Miller)
Behold the next generation of “progressive” women.
And be afraid for our society. Be very afraid.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Conservative turned down by liberal photographer. This is not a problem because “Conservative” is not a Protected Group under civil rights law and therefore not entitled to legal rights. He has no rights because we say he has no rights. It’s purely a matter of definition.
Baby killed, chopped into pieces. This is not a problem because Unborn Child is not a Person and therefore not entitled to legal rights.
800,000 Tutsis killed by Hutsus in Rwanda, 1994. This is not a problem because Tutsis are Enemies of the State and therefore not entitled to legal rights.
Jew gassed to death in Nazi Germany. This is not a problem because “Jew” is not a Full Citizen and therefore not entitled to legal rights.
Black man whipped to death by White man – in 1820. This was not a problem because a Negro was a Possession and therefore not entitled to legal rights.
Sooner or later, wouldn’t you think people would begin to notice a pattern? That when a society gets comfortable using its legal institutions to over-ride rights divinely given to all human beings, things end badly?
Now let’s talk about modern Democrat electoral tactics, and where they’re likely to take the country.
“It’s the law” is the new “we’re just following orders”.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Wendy Davis is running for Governor of Texas. She’s been trying to play the victim card – grew up poor, lived in a trailer house, worked her way through college and law school, husband left her – but it’s not working.
Turns out she lived in a trailer for about three months, her husband put her through college and Harvard Law School and she divorced him (and he got custody of the kids in a state like Texas, which tells you a lot about her).
Latest thing – she complains that her opponent doesn’t understand what it’s like to overcome adversity. He hasn’t walked a mile in her shoes. And now that she’s a candidate, he’s running scared.
The guy’s in a wheelchair.
Reminds me of the other runners complaining that Oscar Pistorius had an unfair advantage because hisaluminum legs didn’t tire. Excuse Me, The Man Has No Blinking Legs! And YOU think YOU are the victim here? Unbelievable.
For Harvard-lawyer Wendy Davis to play the Victim card against a man in a wheelchair, leaves me with just one question: Why do Democrats hate cripples?
Joe Doakes
In a year when the two most prominent Harvard Law grads are Ryan “Uncle Tom” Winkler and Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis, I think HarvLaw needs to work on its PR.
Bill Whittle shreds a whole parking lot full of Subarus worth of “progressive” bumperstickers.
SCENE: Mitch BERG is at the neighborhood hardware store. As he examines a some hardware for a household project, Avery LIBRELLE steps around the corner and sees BERG, and engages him before he can react.
LIBRELLE: Blogger Berg! You’ve been lying about Democrats!
BERG: Um, OK. How so?
LIBRELLE: You’ve been saying on your blog that Minnesota Democrats favored banning guns!
BERG: Well, yeah – Alice Hausman introduced a bill that called for confiscating guns with magazines larger than seven rounds.
LIBRELLE: But did any guns get confiscated?
BERG: Well, the bill got shredded and then withdrawn!
LIBRELLE: So no guns got confiscated! You totes can not say that Democrats favor confiscating guns if no guns were confiscated!
BERG: But they introduced the bill…
LIBRELLE: You also keep saying the DFL supports what you call the “daycare union jamdown”?
BERG: Yep. The DFL voted on straight party line to compel daycare and home healthcare providers who get government subsidies to vote on joining the union. And before you say anything – yep, it’s “Just a vote”. A vote the Democrats have already rigged with “daycare providers” who haven’t been in the business for years, but support the union.
LIBRELLE: But have any daycare providers been pushed into a union?
BERG: Um, no…
LIBRELLE: Hah! There is no forced unionization!
BERG: Er, only because the courts slapped an injunction on it. The DFL supported it…
LIBRELLE: Nya nya nya, can’t hear you! You also keep saying the DFL pushed through a “Senate Palace” at the last minute, spending – you allege – 90 million dollars on a Senate Office Building.
BERG: They did!
LIBRELLE: So where’s the building?
BERG: It hasn’t been built yet.
LIBRELLE: Ah hah! So there is no Senate Palace!
BERG: So what you’re saying is that until a Democrat policy is actually implemented, we can’t hold the DFL accountable for it?
LIBRELLE: Obviously you hate womyn!
(And SCENE)
(The above exchange was closely modeled after several actual conversations with real DFLers)
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Leftists despair when their own principles collide, leaving it impossible to decide who to hate. Example:
We all want clean energy. Windmills seem like the perfect answer, opposed only by Conservatives who love Big Coal. Hate Conservatives, right?
Except birds fly into the blades and are killed, including protected species like the American Bald Eagle. In November, Duke Energy was fined a million dollars for killing birds at its wind farms. So hate Progressives who promote wind farms? Or hate companies that produce clean energy?
On December 9th, Obama’s Interior Department released new rules giving wind farms a 30-year permit to kill birds, including bald eagles. So hate President Obama?
Imagine if a Republican president had done this. No wonder Liberals are distraught these days. It’s just so hard to know who to hate.
Joe Doakes.
When it’s the only thing you actually create, you can understand why they get touchy about doing it right…
Two’s company; three’s potentially legal
A narrow national majority favors same-sex marriage. Will that majority favor a plurality?
When it comes to debating social issues, the ”slippery slope” argument often holds the least amount of traction. As Minnesota was racked by contentious debate surrounding last year’s marriage amendment, one of the litany of debate volleys was that opening the door to same-sex marriage could inevitability lead to polygamy. Same-sex marriage supporters dismissed the notion, suggesting the argument was tangential at best, and a “scare tactic” at worst.
Boo:
Advocates for so-called plural marriages are applauding a ruling by a U.S. District Court judge that struck down key segments of Utah’s anti-polygamy law, saying they violated constitutional rights to privacy and religious freedom.
In a 91-page decision issued Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups effectively decriminalized polygamy in Utah, ruling that a central phrase in the state’s law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the 1st and 14th amendments.
In all fairness, the lawsuit, brought about by the stars of the TLC reality show “Sister Wives”, depicting a Utah Mormon family with one legal wife and three “wives” who live with them, was more over striking down language that prevented religious cohabitation than actually allowing polygamy. Kody Brown, the “star” of “Sister Wives” remains only legally married to one woman. But proponents and opponents of polygamy alike agree that the ruling has opened the door to potentially allowing multiple partners in a marriage.
The debate reached the pages of the New York Times, and in true Gray Lady fashion, presented four arguments in favor of what is now being called “plural marriage” with only two dissenting points of view. To ape T.S. Eliot, this is how social convention dies, not with a bang, but with a series of op-eds.
If the contours of the New York Times‘ debate on polygamy looked familiar, they should – because they neatly conform to the same lines of argument that have defined the same-sex marriage debate. Laws against polygamy are discrimination. Plural marriage advocates deserve respect and dignity. Plural marriage makes us freer as a society. Heck, even the arguments against “scare tactics” make a triumphant return. Opponents can sight studies showing the negative effects of polygamy on women and children, but essentially are reduced to arguing that the move represents a further tumble down that ill-defined “slippery slope.” Continue reading
The Select Committee on Capitol Security met yesterday.
They moved to hire some new State Patrol and rent-a-cops. There wasn’t a whole lot of controversy there, although Representative Woodard and Senator Ingebrigtsen noted that security in the parts of the Capitol that need it is already pretty good.
But the reason reason people paid attention to yesterday’s meeting was because Rep. Michael Paymar intended to push his proposal to ban legally-carried firearms in Capitol complex buildings (the Capitol, the State Office Building and the Judicial building).
More than 800 Minnesotans have filed with the DPS to indicate that they have a permit to carry a firearm and may bring their pistol into the Capitol. Originally, the draft recommendation would have required gun owners to update that notification annually; at Ingebrigtsen’s urging, that timeframe was adjusted to renewing the notification every five years, and was adopted by the committee.
In other words, you renew your notification as often as you renew your permit. Truth be told, I already thought I had to do that…
…if, hypothetically, I had a carry permit and desired to carry at the Capitol.
After that bit of fairly sensible legislation, it was looney-time:
Paymar argued that the fact that the Capitol had so far been spared any violent altercations was not evidence that current safety measures are adequate.
“Having a ‘cross your fingers’ kind of policy coming out of this entity, which is charged with making recommendations about public safety on the Capitol complex, to me, is irresponsible,” said Paymar, who chairs the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.
Mijnnesota’s carry-permit holders are the single constituency in Minnesota least likely to cause a problem , at the Capitol or anywhere else. Ever Period.
No, seriously – Minnesotans at large commit murder at the rate a little over 2 per 100,000 people per year. There’s been one unjustified homicide by a carry-permittee in ten years; the math breaks down to .1/5 million Minnesotans/year, or .002/100,000 annually. That’s right around three orders of magnitude safer.
Mr. Paymar would more aptly worry about one of his Saint Paul constituents – perhaps the many supporters of terrorist-accomplice Kathleen Soliah, who live in Paymar’s neighborhood and tacitly condoned her activities in the seventies – freaking out and killing people in the Capitol than the state’s legal carry permittees.
No, this wasn’t done because of any danger, real or perceived or even fabricated. This was done to try to try to salvage at least a smidgen of “Protect” MN’s narrative from this past session – the addlepated notion that legislators were “intimidated” by gun owners who carried openly and legally during last spring’s epic waste of taxpayer time hearings on Rep. Paymar, Hausman and Martens’ various gun grab bills. The staff at Capitol Security refute that idea with prejudice; ask them for yourself.
Emphasis added in this next bit:
Ingebrigtsen pushed back, and pointed out that Gov. Mark Dayton had already said publicly he does not favor a move to ban firearms in the Capitol.
“We’ve also got the governor saying the same thing,” Ingebrigtsen said. “[Dayton] doesn’t see anything wrong with law-abiding citizens carrying handguns on the Capitol complex.”
The vote fell, 2-2 (ties are counted as defeats); Lt. Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon (there’s a trivia question for you) and Paymar voted for it, Ingebrigtsen and Woodard voted nay, SCOM justice Lori Gildea abstained (she might have to hear a court case on the issue someday…)
…and Ann Rest, a DFL Senator from Plymouth who is as electorally bulletproof as an Armored Humvee, didn’t show up.
Don’t think for a moment that was an accident. Even safe DFLers are nervous about the Metrocrats’ insane obsession with disarming the law-abiding.
Not that they’re going to stop them.
No, that’s our job. At the ballot box.
(NOTE TO DFL LEGISLATORS: If I had a carry permit, I doubt I’d ever carry openly. It’s not my style. But feel free to be intimidated – not by any gun I’d hypothetically carry, but by the fact that I can shred through every single actual factual assertion that Heather Martens and Richard Carlbom make about the gun control issue like a riding mower going through a daisy patch, and not break a sweat. Be intimdated by the fact that if either Martens or Carlbom debated me, or any of 500 other gun rights advocates, in a face to face, open debate, I’d fold them up like origami swans and make them scamper away like scared bunnies. Be intimidated by the fact that I, myself, have convinced liberal Democrats that you are wrong, and I’m just getting started. Ignore any gun I might hypothetically be carrying. Be intimidated by the weapon between my ears. On this issue, your side is carrying a pellet pistol; I’ve got a .44 Magnum, and I don’t mean one of those wimpy four inch barrels, either)
“Scary? Honey, you’ve managed to make them boring, which is a much greater feat.” — Glenn Reynolds.
Context? Sure, here you go.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The big news at the Minnesota Continuing Legal Education Real Estate Institute was same-sex marriage passed this Summer and how does that affect spousal rights in Minnesota?
I thought the biggest laugh was this section of Minn. Stat. 517.201:
“Subd. 2.Rules of construction. When necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses or parents in a civil marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of this state, including those that establish parentage presumptions based on a civil marriage, gender-specific terminology, such as “husband,” “wife,” “mother,” “father,” “widow,” “widower,” or similar terms, must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.
Good news, Mitch, you are no longer a Husband or Father, you now are a person of either gender implementing the rights and responsibilities of a spouse and parent.
Frankly, I prefer “Interchangeable Marital Unit” or since we all know which role men are assigned in divorce court: “Cash Cow.”
Joe Doakes
The party that stood four-square behind Representative Ryan Winkler for calling Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom“…
…has the vapors over two of the most innocuous jokes…
Nov. 16, 2012: “Poor Susan Rice. She’s the first woman in Washington to get in more trouble opening her mouth for a president than Monica Lewinsky.”
Nov. 18, 2012: “I keep hearing about this fantasy football thing. I don’t get it. My idea of fantasy football is where I am the quarterback and Angela Jolie is the center.”
They’re from Craig “Captain Fishsticks” Westover, an advisor to MNGOP gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson. And the first one is accurate to a journalistic fault.
And, uh, note the dates.
So they – in this case, “Sam Jasenosky”, who would seem to be an undergrad journalism major (what else) – have been reduced to digging through advisors’ twitter feeds for any sign of political incorrectness to be tortured out of context.
I can hardly wait to see the ABM TV ad next year.
Here’s the fun part, though; ABM are the real sexists: from yesterday’s post about the GOP candidates:
Julianne Ortman: A genie.
And lest the reader mentally compare Ortman – a graduate of U Penn law school and a former adjunct professor George Washington U - to the “Djinn” of Arab mythology, they helpfully included video of Barbara Eden playing a jiggly, bubbleheaded blond piece of eye candy:
Because when you’re a Democrat, it’s only sexism if you’re one of the bad guys.
And because that’s what female conservatives are to Carrie Lucking’s little troupe of howler monkeys.
If Paul Wellstone really had all the integrity people said he did, he’d puke.
(SCENE: at the offices of “Minnesotans United for All Social Progressive Causes”, a modest little 501c4 non-proft in the Griggs Building in Saint Paul, located on a hallway close by “Take Action Minnesota”, “ProtectMN” and a who’s who of other Minnesota social activism non-profits supported by liberals with deep pockets. Moonbeam BIRKENSTOCK and Avery LIBRELLE are sitting at Ikea desks across the aisle from each other. BIRKENSTOCK looks depressed).
LIBRELLE: What’s the matter, Moonbeam?
BIRKENSTOCK: Oh, the usual. Just worried about job security.
LIBRELLE: Why?
BIRKENSTOCK: Well, work in the non-profit field depends on having another cause that progressives with deep pockets are willing to pour big money into.
LIBRELLE: Right.
BIRKENSTOCK: And in a matter of two years, we not only stopped the Marriage Amendment, but passed Gay Marriage.
LIBRELLE: Yay!
BIRKENSTOCK: Right, yay. But that’s a cause that should have taken years. Like abortion – that’s been a steady gig for progressive activists for a couple of generations now.
LIBRELLE: True.
BIRKENSTOCK: But with the issue now a non-issue, that’s that many fewer jobs for people like us.
LIBRELLE: Well, you could always sign on with Heather, down the hall at “ProtectMN”. Lotsa money going into that group soon.
BIRKENSTOCK: I thought about that. But I’d have to deal with all those gun people.
LIBRELLE: Oh, yeah. I hear you. They never just shut up and realize that they’re wrong.
BIRKENSTOCK: Well, there’s that. But it also depends on Heather not screwing the whole thing up.
(Both look at each other and break into laughter)
LIBRELLE: OK, point taken.
BIRKENSTOCK: It’s just that gay marriage was a major income generator for people like us. I’m just afraid that some of us – maybe me, maybe some other Macalester poli-sci grad with no marketable job skills – might have to go out on…on…
LIBRELLE: Say it…
BIRKENSTOCK: …on…
LIBRELLE: You’re among friends.
BIRKENSTOCK: The private sector. (Chokes back a sob)
LIBRELLE: Hug it out.
(The two trade hug. BIRKENSTOCK sobs softly)
(Door opens and Gretel STROMBERG, Executive Director of MUFASPC, walks into the room carrying a thick file of paper).
STROMBERG: Hey, everyone.
BIRKENSTOCK: (un-hugging, sniffling a little) Hi, Gretel
LIBRELLE: Hi
STROMBERG: Why the long face?
BIRKENSTOCK: It’s the way I was born… (Resumes sobbing)
LIBRELLE: I think it’s a figure of speech, Moonbeam. (To STROMBERG) We were just talking about how there might be fewer jobs in advocacy now that gay marriage is a done deal.
STROMBERG: What? Oh, you two sillies. Not a chance.
BIRKENSTOCK: (stops sobbing) Huh?
LIBRELLE: What’s up?
STROMBERG: Oh, have no fear. We have a new cause.
BIRKENSTOCK: (Looks at papers). Wow.
LIBRELLE: See?
STROMBERG: It’s all about love. We don’t discriminate against love.
BIRKENSTOCK and LIBRELLE: We don’t discriminate against love.
(And SCENE)
