Compare And Contrast

A couple of weeks ago, Governor Dayton said that anyone who didn’t support bringing Syrian refugees to Minnesota without restriction should just pack up and leave the state. And maybe skip the packing up part.

This week? Lyndon LaRouche said that the intelligence estimates he’s seeing about the potential for smuggling terrorists into the US via the wave of refugees alarm him.

Oh wait – did I say Lyndon LaRouche? I meant über-liberal San Francisco Senator Diane Feinstein.

Doakes Sunday: Low Expectation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The student was disrupting the class.

The teacher couldn’t get her to stop being disruptive.  The teacher called the Principal.

The Principal couldn’t get her to stop being disruptive.  The Principal called for a Deputy Sheriff.

The Deputy couldn’t get her to stop being disruptive.  The Principal gave the Deputy permission to arrest the student to take her out of class.

The Deputy couldn’t get the student to stand up to leave so he dragged her out of her chair and out of the classroom.

Another student filmed the arrest.

The teacher and the Principal support the Deputy’s actions.

The student is Black, protests erupted.

The Sheriff fired the Deputy.

The lesson learned: Black students don’t have to obey school rules.

How will this lesson affect minority graduation rates, unemployment, college admissions and lifetime earnings?

Joe Doakes

Joe’s asking a rhetorical question.

We can see it in Valeria Silva’s Saint Paul Public Schools.

And when Silva’s gone?  We’ll see it in her successor’s SPPS, as well.

Just watch.

Doakes Sunday: Romper Nation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The gun control debate is a language problem: Liberals don’t speak “Logic,” they speak “Fear.” Or, if you prefer the old terms, “Dialectic” and “Rhetoric.”

Old White men committing suicide are no threat to me, I don’t fear them and don’t care if they have guns. Gang-bangers killing each other in the ghetto are no threat to me, I don’t fear them, let them keep their guns. Policemen shooting Gentle Giants, domestic abusers shooting spouses, children accidentally shooting themselves, none of those are threats to me, I don’t fear them, I don’t care about their guns. I include those deaths in the total of “gun violence” because it makes the problem sound more pressing so I can convince ignorant people to let me solve the problem that really concerns me.

A 20-something White male with mental health issues, inspired to become famous by copying other mass shooters, who has access to guns and to my church, school, shopping mall or movie theatre – that guy’s a threat to me. That guy, I fear. That guy’s guns, I want to take. If the only way to do it is taking everyone else’s guns, well, that’s how we did it in grade school: when one kid farted and nobody would own up to it, the entire class lost our recess privileges. Why expect different behavior from adult Liberals?

Joe Doakes

Collective Guilt is a hallmark of authoritarians and totalitarians everywhere.

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:

You are quite mean spirited aren’t you.

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.

Who Knew?

Some European countries aren’t having epochal refugee crises:

Other countries without an extensive welfare state don’t seem to have Sweden’s problem. Reuters reported that Lithuania “is throwing its doors open to refugees fleeing war and hardship in the Middle East, but is finding few takers.” Rimantas Vaitkus, deputy chancellor of the Lithuanian government, told the news agency: “We are prepared to accept refugees immediately, but there are no refugees in Italy or Greece who agreed to resettle in Lithuania. . . . It seems that refugees know about Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, which either have generous social security or have been actively attracting immigrants.”


There simply must be some mistake.

The Next Book To Emerge From The Pages Of SITD?

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I’ve often thought about writing a book.  I started one in college – the draft has long since disappeared.  I write blog posts that could be expanded into a book.  And I know a couple of people who’ve written books, I could get tips and advice from them.  But every time I start, it turns into a lot of work and I am not known for my patience.

Maybe a book of short stories centered around a common theme, like “The Martian Chronicles,” self-publish on Amazon and retire on the royalties? Still too much work.  What if I crowd-sourced it?  What if Shot In The Dark readers each took one story idea and ran with it?

Story One: Chad is a 20-something White male who suffers from mental illness but won’t take his meds because he doesn’t like the way they make him feel.  When the voices in his head get too loud, he does crazy stuff that gets him arrested.  But by the time of his commitment hearing after the 72-hour hold, he’s back on his meds and coherent, his parents swear he’s gentle and kind, his ACLU lawyer argues he’s not a threat to himself or others, and the judge releases him.  Until one day when he’s off his meds, a girl in a coffee shop snubs him as a “nobody” and moments later he sees CNN talking about somebody who shot up a school who’s now famous.  The voices convince him to pursue fame by committing his own massacre.  How he plans and executes the crime . . .

Story Two:  Patricia, the mother of one of the people Chad killed, is media-savvy and politically connected.  Her incessant television appearances produce a groundswell of Right-Thinking people who convince the President to issue an Executive Order repealing the Second Amendment and appointing her Gun Czar with authority to rid the United States of privately held firearms.   How she plans and executes the seizure . . . .

Story Three: Charlie, a farmer near St. Cloud, who owns shotguns for bird hunting and rifles for deer hunting, hears about Patricia while eating breakfast at the local diner but thinks little of it until Deputy John pulls his squad car up to the farmhouse saying “I’ve gotta take your guns, Charlie, it’s the law.”  What happens next . . . .

Story Four: Dante, the owner of a recreational pharmaceuticals distribution franchise in Frogtown, sees Patricia on the television while eating lunch at White Castle and frowns.  How will he defend his territory from poachers and his profits from thieves?  How he circumvents the law . . . .

Story Five, Six, Seven – you get the idea.

Joe Doakes


Writing a book via semi-crowdsourced blog posts?

It’s almost crazy enough to work

On Celebrity

Kevin Williamson, the most essential writer in American conservatism today, on the celebrity cult that dominates not only, well, celebrity, but increasingly public life:

As a fairly committed theater-goer, I like actors as much as the next guy, but I also endorse the traditional social ranking of them alongside prostitutes and tinkers, a few degrees inferior to mule-drivers and emancipated peasants.

Naturally, the whole thing is worth a read.

Our Idiot Elite, Part CXXXIX

Kevin Williamson:

There’s a great deal of talk about elitism in American politics lately, most of which misses the point: The problem isn’t that our media and our policy debates are dominated by elites—of course they are; that’s what elites do—it’s that our elites aren’t very good. Our elites do not effectively perform the social function of elites. On some very important issues, such as crime and the economic struggles of the lower-earning half of American households, the discussion is dominated by elites whose members don’t have much useful knowledge to contribute to the conversation.

On quite a few major issues, our “elites” are dumber than the mid-range general population.

Family Lawless

I’ll admit up front; I don’t know all the facts of this case.

And I doubt we’ll ever really find them out.  This case has been jammed forcibly onto the radars of pretty much every person in the Twin Cities media and pundocracy for quite some time now, by parties – family law attorneys – who appear to be as inept as Heather Martens when it comes to shaping public opinion.

And so I’ll admit that I don’t know everything one needs to know about the case.

But if the facts are as the father has presented them (and given the exceedingly erratic behavior of the mother throughout this case, and, in my frank opinion, the retention of Michelle MacDonald as counsel, I’m inclined to believe the father) and the defendant brainwashed the children against the father?

If that’s the case?  If there’s ever been a case to justify waterboarding someone, this is it.

Any parent who brainwashes their children against their other parent has to look waaaaay up to see Nazi war criminals.  While I oppose the death penalty on principle, I think any parent who brainwashes and kidnaps the kids to deprive an otherwise-capable parent of access to their children deserves a death that violates the entire Bill of Rights, and maybe the ISIS Constitution too.

The English language has no word dark and vile enough to describe my hatred for such people.

Our House

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Immigrants stormed the Chunnel and got 10 miles toward Britain before police stopped them.  Refugees or invaders?
New estimates show the vast wave of immigrants moving to Europe is about 25% refugees fleeing violence in Syria, and the rest young men from Balkan countries looking for a better welfare deal in Northern countries, hoping they can bring their families to join them.  They’re not fleeing violence, just Third World squalor, possibly of their own making.  Northern Europeans are showing signs of reluctance to admit unlimited numbers of violent freeloaders and the usual suspects are aghast.  How to explain the problem in terms ordinary people can understand?
You’re at home.  It’s a stormy night.  There’s a knock at the door.  You flip on the light and see a family huddled on your stoop.  “Our car broke down, it’s pouring, we saw your light; can we wait inside for our ride?”  Sure, why not?   As you’re getting them towels, another knock.  More stranded motorists, needing more towels, and something hot to drink.  Another knock, a bunch of young men who saw the lights and figured there was a party, some head to the kitchen to raid your fridge and one is feeling up your daughter.  Another knock . . . .
At what point do you say “That’s it! This is my house, everybody get the hell out!”
Joe Doakes

Depends on who you ask, naturally.

This is yet another issue where Libertarians – who often favor unrestricted immigration – have their feet planted firmly in the clouds.  Unrestricted immigration may make perfect sense – if the immigrants are all autonomous gentlemen farmers who match the local population of, well, autonomous gentleman farmers.

As opposed to, y’know, uninvited guests.

Rules For The Paleo Man

Last week, the NYTimes published a piece by a Brian Lombardi, “27 Rules for the Modern Castratus” – retitled “27 Rules for the Modern Man” at publication time.  In it, he spelled out a list of “rules” for what passes for a “modern man” among NYTimes readers and staff – a few that were pure common sense, and a bunch more that seemed to devolve from some combination of “feminization” and “slavery to marketing”.

And while the criticism of the piece was immediate and usually hi-freaking-larious, I figured it was high time we codified the rules for those of us who consider modernity to be a cancer when it comes to matters of eternal principle.

And so I present “Rules for the Paleo Man”

  1. The Paleo man does a good job, whatever his job is.  He also knows it’s his responsibility alone to know what “good job” means, and how to do it.
  2. A Paleo man presents himself to the world exactly as he needs to to be appreciated as what he is; whether a CEO, a plumber, a soldier or a radiology technician, he says what he needs to say, does what he needs to do, wears what he needs to wear to convey the impression that he does a good job.  Fashions and trends and brand names are irrelevant; being seen as a good investment of others’ time and stewards of others’ investment, property, well-being or safety is.
  3. The Paleo man respects himself.  He treats himself accordingly in his personal habits.
  4. Because the Paleo man respects himself, he respects others, and acts accordingly.  It also means he keeps the opinions of others in proper perspective; they’re feedback, not guideposts.
  5. The Paleo man respects women in general, and his significant other in particular.
  6. The Paleo man has integrity; he practices what he preaches, and he only preaches what he needs to.
  7. The Paleo man takes care of his kids, whatever it takes.
  8. The Paleo man protects himself, his loved ones, his neighbors and his property; whether childproofing his living room or becoming proficient with a shotgun – and teaching them how to do the same – he learns, and does, what needs to be done.
  9. The Paleo man has the tools he needs to do all of the above; whether that tool is a socket set, a book on “Diaper Changing for Dummies”, a melon baller, a new Java Virtual Machine, a shotgun or an Armani, he knows, obtains and takes care of the tools he needs to earn a living, care for and protect his family.  Brands and fashions and trends don’t matter to him; effectiveness does.
  10. A Paleo man doesn’t need a list of rules to tell him any of this.
  11. A Paleo man doesn’t tell others how to live their lives.  And he quietly dismisses others who try to tell him how to live his.
  12. A Paleo man only goes into a club with a DJ if it’s a very promising date.   Otherwise, it’s either a live band, or a jukebox.


The Vortex

The GOP is about to embark on a bruising battle over who’ll succeed John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Kevin Williamson notes that it really might not matter that much, because Congress at the moment is little but a speed bump (emphasis added):

As [Conservative speaker candidate Louis] Gohmert notes without quite saying so, these United States are in the process of transforming the form of their union government from that of a democratic republic to that of a unitary autocratic administrative state. Barack Obama and other progressives have hastened that transformation in no small part because they consider the American constitutional order in purely instrumental terms rather than as a good in and of itself. Sometimes the constitutional order serves progressive ends and sometimes it constrains them, which is why President Wilson despised the Constitution and President Obama simply ignores it when he believes it necessary, adopting as he has — with rather less fuss than one might have expected — a Gaullist rule-by-decree model.

And if you’re a frustrated conservative Republican?  You’ve got reason:

The familiar ratchet effect is in operation: The Left in power expands the state, particularly the executive, and the Right in power does not reverse the turn, in part because conservative politicians like power, too, in part because reversing those expansions is difficult, and in part because even if conservatives win the fight there’s not much juice in it.

Is this part of an eccentric, unpredictable cycle of the ebb and flow of power?  Or an inevitable part of the United States getting just too big and too diverse?

 As my colleague Charles C. W. Cooke points out, the lack of an American king and an American prime minister has not prevented the traditional English contest between crown and parliament from sneaking into American politics. And the crown is winning. The waxing of the president and the consequent waning of Congress is a result of the deep psychological structure of mass democracy on the American scale, probably an inevitable one. TAmerican democracy was born in the New England town-hall meeting and in state assemblies, relatively intimate venues where following the operations of government was non-cumbrous. A population of more than 300 million with worldwide interests is a very different sort of thing. From the very beginning, the mere scale of the American project ensured that most Americans would find it incomprehensible: How many Americans at the time really understood that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton went into the Philadelphia Convention plotting to abolish their government and set up a new one? How many can identify the main points of contention between Senator Cruz and Senator McConnell?

It’s easy to try to boil it all down to simplistic chanting points – and both sides do it.

But the American experiment was largely predicated on the idea that we’d have a population full of people who weren’t all that different from each other (intellectually and politically, anyway) – a point the unwitting nostalgia for which I satirized in Trulbert, but which also happens to have had some merit in analyzing our founding.

We’re anything but that, anymore.

“Safe, Rare, And Awesome, Dude!”

Planned Parenthood supporters are trying to trend a “#ShoutYourAbortion” hashtag on all the usual annoying social media.

And if you’re a pro-lifer, this may be the best news of all:

Recent polling from Gallup revealed that 61 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. After that, though, “support drops off sharply, to 27%, for second-trimester abortions, and further still, to 14%, for third-trimester abortions.” Thus it is that the average voter is opposed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade – and in favor of banning abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Thus it is that America’s moderates believe that women should enjoy a short window during which to make a decision, and that after that point the government should step in. Thus it is that the practice carries with it a serious stigma – even in the eyes of those who believe it must remain available. Should the “shout your abortion” contingent somehow manage to persuade the country’s leading pro-choice politicians to speak about the phenomenon as if it were a mere trifle – or, perhaps, even to praise it — they would be entering new and untested ground — ground, I’d venture, on which they may begin to lose. As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has argued convincingly, the perceived aggressor in any culture-war dispute is likely to be the ultimate loser. Might there be a good reason that the pro-choice crowd has remained reticent?

They may be wrong, but they’re not stupid.

Well, some of them aren’t, anyway.

“When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?”

I’m not a Donald Trump fan.  I disliked Trump even before it was cool – going back to the ’80s, even, when I thought his “if you’re not a billionaire, you’re a loser” schtick was too stupid to take seriously.


I still do.

But today, in USA Today, we see Trump being blamed for…

…a question asked at a Trump rally?

“We got a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one. We know he’s not even an American. (Trump: We need the question.) But anyway. We have training camps brewing where they want to kill us. That’s my question. When can we get rid of them?”

Trump didn’t directly address what the man said about the president — nor did he correct him — and replied:

“We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things. A lot of people are saying that. A lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We’re going to be looking into that and plenty of other things.”

Let’s leave aside, for a moment, the likelihood that the “questioner” was a plant; our experience during the Tea Party, when lefty provocateurs were busted red-handed posing as Tea Partiers, bringing signs, is still fresh in my mind.  Back then, there’d be an occasional ring of fringies around the edges of the protest, who’d gravitate toward the cameras – unless the rally made a point of publicizing that its security people would be taking pictures of provocative signs to crowdsource; they tended not to show up.  Candid shots of “racist tea partiers” tended to turn out to be slumming lefties.

No, we’ll leave that aside for now.

It’s a Republican event – and no Republican, least of all Trump, is immune to what seems to the great truth of American politics and media in the 21st century

  1. Nothing any Democrat says, or does, up to and including violating federal law and national security, will ever be held against them
  2. Anything untoward done, said, hinted at, or speculated to have been done, said or hinted at by any Republican officeholder (no matter how obscure or inconsequential), candidate, party official, contributor, voter, supporter, rally attendee, or putative supporter, contributor or rally attendee, or anyone claiming or reputed to be or to have at any time been a Republican party member, supporter or sympathizer, will not only be treated like it’s evidence in a federal trial, but imputed to every conservative, anywhere, regardless of its context, accuracy or even truthfulness.

Oh, yeah – and the story will focus exclusively on violations of political correctness, and studiously ignore any actual issues that may have been addressed.

This behavior is so pervasive and predictable, I have canonized it as “Berg’s Seventeenth Law“.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Mel Brooks poked fun at racists in Blazing Saddles with the line:  “We’ll take the Blacks and the Asians . . . but we don’t want the Irish!” Well, maybe not the Asians, either.

Joe Doakes

Affirmative action penalizes Asians in higher education.

And yet, outside Vietnamese and Koreans, most of them vote Democrat.

Eventually, America’s ethnic minorities will figure it out.  Hopefully while there’s still time to fix things.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Kim Davis, the Apostolic Christian who was elected County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after the Supreme Court decision in June, citing her First Amendment right to a workplace accommodation based on a sincerely held religious belief.  It’s the same argument made by Muslim check-out clerks working for Target who refuse to scan SPAM because it contains pork.

A local judge ordered Ms. Davis to issue licenses for gay marriage and sent her to jail for contempt but a federal judge released her after five days.  A Deputy Clerk in the office is issuing marriage licenses to gays while Ms. Davis is out of the office but the drive-by and social media storm is relentless and seems to boil down to:

The Apostolic Christian religion does not prohibit gay marriage in the way that, say, the Roman Catholic Church does; therefore, Ms. Davis does not have a sincerely held religious belief and is not entitled to a workplace accommodation.

The Apostolic Christian religion does prohibit gay marriage, which is a hateful and bigoted theology; therefore, Ms. Davis should receive no accommodation for her sincerely held – but politically incorrect – religious belief.

The Apostolic Christian religion prohibits gay marriage but permits divorce meaning the religion doesn’t believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and thus cannot prohibit homosexual marriage in the way that, say, the Anglican Church did from 1534 until 2003; therefore, it’s an illogical religion so its adherents are not entitled to a workplace accommodation.

Even though the Apostolic Christian religion permits heterosexual divorce while prohibiting homosexual marriage and Ms. Davis sincerely believes in her religion, she is a sinner and sinners are not entitled to Constitutional rights.

American government officials should not be allowed to hold Christian religious beliefs and thus won’t need workplace accommodations, a logical expansion of the Act of Settlement of 1701 that prohibited British Catholics from holding any position of trust.

Ms. Davis is from The South but is neither Liberal nor photogenic; therefore, she has no Constitutional rights at all.

I remain unpersuaded.

Joe Doakes

The US Government will eventually establish a state religion, by defining all the things that people of faith can’t do.

Doakes Sunday: Fourth Generation Nation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The American Revolutionaries wore brown clothes and hid behind trees and rocks to shoot at British soldiers wearing red jackets marching in straight lines.  This was a violation of the “rules of war” of that time period. The familiar Geneva Convention “rules of war” were crafted after World War I to protect draftees compelled to fight for nation-states. Modern military theorists talk of 4th Generation Warfare in which large formations of men and machines are useless against small, agile teams of mobile warriors, like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitoes with a sledge hammer.
Iraq War I, with Stormin’ Norman’s giant lines of tanks encircling armies in Kuwait, was 3rd Generation Warfare, as was much of Iraq War II.  Some parts of America’s military have been learning to fight 4th Generation Warfare, notably the SEALs who fought in Afghanistan.  But they’re still America’s warriors, they serve the nation of the United States.
But what is the United States?  A geographical location?  A shared belief?  A place where groups struggle against each other: rich against poor, Black against White?  Barack Obama seems intent on transforming the United States into something different from what it was then Bush The Elder was President.  What if President Obama is ahead of his time?  What if nation-states are obsolete?  What if the United States is obsolete?  Nations arose out of tribes, what comes after nations?  Maybe by transforming the United States into a collection of factions contesting against each other, he’s moving us toward 4th Generation Society.
Question is:  would that be a good thing?
Joe Doakes

Good for whom?


SCENE:  Mitch BERG is sitting on the hood of a Dodge, drinking warm beer in the soft summer rain, beneath the light of a giant Exxon sign.  

Avery LIBRELLE putters up to BERG in a Prius and climbs out of the car.  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!

BERG:  Hey, Avery.

LIBRELLE:  I’ve got a question for you, mister Immigrant Hater.

BERG:  Bla bla bla.  I don’t hate immigrants, and I won’t let a stupid manipulative strawman pass without showing it up as the idiocy it is.

LIBRELLE:  Why do you hate science?  Anyway – so it’s time for you immigration opponents…

BERG:  …We’re not “immigration opponents”.  We oppose illegal immigration.

LIBRELLE:  If NPR says it, it’s settled science.  Anyway – it’s coming time where you have to decide; are immigrants taking our jobs, or are they soaking up welfare dollars?   You can’t have both.

BERG:   Saying the two are mutually exclusive is like saying there’s no way white people could simultaneously produce Beethoven and Jefferson and James Watt while also including people who sit around Walmart parking lots lighting their beer farts and arguing about whether Van Halen is hard rock or heavy metal.

Because it’s a fact that Immigrants are disproportionally on welfare – counter to years of media chanting points – and they are also taking most of the new jobs in the Obama Economy this past seven years.  You’re presenting me a false dilemma – and, given that this policy disporoprtionally affects African-Americans, presenting yourself a real dilemma.

So there is no contradiction.  Fact is, unrestricted immigration of low-skill workers drives down the price of low-skill jobs – which aren’t worth much to begin with, and don’t pay much with the glut of workers, who have families, which disproportionally use welfare.

LIBRELLE:   Why do you hate women?

BERG:   Of course.

And SCENE.  


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Does it seem as if Americans are struggling to find jobs, but immigrants have no problem? That’s because it’s true.

Joe Doakes

“They take the jobs Americans won’t to do”, in some cases, because Americans don’t get to them first.”

No, it’s not hyperbole:

The one chart that matters more than ever,has little to nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy, but everything to do with the November 2016 presidential elections in which the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, is shaping up to be the most rancorous, contentious and divisive.

The chart is the following, showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.

Anyone wanna seize this one from The Donald?

Societal Castor Oil

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My cousin constantly posts to Facebook how upset she’s become about gun violence. She insists we must Do Something by which she means Universal Background Checks. My response: moral problems do not have technological solutions.

The solution to the problem of alcoholism is not prohibition, but sobriety.

The solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy is not abortion, but abstinence.

The solution to the problem of murder is not universal background checks, but the Sixth Commandment.

Liberals are terrified of morality because it’s judgmental so they resort to ineffectual alternatives then complain when they fail. I fear I lack sympathy for intelligent people acting like idiots.   

Joe Doakes

That is the difference, of course, The difference between liberals and conservatives; conservatism offers relatively simple answers to most problems – but those simple answers require a lot of work.  Morality is easy to understand, and hard to achieve. 

Liberalism offers a byzantine array of “easy answers” – Heck, let’s just have everyone pay for everyone else’s health care!  – that really don’t work as answers. But boy, they sure seem simple upfront!

Battlefield Preparation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Planned Parenthood gives awards to journalists who promote abortion – who knew?  Apparently, 16 journalists accepted Maggie Awards despite the recent chop-shop videos.

I wonder who got the coveted “Intact Calvarium” award and who had to settle for the “Uncrushed Spleen”?

Joe doakes

Those are the awards that are presented at the theater before the real award show, right?


I oppose the death penalty.  I oppose  it for one reason; the inevitability of executing the innocent.

It’s not that no case has ever made me want to see some one eaten by mice, of course.  Classic example; the Susan Smith case.  Smith was convicted twenty years ago of pushing her car, with her kids strapped into the back, into a lake to their deaths.  At the time she was alleged to be involved with another guy, and killed her boys to keep their father from getting custody.

She’s “setting the record straight“.

I read it.

I’ll stick with the mice.