After my go-around earlier this week with Heather Martens – where she seemed to challenge the Twin Cities media to hold the Gun Rights movement’s factual feet in the fire – and my attempt to send a letter to the Strib accepting that challenge, I figured it’d be fair to try to actually have that “conversation about guns” with Ms. Martens.

Y’know – to let her win that cataclysmic victory of fact over superstition that she seems to think the media will conjure up when questioning the Second Amendment movement.

So I called “Protect MN’s” phone number – and got through to Heather Martens.  For the first time.

And I invited her to appear on the Northern Alliance with me on Saturday.  Or next Saturday. Or any Saturday – live in studio, or via phone.  Or if Saturdays don’t work, we could record an interview in studio or via phone any time, 24/7, at her convenience.  Or, for that matter, I could come out to wherever she wanted to meet and tape an interview.

She said she’d get back to me.

Which, to be fair, she did, in about 15 minutes, via email, saying she’d be happy to do the show…

…for a $1,500 fee.

Of course, we don’t pay for interviews.  Nobody does.  Presumably Martens knows that asking a fee for an interview is a polite-yet-condescending way to say “F**k you” to an interview request – as well, in Martens case, as an admission that she doesn’t pack the gear to a point anywhere but an echo chamber where the media is painting her toenails.

The truth remains:

• I invite any significant Twin Cities gun control activist to appear on my program, at a time of their choice.
• I challenge any Minnesota gun control activist, “gun safety” leader or lobbyist, or anti-gun politician to a public debate, on neutral turf, with an audience, with mutuall-agreed rules.  I keep challenging them; their continued avoidance simply means none of them is up to defending the indefensible.
• Heather Martens has never, not once, said or written a single, substantial, factual thing about the gun issue.

This isn’t over.

As we noted earlier in the week, the left is just dying to get the NRA out of its way.

And they have been since I started following this issue – in probably 1980.

It seems that lately, the left has taken to a three-tiered strategy for fighting the Second Amendment Human Rights movement:

1. Lie About Everything.  Everyone from the President to the hapless Heather Martens, and the entire media class in between, has spent the past couple of years relentlessly churning out easily-debunked lies; no, Mr. President, we’re not the most violent nation in the world, and states with tight gun laws aren’t safer.  And it seems to be working – while violent crime in general and gun crime in particular has plummeted over the past 20 years, most people don’t know it.
2. Refuse To Engage the Second Amendment Human Rights Movement Directly:  They always lose in open, head-to-head debates based on facts.  Always.  There has never in history been an exception, and there never will be.
3. Appeal to Magic:  The NRA is going to go away!   Someday!  You just gotta believe!

This blog has spent nearly a decade and a half engaging points 1 and 2.  Today, it’s all about the 3.

The National Boogeyman Association:  As I pointed out earlier in the week, the NRA is both vital and irrelevant; while it’s a juggernaut at federal lobbying, it’s mostly a bystanding helper at the state level, where most of the actual legislation happens.   But the left – being a fear-based institution – needs a big, centralized boogeyman.  And for this, the NRA serves their purposes.

And let’s be frank; organizations come and go (although the NRA is, and remains at, a peak of numbers and power).

 Adam Winkler – a UCLA law prof who’s popped up on this blog before, and not as an idiot – wrote an op-ed in the WaPo (reprinted earlier this week in the Strib, Read It And Weep:  The NRA Will Fall.

Before I respond, let me establish something.

Baselines:  When I first started covering the battle for Second Amendment human rights, about 30 years ago, the gun grabber movement used to wave around a Gallup poll showing that 85% of the American people favored gun control.  While that number dropped sharply as the poll got into specifics (even then, near the nadir of the Second Amendment’s fortunes), it showed where The People were at regarding our right to self-defense.

But thirty years later, things have changed; a distinct majority support the right to keep and bear arms.

All by way of saying – peoples’ attitudes change over time.

Changes:  I won’t quote extensively from Winkler’s piece – which is based on the idea that the NRA, and the Second Amendment movement, are doomed by demographics; that Latinos, African-Americans, urbanites and women are much less supportive of the Second Amendment and the NRA than rural white males.

On the one hand?  That may be true – today.  Just as it was true of 85% of the people – thirty years ago.  Attitudes change.  Are they changing for or against the NRA and the Second Amendment?  All evidence is anecdotal; the fact that Minnesota has well over twice as many carry permittees today as were ever forecast before the passage of “Shall Issue” reform might be a hint that the swing might actually be in the NRA’s favor.

Are Latinos more favorable to gun control?  Perhaps.  But Latinos aren’t a monolithic bloc; while Latinos in general vote Democrat, those who’ve been in the US longer than 2-3 generations are much more likely to vote GOP.

Asians, Winkler notes, support gun control – but again, they’re hardly monolithic; Koreans and H’mong are actually fairly likely to be shooters (if not “NRA supporters”).

Women tend to be pro-gun-control. They are also the fastest-growing group of shooters in America today.

How will these changes shake out over two decades?  Will policy be dragged to the left, reflecting these minorities’ left-leaning politics?  Or will they, too, evolve?

I know what I’m working toward.

(Let’s also not forget that most of the anti-gun minorities live in states like California, New York and Illinois, that are already relatively hostile to gun ownership).

Omens:  But let’s say Winkler is right; that minorities, new Americans, women and urbanites’ current attitudes will stay static over time.   It is a fact – noted by the estimable Kevin Williamson – that many of our minorities have vastly different perspectives on the concept of risk and freedom than white, middle class Americans do.

So if New Americans and minorities-who-will-one-day-be-the-majority don’t support the Second Amendment, is that going to be a problem for the NRA?

Who the hell cares?  It’s going to be a problem for the whole idea of “America” as a place built on the ideal of freedom.  And by “freedom”, we mean the traditional American founding interpretation – life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, protection of private property, freedom of speech, conscience, religion, press, assembly, keeping and bearing arms, security in your home, trial by jury with representation, equality before the law, the whole shebang – as opposed to the “freedoms” the Democrat party is pushing these days; the “freedom” from consequences, the “freedom” to force other people to make you free of want, the “freedom” to have government force others to give you stuff at gunpoint and enforce an arbitrary, politically-motivated concept of “fairness”; the freedom to abort your fetus and wave your privates around in public.

If the Second Amendment collapses because a majority of “Americans” don’t understand what it is to be “American” or what “America”, indeed, is, then the demise of the NRA will be the least of our problems, because there will be nothing to prevent the rest of the Constitution, and the freedoms it ostensibly guarantees, from being shredded much, much more comprehensively than it already is.

SCENE:  Interior shot at local hardware store. Mitch BERG is grabbing a bag of sidewalk salt.  Suddenly, Avery LIBRELLE, holding a bag of various parts, steps around the corner.

LIBRELLE:  Hah, Merg!  Your statistical analysis is shit!

BERG:  Say that again like you’re having a civil conversation in polite company.

LIBRELLE:  Your statistical analysis is bad.

BERG:  That’s a little more like it.  Care to get more specific?

LIBRELLE:  Tuesday on your blog, you said that urban gun violence correlates with Democrat-controlled cities.

BERG:  Yep.  Because when you run through the numbers, both homicide and violent crime rates are statistically much higher in cities controlled by Democrats.

LIBRELLE:  Hah!  Those were crap statistics.

BERG:  They were from the Department of Justice.

LIBRELLE:  Well, look at this!  Stats from the CDC!  And lookie there!  All those red counties with higher gun death rates than all those blue cities!  Hah!  You are an idiot and stupid and your head is full of poop!  Hahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!

BERG:  Yeah, Avery – we’ve dealt with this same exact chart on this blog before.  You don’t see how this is a non-sequitur, don’t you?

LIBRELLE!  It’s science!

BERG:  Yeah – it’s also comparing apples to axles.  My story yesterday covered homicide and violent crime rates.  This chart covers all gun deaths.  You do see the difference, don’t you?

LIBRELLE:  I see that you are a stupid idiot.

BERG:  “All gun deaths” also counts suicides, Avery. Suicides are between 65-70% of the gun deaths in this country. And it’s a form of suicide “preferred” by rural, white men, mostly lonely and socially isolated, very frequently deeply depressed and/or terminally ill. It’s especially prevalent in…the rural west.  And, being prevalent in lots of sparsely populated rural western and southern counties, it means that the gun death rate will look very high – and it comparably will be.  But that’s not the homicide rate.  Which, you will note, is almost nonexistent in most of those rural, western counties with a high “gun death rate”.

Suicide is a tragedy – but no worse than any other form of suicide (the US’s suicide rate is much lower than many countries that control guns strictly).   And it’s morally not the same as murder – which is taking someone else’s life, by definition against their will.  Which was what my story covered.

So, Avery – what does this mean.

LIBRELLE:  It means that you hate women and science and are a racist…

(LIBRELLE, gesturing expansively, knocks an elbow against a shelf.  A gallon can full of paint falls, conking LIBRELLE on the head)

BERG:  (Rushing to LIBRELLE’s assistance)  Are you OK?

LIBRELLE:  (head lolling about in mild delirium) What it really means is that it’s my statistical analysis that is “shit”, and that I should really stop playing at being a “fact checker” until I learn how to do the job, because I make myself look like an ignorant laughingstock.

HARDWARE STORE ATTENDANT:  (Rushing from the counter) Is h…,er sh…is this person OK?

BERG:  Just having a moment of clarity.  It’ll pass.

(And SCENE)

“Black Lives Matter” has announced that they intend to protest at, and attempt to block, the Twin Cities Marathon.

Let’s make sure this is clear; after months of protesting at things that the DFL elites in Kenwood and Summit Avenue revile (the Mall of America) or are outside their frame of reference (the State Fair, the Green Line during a Vikings game) or that isn’t part of their lives (or rush hour on I94 in the Midway, I35W in South Minneapolis, or Snelling Avenue), they may have finally gone a bridge too far; they’re not just inconveniencing the proles this time; they’re going to mess with one of those things of which white, upper-middle-class, MPR-listening, St. Olaf-alumniing, Volvo-driving, Whole-Foods-shopping Minnesota is most proud; an institution that is one of the A-list faces of the part of Minnesota that wants to look at the rest of the world and say “yeah, we’re a little like New York!”.

As I started thinking about writing, I got an email from a regular reader:

I’ve been minimally following the BLM plans to protest the marathon.  I know people who run the marathon who have never supported BLM, so their reaction is obviously anger.  However, secretly I kind of like that the group is finally disrupting something other than poor and working class people getting to and from work.  Especially when I read comments on Facebook that suggest the mindset of “why are you protesting us?  We support you.” to which BLM protesters respond with something like “if you support us, what have you done to make real changes?” (not exact quotes, but enough similar sentiments on the Facebook pages that [the operator of a local political discussion listserver] linked to) Liberal types who tend to think they’re helping by voting for all of the stuff that Liberals like probably are scratching their heads at that, which at least makes this protest fun to follow.

It’s more than just Schadenfreude, of course…

…although there’s plenty of that, too.

For example:  what must it be like to be Betsy Hodges or Chris Coleman, right now?  They’ve bent over 90 degrees past backwards for BLM – who, being liberal and (partly) black, they consider their electoral property – allowing them to block city streets numerous times without the protest permit every other group would need to bet, much less blocking interstate highways and mass transit over and over again.  And now – after all those favors – BLM ungratefully wants to screw with one of Hodges and Coleman’s marquee events?

Will either of them decide to “get tough”, as the eyes of the marathon-running world are on them?

But beyond that?  As the emailer pointed out – how will “progressive” Minnesota react to their own hypocrisy being sent up on a world stage?

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Liberals confidently assured me Walker was a wholly-owned puppet of the Koch Brothers, whose money buys every election for Republicans.

 

If that were true, why would he be quitting over money troubles?   I’m beginning to doubt Liberals know what they’re talking about.

 

Joe Doakes

Most of their slogans (“ALEC!”) fall flat on further examination.

Over on the Facebook, Rep. Kim Norton – about whom we talked the other day – has asked for a “conversation about guns”.

And, per usual DFLer practice in “conversations”, she seems to be deleting every comment that represents the other side of the “conversation”.

I left a comment:

Let’s see how long that lasts.

If you’re a Second Amendment supporter from the Rochester area, by all means, sound off in Rep. Norton’s space (with a polite, well-reasoned argument, natch).  Let us know how long it takes for your comment to get whacked.

UPDATE:  It took ten minutes.  She also banned me from responding to any posts on her Facebook page.

In a different facebook post, Norton says:

They are not from my district, Jared. They have signed on for the purpose of lobbying. I have this sight for informational purposes and to share with my constituents. Please use my legislative email for lobbying or, even better, for suggestions!!

But she’s proposing laws that affect more than just her constituents; she’s put herself in the position of being the state’s lead for gun control efforts in the coming session.

If you live in her district, please sound off.

UPDATE 2:  I’ve invited Rep. Norton on my show:

Rep. Norton,

Mitch Berg here. I’m a host at AM1280 in the Twin Cities; I have a pretty sizeable audience in your district, over the air and via the internet.

I’m on the air every Saturday from 1-3PM – and I’d like to extend an invitation to you to come on my program this coming Saturday to talk about your “gun violence” proposals.

I’m wide open this Saturday; I’ll make 30-60 minutes available to discuss the issue in the sort of depth most media don’t allow.

And if you’re not free this coming Saturday, I’ll extend the offer; ANY Saturday afternoon between 1-3PM, between now and your retirement from the legislature, I will open for you and this conversation, whatever it takes.

I sincerely do look forward to your reply.

Mitch Berg
WWTC-AM
651-xxx-xxxx

PS: I would understand your reticence about coming on a “Conservative” talk show. However, I have a long record of civil, productive interviews with people I disagree with. RT Rybak and Dane Smith are references!

Again, I hope we can talk on the air soon.

UPDATE 3 :  Well, not tomorrow.

Notwithstanding the very specific proposals she laid out in the Rochester paper, she says she’s just researching the issue, and has no specifics in mind, and perhaps we’ll talk when she has a bill written.

The invite will stand until the end of the session.

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.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My cousin from Fridley is smart: National Merit Scholar, scholarship to St. Thomas, worked for the State Department abroad, taught college in Madison, lives near Baltimore – a very smart and thoroughly educated woman.

She’s shocked and appalled at gun violence. Something Must Be Done!  But not if it would offend anyone. Can’t focus our efforts on the 13% of the population who commit 50% of the murders, that’d be racissss.  Besides, who says so, the KKK?  No, the FBI.  It’s not hate speech, it’s the truth but she no longer recognizes it because she’s embraced so many lies from The Left, the truth sounds ridiculous to her.

I wish there were a way to have a reasonable discussion but when the first words out of her mouth are “assault rifle,” I know it’s hopeless –

Joe Doakes

Converting someone from the Madison/Macalester/Berkeley version of America’s left is not much unlike deprogramming a cult member.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

American spies gave atomic secrets to the Soviets after WW II because was unfair that America had a monopoly on powerful weapons.  They wanted to make America more equal with the rest of the world.

President Obama has taken the next steps, standing by while North Korea builds nuclear devices and intercontinental missiles and hiring Iran to inspect their own nuclear weapons facilities.  He’s opened the borders to millions of new immigrants.  He’s transformed the government into a political weapon and nationalized the auto industry, health insurance and student loans.  We’re becoming like the rest of the world, but is that good?

Makes me wonder – what country is President Obama’s model?  What nation does he consider ideal?  He’s busy transforming America, but what’s he trying to transform it into?

I could get on board if he’s trying to change America into Switzerland.  Not so much, if the model is Zimbabwe.

Joe Doakes

Every day, in every way, it seems he’s aiming for somewhere between “Kenya” and “Uganda”.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

In a comment to “A Bad Idea Whose Time Will Never Come,” Troy linked to a State of Minnesota website about job safety.  Their goal is to reduce the number of worker’s comp accidents from 4.3 down to 2.5.

 

Does that mean state government WANTS 2.5 employees injured or killed on the job?  Of course not.  Every injury or death is a tragedy to the people involved.  But in a large and diverse workforce engaged in hazardous duties, some injuries and deaths are inevitable and unavoidable.  The state isn’t attempting to eliminate all injuries and deaths, they’ve set a realistic and obtainable goal to work toward.  2.5 isn’t the optimum level, but it’s an acceptable level.  Having decided that, they can adopt practices to reach that goal.

Gun Control advocates often justify their demands saying “if it saves even one life” but zero deaths is just as much an unrealistic and unobtainable goal as zero worker’s comp injuries.  There are 320,000,000 people in the United States, 2,500,000 of whom die every year.  Every injury or death involving a firearm is a tragedy to the people involved.  But society must set a realistic and obtainable goal to work toward.

How many people should die each year in firearms related incidents – suicide, death by cop, gang warfare, mass shootings?  What’s the “acceptable level?”  Until we decide that, we can’t adopt practices to reach the goal.

Joe Doakes

For purposes of setting actual, workable policy?  Joe is right.

For purposes of shoving chanting points at the ignorant?  Realism is irrelevant.

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:

As a youth, I looked for Science Fiction books with Hugo Winner on the cover because that was a sign of quality science fiction writing.

For the last 30 years, Hugo winners have been more about political correctness than starships and laser beams, a future of despair, not hope.  Look, I read escapist fiction to escape political correctness and despair, I don’t want it in my Science Fiction so I quit buying SF.

Three years ago, author Larry Correia noticed the trend and in a parody of typical politically-correct appeals, claimed that boring message fiction was the leading cause of puppy-related sadness.  He said the Hugos put authors’ politics above the quality of the work, that conservatives were shunned.  He formed the Sad Puppies club and got a few conservatives nominated for the award.  The Liberal response was typical:  Sad Puppies are racist, sexist and homophobic and must be shunned.  SP did it again last year and the response got worse.  This year there were two groups: Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, who swept the nominations and then the fur really flew.

The major media reporting on the controversy started from the wrong premise: they examined genitals and scrutinized skin color to see if Sad Puppies nominees filled quotas of women and racial minority authors.  That investigation entirely misses the point: regardless of who wrote the stories, were the stories any good?

The metric used to measure the problem, IS the problem.

The 2015 Hugos were announced: no Award won several categories.  Politically correct fans would sooner give no award at all than let conservative nominees win, not even the woman, Hispanic or American Indian Sad Puppies nominees.  Politics ruled; Liberals burned down their politically correct village in order to save it.

The insanity goes beyond science fiction.

President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court because she was a “wise Latina.” Is there something about being a woman that makes the Commerce Clause easier to understand?  Some special cultural benefit of having Spanish ancestors that gives you clearer insight into the Due Process Clause?  Liberals insist Diversity is Essential but never provide an intellectual justification for it.

We can see the results of Affirmative Action in the Hugos and in the White House.  When will we, as a society, get the message that rewarding the least qualified and punishing the most qualified on the basis of immaterial factors such as race and sex . . . is a stupid way to run a society?

Joe Doakes

I’m happy that Joe can explain  the flap about the Hugo Awards because I, myself, have never cared for sci-fi.

And when I say “sci-fi”, I mean “sci-fi fans”, of whom I have the grossly-unfair stereotype of being a roomful of people who look and act like Comic Store Guy on Simpsons…

…and who justify the stereotype, in part, by doing such a terrible job (Joe Doakes excepted) of explaining why we should care?  Reading sci-fi fans’ “explanations” of the Hugo Award flap is like reading about “Gamergate”;  clogged with subcultural jargon that, like all subcultural argot, is intended to make the subculture opaque to outsiders.

And it works!  What is a “sad puppy?”  (Joe explains it adequately, in context, which is a first).  What in the f*****g f*****g f*** is “Dragoncon?”  Who is who, and how do we know, and for the love of The Force, why does it matter?

So it’s a start.  Thanks, Joe.

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’m kind of torn about “Black Lives Matter”.

On the one hand, our criminal justice system has 99 problems, and racism is one.   Militarization, abuse of qualified immunity, the erosion of the Fourth Amendment, a drug war that’s been a complete failure, a mass of county and federal prosecutors driven by poiltics rather than justice, and on and on.

And “BLM”‘s stated national goals are, largely, on target in my opinion.  Not all of them – “broken windows” policing is a fine way of lowering crime, as long as it doesn’t get abused, yadda yadda – and is largely supported by the black communities on whose behalf BLM purports to protest.

On the other, to say racism is a pervasive force in American life, compared to 50 or 100 years ago, is madness.   Alternatively; “we-ism” is a problem everywhere on earth; it’s part of human nature.

Which isn’t to say I think BLM

But so as long as BLM focuses on our criminal justice system?  They may have a good point.  And I’m all behind people’s right to protest (while noting correctly that their claims of “institutional racism” kinda fall flat when you see how Official Minnesota has bent over backward to accomodate their protests; had the Tea Party or GOCRA blocked a freeway during rush hour, there’d have been tear gas and dogs).

Problem is, there’s some scope creep going on.

How’s That?:   The organizer of tomorrow’s planned State Fair protest, Rashad Turner, is either talking a lot of big talk, or playing peek-a-boo with the Twin Cities media, hinting at violence being possible.

Is he basically saying “Hey, media!  Being cameras!  You never know what’s gonna happen!”?

Or is he hoping to draw a few extra testosterone-jacked adolescents to the event with visions of mixing it up with cops dancing through their heads, to an area that’ll have more video cameras than Charlie Sheen’s boudoir?

Or is Rashad Turner himself one of those adolescents?

I suspect we’ll find out tomorrow.  Either way, it’s either a dumb manipulation (that’ll probably work), or a lot of really stupid talk.

Scope Creep:  And let me emphasize – I support protest, and limiting the power of government.  The police exist for a reason – but the idea that they work for us seems to be eroding over time.

So as far as that goes?  I’ll give BLM a listen.

But behind the criminal justice talk is all sorts of politics:

“Although there are elements of racism and white supremacy that are there, a simple policy change would be to start tracking [ethnicity] so we can be more intentional about representing the community,” he says. “I don’t think that anybody likes to check a box, but that would be a simple step to create an affirmative action process.”…BLM also wants the fair to be more transparent about its vetting of applications, and to make sure its top organizers include black, Asian and Latino people, says Nekima Levy-Pounds, president of the Minneapolis NAACP.

“Certain businesses are almost going to be guaranteed a spot if they’ve been there at the fair for a long time, and that’s obviously going to work to the disadvantage of minority-owned businesses and new businesses who weren’t given access to be vendors back when the fair began,” Levy-Pounds says. “This is a majority-white state that’s becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, and a colorblind policy is no longer effective at ensuring equal access to opportunity.”

But a free market that includes lots of minority businesspeople that know how to write a business plan and sell an idea is effective at ensuring that access.

But I don’t think that’s what they’re after.  Because…:

New Wrapper, Same Old Candy Bar:  But here’s a fearless prediction:  once the talk turns past policing and justice to government economic policy, BLM will be all about promoting “progressive” politics; they’ve already protested in favor of raising the minimum wage, and Levy-Pounds has just thrown in on affirmative action.

One of the questions I’ve heard asked of BLM is “why are you protesting in places like South Minneapolis and the Midway?  Why aren’t you protesting in front of the Governor’s mansion, or in Kenwood, or Maple Grove or Lakeville, where the actual power is?”

One possible answer;  because BLM isn’t about who’s in power.  It’s about whipping up the black vote in 2016, in a race where all the candidates will be old and white and in dire need of some of that Obama coalition to drag their sagging carcasses over the finish line.

And you’re not going to find those voters on Summit, or in Kenwood, or in Maple Grove.

Too cynical?  Perhaps.  But experience tells me that “too cynical” is just about right, most of the time.

Like most of the Real Americans that support the Second Amendment, I am agog at the gullibility and willful illiteracy of most American gun control advocates, up to and including many of their leadership.

For years, I’ve thought “this just has to be part of a strategy to rope in the gullible, the badly-informed, the fear-driven, and the intellectual-legends-in-their-own-minds”.

And as with most of my flippant observations about human behavior that start out as sarcastic jokes and almost invariably turn out to be ironclad truths, it turns out I’m exactly,l precisely correct.

The “Violence Policy Center” – a “think tank” supported by liberals with deep pockets, that’s short on the “think” and long on the “in the tank” – did a report on gun control tactics in 1988.   While I was pro-Second-Amendment back then, I didn’t spend a lot of time reading the opposition on the subject.

And if I had, I’d have spent the past 27 years beating on this coming quote like John Bonham playing “Moby Dick”:

“The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

In other words, the past three decades of the gun control movement have been predicated on exploiting technical ignorance, fear and gullibility.

It extends to all areas of their agenda, of course – stats, policy, history – but rarely do you find a grabber putting it in as many words.

Manhattan; a city which was, at least below 42nd St., laid out well before the Civil War. As in, designed for pedestrians, horses and buggies. Not, really, cars.End result; it’s hard to find a parking spot anywhere in Manhattan, especially in the older parts of the city.

Unfortunately, people live there. And they buy things.

Which means things need to be delivered. Things that can’t be carried in taxis on subway cars – like shipments of food, toiletries, organic arugula, and all the other necessities of modern urban life on amid six figure income.

Hardest of all? Finding a spot to park when you are a delivery truck, hauling all of those necessities to all of the stores in lower Manhattan.

Since “widening the streets” is not an option, New York City adapted by, essentially, selling licenses to double park. That’s not really what they are – it’s basically just a special plea bargain that draws a cut rate for parking tickets incurred while delivering to stores. But it’s a market reaction, and a not completely stupid response by government, and as a result, goods actually get to lower Manhattan.

So what could go wrong?

“New Urbanists” who see more tax money to be squeezed out of the productive part of society, same as always:

The latest chapter New York’s working people and the city’s dumb, dumb urbanists:

When the city zeroes out the cost of undisputed tickets for delivery companies as part of a special program to reduce the cost of parking violations, it’s also giving them a pass on a fee required by the state. That surcharge funds anti-drunk driving programs, among other initiatives, and advocates say the city and state could be missing out on tens of millions of dollars each year.

“Missing Out” – provided one presumes that one’s money belongs to the state first, then the people and companies that earn it.

And they do presume that:

“We’ve taken issue with the stipulated fine program before,” said TA Executive Director Paul Steely White, “[for] essentially giving large freight haulers or delivery companies incentives to break parking laws.”…
Bolofsky estimates that three million of the city’s approximately 10 million annual traffic tickets go through the Stipulated Fine or Commercial Abatement programs. That means up to $45 million in uncollected surcharges each year, though the number is likely lower since not all violations are reduced to $0 under the program.
“It does appear that in their rush to give discounts to large carriers, that they have potentially been missing out on tens of millions of dollars in revenue for various life-saving programs,” White said. “It’s another reason why they should end the preferential treatment of pervasive lawbreakers.”

Oh, just wait; when the urbanists win in the Twin Cities, it’ll be the same here.

Say what you will about the Center for Medical Progress’ video stings of Planned Parenthood; they’ve done one thing masterfully; they’ve taken abortion out of abstract realm that many conservatives who focus on other issues, and even many liberals with consciences, had shunted it into, and made the issue very, very sickeningly real.

David French at NRO in re the latest round of videos:

Federal law defines “born alive” as “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean s

ection, or induced abortion.” So, yes, “technically” that child was alive. California law is also clear: “The rights to medical treatment of an infant prematurely born alive in the course of an abortion shall be the same as the rights of an infant of similar medical status prematurely born spontaneously.” But that’s not what happened. StemExpress wanted to “procure a brain,” so the baby had to die in gruesome fashion…

And there’s nothing “abstract” about it:

It had a face. It wasn’t completely torn up. It’s nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids. And its mouth was pronounced. And then since the fetus was so intact, she said, “Okay, this is a really good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We’re going to procure a brain. So . . . the moment I hear it . . . that means we’re going to have to cut its head open. We’re going to have to cut its head open.

It gets much worse.

I’m sorely tempted to print the whole article up and leave it on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood.

The Saint Paul Public Schools are discontinuing TV broadcasts of the “public feedback” segment of school board meetings.

Let’s make sure we’re clear on what we’re talking about here; the public feedback part of the meeting is about half an hour, starting at 5:30 (which is a brutally difficult time to make, for people who have day jobs), during which the School Board deigns to allow commoners to address it, in slices of three minutes, while they converse amongst themselves or pretty visibly try to fight nodding off.  I did it a few years ago; you could tell that most of the board would rather have been getting a root canal.

But people watched those session via cable -and occasionally they drew blood:

…a May 2014 appearance before the St. Paul school board by five district teachers pushing for greater expectations of students and consequences for those who misbehave is credited with sparking a Caucus for Change movement dedicated to unseating board incumbents….

Board Member Anne Carroll [Who else? – Ed] argued that the change is part of a series of moves related to the collection of public comments that should give citizens a greater voice. She cited a new policy of taking online submissions that will be documented in the same way as in-person comments.

Board Member John Brodrick, who opposed the move in what was a 5-1 vote, said that having people speak to the board but not to the public via broadcast “betrayed the meaning of public comment.”…

…Currently, the comment period begins at 5:30 p.m., and when finished, gives way to an agenda item recognizing the “good work provided by outstanding district employees.”

Which sounds – I kid you not – like deputies in the old Supreme Soviet of the USSR rising to congratulate one of the collective farms in their district for meeting their five year plan with sufficient socialist fervor.  Seriously; these recognitions sound like competitions to see how many times you can fit the words “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” into sentences while still maintaining a sentence structure.

Anyway – a school district that already hides out in its Stalineque bunker on Colborne Street, above, beyond and away from its constituents, is trying to become even more so.

Minnesota Public Radio announced what amounts to a fairly sweeping set of layoffs in the newsroom yesterday:

The identities of the laid off staff members have not been confirmed, but a series of tweets by MPR Newscut blogger Bob Collins Thursday night suggest that they are:

Newscaster Beth Kidd; higher ed reporter Alex Friedrich; politics reporter Catharine Richert; arts reporter Chris Roberts; producer Emily Kaiser; photographers Jeffrey Thompson and Jennifer Simonson; reporter/producer Nikki Tundel; and editor/reporter David Cazares. (List compiled by the Business Journal).

Waxing purely editorially here – it appears that the House that Keillor Built is running into the same buzz saw  the rest of the radio industry ran into 6–7 years ago, and that the old Big Three broadcast operations have been wrestling with for a decade; the fact that the audience is splintering, drawn to other media spawned by new technology.

The amazing factoid? I’ve always known that Minnesota Public Radio news was a massive operation, certainly in scale with the rest of the be behemoth that is MPR, filling out the huge building on 7th and Cedar in downtown St. Paul like it does. Even I had had no idea how huge the newsroom was; the nine layoffs amounted to 13% of the newsroom; that meant MPR’s newsroom alone was somewhere north of 70 people.

It’s disappointing – and a telling – to see among the nine above a number of a good, solid journalists losing their jobs, while Keri Miller just keeps prattling away.

PS: On the other hand, assuming “producer Emily Kaiser” is the same one who used to “write” at the City Pages…

…well, it’s bad karma to kibitz about people who just got whacked.  I’ve been there way too many times myself.

Best of luck, everyone.

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is having a shish kebab at a Turkish restaurant.  Avery LIBRELLE walks in, starts to order, and then notices BERG. 

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!  It’s time for Minnesota to legalize marijuana.

BERG:  There’s a case to be made.  But there’s the little matter of the federal law involved.

LIBRELLE:  Screw federal law!

BERG: Right.  Sort of how Saint Paul says “screw federal law” by being a sanctuary city?

LIBRELLE:   Exactly. What do the feds know that the states, the laboratories of government, don’t?

BERG:  Well, yeah. You’re a real paragon of federalism.

LIBRELLE:  Them founders knew they’re stuff.

BERG: You realize you misspelled “their”, even in your speaking voice?

LIBRELLE:  Huh?

BERG:  Never mind.  So – the states that are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, because every single one of their non-abortion services is provided by other sources,a nd for cheaper…

LIBRELLE:  AAAAAAAAAAH!  (Jumps up from table in a position to repel an attack)

BERG:  What?

LIBRELLE:  You can’t!

BERG:  Why?

LIBRELLE:  Federal law is sacrosanct!

(And SCENE)

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is at National Night Out, in Saint Paul, this past Tuesday.   While walking through the crowd at one of the neighborhood block parties, he notices Avery LIBRELLE, wandering from person to person,  accosting them.  BERG listens in. 

LIBRELLE ( reading off a sheet of paper, to a woman pushing a stroller):  Hey, maam!  Do you know what percentage of gun deaths in Minnesota are suicides?

WOMAN PUSHING STROLLER:  Er…(looks uncomfortable – then looks at her phone).  Oops, sorry – I think I have a call…(holds phone to ear) Yes?  Hi!  Oh, really…(makes international “sorry, I’m on the phone” signal to LIBRELLE as she quickly pushes stroller away).

(Undeterred, LIBRELLE walks to another bystander – an African-American man holding a beer and talking with his neighbors)

LIBRELLE:  Heh.  Hey!  (Man turns to LIBRELLE, looking mildly annoyed.  LIBRELLE reads off sheet of paper)  Do you believe that anyone buying a gun should first have to pass a background check to show they are not prohibited by law from owning a gun?

MAN:  Every time I’ve ever bought a gun, I had to take a background check.  It’s the criminals who don’t take the background checks, mis…er…si…er… (MAN stops talking)

LIBRELLE (reading off sheet)  I”m sorry you disagree with three-quarters of gun owners.  Have a good night”.  (LIBRELLE abruptly walks away – then notices BERG).  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!  I’m out changing hearts and minds about guns!

BERG:  Er, yeah.  Do tell.

LIBRELLE:  I’m reading from the “conversation starters” Heather Martens and “Protect Minnesota” sent to start conversations with the public on National Night Out.

BERG:  And how’s that going?

LIBRELLE:  About as well as my conversations with my family about Obamacare at our Festivus celebrations a couple of years ago.

BERG:  Naturally.

And SCENE.  

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Because putting homosexual men in positions of authority over young boys worked out so well for the Catholic Church.

 

Joe Doakes

That’s not going to be a problem until it’s a problem.

And then it’ll be the institution’s fault.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

President Obama [last weekend]  made a personal plea for gay rights during his visit to Kenya, warning that “bad things happen” when countries discriminate against certain groups of people.

 

But Obama’s call for universal gay rights was quickly dismissed by Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who described the issue as something “our culture, our society does not accept.” “For Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue. We want to focus on other areas that are day-to-day living for our people,” he said.

 

America’s current obsession with fashionable sexual deviancies such as gay marriage and gender reassignment are signs of a decadent culture not long to survive.  Kenyans can’t afford to subsidize idlers and hangers-on, they need to work for a living.  When Americans run out of Other People’s Money to subsidize favored victims, our massive debts will be defaulted and the world economy will collapse again.  At that point, those Americans who survive will be too busy trying to find food and shelter to worry about trigger warnings and micro-aggressions.

 

Enjoy it while it lasts, fellas.

 

Joe Doakes

Prosperity is a two-edged sword; it makes it possible to solve intractable problems – disease, Naziism – while simultaneously giving us the leisure to develop new intractable problems.

I went – very, very briefly – to the rally at the Planned Parenthood in Saint Paul over the lunch hour yesterday.   It was hot and clammy – so humid the air seemed to congeal into little clumps of atmospheric sweat.

I didn’t even try to count the crowd; it was in the hundreds:

More below the jump.

(more…)

Planned Parenthood of North Dakota tries to intimidate the local media over the “Body Chop Shop” videos.

Because freedom of choice is not for the peasants.