Laura Ingraham’s ratings at their highest point ever.
Bernie Sanders attends a fun-grab rally…
Some lives are more worth defending than others.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
College Liberals credited with reaching out, attempting to provide safe space, tolerance.
First, the lack of outspoken conservatives on campus is not new. When I was in college in 1980, the trend had already begun. I knew of only four of us: me supporting Reagan, Dan (George Bush, Senior), David (Phil Crane) and Matt (uncommitted). There may have been more who voted Republican but they were quiet about it.
Second, if you smack a puppy on the nose enough times, it will learn not to bark. Young Conservative get smacked on the nose by social studies teachers in high school. They get smacked in college classes by leftist professors. They see others getting smacked online, fired for speaking at work (the Google guy), business destroyed (wedding cake baker), physically attacked and beaten (conservative speakers on campus). The lesson is clear – Liberals do not respect me or my rights, they tolerate me only so long as I don’t upset them. Say one little thing they don’t like and boom, the mob will turn on me in a flash and blame me for provoking them. “See what you made me do” isn’t an excuse reserved solely for rednecks in wife-beater shirts, it’s also used by Muslim terrorists and FBI Deep Staters and antifa rioters.
If a college kid joined up at one of these sessions but later found his car keyed “fascist” would it be a surprise? No, because he outed himself, painted a target on himself, brought it on himself. He deserved it.
The only way to increase intellectual diversity on campus is to punish those who act to diminish it. And that’s never going to happen as long as Liberals run the schools.
A safe space “provided” by campus “progressives?”
It’s a trap.
“Aliza Worthington” describes herself as “Brooklyn-bred, Baltimore by choice, music snob, history nerd, family-obsessed, friend-dependent, amateur glassblower, passable dancer, & since age 40, a writer”
She may have had a point until she hit that last clause.
Ms. Worthington – a honky – writes a piece in the ever-more-loathsome “Medium” entitled “Black Panther” Is Not For Us, White People“.
I’m gonna stop just short of telling white people NOT to see it. To be clear, I hope this movie makes A BAZILLION GAFLILLION SCHMATRILLION dollars opening weekend, and wins every single award possible. Speaking to my fellow white people, though, can we please consider letting Black people have this joy without us ruining it for them with our presence?
We have ruined, and continue to ruin so much for Black folx.[That’s right. Folx. She is that dumb – Ed] Yes, often just by inserting ourselves where they are rightfully trying to enjoy their greatness in peace, and without our white nonsense.
Ms. Worthington: do black “folx” (#VomitInMouth) need your help defending their culture?
I’m sure they’ll rise as one and offer their “thanx”.
Or, if you get tickets, and you notice it’s sold out, and some Black folx are outside bummed they weren’t able to get tickets, give your tickets to them and go to Applebee’s instead.
How very, very twee.
It just has to be tough, being both a honky and ˆ”authentic”. Well done.
Ms. Worthington: I’m going to exercise that greatest “white privilege” (I choose to call it “freedom”, and invite everyone of all races to partake in it) and go wherever I damn well want, do what I want, and mock your appropriation of the voice of American blacks. They don’t need your help.
The most impoverished state in the union? Gotta be West Virginia, or Mississippi. Maybe Alabama or Arkansas. .
Wrong. It’s California. On the way to spending itself into the poorhouse, California has helped create a huge impoverished underclass untouched by the glitz of Hollywood and the sheen of Silicon Valley.
Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on “remaking the world.” The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. to “resist” Trump’s agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to “California values.” All this only reinforces the rest of America’s perception of an out-of-touch Left Coast, to the disservice of millions of Californians whose values are more traditional, including many of the state’s poor residents.
With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.
When you have uncontested one party rule upheld by legions of voters dependent on the gravy train, you can get away with keeping those legions in the dumps while you virtue-signal your merry way toward your pension.
Last year, Google’s collective (heh) culture of Urban Progressive Privilege-sotted virtue-signaling intolerance fell onto Google engineer James Damore for the high crime of out that Google, ironically, has a relentlessly PC, virtue-signaling-focused corporate culture. Damore was summarily fired.
This past week, Damore and his team filed their lawsuit
Damore has now answered Google with a legal broadside, and it’s extraordinary. Most people don’t have time to read his entire 181-page complaint, but those who do will find a comprehensive argument that Google’s corporate culture encourages, sanctions, and facilitates an extraordinary amount of abuse against conservative white males.
Artists Conception of a Google staff meeting:
And he has the receipts. Much of the complaint consists of screen shots of internal Google communications and postings on internal Google message boards that would constitute strong evidence of hostile-environment race-and-gender harassment if the the races and genders were reversed. For example, “Googlers” (that’s what employees call themselves, using Google’s silly corporate language) relentlessly enforce a so-called “Googley” culture where employees blacklist conservatives (blocking them from in-house communications), actually boo white-male hires, and openly discuss committing acts of violence against political opponents. The “punch a Nazi” debate is alive and well at Google, and the definition of “Nazi” is extraordinarily broad. In one posting, an employee proposes a “moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.” In another, an employee advertises a workshop on “healing from toxic whiteness.” Another post mocks “white fragility.” The examples go on and on, for page after page. Damore also alleges (and again, provides screenshots of emails and other communications to support his claims) that managers actively attacked conservative employees, encouraged punitive actions against dissenters, and even awarded “peer bonuses” for speech attacking conservatives.
Google is a private business? Sure – they’ve got every right to run things any way they want. But we’ve seen what mindless monocultures have brought to most of our major cities; what do you think it’ll do to a company?
Googlers may have special coding skills or may fit seamlessly in the company’s Googley culture, but it’s now plain that much of their discourse represents a special kind of pettiness, stupidity, and intolerance. It’s often fact-free, insulting, and narrow-minded. In other words, a Silicon Valley monoculture produces exactly the kind of discourse produced by monocultures everywhere. While there are certainly kind, courteous, and civil progressives at Google, the existence of the monoculture also enables the worst sorts of behavior.
Read the whole thing.
Dogs at Los Angeles’ animal shelters may be going vegan:
The idea was proposed by Commissioner Roger Wolfson, a Hollywood screenwriter who cited research that he contended shows vegan diets “eliminate” many health problems in dogs, which are omnivores. But he said rethinking the dogs’ meals is about far more sweeping matters — the environmental effect of a meat industry that produces the main ingredients in lots of dog food and the ethics of feeding animals to animals.
“We have to embrace the fact that the raising and killing of animals for food purposes must only be done if we have absolutely no other choice,” Wolfson said at the meeting, according to a recording published on a county website. “This is about the long-term survival of every man, woman and child in this room, and all of the people in our lives.”
While “progressives” are all about “science” when it comes to smooching Bill Nye’s hindquarters or browbeating fundamentalists, it’d seem they’re swimming against the scientific current here…:
The city’s chief veterinarian, Jeremy Prupas, was not convinced. In a report to the commission, he recommended rejecting the proposal, saying that it could deprive dogs of sufficient protein, calcium and phosphorus and that it could be inadequate for injured, pregnant or lactating pups. Prupas said he’d consulted three clinical nutritionists at veterinary medical schools, one shelter medicine specialist and a veterinary toxicologist who works with a pet food company. None endorsed vegan dog diets, he testified.
Oh, yeah – and vegan dog food, not unlike vegan human food, costs four times as much as the regular stuff.
Which is all fine, if you’re just playing “government dress-up” with other peoples’ money.
Which is another way of saying “California”.
Although if it passes in LA, look for Alondra Cano to propose it in short order in Minneapolis.
SCENE: Dayton, Ohio – 1904. A group of protesters – young activists from Snofe Lakes, California – chant slogans in front of the Leach and Bitwell Auto Company; “Keep The Roads Democratic!”, “What do we want? Road Neutrality. When do we want it? Now!” and “Cars are a Public Utility”. After a few moments, Arthur LIBRELLE climbs up on the soapbox.
LIBRELLE: What we seek is highway neutrality. We demand that the government treat cars and roads as the public utility they truly are. That way, in thirty years, your children will be able to buy a car like this (LIBRELLE points to a 1904 Leach and Bitwell roadster – a two seater with a hand-crank starter that is basically a glorified go-kart with a two cylinder engine and a couple of chairs which lists at $5,000 – which is about $200,000 2017 dollars) – and their children, and their children’s children, as long as California is the capitol fo the horseless carriage industry. Nobody will be able, using just more money, to buy a better car!
(Hezekiah MERG chimes in): But if you treat the budding auto industry like a utility, there’ll be no impetus for someone like, say, Henry Ford or Louis Chevrolet, to respond to the market demand and build a cars that, before long, will be every big as good as the specimen you see here, for a fraction of the price.
LIBRELLE: (Scoffing as the young people from Snofe Lakes laugh uproariously) Oh, it is to laugh! The idea that people from Detroit will ever build cars, or that technology will ever surpass what we see in front of us! No, indeed; let us regulate cars and roads like utilities, that they may ever be as successful as the crown jewel of Los Angeles’s transportation system, our streetcars!
(The crowd erupts)_.
SCENE: Walll Street, – 1983. A group of protesters – young activists from Slough Fnakes, Vermont – chant slogans in front of the Motorola headquasrters building, wielding protest signs; “Keep Cell Phones Democratic!”, “What do we want? Cell Neutrality. When do we want it? Now!” and “Car Phones are a Public Utility”. After a few moments, Ashton LIBRELLE climbs up on the soapbox.
LIBRELLE: What we seek is car phone neutrality. We demand that the government treat car phones and suitcase phones as the public utility they truly are. That way, in thirty years, your children will be able to buy a mobile phone like this (LIBRELLE holds up a 1984 Motoirola cell phone – the size of at World War II walkie talkie, that cost $10,000 in 2017 dollars plus $1,000 a month and $4 a minute for talk times) – and their children, and their children’s children, as long as Motorola remains unchallenged atop the car phone industry. Nobody will be able, using just more money, to buy a better phone!
(Hank MERG chimes in): But if you treat the budding cellular communiations industry like a utility, there’ll be no impetus for someone like, say, Steve Jobs or Victor Droid, to respond to the market demand and build device that, before long, will not only do everything the phone your holding does thousands of times better, but do it for about one percent of the inllation adjusted cost. Indeed, in 24 years, I predict that non-profits will be giving away phones that are millions of times more powerful per dollar, and criminals will buy them to use once and throw away!.
LIBRELLE: (Scoffing as the young people fromSlough Fnakes laugh uproariously) Oh, it is to laugh! The idea that phones will be a commodity, like Pet Rocks, or that technology will ever surpass what we see in front of us! No, indeed; let us regulate car and suitcase phones like utilities, that they may ever be as successful as the public education system!
(The crowd erupts)_.
And, for those who insist, #QQQQ.
I mean, as long as we’re communicating via the medium of the hashtag.
The #MeToo campaign is doing for sexual harassment what #BringBackOurGirls did for Boko Haram’s hostages; took a seirous issue and made it into a trite, temporal trifle; an “event” rather than either a social malady or a wartime atrocity, respectively. In 21st century terms, the campaign “raised awareness”, which is a moderne way of saying “generated a lot of shrill chanting, shrieking and marching about, literally and metaphorically, in the interest of waving a bloody shirt”.
Genderquislings: One of the most noxious byproducts of this bloody shirt campaign are the clumps of “feminist men” whose response to this past two months’ Robespierrian orgy of revelation is to throw themselves prostrate before the court of public opinion and demand mercy – for themselves (whatever) and every other man.
I come not to praise them, but to bury them and those who parrot them, especially via yet two more social media chanting orgies, “#YesAllMen” and “#ShutTheF**kUp”.
Among many other vague and morpheus sins of which they’d accuse their fellow guys is the notion of “toxic masculinity”, which in the hands of “feminists”  and their male hangers-on quickly turns into a synonym for “masculinity” of any kind.
My reply: They – or the things they represent – are the real problem. Not masciulinity – real masculinity.
Disc-lame-ers: In an intelligent society that debated the merits of an argument, I could omit this section.
But I live in the “progressive” Twin Cities, so I have to treat much of the audience like ambulance-chasing lawyers.
The “First Wave” of feminism was right: Women should be the equal of men in the eyes of the law. They should face no discrimination due to their gender in the work place; they should be paid according to their qualifications, experience, credentials and other factors relevant to the job. They should not have to accept non-consensual harassment and abuse due to their gender.
The “Second Wave” of feminism – AKA “Identity Feminism” – is wrong. Women should also have no advantage over men in family court. Their status as individuals should not be reverted to the Victorian era, where was assumed that a woman’s natural state frail victims (the term “potential victim” is used with a straight face by more than a few modern feminists) that must be protected from the male species, slavering brutes looking to pounce on the defenseless benighted damsels among us.
The Collective: How this has manifested during the current sexual harassment crisis has been the notion that “#YesAllMen” are complicit in sexual harassment; that sexual harassment is a side effect of “toxic masculinity”; that harassment, abuse and rape are inextricable from being male. That the world would be a better place if it were more like an anthill – where the women did the thinking and leading and designing, and the men just shut up and did what they were told, and contribute to the gene pool (until genetic engineering obsoletes that, too).
The males who’ve become the leading voices of this orgy of gender-abasement remind me of the people “convicted” of various thoughtdrimes curing the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward who, after weeks, months or years jammed into prison cells and gulags, beaten and sleep-deprived by the Red Guards, abased themselves with almost ritual fervor on film and before crowds, not “begging for mercy” so much as abjuring being worthy of it, before being shot in the back of the head or sent off to be worked to death in the Chinese gulag.
Call them “victims of toxic social work”.
If nobody else will do it , then let me be the first to draw my line in the sand and yell “Stop”.
It’s The Devaluation, Stupid: Matt Walsh had a great piece in the Daily Caller earlier this week, in which he pointed out the real problem: not the presence of men, but the lack of Men:
The problem is not that there is too much masculinity in our culture. On the contrary, there isn’t nearly enough. A man becomes an abuser and harasser of women when he rejects that which makes him a man. He is not expressing his masculinity when he strips naked and struts around in front of his unwilling coworkers and subordinates — a move that seems oddly common among these types — rather, he is expressing his almost complete lack of masculinity.
Not sure if he’s referring to Charlie Rose or Louis CK – and I”m not sure it matters at the moment.
These men are weird, desperate, self-debasing, and effeminate. If you say we should have fewer of those kinds in positions of power, I agree. Let’s have none at all. But we would do well to replace them with men who are actually men. What we need in our society are chivalrous, strong, respectable, productive, and self-sacrificial men. Real men, in other words. Men who protect, provide, and do all of the things that society has always depended upon men to do. If you are that sort of man, you certainly should not shut up, step to the side, or consider yourself “trash.” Our culture needs your input and leadership more than ever.
Of course, the dominant narrative from a good chunk of our society – Hollywood, academia, the educational/industrial complex, is that traditional masculinity needs to be filed down to sized, tamed. Primary schools medicate it; popular entertainment castigates it. Entertainment has combined a relentless, big-budget focus on “girl power” with a near-complete suppression of any notion of giving boys any impetus to be what was traditionally called a “man” – chivalrous, comfortable with but not abusive of his power, driven to defend his family, his significant other and his community, self-sacrificing but optimistic and prone to using his power for good. Those parts of society mock and taunt those notions (until they need a cop)…
…and propagate them with an education system that systematically feminizes boys, a family court system that ensures boys’ only role models as children will be mothers (who most assuredly do serve a role in raising emotioally boys – but not the only role) and that love, for a male, is an exercise in self-destruction, and an “entertainment” industry that seems to have taught half a generation boys that pornography is sex.
In other words – if you want to create the stunted, anti-masculine caricatures that are Harvey Weinstein, Charley Rose, Al Franken and Louis CK , the modern education, entertainment, academic and social justice systems are the most efficient possible factory to create more of them.
The only “Toxic Masculinity” is the stunted variety of caricatured, one-sided, immature, hollow “Masculinity” hat Identity Feminism demanded, and that the feminized Education system and Academy, and Hollywood delivered.
#NotMe: Well, I’m done.
If you want to signal your virtue by gender self-abasement, expect me to mock and taunt you with the derision you deserve.
If you think the way to achieve equality for women is to beat down men, expect me to punch back twice as hard, and do whatever my feeble best is to lead more men – not males, mind you; men – to do the same.
If your response to discrimination against women is to promote discrimination against men, expect me to point out the obvious; you’re just passing around more discrimination.
You have rotted the society enough. Hell, it may be too late; you may have killed it already.
I don’t care.
As we head towards another round of off year elections – including an awful lot of Democrat-controlled cities – a piece of re-usable narrative that is rapidly becoming a hallmark of the Trump age is starting to break out again; the notion that voting – or more precisely, “expecting your vote to affect anything”- is “irrational”.– where “irrational” is defined as “your vote may not be the single vote that decides the election.
An expectation that seems, itself, a tad irrational.
Bear with me, here.
It popped up over the weekend before last on Minnesota public radio, on NPR’s syndicated “New Yorker Radio Hour”
Big Left has thrown out that particular notion in a couple of election cycles now – the idea of that voting is irrational and to the point of bizarre because one single, solitary vote it’s not the one that will determine the election. Which, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, leads to the supremely undemocratic idea that the only vote that doesn’t matter it’s the one that negates all other folks – the “vote” to overthrow democracy, consent and elections, and seize power for its oneself. Which, if you’re cynical – also supremely realistic – about Big Left, which seem to be their goal..
So far, the narrative seems to be about trying to deflect away from the idea of illegal voting. Especially if it illegal immigrants voting.
The narrative goes like this; given the irrationality of a voting, why would one risk capture, prosecution, conviction and deportation over a vote that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t matter at all.
(Of course, it’s nearly impossible to convict anyone of illegal voting – and in the cities where illegal voting is most likely, illegal immigration is a pretty safe bet as well.
Which speaks to my theory – which is almost a Berg Law, I’ll have you know – that Big Left doesn’t even bother trying to tell the truth to its own people; the gobble up any crap that I slept in front of them. Because we all know it’s almost impossible to get arrested for voter fraud; it’s almost an unprosecutable crime, especially in any “progressive” – run jurisdiction – like Minnesota.
So there’s no need to tell all of those lavishly funded nonprofits that are busy getting out the vote, pushing to allow eagle illegal immigrants the right to vote, and to clear allA chance to win for us election integrity as “racist”. The people who run Big Left don’t believe it either.
It’s just aimed at people who take democracy, the franchise, and the notion of “government by the consent of the governed” seriously.
Glad we were able to settle that..
…that after shaking down taxpayers in their franchise cities for hundreds of millions of dollars, the NFL responds by being completely tone-deaf.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
This article is an example of the Right trying to manufacture a victory. The courts shut down the travel ban, repeatedly, until it expired. If Trump attempts to resurrect it, we can bet they’ll shut it down again. A victory would have been a ruling that he was right and the lower courts were wrong.
On the other hand, this is an accurate summation of the Left’s tactics: “In essence, elements of the “nonpolitical” branch are trying to reverse the result of the 2016 vote by denying the duly elected president the powers of his office.” And they’re continuing to do so as Liberal judges issue nation-wide rulings that clearly stomp on Presidential prerogatives for the flimsiest of reasons. This ruling doesn’t change that but it does highlight the hypocrisy. That never hurts.
Assuming anyone’s listening.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Suppose you’re a politician who accepts campaign donations. Turns out, one of your donors is a bad egg. What do you do with that money?
If you keep it, you are guilty by association. If you give it back, the bad egg will donate it to your opponent to use against you.
“After the Las Vegas shooting on October 1, State Rep. Erin Murphy, a fellow DFL candidate for governor, called on [Rep. Tim] Walz to return the $18,000 in campaign contributions he has received from the NRA over the course of his political career. Walz agreed, and plans to donate the funds to a veterans’ organization.” Nothing against veterans, but why them? Why not victims of the Las Vegas shooting?
The Democrat National Committee received $300,000 from accused sex abuser Harvey Weinstein. It will forward $30,000 of that money to Emily’s List (supports candidates who favor abortion rights), Emerge America (trains Democrat women for office) and HigherHeights (supports Black women running for office). Basically, Democrats are forwarding the money to their own constituencies. Why them? Why not a group working with survivors of sexual assault? And why only tithe 10%, how is that enough to purge their guilt-by-association when others must return all the money?
If the money is so tainted that you are stained the moment you touch it, then forwarding the money to a favored group doesn’t cleanse you of the stain, it makes you a middleman helping spread the stain to others. Either keep it or give it back, but don’t try to convince me that money-laundering makes you righteous. That’s just insulting.
They’re OK with that.
It’s getting to the point where satirizing overly-fruity academic writing is passé and redundant. .
NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch forced to move her family due to constant, legitimate death threats…
…from “Violence” activists:
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch announced Sunday on Twitter that her family had been forced to move suddenly after she received multiple death threats from gun control advocates.
Loesch, a conservative commentator and syndicated talk radio host, followed the announcement of her family’s move by condemning the way politically progressive society has treated not just her, but conservative women as a whole.
There are two huge points here:
The threats from gun control activists is pretty much par for the course. Even locally, some local “gun safety” activists like to spice up their social media interactions with weird, muted threats of mayhem.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The Harvey Weinstein story is troubling. It’s as if he thinks a powerful man can walk up to women, grab them by the p—y, do anything to them. And we know that’s false because everybody jumped all over Donald Trump when he said it – didn’t DO it – merely said it. This guy actually did it, repeatedly, and everybody around him not only knew about it, they helped him get away with it.
Where are the pink hat people marching in protest?
Rhetorical question, right?
Two incumbent Minneapolis city councilbots, and five challengers with decent chances of winning, said they can see a future without a Minneapolis Police Department:
Asked, “Do you believe that we could ever have a city without police?” two incumbents and five serious challengers running for City Council answered “yes.”…Those who did and said they believe “we could ever have a city without police” were Bender, Ninth Ward Council Member Alondra Cano; Phillipe Cunningham, who’s running for council in the Fourth Ward; Jeremiah Ellison, who’s running in the Fifth Ward; Janne Flisrand, who’s running in the Seventh Ward; Ginger Jentzen, who’s running in the Third Ward and Jeremy Schroeder, who’s running in the 11th Ward.
Let’s be clear; even the candidates (mostly) say this is in the realm of imagination, if not fantasy:
“It’s aspirational, but it’s way aspirational,” said Council Member Lisa Bender, who said yes to the question. “We have a very long way to go before we would approach public safety without police.”…”The question wasn’t, ‘Do you promise to eliminate MPD by the end of your first term,’ it was ‘Can you imagine a city without police,’ ” said [long-shot candidate Phillippe] Cunningham, who’s running against Council President Barb Johnson…
Now, let’s be frank; a society without the need for police would be a good thing, from a conservative perspective. And it can, and has, worked; in the old west, before the idea of “police” had migrated out from places like New York and Boston, communities did in fact police themselves. Of course, they also governed themselves – without the need for Minneapolis-style city councils and bureaucracies…
…but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Here’s the problem; part of it is that it’s a spitballing fantasy.
Part of it is that, being not merely DFLers but DFLers to the left of Betsy Hodges, they’re putting their faith in the wrong institution to bring this utopian vision about:
[Several of the respondents said] they were describing an ideal future in which inequality and racism are eliminated and government policy has solved many of the social problems now handled by police arresting and imprisoning people.
For starters, government policy is behind most of the social problems facing Minneapolis, especially the North Side; from the warehousing of the poor in places like North Minneapolis, to the inertia of the police reform process, to the artificial hikes in the minimum wage and immigration policies that have made entry level work impossible to get for too many poor youth, most of the problems trace back to City Hall, the State Capitol, or DC.
But here’s a more troubling part:
Prosperity without order is impossible (even if it’s enough “prosperity” to pay taxes to support a leech-like bureaucracy like Minneapolis’s); freedom without prosperity is meaningless. If you think that’s an idle bromide, look at Detroit, Camden or Stockton.
So something has got to keep order. Sometimes – like in small towns out west, or in the Old West example above, or in areas where natural disaster has swept away government at least temporarily, that order is kept by the people agreeing on some basic rules to live by, and some simple means to enforce them.
In this day and age, in the big city, it’s a police department, a prosecutor’s office, a judicial system, a corrections system, and a parole and probation system, and the bureaucracies that recruit, train, advise, pay, and take care of all the above after they retire, and the bureaucracies that do the same for those bureaucracies.
What could be worse?
One of the study’s designers answers:
“Police reform doesn’t actually work,” [survey organizer, designer and artist Ashley] Fairbanks said. “We need to radically re-imagine what policing will look like in our community.”
And all those roads seem to lead, according to any of the councilpeople, to policing attitudes, not behavior. To eliminating badthink.
In other words, they’d get rid of the guys in cars patrolling for speeding tickets, and replace them with thought police.
Bonus Sign of the Apocalypse: And in this survey, one of the voices of practicality, of feet-on-the-ground common practical sense, of dealing with the “now” rather than fantasizing about the indeterminate future, is…
Cano said right now she actually wants a greater police presence in the Ninth Ward, which includes several neighborhoods along East Lake Street.
“The solution is not really no cops, but it’s more how do we get rid of homelessness, how do we get rid of commercial sex exploitation, how do we get rid of chemical dependency?” she said. “Then you start alleviating the pressure that a lot of police officers feel to address these very deeply rooted challenges in our community, which they themselves know they’re not going to be able to solve.”
Given Minneapolis’ electorate’s state of mind these days, that might come back to haunt her.
Half of Californians say housing prices are making them think about leaving the state, and an awful lot of them think rent control is the answer:
About half of the state’s voters – 48 percent – said they consider the problem of housing affordability “extremely serious.” Concerns are more prevalent in areas seen as ground zero for the crisis, including the Bay Area, where 65 percent of voters described the problem that way.
The issue has led to an intensifying debate over rent control in California. In Los Angeles County, 68 percent of voters said they support stronger limits on rent increases, while 63 percent in the Bay Area said so.
The majority of support for rent control is among renters, who have seen prices grow nearly 4 percent since last year, according to data compiled by the real estate listing service Apartment List. California’s median rent for a one-bedroom is now at $1,750, while a two-bedroom is $2,110, Apartment List found. Among the most expensive cities are San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento.
Of course, being progressives, they don’t bother with history – and I doubt the history of rent-control in places like New York City is covered in the textbooks progressives are allowed to read.
But in New York, it worked a little like this:
- Rent controls were established
- Their incomes constricted by rent control, landlords fell behind on the little things, like routine repairs.
- City officials leaned on the landlords to make the repairs, prices and income be damned, and threw on fines to make the whole mess even less affordable.
- Sick to death of being stuck between a regulatory rock and a cost hard place, the landlords tried to sell out.
- Local regulations – like the ones Ray Dehn proposes in Minneapolis – make selling a rental property a daunting prospect. Landlords unloaded properties at firesale prices or, if the neighborhood was bad enough and the debt intractable enough, walked away – creating either gentrification-ready areas of cheap buildings or, for less desirable locations, acres of vacant buildings ready to be turned into crack dens.
- Alarmed by the decline in “affordable housing” caused by their own policies, the city’s government ratcheted up the regulations even more; as the saying goes, the beatings will continue until morale improves…
Given the mindless “progressivism” of California government, this will hasten the state’s decline. The bad news? It’ll also increase the number of Californians bringing their bobble-headed politics to sane states.
I’m just saying that in the future, if some future wannabe despot wants to take over this country, suspend the Constitution and crush our freedoms without firing a shot (up front, anyway), he’ll need a society full of people who “think” like the Strib editorial board to have a chance of succeeding. r
They want the President to stop having rallies like last week’s event in Phoenix – for everyone’s best interest:
These campaign-style rallies serve little practical purpose with the next presidential election not until 2020. Instead, they unnecessarily stoke anger and division at a volatile time, with the rally locations attracting the violence-prone on all sides of the political spectrum.
Well, no. For the past year and a half, they have drawn unstable, violence-prone, Urban-Progressive-Privilege-sotted “Anti”-Fa blackshirts. Lately, to be sure, they’ve drawn people on the other side who’ve come to aggressively defend themselves. What, you expect people to stand still while they’re being gassed and clubbed for exercising their rights?
Clashes between white supremacists and counterprotesters have already left one woman dead. It is only by the grace of God that more people didn’t die in Charlottesville. Or that violence didn’t spiral out of control during another gathering last Saturday in Boston.
Excluse my middle English, but bullshit. All the violence in Boston was on the left. Thousands of drooling scumbags descended on an expressly peaceful event that specifically excluded and condemed “white supremacists”. Boston was a monument to the spoiled entitlement of Big Left and its idiot children – which is why it’s disappeared from the media.
It’s just common sense to let these tensions settle down and, until then, not offer up another obvious gathering point for extremists itching for action. President Trump should have recognized this before Tuesday’s rally, but making his way through the large, tense and often heavily armed crowd in Phoenix should have really driven that point home. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries Tuesday, but the event clearly strained local law enforcement’s capacity.
Look at the bright side; being a Red area, at least the cops in Phoenix showed up.
My suspicion; Big Media is decreasingly able to cover up the depravity of its nephews and nieces in the extreme left.
SCENE: Press conference where a Free Speech Rally is being announced for the Minnesota state capitol grounds. A group of reporters is questioning the organizers of the rally – Madison JAMES, Tyrone JEFFERSON, and Jorge WASHINGTON.
WASHINGTON: …So to sum up, we will hold our Free Speech rally at precisely noon. We have our permit, and we are ready to stand up for the free speech rights of all Minnesotans and all Americans.
JEFFERSON: Even those we don’t agree with.
JAMES: We’ll now take questions. (Sees hands rising, points to a sallow endomorph in his late forties with severe acne). Yes.
REPORTER 1: I’m Edmund DuChey, from “MinnesotaLiberalAlliance.Blogspot.com”. So your rally of Nazis and White Supremacists…
WASHINGTON: Yeah, you can stop right there. As noted before, this rally specifically denounces the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and everyone who would actively curtail the rights of others based on their ethnicity, religion or anything else.
JAMES: And we’ve specifically disinvited them from the rally, and are ready to enforce that.
JAMES: Next question.
REPORTER 2: Walter Lennon-Marks from Minnesota Public Radio. I notice that you have not disinvited people who plan on carrying firearms, concealed or openly, from the rally.
JEFFERSON: That’s correct.
LENNON-MARKS: Don’t you find that intimidates other speech?
WASHINGTON: I find that it most definitely intimidates those who would threaten our rally with violence like “Anti”-Fa did in San Francisco.
JEFFERSON: Or those who would act on those threats, as “Anti”-Fa did in Boston, and clearly plan to elsewhere. Inducing them to keep their speech non-violent is a feature, not a bug.
JAMES: Next question?
REPORTER 3: Yes – Yvette Stahlen from the Star Tribune. Why do all three of you make the scare quotes with your fingers whenever you say the “anti” in “Antifa?”
WASHINGTON: Because they are “against fascism” in exactly the same way the Bloods are against the Crips, or the Gambinos were “against” the Luccheses. These are two sides of the same noxious, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, pro-totalitarian coin.
STAHLEN: But my editors’ oldest daughter is a member of Antifa, and has been ever since zhe graduated from Oberlin.
WASHINGTON: (Walks down from the stage with a microphone, hands it to STAHLEN). Here.
STAHLEN: What do you want me to do with this.
WASHINGON: Drop it for me. I couldn’t possibly have ended this better than you did.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Trump said only one side had a permit to be at the rally in Emancipation Park. The Left jumped all over that – it’s a lie, the counter-protesters had a permit, too.
No, they didn’t. Their permit is for two different parks, a couple of blocks away. When they left their permitted area to go to the other side’s permitted area, they were acting without a permit, exactly as Trump said.
Trump is correct. The Left is lying. Again.
Who’s got my shocked face? I need it back.
When the left started jabbering that the “counterprotestes” had a permit, my BS detector started howling. Permits exist to prevent confrontations. That’s why protests are supposed to get them.
Woman who destoryed a confederate statue in (where else?) Durham NC…
…is a Marxist North-Koreaphile.
Fighting a legacy of slavery with a present of slavery!
James Damore is exploring his legal options against Google.
And apparently he has some:
According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and ethics professor at San Diego University, the engineer certainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. “First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions,” Eaton writes.
And second, because the memo was a statement of political views, Eaton says Google may have violated California law which “prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”
An international corporation with armies of both lawyers, Google knew all this. They decided to take their chances with state and federal law anyway rather than stick up for one of their employees and risk public backlash. That’s an incredibly telling decision from a company that has mastered everything from artificial intelligence to self-driving cars.
Question: Will a Goodle “self-driving car” actually drive someone who opposes Planned Parenthood?
But I digress. If Mr. Damore has a legal plaintiff’s fund, I’ll be contributing.
By the way –
“Progressive” woman risks all to tell the world what used to be screechingly obvious:
I asked why as a woman who was born with woman parts it is now considered transphobic to want to have conversations about the distinct and unquestionable differences in life experience between cis and trans women. I asked why when women have faced systematic violence at the hands of men and 1 in six women is raped, is it wrong for cis women to have some spaces just for them to feel safe in a world where they don’t? And I was immediately threatened, labeled as transphobic, and left to feel as if my voice was nothing.
I am angry. Angry because now even questioning these issues is seen as an act of hate, discrimination, or intolerance. Angry because wanting to have open conversations is now considered hate speech. I am angry that as a woman who has constantly had to be careful of my language and behavior around men to ensure my own safety, I am now being forced to police my language even more, around and for trans women who had entirely
different experiences and anatomy. Female language around female issues is important to many cis women because we have struggled to even have our identities and issues seen as valid.
All these liberals reading 1984,and nobody gets it; it’s not about solving anything. It’s about destroying the will to be free by making it too exhausting, fraught, and dangerous.