Watching The Defectives

At the “Pride” Parade in Minneapolis yesterday, the processijon got delayed 20 or so minutes by a BLM group that apparently couldn’t find the freeway.

After they’d had their die-in, they got up and spent the rest of the parade marching a block or two ahead of the rest of the procession.

But not before issuing a list of demands…to the Pride organizers.

Here they are – direct and unedited:

LIST OF OUR DEMANDS

  1. We demand that Twin Cities Pride honors the legacy and life of trans women of color and recognize Pride as the byproduct of their resistance of police brutality and repression
  1.  We demand Twin Cities Pride combats State violence with the total elimination of police and law enforcement

I’m sure that’ll go over well.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride is accountable for their perpetuation of white supremacy and homonormativity and that they eradicate their normalization of these violent systems

“Homonormativity”.

I’m just gonna let that sit there like a big glob of goo.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride provide an exclusive healing space at future events for indigenous and people of color to process, rest, and restorative justice

“Process, rest and restorative justice” – Verb, Verb, Noun phrase?

Apparently grammar is an agent of white supremacy.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride divests from all corporations as they promote the marginalization, exploitation, and criminalization of marginalized communities
  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride funds and organizes a Town Hall alongside members from marginalized communities including but not limited to Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar, Native Lives Matter, and Justice4MarcusGolden
  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride provide radical reparations via redistribution of resources and monetary compensation to grassroots organizations of the coalition’s choice

And there we are;  good old-fashioned extortion.

My big question:  will the left manage to eat itself before it eats everything of worth in our society?

It’s The Hypocrisy, Stupid

Victor Davis Hanson’s conclusion on the problem our coastal “elites” have:

An elite’s lectures on melting ice caps, transgendered restrooms, or Black Lives Matter are progressive versions of an unapologetic sinner’s singing hymns in church on Sunday; the harangues bring them closer to their social-justice deities and apparently give personal meaning to their otherwise quite non-transcendent lives.

In all their own manifest hypocrisies, Americans take for granted that elites of the Left have become the Jimmy Swaggarts of our age.

How did he get there?

Read the article!

(And see how it ties into this)

Misdirection

Joe Doakes from Como Pak emails:

When Bill and Hillary Clinton were under investigation for their part in the Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky affairs, Hillary Clinton told Matt Laurer that there was nothing to the charges, they were the result of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy working against her family.  She persisted in that lie for years, despite mounting evidence that the Clintons were not being wrongfully persecuted, but justly prosecuted.

When Islamic terrorists attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and dragging his body through the streets, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed the killers were innocent Muslims outraged by an offensive internet video.  She persisted in that lie for years, lying to the faces of the victims’ families, despite all evidence to the contrary.

When embarrassing Democrat party e-mails were published by Wikileaks before the election, Hillary Clinton claimed Russian hackers were trying to help Trump get elected.  Democrats are still demanding an investigation into her claim and now they’ve gotten a Special Investigator appointed.

But what if the emails weren’t stolen by Russians?  What if they were given away by a disgruntled employee of the Democrat National Committee?  Specifically, what if a 27-year-old computer programmer sent 40,000 emails to Wikileaks and later was shot in the back while walking down the street in Washington, DC, a murder the police are no longer trying to solve?  There’d be nothing for the Special Investigator to investigate.

If that were true, then Hillary’s Russian hacking story would be another misdirection lie, the same pattern of misdirection lying as Hillary repeatedly has used in the past to avoid blame for the damage she’s caused.  It fits a decades-long pattern of conduct that she’s used to great success.  Why is it so hard for people to believe it’s happening again?

Because if they allow that thought into their heads, they will be forced to admit how stupidly they’ve acted for the last 30 years as they drank the Kool-aide.  Nobody wants to admit he was duped, repeatedly, and gladly. So they perish the thought and double-down on the lie.  The Russians!  The Russians!

As Hillary slinks away.  Again.

Joe Doakes

Eventually, lotically, some conspiracy theory is going to turn out not to be a theory at all.

 

When Making Your Dining And Drinking Plans

Jamie Robinson, owner of the “Northbound Smokehouse” in Minneapolis, supports the $15 minimum wage – with a tip credit (allowing the restauranteur to deduct tip money from the basic wage).

For this, the Social Justice Warriors trashed him on social media.

Robinson has responded:

Lately, Robinson’s noticed that his political activism has turned Northbound’s Facebook page into a political arena. According to Robinson, supporters of the “15 Now” movement, which wants a $15 minimum, with no exception for restaurants, are leaving negative comments — not about Northbound’s food or beer, but about its owner…Last week, Robinson decided he was so sick of those critics, he didn’t want any more of their money. If any of them showed their “hypocritical face” in Northbound, and Robinson recognized them, they’d be “escorted right out the door in shame,” according to a Facebook post screenshot.

I’ve eaten there in the past – the food and beer are all excellent.

And I’ll be going there again, on basic principle.  Soon.

The New Brahmins

Democrat congresswoman tells commoner that her First Amendment rights are “Different” than his:

A bit of background:  when Rep. Demings was a police chief, her gun was stolen from her car; it’s tautological that her gun fell into the hands of a criminal.

Demings is, naturally, a gun grabber:

So that’s two “rights of the people” where this Demcorat rep thinks some people are more people than others.

Unpacking The Invisible NPR Tote Bag

“White Privilege” has been all over the news this last couple of years.

 It’s been there because the Big Left has ordained that it should be.  My theory;  in a nation full of “privilege” – class, racial, academic, social and, let’s be honest, the privilege of being born here rather than Russia or Nigeria or Burma – Big Left needed to focus on racial, “white” privilege to whip up black votes for Hillary Clinton, a geriatric white plutocrat.  As a result, all discussion of other “privilege” is off the table.

Terms, Terms, Everywhere Are Terms: White privilege exists, of course.  It goes hand in hand with the idea of “we-ism” – the idea that everyone on earth is more comfortable around, and accomodating of, people more like them than less.

Beyond that?  In my more sardonic and less cautious days, I defined it as being a descendant of a society from a harsh, lethally inhospitable place that had zero words for “hakuna matata” but more words for “stab him!” than Eskimos have for “snow”; a dour, patriarchal warrior culture that killed everyone that had designs on enslaving them.  As a result, my culture has no commonly-held concept of being enslaved.  We  operate from the standpoint of people who’ve been free (or at least subjects of generally benign monarchs) as far back as our cultural memory goes.  On behalf of all my cultural cousins, I am sorry for those of you who are descended from matriarchal hunter gatherer societies that couldn’t effectively resist the slave merchants, but I can’t change history any more than you can.  Just the present – a present I and my cultural cousins have been trying to change for 240-odd years, now.

More soberly, and after interviewing a representative of Black Lives Matter on my show, I arrived at the idea that “white privilege” is the ability to walk into a room and not have everyone wondering if you’re “one of the good ones”.   It was a little after that that I first encountered the academic paper in which the term “white privilege” was coined, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh.   It supplied fifty definitions of white (also male) privilege.

Every one of which, by the way ,translates to “freedom”, “justice” and “being accorded the dignity of being treated as an autonomous individual rather than a member of a group” – all of which are supposed to be values near and dear to our Republic and Western Civilization itself, and all of them things we should be working tirelessly to spread to everyone.

And when some mindless Social Justice Warrior jabbers about “smashing white/male privilege”, the proper response is “so – you want to smash freedom, justice and individual dignity?  See you at the barricades”.

Discussion of all other privileges – academic, social, class – were drowned out.  As they were intended to be.

But with the complete subsumation of the left by identity politics, it’s time to return the favor Peggy McIntosh did us; it’s time to define Urban Progressive Privilege.

Unpacking The Invisible NPR Tote Bag:  I’m going to borrow McIntosh’s format – which I suspect was actually tacitly borrowed from Jeff Foxworthy – of the simple list of attributes of Urban Progressive Privilege.

To wit:


Urban Progressive Privilege; Unpacking the Invisible NPR Tote Bag

Mitch Berg

“You were taught to see Urban Progressive Privilege as a bit of talk show rhetoric – not in terms of a very vislble system conferring dominance on my group via a meritless meritocracy”.   

As an urban progressive, you have been taught about “privilege” by others who have that privilege.  Being able to caterwaul about privilege is a prerogative of the privileged.

Like the concept of “white privilege” (which, conventional wisdom tells us, that “whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege”), the first rule of Urban Progressive Privilege is “I don’t believe there is such a thing”; it’s the water in which the Urban Progressive swims.  So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have Urban Progressive Privilege. I have come to seeUrban Progressive Privilege as an invisible and group package of unearned assets that I can count on using daily, but about which it’s hard to be anything but oblivious.

Urban Progressive Privilege is like an invisible weightless NPR tote bag of special permissions, immunities, secret handshakes, Whole Foods gift cards, a virtual echo chamber accompanying everyone who has that privilege, filtering out almost all cognitive dissonance about political, social or moral questions, and a virtual “cone of silence” immunizing them from liability for anything they say or do that contradicts the group’s stated principles.  As we in Human studies work to reveal Urban Progressive Privilege and ask urban progressives to become aware of their power, so one who writes about havingUrban Progressive Privilege must ask, “having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?”

So – when assessing Urban  Progressive Privilege, can you say any of the following?:

  1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people who believe exactly as I do about politics, society, philosophy, morality and the like, all or nearly all of the time.
  2. I was educated from my earliest years through post-secondary education by people whose political and social beliefs mirrored mine, and who didn’t challenge any of mypolitical, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  3. My progressive beliefs were never challenged through four or more years of higher education – indeed, they were reinforced, while competing views were shamed and shouted down.
  4. When I went into the working world, my politics, social background or philosophy were never adversarially questioned.
  5. I work, very likely, in an environment staffed with people who agree with and never challenge my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  6. My social life is made up of people who share, pretty much to a fault, my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptins.
  7. I can avoid, during my daily life, spending time around anyone who will challenge my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  8. My neighbors – the people in my physical community in which I live – share, almost without exception, my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  9. If someone in  my social or professional life does express a point of view discordant with my and my group’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions intrudes into my sphere, I can count on overwhelming support from the rest of my personal, social, professional circles to defend me.  Those who don’t share our beliefs thus either keep quiet, or are shamed into silence.  Thus, their beliefs have no impact in my life. .
  10. My informational world – my news media, my online social circle, my institutional associations (churches/synagogues, my social groups – will not contradict my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  11. I can count on the news media I listen to – my community’s newspapers, TV stations, as well as stereotypical outlets like NPR, PBS and the like – to reinforce my political and social assumptions.
  12. I can count on as the entertainment media not to contradict my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  13. I can count on the education system in my community not to undercut the political, social, philosophical and moral I’ve tried to pass on to my family.
  14. My kids’ schools give them textbooks, lectures and other materials that reinforce, never undercut, my political, social, philosophical and moral worldview and that which I’ve tried to teach them.
  15. I can be fairly certain that when I go to my kids’ school, the principle will not condescend to me based on my perceived academic or social background.
  16. I have never had anyone laugh at the accent or vocabulary of my native spoken English.
  17. I can rest fairly certain that no “well-meaning” pundit or scholar will ever paternalistically castigate me for “voting against my interests” (as determined by the pundit’s / scholar’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions) for voting in accordance with my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  18. I can choose to ignore the parts of our society outside the East Coast, West Coast, and selected “progressive” archipelagos in between, and express not only ignorance but mockery of the rest of the country, without being seen, shamed, and scorned as a provincialist.
  19. I can express scorn for individuals, groups, religions and social classes that don’t share my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs, accents and worldviews, entirely based on those beliefs, and not be shamed and labeled as a bigot.
  20. I can make racist, sexist and classist statements about people who do not share my community’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions, and rest assured I will not be castigated for violating community standards.
  21. I have never been treated as a foreign culture in my own country; I have never had journalists, academics or pundits dispatch a special group to research, analyze and report on why my social circle believes and votes as they do – because the media, academics and punditry are from my class, and share my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions; the more aware ones would be offended by being subjected to such a condescending, patriarchal bit of cultural chauvinism.
  22. My children and family are safe, almost entirely, from the economic, social and criminological  consequences of my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs; indeed, I personally am almost entirely insulated from them.
  23. I can simultaneously say “I believe in science, and have a fact-based worldview” – while never being corrected, much less called out or scorned, for expressing beliefs that have no scientific basis (belief that there are no evolutionary differences between men and women, believe a human isn’t a human until it emerges from the birth canal, believe that there’s scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic).
  24. I can simultaneously eschew racism and racists, even as I gang up with others like me to oppress black, latino, asian and females who disagree with my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.  I can say things like “That’s not a real, authentic (Black, Latino, Asian) person!” and not get scorned as a racist and patriarch.
  25. I can exhibit ghastly contradictions in my world view and be reasonable sure that nobody in my regular social circle is going to say or do anything about it; if I call someone I disagree with a “fascist” or “patriarch” or “1 percenter” while displaying Che Guevara memorabilia or studiously intoning approval for “Chavezism”, nobody in my social or professional life is going to castigate me for it.
  26. I tut-tut about the virtues of Western civilization and praise Multiculturalism – but do so entirely from a perspective that could not exist outside of Western civilization.  Nobody in my personal or profession or social circles ever brings this up, because they all believe the same thing.

I’m looking for more examples.  Keep ’em generic – not related to any specific issue.   .

Getting Ready To Mint Another “Berg’s Law”

And if I do, it’s going to read “All claims of racist “hate speech” not delivered face to face by someone proven not to be a ringer should be presumed hoaxes until proven otherwise”.

Because when I got the first word of this “attack”, the first thing that crossed my mind was “No way, just  no way, that that actually happened”.

I was right.  I’m almost always right

Let me be clear (because liberals have a hard time arguing with anything but straw men, so a conservative must always straw-proof their argument) – any actual hate speech needs to be met by overwhelming opposition, as well as any rules that apply (and don’t violate everyone’s free speech rights).

It’s just that it’s so very hard to find such an episode that isn’t a hoax perpetrated by social justice weasels looking for a headline.

Shot In The Dark: Today’s News, Ten Years Ago

It’s been a little over 11 years since I coined the term “we-ist” – the notion that everyone in the world is more comfortable around, more forgiving of people more like themselves, and less so around those less like them.  In extreme cases that turns to intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

And it covers everyone in the world; just as the white redneck might be less tolerant of the black teenager, so might the middle-class black woman look down her nose at the blue-collar Mexican latino, who is at least thankful that he’s more creole than the native-looking Latino, who disdains the Korean grocer, who has no time for the Japanese-American customer, who is thankful she’s not Chinese, who think Anglos in general are annoying…

And it’s not just race; liberals are every bit as intolerant as conservatives are:

Research over the years has shown that in industrialized nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists possess psychological traits, such as the valuing of conformity and the desire for certainty, that tend to predispose people toward prejudice. Meanwhile, liberals and the nonreligious tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait associated with lower prejudice. So one might expect that, whatever each group’s own ideology, conservatives and Christians should be inherently more discriminatory on the whole.

But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

Surprisingly?

Not if you’re a conservative in a liberal town, it’s not.

Color Me Shocked

Steven Colbert – a person who’d still be playing character parts on Law and Order if there weren’t a wave of pervasive liberal smugness to ride – is in a bit of “trouble” for saying the sort of thing that would have gotten a Congressional hearing if Rush Limbaugh had said it.

It’s all just wind in sails, of course; Urban Liberal Privilege means that there’s no penalty for violating PC codes when one is attacking apostates (and as an NYC plutocrat, who should be a “progressive” and was a Democrat, Trump is surely an apostate).

Honestly?  Up until the last year or two, I’d have figured it would fly for the same reason that black people can drop the n-bomb or the Irish can call themselves “harps” but have license to pound the stuffing out of anyone else who does; I always figured Colbert was gay.

I’m told he’s not.

Now, I don’t care either way.  I’ve seen a lifetime grand total of 40 minutes of Colbert.  I don’t plan to add to it.  Ever.  Even if he has a late-life epiphany and becomes a conservative firebrand.  His delivery, his style, and even the timbre of his voice annoy the living bejeebers out of me. Also, he’s just not very funny.

“I Hate You”, She Explained

Progressive Lino Lakes City Councilwoman Melissa Stockman-Maher contributed to this nation’s civic discourse in commenting about a Tom Emmer “town hall” meeting on a 6th District farm:

If you live in Lino Lakes, you might want to ask if Councilwoman Stockman Maher is threatening only Congressman Emmer, or if there are parts of Lino Lakes that conservatives in general should try to avoid, lest the Councilwoman likewise sic an armed mob on them.

Or maybe just make sure someone runs against her, with this tweet as part of their campaign literature.

There Will Come A Day When Berg’s Seventh Law Is Required Reading In All Classrooms

Bit by bit, some liberals are getting it.

John Kass at the ChiTrib?  He seems to have figured out the Big Lie of the Big Left:

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.

Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.

And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.

Some of us were taught this in school. Others, who couldn’t be bothered to read books, were fed a cartoon version of the diabolical conservative in endless movies and TV shows.

Best bad example?  Every episode of Law and Order after about season 5.

The most entertaining of these were science fiction, sometimes with vague references to men in brown shirts and black boots goose-stepping in some future time.

But the lie is obvious now, isn’t it?

A lie – and a Berg’s Seventh Law invocation.

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today’s young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

It’s there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.

They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.

We have not just one, but two generations of people who think 1984 is about the right, and who think they’re Winston Smith.

“Here’s Your Dollop Of Freedom, Peasant”

Berkeley – afraid that the generation of Orwellian “social” “jusitice” thugs they’ve raised will throw another costly tantrum at being faced with dissent – cancels speech by Ann Coulter.

Then, getting a wave of negative feedback, they rescheduled it – at a time when nobody could actually go:

Coulter had been booked for April 27, but Berkeley administrators abruptly canceled her engagement on Wednesday, citing security concerns. After massive publicity, they reversed course but reset the event for May 2, when students will be taking finals and therefore will be less likely to attend, according to lawyers representing the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation.

Associate vice chancellor Nils Gilman “grudgingly offered to allow the event from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2 — during ‘dead-week,’ when students are not even in class,” wrote Harmeet Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group in a letter to Berkeley interim vice chancellor of student affairs Stephen Sutton.

“Such a bummer that we, here at UC Berkeley, have created an environment where free, dissenting speech is impossible.  No idea what we’re going to do about that.  But I guess you’re screwed!   Those crazy kids.  What’s an institution to do?”

As far as public universities go?  Legislatures need to start insisting on campuses being environments for free speech, or clearing out management (and if necessary, professors.  Tenure should not protect tyrants)

 

“Gun Violence Prevention” And Its Inevitable Consequences

Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, banned and confiscated all civilian firearms.

And now, as the Maduro regime’s support frays under the complete collapse of the Venezuelan economy, he’s re-arming…

…well, the right Venezuelans:

“A gun for every militiaman!” Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime’s armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels “imperialist aggression.”

Yet again – the necessary precursor to dictatorship was the disarming of the law-abiding.

Just a further lesson – there can be no compromise with the tyrants – be they Nicolas Maduro or Michael Bloomberg or Nancy Nord Bence.

Ever.

Only Complete Subjugation Will Do

The City of Minneapolis has decided not to completely put Surdyk’s out of business for the “crime” of selling liquor on Sundays because Sunday liquor sales would be a catastrophic moral blow to the state even though the law hasn’t quite expired yet.    The city negotiated the fine down from a multimillion dollar one-month suspension of the liquor license to $6,000 in fines and eight Sundays of suspension…

…only to have a City Council committee reject the deal.

Why?

Reading between Lisa Goodman’s lines, it’s because the greatest crime is defying Mother Government, or even not paying instant obeisance:

“We went down and asked him not to open, the state called him and asked him not to be open, and he basically said, ‘Too bad, I’m not going to do it,’” Council Member Lisa Goodman said. “If he had shut down right after they came in and asked him to do so, I might have felt different.”

“Justice” in Minneapolis is a matter of connections, after all:

A new deal must be negotiated over the next month, the council committee said, and there may be a public hearing. Goodman said she has heard from “a lot of members of the public” about the matter, and they are not happy that Surdyk might have gotten off with a $6,000 fine and 10-day suspension.

Yeah, Goodman.  I just bet you did, and I just bet they’re not.

The worst part?  The best defense seems to be self-abasement:

His lawyer, Dennis Johnson, told council members that a $6,000 fine would wipe out any profit Surdyk made on March 12, the day he opened illegally. Johnson attempted to make no justification for his client’s actions, however.

“It’s simply that it was a boneheaded move,” Johnson said. “We need to deal with it, and accept any consequences that come from the city.”

Johnson said Surdyk just wants the problem to be resolved, and he is hoping that time and the fact that his business has been a model of regulatory compliance for 40 years, will help the city show some leniency.

“In the heat of the moment he made a horrible decision,” Johnson said, as Surdyk looked on. “He can’t justify what he did. He screwed up.”

It’s American in 2017, and striking a blow for freedom against a stupid regulation in an autocratic bureaucracy needs to be defended by pleading “I just can’t make decisions without the beneficent hand of the all-wise Council guiding me”.

This nation is doomed.

As Foretold

The Monday, April 10 NPR Morning Edition piece on Richard Florida and “creative class” workers leaving the rest of the city behind.   It’s he that is largely behind one of the Big Left’s current conceits; that briniging “the creative class” to big cities will revolutionize them, bringing them a new lease on life.

How’s it working?

From an NPR interview with Steve Inskeep:

Richard Florida promotes what he calls the creative class. He has said for years that cities prosper when they attract upscale innovators and entrepreneurs. Make your city a place where the creative class wants to live, and they, in turn, will create jobs.

INSKEEP: Many cities followed that advice. And now Richard Florida faces the downside. The creative class, he says, is creating cities that are massively unequal.

Well, there’s a freaking shock.

Manufacturing plants create several jobs in the area for each job actually in the plant; truckers, waitresses, janitors, HVAC contractors, management consultants, contractors, you name it.

Ad agencies don’t.

RICHARD FLORIDA: …Which is terrifying to me. The middle class in this country has declined. But, more importantly to me, the middle-class neighborhoods, those platforms for the American dream, have been decimated.

Of course, if you read this blog you are a solid decade ahead of the typical NPR listener.   It was in 2007 that Joel Kotkin foresaw all of this; the fact that the middle class is decamping to the third-tier exurbs, and to smaller and middle-sized cities.   Major cities are turning into an inner core of the wealthy, surrounded by formerly middle-class areas that the social service buearucracy has taken over to warehouse the poor.

Of course, NPR, being a PR wing of the Democrat party, knows who not to blame if it wants its belly rubbed (emphasis added):

INSKEEP: And that metric is especially bad in big, progressive, otherwise successful cities. Those cities are often led by Democratic mayors who criticize inequality…Have progressive policies failed those places?

FLORIDA: I think we’ve abandoned progressive policies. We’ve had an incredibly daunting and troubling reaction. I had to rewrite this entire book in the wake of Trump’s election. I mentioned, you know, I had called for a federal urban policy. I had called for the newly-elected Democratic administration to appoint a council of cities, you know, of great mayors to deploy federal resources.

Can you imagine?  Bill DeBlasio, Rahm Emanuel and Betsy Hodges getting together to “deploy” even more money?

The article gets even more out of touch.   You’re on your own.

One People! One City! One Leader!

Mayor Betsy Hodges is having a meeting tonight:

PLEASE JOIN

MAYOR BETSY HODGES

FOR A SPECIAL

MAYORAL ADDRESS

“ONE MINNEAPOLIS IN THE TIME OF TRUMP”

MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017

7:30 P.M.

SHIR TIKVAH CONGREGATION

1360 West Minnehaha Parkway

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

EVENT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Parking Available at Burroughs School

(Enter on 50th Street)

And on Adjacent Streets

When politicians start referring to polities as “one” of anything, you know you’ve got a problem on your hands; in this case, a one-party city that feels perfectly find using city government as an extension of Democrat party politics.

Challenge Accepted And Returned!

Shelley Garland – whose bio describes here as “…an activist and a feminist and is currently completing an MA degree in philosophy. When she’s not gagging at South Africa’s unique brand of rainbow politics, she’s working on ways to smash the patriarchy”, writes in – where else – the HuffPo:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

Ms. Garland – “progressivie” utopianism has given us ever single one of the woes of the past 100 years.  No exceptions.

And if you want to deny me my franchise, I urge you to get about 30 of your friends together and see just how toxic masculinity can get.