Same as the Not appreciably different from the old snarkmeister.
Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show.
Wherever shall I get my daily dose of smug mugging for the camera…:
…in front of an audience of trained chimpanzees who’ve been conditioned to respond on cue?
Colbert, I guess…
While this blog has repeatedly referred to Sally Jo Sorenson of Bluestem Prairie as “one of about five Minnesota liberal bloggers that don’t deserve police surveillance” – not the highest compliment I can give, but the highest warranted under the circumstances – one should not presume that I agree that Ms. Sorenson will go out of her way to tell a story that the DFL doesn’t want, or pay to have, told.
So with yesterday’s post about the Minnesota Senate “tightening” media credentialing rules, which was signal for including just the bits that fit the DFL’s narrative about media and communications:
Via David Montgomery’s post at the Pioneer Press’s Political Animal blog, MN Senate tightens rules for press credentials and The Uptake’s MN Senate Tightens Media Credential Rule, we learn that ““individuals affiliated with a political organization” can no longer be credentialled as journalists or keep their press pass at the Minnesota Senate.
Now, the mainstream press is noplace to get information about this issue, since they’ve been blissfully above it all from the beginning. And the Uptake has a bit of a conflict of interest, as it was the DFL’s favoritism toward them (they gave credentials to the stridently partisan Uptake, but denied them to conservatives) in 2010 that led to the whole “Senate Media Rules” fracas in the first place.
Back when the GOP took over the Senate in 2011, then-Senate-GOP-comms guy Michael Brodkorb convened a working group to come up with new rules for media credentialing. I was part of the group, along with David Brauer. And we did a really good job; they were among the best, fairest rules in the country, balancing the investment the big mainstream media outlets had made in coverage with the access for alternative media sources.
And to prevent the system from being hijacked by the parties, the rules barred people who were on party payrolls from getting credendialed. Period.
In 2013, the DFL took control of the Senate:
That’s a pretty broad definition, but the background appears to be related to a blogger named Shawn Towle, who received a Senate press pass while also being paid by the Senate DFL.
Republican senators made a stink about Towle in April of 2014, putting out a press release accusing DFL leader Tom Bakk of “secret payments” to Towle.
Introducing the proposed change today, Bakk described it as “something the rules committee had considerable conversation about near the end of the session last year.”
In other words, Bakk is reiterating the process that we came up with in 2011. With a great deal of noise, he returned the Senate to the rules it had before.
One presumes that the DFL will find some way to sneak Towle, their favorite hit-piece writer, into the room – but it’ll be the traditional Democrat way; rules be damned!And that is the rest of the story.
I’m not sure which was greater; my degree of un-shock that Gary Trudeau bought the University of Virginia Gang-Rape hoax hook, line and sinker…
…or shock that Trudeau and Doonsbury are respectively still alive and being published.
There’s an old saying; “success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan”.
In the wake of the Democrat party’s nationwide electoral humiliation, the left is looking for things to hang their hopes on.
It’s human nature; the good guys were doing it two years ago, too.
So here’s what the Democrats are hanging their hats on; in a blue state, a 67 year old governor who gets mistaken for his entrepreneur anscestors, a superannuated standup comic, and a couple of congressmen dragged out of mothballs at the Museum of Pettifogging eked out wins in a state where…they were expected to eke out wins.
But remember – whatever success there is has a thousand fathers. Er, parents. And the local left is stepping all over itself to claim their piece of the
“In These Times” is the sort of “progressive” publication you can imagine a room full of Grace Kellys producing. I don’t read it much, because it’s just not a challenge.
But in their post mortem of the MN elections, they made an interesting and, dare I say, surprising claim.
No, it’s not the callow reference to stereotypes. That’s no surprise from any “progressive” publication:
Mike McIntee, who lives in Eagan and is executive producer [Hah! – Ed] of The UpTake, a citizen journalism-driven, online video streaming website, has seen his first-ring suburb change politically. The residents of Eagan’s cul-de-sacs no longer exclusively resemble an episode of The Brady Bunch, but include different ethnicities and low-income housing.
“White People” = “Brady Bunch”.
Anyway – here’s the interesting part (emphasis added by me):
McIntee also credits the work of Protect Minnesota, which works to end gun violence by turning it into a political issue in urban and suburban areas. Protect Minnesota sent out mailers this election season attacking candidates who opposed gun control. Its gun-safety champions who won on Tuesday include Ron Erhardt, who represents the suburb of Edina. Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association’s influence may be waning in Minnesota. Three rural DFLers who were endorsed by the NRA all lost.
The gun grabber group led by Heather Martens known mainly for its comic ineptitude, has done more harm than “good” for the gun grabber movement in the past…couple of decades. They mobilize no significant people (a couple of dozen might turn out for a vital hearing, as opposed to hundreds of Real Americans.
But what of their claims?
- McIntee claims “Protect” Minnesota sent out “mailings attacking candidates“: Now, the Minnesota Human Rights community is pretty good at keeping tabs on what the orcs are doing. And nobody seems to have seen a “Protect Minnesota” mailer. None. Michael Bloomberg and the DFL both hit on guns – but both groups carefully excised the hapless “Protect Minnesota” from their strategy.
- What “Gun Safety Champions?” Protect MN is a lobbying group, not a PAC. Did they endorse candidates? If so ,they broke the law; lobbying groups can’t endorse candidates.
- They’re claiming credit for Ron Erhardt? If Mike McIntee or Heather Martens wants to make the claim that guns were behind Ron Erhardt’s razor-thin win in Edina, feel perfectly free. But be ready to be slapped down hard. It’s an absurd claim.
- They’re Claiming They Have The Momentum?: “Three rural DFLers endorsed by the NRA” lost – but then, most rural DFLers lost, whatever their NRA and MNGOPAC endorsement. The election wasn’t about guns! But even so, over 3/4 of MNGOPAC’s endorsed candidates, GOP and DFL, won on election night – and many of the ones that lost in Greater Minnesota lost to other candidates with high GOCRA and MNGOPAC ratings. Either way, gun owners won. To claim the Gun Rights movement lost last Tuesday is a Baghdad-Bob-level bit of delusion.
But delusion is Heather Martens’ stock in trade. From the “Protect” MN website:
Look, “Progressives”; if it makes you sleep easier at night thinking that…:
- Mark Dayton, who has spent the past two cycles trying to defuse Real American opposition by claiming he has a couple of .357 Magnums at home for self-defense, and
- Al Franken, who touches on guns as obliquely as his caucus will allow him to, and
- Rick Nolan, who ran away from the anti-gun movement (ineptly), and
- Colin Peterson, with an NRA “A” rating, along with…
- 11 new Republicans, all of them pro-gun, mostly MNGOPAC endorsed, all of them Second-Amendment-friendly, and
- a solidly pro-Human Rights MN House, with Michael Paymar’s Metrocrat caucus demoted to the cheap seats…
…are a “victory” for “gun safety?” Go for it!
It’s Heather Martens’ take, and it’s delusional…
…but I repeat myself.
Note to Mike McIntee and the rest of the “progressive” feed trough; if that’s the best source you can pick, no wonder you guys are getting your asses kicked on Second Amendment issues.
…for everyone in the mainstream media, alternative media, and talk radio – even conservative talk radio:
Unless you work at a Red Wing outlet store and are changing your shelving, could you never, Ever, EVER use the term “Boots on the Ground” again? It’s gone so far beyond cliché, light leaving “cliché” right now won’t reach us until our great-grandchildren are getting AARP cards.
“Troops in the field” actually works.
Thank you all in advance for seeing to this.
That is all.
Last week, Sally Jo Sorenson of Bluestem Prairie – one of the small minority of Minnesota progblogs that don’t deserve police surveillance or restraining orders – was jumping up and down over this article in the Minnesota Daily, the U of M newspaper.
It’s an interview with a couple of design and communications professors, going over the symbology of various campaign signs.
On the one hand, I do a lot of that sort of thing as part of my day job. It’s more than an academic subject to me.
Sorenson quotes the piece in the Daily by Kevin Karner, in re the two professors’ comparisons of the signs in the Secretary of State Race between Steve “Couldn’t Get To 45% in the Primary” Simon and Dan Severson:
Severson also tries to indicate his party affiliation through color, but the placement of the blue ribbon with white stars over a red backdrop almost evokes the Confederate Flag — an odd choice for Minnesota.
Here’s the Confederate Flag
– the “Stars and Bars”, which sounds a little like an uptown hipster tavern.
Yep – red field, blue bars, white stars. Modeled after the Union Jack. Maybe the regional left needs to get on the Scots and Brits for their racist microaggressions.
Red “Republican” background. Blue stripe – unlike the Rebel flat, there’s one, not two of them, and not only is it wavy, but it and its white stars seem to vanish into the distance. Almost like something zipping across the sky. Leaving contrails behind it, even.
Now, I’m not a college professor or a progblogger, so I have no idea what one might associate with Dan Severson…
…that would involve something with a star on it flashing across the sky into the distance?
Being neither an associate design professor nor a progblogger with numerous elite academic credentials, I’m obviously too stupid to figure it out.
Heck, we all are! It just has to be a Confederate flag reference! Sometimes I just feel so stupid.
Hm. What could that slashing, star-clad blue ribbon mean?
DUURRR! DAAAAAAAR! Stupid conservative blogger! Must smash things!
Oh, yeah; Sorenson:
Given the side Minnesota’s soldiers fought on in the Civil War, it’s odd indeed.
Given the side Ms. Sorenson’s Democrat party forebears fought on in the Civil War, I suppose it’s just high time for incongruity.
Anti-NRA “Daily Beast” writer wonders why the NRA – which famously rails against domestic overreach – isn’t defending black people in Ferguson Missouri (with the not-so-muted conclusion that it’s all in the racism).
The real answer: for the same reason the National Organization of Women isn’t protesting against whaling.
The NRA focuses like a laser beam on the Second Amendment.
You’ll note – although the “Daily Beast” writer does not – that the NRA supported to the hilt the action by Otis McDonald, which led to the Supreme Court incorporating the Second Amendment as a “right of the people”.
Odd how that got forgotten.
MNSure is a disaster that’s going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars – much more, in fact, that most of the state’s natural disasters. .
Behind the happy talk, the state’s economy is showing signs of slowing.
Our major cities’ minority achievement gaps are worse than those in Philadelphia, New Orleans and Detroit. Indeed, we are worse than the proverbial “cold Omaha”.
So what’s been the top news of the week among the left and media (pardon the redundancy)?
Follow-up question: What is it that bothered the left/media about Mr. Fields’ tweets? Was it the politicization of a tragedy? Or was it that someone would tweet something grossly inappropriate?
I’m sure we’ll hear back on that.
We talked about the cafe last week; they aroused the ire of the entire Minnesota Left – few of whom would ever seem to have been at the River Oasis – by putting their “minimum wage fee” on their receipts:
First things first: It’s a classic American diner – like Mickey’s on West Seventh, or Keys, and not a whole lot of others out there anymore. The food was excellent.
I had the pleasure of talking with Craig Beemer, the owner, on my show on Saturday afternoon (and his wife on Saturday morning). And we learned a couple of things about the place, and the “controversy”.
Money: One of the left’s main whining points about the public “minimum wage fee” is that it’s “disrespectful to the employees”.
Of course, it’s a stupid point. Unlike most restaurants, the Beemers already pay the back of the house staff – the line cooks, dishwashers and the like – better than minimum wage, and (according to Beemer) very competitively with the similar places in Stillwater. That’s the kind of “respect” I actually cared about when I was a low-wage employee.
The only people making minimum wage are the waitstaff – and when you add on tips, they’re making closer to $25 an hour, often more, and the minimum wage is not an issue.
Except for the Beemers, for whom the wage hike was a $10,000/year hit on the bottom line. Remember – restaurants across the river in Wisconsin have a minimum wage of $3-and-change per hour.
Because they have a tip credit.
Power: Which is what Governor Dayton’s sons asked for earlier this summer. Andrew and Eric Dayton, owners of “The Bachelor Farmer”, a chi-chi restaurant in Minneapolis, complained to Dadders because the new, higher minimum wage hike was harshing their fiscal mellow. They asked for…
…a tip credit.
Bonus Explanation For Leftybloggers, none of whom apparently have ever worked for tips: you don’t work for minimum wage. Even when there’s a “tip credit” in effect and your “wage” is $3-and-change/hour, like in most surrounding states, you’re still making more. How much more? If you work at a crummy place with lousy food, maybe not enough more. If you work at Manny’s Steakhouse and tend to tables that rack up $400-$1000 for a meal, you can make well into six digits. In between? It’s a complex set of dependencies; waiting skill, clientele, season, even the weather.
But for all the crap that Tom Emmer took for his “waitstaff making over $100,000” “gaffe” four years ago, you might be amazed at the number of waitstaff that take home solid middle-class “living wages”; $50,000, $75,000 and more.
Which isn’t bad for a trade that requires no education, licensing or anything but talent and hard work.
Which may be what bothers liberals about all of this.
“If Ifs, Ands And Buts Were Candy And Nuts, We’d All Have A Wonderful Unbedankfest”: Here’s another note for ignorant leftybloggers; a “tip credit” acknowledges the fact that for a good waiter at a good establishment with a good clientele, the minimum wage is the fringe of their income; the owner can apply some of the waitstaff’s tips to the wage, in effect.
“I think tipping is just wrong”, whined a massive clot of liberals last week, “and I think we should do away with it; it’s unfair. They should all just be paid”, they say, reflecting the “progressive” desire to oversimplify the free market (and working for tips is the ultimate meritocracy).
Of course, it’s been tried. Not a few restaurants have tried to abolish tipping – paying their waitstaff more, and jacking up the prices accordingly, to a brief flurry of adoring media attention.
Then they quietly vanish. And a few years later, the cycle repeats.
“It’s So Tacky!”: Tackier than jamming down a minimum wage increase with the barest possible minimum of debate, and then reconsidering when the governor’s kids get into a jam?
“Why don’t they publicize all the costs that hit their bottom line?”: Because if they use too much electricity, they can unscrew the lightbulbs in the bathrooms. If the price of tomatoes goes up, they can use fewer of them in their recipes. If Ecolab cleaning products are too expensive, they can switch to Servicemaster. In other words – as with everything in the free market (including restaurant choices), they, the consumer, can say “no” and pick a better option.
But they can’t switch states. Tempting as it is for many businesspeople. Government is the one thing you can’t say “no” to, without having men in uniforms with guns busting down your door eventually.
And the hypocrisy of a “progressive” movement that twisted itself into knots to try to legitimize the “Occupy” movement turning around and attacking an actual working business for using its right to free speech is enough to put me off my breakfast, were it less delicious.
“What are you going to do, Berg? Hang out there all the time?”: It’s not really about me. But when in Stillwater – a place I may get to annually – sure why not?
The “point” they’re shooting for is that conservatives won’t be going there forever, and the liberals among the Oasis’ clientele will stay gone.
I’m going to guess that most of the people doing the “protesting” have never been there, and would never have gone – and if they did, they were, like most liberals, lousy tippers anyway.
Anyway – kudos to the Beemers. And thanks for a fantastic breakfast, a great discussion, and for fighting a battle that a lot more people need to fight.
Earlier this week, Sally Jo Sorenson of Bluestem Prairie unleashed the nagging, hectoring, joyless scolding hordes of the Minnesota left on the River Oasis Cafe in Stillwater for daring to protest against the DFL’s minimum wage hike jamdown by informing their diners how the price hike was affecting their meal price.
The comments on Sorenson’s piece were the same sort of uniformed ad-hominem that the mindless cattle of Minnesota specialize in, in their bovine way. And given that most of them are idlers with more time on their hands than brain cells to burn, we can only assume that they’ve taken other actions against the River Oasis.
Because protest is a good thing, unless it’s the DFL that’s being protested against.
Anyway – any establishment that’s got the seeds to tell the emperor they have no clothes deserves the thanks of the people who really make this state work, the taxpayers for whom the DFL has such oozing pustulent contempt.
So here’s what I’m thinking. I’m gonna run out there (here’s the map link) for breakfast Saturday morning.
And if you’re a Minnesota taxpayer, businessperson or citizen who thinks that real people speaking truth to stupid power is a good thing, I’ll invite you to join me. For breakfast.
(Separate checks, by the way).
If it’s just me, that’s fine. But feel free to come on out. Drop me a comment if you get a moment, just so I know whether to expect company.
…when liberals actually realize they have to pay for the “progressive” legislation they demanded.
A cafe in Stillwater tacked on a “Minimum Wage Fee” to their bills, to show their customers – this being Stillwater, mostly DFLers – what their “generosity” with other peoples’ bottom lines was costing everyone.
Sally Jo Sorenson – one of the handful (literally – maybe five, no more than ten) liberal bloggers in Minnesota who don’t belong under police surveillance – just doesn’t like those peasants getting uppity:
The restaurant industry had tried–but failed–to make the case to the Minnesota legislature for a “tip credit” system under which wait staff could be paid less than the new minimum wage. New legislation raised the state’s minimum wage to $8.00/hr on August 1, with new raises for workers until the wage is $9.50/hr in August 2016.
Accurized: The restaurant industry’s case had no more chance of being heard in a legislature dominated by a DFL that owed their union benefactors big bucks than Ice Cube has of getting applauded at a Ted Nugent concert. The minimum wage was going to pass, no matter what.
And once the DFL has spoken, to the left (via Sally Jo Sorenson), people should just shut up and forget all that “free speech” and “protest” crap.
The cafe in question should oughtta be careful, of course; next, it’ll be the IRS.
Reading the smug, PC commenters (as if Sorenson deigns to print any other kind) is just precious.
I’d like to find out what the cafe is, so I can grab breakfast there this weekend and thank them for forcing the Minnesota left to marinade in its own cowardly hypocrisy.
A Conservative media outlet (blogger, talk host, writer, etc): Sees a story about a two-bit Democrat candidate whom even fellow Democrats shun at the polls making an over the top depraved statement. He briefly considers posting it as a sign that it’s truly Democrats who are waging a “war on women” – but notes that the guy is so fringe that even most Democrats refudiate the guy. Decides that writing about the guy would give him just a little more unjustified publicity, opts to do his little bit to return the creep to obscurity by ignoring the story.
A Liberal media outlet – say, “Think” Progress, gets a story about an obscure GOP candidate who’s running third in the primary for a city council seat in Brackwater Alabama saying “AIDS is God’s revenge on gays”. Within 12 hours, every liberal media outlet from MSNBC all the way down to Dim Tim Sweeney’s twitter feed, and thence further to AM950, bleats “PROMINENT REPUBLICAN SAYS GOD HATES F**S!”.
Word has it that Fast Eddie Schultz – the single liberal talk show host in the business who understood anything about doing radio – is calling in the dogs and whizzing on the fire.
(Yes, I know – Stephanie Miller. But her only good idea is copying Laura Ingraham’s show in every single particular; otherwise, she’s just another shrill Taylor Marsh clone).
On the one hand, Schultz was literally the only liberal in talk radio who understood anything about doing radio, as opposed to standup comedy, essay writing or speaking to a roomful of people. They’re very, very different things.
On the other hand? Schultz may be the only host in talk radio who is actually as dumb as the left thinks conservative talk hosts are.
So adios, Fast Eddie. It’s one step further on the journey to forgetting you ever existed.
I used to make a concerted effort to read Minnesota liberal blogs. But it’s been a long time.
Part of it is that most of the good ones – and there were good ones – have moved on. There are a few left that are worth reading, but I can count them on one hand hand have and have a couple fingers’ worth of change.
I’ve said for years that the biggest problem liberals communicating with non-believers – for the precious few that want to – is that very few of them have ever learned how to actually debate. Oh, most of them may start out a “debate” with a round of factoids lifted from “Think” “Progress” or “Kos”. But let those “arguments” be challenged, and the next round, almost without fail, will be either a logical fallacy – a strawman, a tu-quoque, an ad-hominem, a red herring – or it’ll be a personal attack.
And as Jeff Kolb found when he attended “Drinking Liberally” last week, that’s if you’re lucky:
I shook a few hands and only got one “fuck you,” and figured that ain’t too bad, so I sat back down to watch the show which had just kicked off.
While I’ve rarely encountered that level of hostiity, I won’t say I expect a whole lot better. And that’s fine – anyone who needs to react to dissent, or a dissenter, that way deserves pity, not anger.
I tweeted at one point that I had the feeling some of the people in the room had never actually spoken to a real-life Republican. One guy asked me at the end of the night if Republicans cared about free speech. After I answered in the affirmative, and used the example of the recent Condoleezza Rice event to illustrate the point, he replied that we only care about free speech “if it wears a suit.” The only response I could muster to this was a blank stare.
And in a way, it’s hard to know how it could be much different: Minnesota liberals come up through a K-12 system that indoctrinates kids to think the left is the baseline. They mostly go through a university system that actively crushes dissent from “progressivism”. They largely work in institutions – government, academia, big corporations – that can ignore dissent or minimize it at their pleasure.
It’s a lifelong path of least intellectual resistance. Who could expect a cogent argument? It’s the dissenters who have to develop the intellectual muscles you get from swimming against the tide.
And yes – it suspect it cuts both ways. I’d imagine conservatives in Utah can be pretty smug and blinkered; I’d imagine liberals in eastern Montana have to either bring an A game or shut up.
1988: Carl Rowan, the WaPo columnist with a long record of vicious attacks on the idea of civilian gun ownership, shoots at a teenager who was in his swimming pool.
2012: Barack Obama, while claiming the GOP is fighting a “War on Women”, pays his female employees much less than his male staff.
2013: DFL rep Ryan “Eddie Haskell” Winkler, who routinely attacks the integrity of his opponents on issues of race, calls accomplished jurist Clarence Thomas “Uncle Tom”.
2014: Media Matters, a George Soros-funded attack-PR firm which has spent years railing against “Right to Work” laws nationwide, brings in the big guns as SEIU tries to unionize MM4A’s underpaid drudge-workers:
Media Matters has retained a law firm whose focus is representing management in labor disputes. It’s forcing its employees into a secret-ballot election, which is the kind of vote card-check proponents like the good folks at Media Matters decry whenever Republicans insist it’s important to maintain.
But the year is still young!
I’ve always tried to understand people from “across the aisle”.
Part of it was the fact that I was a liberal for a while. It’s easy for me not to see libs as “evil”; I wasn’t evil, I was just naive.
And over the years I’ve found that getting to know people who think differently, outside the context of politics, can be useful, especially for people whose primary interaction is via some sort of social media. Social media – and the whole online user experience – tends to reduce inhibitions and focus emotion – which is a lousy combination for civil discussion. And over the decade or so of doing MOB parties, I’ve met a lot of people who disagree with me – but spent enough time talking about anything but politics that it was easier to start treating each other like human beings rather than collections of caricatures.
(I said a lot. Not all of them. There are some Twin Cities leftybloggers who are not redeemable, and not worth knowing or understanding, because they are depraved and of no value. But I’m not naming names).
And it cuts both ways. Liberal commentator and strategist Sally Kohn spent some time, er, commentating at Fox News, and learned that conservatives are, in fact, human.
My time at Fox News was marked by meeting and working with some of the kindest, smartest, and most talented people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting in life. As I said in my TED talk, Sean Hannity is one of the sweetest people you’ll ever meet – and even now that I’ve parted ways with Fox, he remains a good friend and mentor.
For a radical progressive who once harbored negative stereotypes about folks on the right, it was a turning point for me to meet people such as Mr. Hannity, Karl Rove, Monica Crowley, Sarah Palin, and so many others, and see that – though we certainly disagree profoundly on political issues – they’re personable and kind and human. Just like me.
It’s strange to suggest that a seemingly simple realization such as that is in fact a profound revelation, but in our hyperpartisan era, when we often vilify the other side as being less-than-human, it is.
I’m going to be watching for the waves of hatred that this piece generates.
Because it will.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Our Friend has a post on Penigma explaining why Stand Your Ground is a bad idea because a certain legislator who might support such a bill, if it came before the legislature, was Not convicted of a crime in another state. Okay, he wasn’t convicted – he wasn’t even charged – but another guy Was charged and has Not been convicted either. So that proves that Stand Your Ground is bad legislation.
Attacking the man instead of attacking his idea might prove the man is a bad man, but it doesn’t prove the idea is a bad idea. That’s why an Ad Hominem argument is a logical fallacy and unpersuasive to thinking people. Which, apparently, does not include Our Friend or, presumably, the people who read her blog.
So does that mean I applaud bad men, celebrate them, and approve of all their actions? Obviously not; and even if I did, that still wouldn’t mean Stand Your Ground is a bad idea.
It’s too bad the legislator isn’t a Black man because then Our Friend’s opposition to his ideas would be racissss. Can’t you just hear the heads exploding all across Mac-Groveland?
The number of liberals – especially Minnesota liberal bloggers, but including not a few higher-level operatives – who can conduct a rational debate using the basics of logic, and without wallowing in all manner of logical fallacies, is disturbingly tiny, and supports my contention that Minnesota liberals are terrible debaters because they never have to learn how to debate rationally.
The Democrats are in trouble. Obamacare is tanking, and the economy is “growing” at a pace that would have been considered a disaster were Barack Obama, the vessel of the left’s hopes and dreams, not President.
And despite a concerted media attempt to black out the bad news, people are starting to talk.
And so the left is doing its best to get people to talk about…other things.
Any other things.
So when my Twitter feed (actually a tweet from one-time SITD commenter “TimInStP”, one of the most incisive liberal minds ever to comment in this space) screamed “The GOP Just Named its Hot New Innovation Lab After a Nazi Pistol”, I figured it was worth looking into.
It wasn’t. I mean, it was from Gawker, which is to national liberal media what Minnesota Progressive Project is to Minnesota; ergo, not worth the time it took, to look into.
But as a view into the lengths the deranged left will go to to try to slander dissenters, it’s instructive anyway:
The Republican National Committee today excitedly announced the launch of a new startup lab to bring techies and creatives together, Silicon Valley-style, to get Republicans elected. Oh, and they named it for a Nazi gun, a type of ammo, and a philosophy that puts war before peace.
Welcome to Para Bellum Labs, America!
Para Bellum? Why, I took enough Latin to know that means “prepare for war!”.
And Gawker got that part right. Sorta.
In fact, it’s part of an old Roman cliche, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—if you seek peace, prepare for war. That’s been quite an inspiring little phrase through history, at least to militarists. It was especially inspiring to Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, the German government’s arms manufacturer from the late imperial era to World War II.
DWM started using the “parabellum” phrase as a name for its signature guns—first, the light machine gun used by the Kaiser’s best during World War I, and then its most iconic gun: the Parabellum Pistole, or the Luger pistol…Yep, Nazi parabellum!
So let me get this straight: Because the Republican startup used a phrase that was also used by, among hundreds or thousands of others, a German company (in corrupted form) in 1908 to describe a pistol that was used, 30 years later, by a regime that wouldn’t even start to form for fifteen years, the GOP “named its lab after a Nazi gun?”
Oh, it gets better.
The gun was so popular in the Third Reich that its ammunition—one of the first to use a slug that was 9 millimeters in diameter—became known as “9 mm parabellum,” which you can find now at your local gun store.
It was nowhere near “one of the first” 9mm rounds (and if you walk into your gun store and ask for “9mm Parabellum”, the clerk will know you learned everything you know about guns from video games; it’s “9mm Luger”, or “9×19”). And the “Parabellum” pistol (usually called a “Luger”, or a “P-08” in German) was so popular among the Nazis that they phased it out of production in favor of the Walther P-38, which was simpler to produce and easier to maintain in the field…
But wait! P-38 was the same designation as the plane flown by America’s top fighter ace, Superior Wisconsin’s own Richard Bong!
Richard Bong was a Nazi!
Oh, yeah – most police in America today carry 9mm pistols. Are they also Nazi sympathizers?
Gawker is like a lobotomy that you don’t have to pay for.
Ann Coulter is proving my point; liberals don’t know how to debate conservatives
However, there is at least one Republican who wants to appear on The Ed Show. You might have heard of her. Her name is Ann Coulter.
She wants to be on The Ed Show so badly that she actually called Schultz a “lying pussy” as an apparent means of motivation. She did this on Twitter last night in response to Schultz saying that Republicans don’t like to appear on his show.
The full tweet reads: “Invite me on your show, you lying pussy.”
Will Coulter’s call to action work? Time will tell.
There are some liberals who have the cojones to meet conservatives face to face and have that kind of discussion. R.T. Rybak was one; he came on the NARN a few years back. We had a great time.
But the sub-genre of liberals of whom Schultz is part? Their entire oeuvre depends on never, ever leaving the echo chamber. They do their bullying purely from within their little circle jerk.
Like a vast swathe of Twin Cities liberals – they splinter like Wal-Mart end tables when they have to try to sustain an actual debate.
Because most Minnesota liberals can not debate .
Schultz is a classic example. The painfully polite and effortlessly erudite Michael Medved made him look like a badly-trained dog at a debate in the Twin Cities a few years back; Schultz was reduced to trying to mock Medved’s Harvard degrees, and calling yours truly (a co-moderator of the event) an “a-hole” on the air the next day.
I’ve spent six years now trying to invite Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and even Representative Heather Martens on the NARN. Bupkes.
Even a barking seal like Schultz knows his limitations. If he let Coulter in the studio with him, within ten minutes of the mikes going live he’d be trussed up like a turkey (rhetorically speaking) and sputtering like a badly tuned lawn-mower (not rhetorically).
Ezra Klein has left the WaPo, to start a new blog to help readers “contextualize” the news.
Unlike about 20,000 news and politics blogs. Including this one.
But Ezra Klein – with a little help from friends like Matt “One-Man Education Bubble” Yglesias – is going to bring special “context” to the news.
Here was an example of the sort of “context” Klein and Yglesias bring “to the news”, from an excellent adventure they had on the Chicom tab a few years back.
“SOUTH DAKOTA MOVES TO LEGALIZE MURDER OF ABORTION PROVIDERS”.
The headline – re-tweeted by legions of “progressive” alt-media droogs – wasn’t remotely ambiguous; supposedly, a bill in the South Dakota legislature would legalize the murder of abortion providers.
Now – what’s the rule?
If the leftymedia says something about conservatives, distrust. Then verify. Then, almost invariably distrust some more, because it’s a lie (with the propability approaching 100% in direct proportion to the sensationalism of the claim. Indeed, I’m going to call this the Mother Jones Corollary to Berg’s Tenth Law, since MaJo is one of the most consistent offenders.
So – read the article – which screams its throat raw that South Dakota is going to all but sell license to kill Infanticidiatricians.
Then note the updates, which gingerly note that the bill actually makes a legitimate immediate threat of death or bodily harm to a fetus via an illegal act a justification to homicide, per South Dakota law, same as with any other person. With the emphasis being on illegal acts, which abortion, more’s the pity, is not.
So all together now; if the “progressive media” says it, it’s probably a lie. And if you check into it, it’ll turn out to be pretty much always definitely a lie.
Hope we’ve cleared that up.
What do I always say?
If a liberal talking head – whether it’s Grace Kelly or Martin Bashir – says something about any conservative or conservative group? Distrust but verify. And then, having verified and found the claim vaporous, pretty much invariably continue distrusting.
“What? Even with a Rhodes Scholar like Rachel Maddow?”
To: Liberals Who Pretend To Care About The Military when Veterans Benefits Are Threatened
From: Mitch Berg, Uppity Peasant
Re: Put Up
You know who you are. You’re the liberals who screech like worn-out brake calipers when conservative political actions even obliquely threaten military or veterans benefits (which liberals barber about because it’s the one part of the military that’s the most like a social program).
So by all means, lefties; it’s time for you to screech. Let your inner stuck cat howl like Jimi Hendrix’ Strat turned to 11.
That is all.