I think it’d be a great idea for any of you who are looking for work to get down to the DFL office on Plato Boulevard, and apply for a job.

And get hired.

And when they ask them to show your ID as part of the hiring process, tell them they’re disenfranchising you.

Just saying.

Last Friday, I wrote about Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Duluth’s problems as it comes to money.

And Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman was quoted:

“If the leadership of the Republican Party wants to come and look through my budget, tell me how many cops they want me to lay off, tell me how many fire stations they want me to close, tell me how many libraries I’m supposed to close. The fact of the matter is they’re governing in ignorance. They don’t know what we do. They have a mythology of what cities do. They have a mythology of where we spend our money.”

And in the “debate” between Rep. John Lesch and candidate Greg Copeland on the Marty Owings “Capitol Conversations” show last March, Lesch asked for exactly the same thing – meaning that we’ve had requests up and down the entire DFL hierarchy for Republicans to come in and give input on the city budget!

Well, what a great place to reach across the aisle!

I think it’d be a fine idea to take some copies of the City’s operating budget, sit down with a bunch of businesspeople and taxpayers, and bang through it, line by line, and dig out all the waste.  Just so that we and the Mayor could fully understand each others’ positions.

I mean, I’m not talking “the leadership”, per se; I think some Saint Paul businesspeople and taxpayers would be just fine, although I wouldn’t mind having some of the legislative budget leadership there either.

But I think getting 10-15 copies of the operating budget and some budget hawks together – say, at O’Gara’s some evening – with an eye toward educating each other, would be a fine idea.

Hmmm.

Yesterday, the Senate Leadership decided not to send SF1357 – the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill – to the Governor.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m deeply ambivalent about pretty much everything in the Gay Marriage mix; gay marriage itself, sure, but straight marriage too, and amending the constitution to protect it as well.

Yesterday, if you were at the Capitol, you saw a Madison-like outpouring of support for gay rights and opposition to the Amendment.  And by “Madison-like”, I mean “largely Metrocratic”.

But while I’m ambivalent about gay marriage (I support civil unions, but don’t plan on ever getting a government marriage license, even if I do get married ever again), I think there is one uncontrovertible fact; the DFL’s motivations in opposing the Amendment were purely, and just a tad cynically, political.

Call From Pauline Kael:  The left’s approach on gay marriage, thus far, has been to get it instituted by fiat, either by politicians (former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome) or the courts.  It’s a fact that gay marriage has never passed a public referendum, not even in “progressive” cesspools like Oregan.

But there are polls that indicate that people are changing their tune; that people actually support gay marriage.

So is the landscape changing?  It depends on the polls you believe, of course; I’ve seen surveys of likely voters  that indicate most Minnesotans oppose it; there are others, of course.  We’ll see – in November, 2012.  I strongly suspect most people do, in fact, oppose gay marriage because…

What Happened In 2009? Last night, during the Madison-like surge of lefty outrage on Twitter, a “progressive” sniffed at me:

Sir- the agenda is Rights. DFL Benson: My conscious comes first, my constituents second, and my desire to be reelected, third.

Which makes a good chanting point.  But it doesn’t stand up to history.

Four years ago,the DFL took control of the government in Saint Paul.  Two years ago, the DFL had absolute control of Minnesota government, except for Governor Pawlenty.  Had they wanted to push a gay marriage law, they could have.  It would have been vetoed – but they’d have made their moral case to take to the voters.

And don’t forget that they could have  passed a constitutional amendment, as the GOP just did, and bypassed the Governor completely.

And yet they dawdled for four years, and made no significant effort toward Gay Marriage.  None. Zero.

If the DFL’s stance were “about civil rights”, about immutable libertarian principles, as Rep. Benson grandiloquently claimed, they’d have used their absolute majority to do something,

Contrast that to the GOP, which introduced the Constitutional Amendment immediately.

Leaving aside whether it’s good to vote on civil rights or whether Gay Marriage is a civil right, here’s a question: which is the stance of a party that believes that they are going to win a referendum?

I suspect the DFL ignored gay marriage (and their gay supporters) for four years because they knew the votes weren’t there throughout Minnesota; that if they voted for legislation pushing gay marriage, they’d get shredded statewide.   They’d be kissing any outstate seats goodbye; they’d shave some of their majority in the Arrowhead and in the Twin Cities; few people oppose Gay Marriage less than Afro-Americans and Latinos; they might even jeopardize Tim Walz’ seat.

My thesis – this was never about principles, about liberty, about fairness for gays.  This is about votes.  The DFL believes they’ll lose them – lots of them.

A brief yuk.

There.  Done laughing.

Let me take a moment to pour out my red-hot loathing on the “world is ending” crowd – whether it be a bunch of bobbleheaded Baptists or the “History” Channel’s lineup of disaster pr0n.  If ou believe in what’s in the Bible, there is that whole “nobody knows the place and time, not even My Son” bit to deal with.   So all you really did is give America’s bumper crop of smug, tittering jihadi-atheists something to giggle about.

Thanks for nothing, peckerwood.

(Photo via Learned Foot)

If I ever rule the world, people like this…:

A tip from a parole officer led to the arrest of one of the suspects in the attack on a San Francisco Giants fan outside Dodger Stadium after the rival teams’ season opener, a brutal beating that prompted an outpouring of support for the victim and outrage in the sports world and beyond.

The man detained early Sunday is thought to be the “main aggressor”…

…who do this to other people…:

…in the March 31 beating that left Bryan Stow with brain damage, Los Angeles police chief Charlie Beck said at an afternoon news conference at the stadium.

…over wearing another team’s fan gear, will, upon conviction, be judicially shot in the face.  So the alleged offenders should be glad I don’t rule the world.

An emotional Beck hailed the work of 20 full-time detectives who he said have pursued 630 leads in the case so far. The police chief choked back tears as he described getting a call at 7 a.m. Sunday from assistant chief Earl Paysinger.

Seriously.  There is nothing in the world that fills me with deeper contempt than people who get violent  with other people over sports (and I’m talking fans, not the actual sports; boxing or UFC or NHL, which are all about watching people hit each other, aren’t the same thing).  In a world absolutely ruled by me, it’d justify lethal force by others to prevent it.

An afternoon tornado shredded North Minneapolis, a neighborhood that hardly needed shredding.

The storm left one dead, with two critically injured.

Rybak as ordered a curfew for a huge stretch of the Northside:

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and Police Chief Tim Dolan said early Sunday night that a large section of north Minneapolis — roughy 4 square miles — was being put under a curfew to help emergency personnel move around and to combat potential looting of damaged homes and businesses.

The curfew was scheduled to run from 9 p.m. Sunday to 6 a.m. Monday and cover from Interstate 94 west to Penn Avenue and from Plymouth Avenue north to Dowling Avenue. Anyone trying to enter that area will have to show identification first, the mayor and the police chief said. Also, residents within that perimeter must stay in their homes “for their own safety,” said city spokesman Matt Laible.

“We don’t want any looting,” Dolan said, explaining the need for the curfew. “There’s property strewn all over. There are wires down. There’s not much lighting. It’s for people’s safety and for the safety of people’s property.”

The KARE11 Facebook page has a jarring photoessay on the damage, taken earlier today.

The GOP leadership in the State Senate, as of today, decided not to have a floor vote on Senate File 1357, the “Stand Your Ground” bill.

Here’s my letter:

sen.amy.koch@senate.mn; sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn; sen.doug.magnus@senate.mn; sen.david.senjem@senate.mn; sen.dave.thompson@senate.mn; sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn; sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn; sen.gen.olson@senate.mn

Subject: Please Vote On SF1357

Senators,

I’m Mitch Berg. I know, and have interviewed, not a few of you. I’m a constituent of Mary Jo McGuire, so I don’t expect a lot of sanity from my own “representation”.

But having heard that the Senate has refused to vote on SF1357, I have to say I expected better from a GOP-led Senate.

I ask you to please reconsider this, and bring the bill to the floor and send it to the Governor. As he ran as a “Second-Amendment-Friendly” gubernatorial candidate.

Sincerely,

Mitch Berg

Saint Paul

If you’re a Second Amendment supporter, it’s go-time – again.   Call your Senator.  Email the whole list above.  Be polite, but let them know – we gun owners have long memories, and when it comes to having our votes taken for granted, we did our time back in the nineties.

No more.

UPDATE: Rob Doar is equally unamused.

To: Opponents of Gay Marriage Amendment

From: Mitch Berg, small-“l” libertarian

Re: Your Sudden Conversions

Dear Gay Marriage Supporters,

Over the weekend, as the House debated the Marriage Amendment, I saw a lot of  you talking about “Civil Rights” and “Liberties” and “Principles”.  About how civil rights are not, no-how, not never, up for popular vote.

Great!  Today we are all libertarians!

So tomorrow, we’ll count on your support on…:

• Abolishing Campus Speech Codes.  Young citizens are citizens too! And there is no “civil right” not to be offended!  And just as you claim gay marriage won’t destroy breeder marriage, certainly being exposed to ideas that challenge or even offend them won’t destroy students’ education. Right?
• Second Amendment Rights.  Unlike gay marriage, our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the constitution, right next to speech, assembly, the press, jury trials, searches and seizures and the whole gamut. You may not understand the Second Amendment – most “progressives” don’t  – but it’s a right, not for trivial restriction – or how closely-knit it is with the Fourteenth Amendment – but  I expect to see you calling your legislator the next time she votes against, say, the “Stand Your Ground” bill.  It’s a civil right.  And a human right.  Pardon the redundancy.
• Enumerated Powers: You can stop calling people “Tenthers” and claiming that defendin the Tenth Amendment’s enumerated powers is akin to supporting slavery.
• Property and Possessions: You can not gabble about civil liberties without duefending the civil liberty that crosses all races, orientations, faiths, and other divides; the right to keep as much of what you earn as possible, as opposed to feeding it into the stifling maw of big government.   You’re all gonna be tax hawks now, right?
• Self-determination: Government mandates to buy heathcare are a civil-liberties abomination.  I’ll trust you’ll join me in attacking Obamacare.

I’ll expect the same level of civil-liberties absolutism that you have developed on the make-or-break issue of gay marriage.

See you at the barricades!

The “first class” cities – Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth – are, predictably, howlin’ mad over the proposal to return Local Government Aid (LGA) to its original purpose – help out poor communities.

Both the GOP-controlled House and Senate this week passed a tax plan that would cut the amount of local government aid that cities across the state are certified to receive this year by 26 percent or $137 million.

Republicans say the effort is needed to balance the state’s budget deficit. But critics say it’s a politically charged move aimed at crippling urban centers — which are largely governed by Democrats.

It’s buncombe, of course.  The cities crippled themselves.

The linked piece – by MPR’s Laura Yuen – is balanced enough, but it’s clearly cribbed this next bit from a DFL or League of Minnesota Cities (pardon the redundancy) handout:

LGA was part of a series of tax reforms in the ’70s known as the “Minnesota Miracle.” It was designed to pay for basic services — from parks to public safety — that cities with greater needs couldn’t cover through property taxes alone. The idea was no matter where you lived in Minnesota, your quality of life would be consistent.

The key part Yuen left out – it was initially aimed at small, poor outstate cities with smaller, aging tax bases.  At the time, the Twin Cities were wealthy – booming, even.

And that’s where things start to break down.

Here’s the quote that set me off.  Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman said:

“If the leadership of the Republican Party wants to come and look through my budget, tell me how many cops they want me to lay off, tell me how many fire stations they want me to close, tell me how many libraries I’m supposed to close. The fact of the matter is they’re governing in ignorance. They don’t know what we do. They have a mythology of what cities do. They have a mythology of where we spend our money.”

Now, I think Coleman is being tongue in cheek – there are most certainly Republicans in Saint Paul who’d be happy to take him up on that very offer, and none of us have heard from him yet.

But let’s say he has a point; let’s say the Saint Paul budget – notwithstanding its electric cars and loafing employees and brand-new indoor ice rinks in a city that is below freezing seven montsh a year  – really is cut to the bone.   Maybe, in that case, it’s not a spending problem.

Maybe the problem is that Saint Paul – and Minneapolis and Duluth – once prosperous cities, don’t have enough tax base to support the spending they want.

And there’s the problem; the governments of the Big Three cities – Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Duluth – have been doing their best to become poor cities.

Not, perhaps, in the sense that they actually sat down and tried to dive into a vortex of crime and poverty; that’d be a silly claim.  Probably.

But looking at the history of the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota from the 1960’s through today, it’d be hard to say how the DFL majorities would have governed differently if they had been trying to flense their cities of prosperity and gut them of vitality:

• Minnesota, driven by the Scandinavian communitarianism which had served small, impoverished communities in the old country well, adopted a highly comprehensive welfare system; in many ways, by the 1980’s, it was the “best” in the country.  DFLers saw it as a sign of advanced civilization; Conservatives rightly noted that if you pay people to do something – in this case, nothing – people will take the money.
• The state, like much of the country, adopted service-based budgeting; in other words, if you spend $100 on a service this year, and the person providing the service guesses the need will rise 10% next year, then you pay $110 next year.  This was put on auto-pilot, so that in effect social spending could not shrink.
• In the meantime, Minnesota also become the softest-on-crime state in the Union, a distinction we still hold.
• The Big Three cities also became warehouses for the poor, both “inadvertently” (“urban renewal” and highway construction gang-raped the property values in the inner cities) and on purpose (centering welfare services in the Big Three cities – partly out of government convenience, partly to build a large pool of voters who were dependent on the DFL’s bureaucracies, either as employees or clients.
• DFL tax and spending policies – and those of the “Independent Republican” party, which were largely indistinguishable from the DFL – aggressively stripped businesses from the Big Three cities.  Look at a list of Minnesota’s major corporations; the ones that existed in 1970 (3M, Ecolab, the parts of “Daytons” that became Target) have done all their expanding in the ‘burbs, or in other states (the network of plants that 3M used to have in Saint Paul is a distant memory); the ones  that sprouted up since then (United Healthgroup, Best Buy, Medtronic) have all located in the suburbs from the very beginning.   The jobs – and the people who worked at them – moved outside the cities.
• In their quest for “affordable housing”, the Big Three cities have virtually outlawed “affordable housing” on the private market.  Starting in the eighties, the cities stigmatized small, “absentee” private landlords (Saint Paul DFLers can’t refer to them as anything but “slumlords”).  Focusing on outcomes (“the poor should have nice housing!”), the cities’ bureaucracies essentially made it impossible to rent out housing that didn’t meet the cities’ absurdly high standards (Government-owned housing wasn’t held to the same standards, naturally).  The process is in the process of culminating right now; as a mammoth surge of supremely affordable housing gets foreclosed onto the market, the cities – led by Saint Paul – launched a campaign to actively crush private, market-driven low-income housing.
• While all this was going on, Minnesota in effect developed two school systems; a blighted, addled, watered-down system in the cities, and a modestly capable one in the ‘burbs and outstate.  The vortex has accelerated, as school choice – charter schools and open enrollment – have taken the families, especially low-income ones, that actually care about education out of the public system.

So over the course of forty years, the DFL’s policies have denuded the Twin Cities of everything – jobs, primary education, quality of life, affordable places to live – for anyone that isn’t already thoroughly comfortable or, by the opposite token, a government client.

Opponents of the current system say that cutting LGA will expose the urban DFLs’ free-spending wastrelcy to their taxpayers.  But it’s worse than that.  It’ll expose the extent to which the DFL administrations have not only cooked the golden goose, but then let it go bad in the refrigerator.

The Good News:  Romney’s right on Israel and Obama:

President Obama “disrespected” Israel and threw it “under the bus” in a wide-ranging speech on the Middle East on Thursday, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney charged.

The Bad News?  A serious candidate for the GOP nomination used “disrespect” as a verb.

Here’s Israel today:

Note the brown glob of the West Bank and the little strip between Gaza and Rafah – owned by Israel, with sizeable Palestinian populations.  These populations are largely highly hostile to Israel.

Here was Israel in 1967:

Doens’t look much different, does it?  And it’s not – except for the fact that there are Israeli troops securing the West Bank.  Note the numbers.  They’re distances to Israel’s major population and economic centers.   When Arabs controlled the West Bank before 1967, every major population center in Israel was threatened.  Today, with Iran supplying Hamas and Hezb’allah with more modern rockets, terrorists can scourge most of Israel at will, if the “peace process” breaks down.

As it will, inevitably.

Obama is insane if he thinks this is a rational solution while the Palestinians are controlled by people who still reject the idea that Israel has a right to exist.   The Israelis are right to reject it out of hand.

If you follow the “logic” behind Andy Birkey’s piece (and like all lefty memes, it came from Birkey’s superiors; Phyllis Kahn was mumbling the same sort of tripe a few weeks ago), that…:

If you have even been divorced – in other words, if some part of your life or paper trail is inconsistent with the position, Then you have no business debating what “marriage” is…

…then consistency more or less demands you apply that same logic throughout.

Don’t look at me.  It’s Phyllis Kahn and Andy Birkey’s idea.

Further proof that my “Logic For Leftybloggers” series – especially the piece two weeks ago on the Tu Quoque Ad Hominem – is long, looong, lo-o-o-o-ong overdue comes in a piece yesterday at the Minnesota Birkeydependent where Andy Birkey, taking a rare break from covering Bradlee Dean, writes:

In testimony before Minnesota Senate and House committees last week, religious leaders and representatives from religious right organizations cited single-parent families and a skyrocketing divorce rate as reasons to protect marriage from being redefined to include same-sex couples by “activist judges” and “handfuls of legislators.” And GOP members rebuffed efforts by DFLers to include a ban on divorces in a proposed ban on gay marriage. However, a number of the legislators who say they want to protect marriage appear to have been divorced.

Right.  But in fairness, a number of DFLers aren’t really gay,aren’t on welfare, and haven’t had abortions either.

Note to DFLers and the writers writer at the MinnBirk: the fact that someone making an argument has not always been utterly consistent with their side of the argument is not evidence against the argument.

In a sense, we should be happy that this is the best George Soros can get for his money.

On the other hand, to 43% of our population, this is what passes for an argument.

State Constitutions don’t, and aren’t supposed to, exist at the same level of majestic purity as the United States Constitution. The process to amend the US Constitution is intentionally very, very difficult – because its intention is to define, at a high level, the relationship between (plug your ears, Liberals – your unions and professors will spank you even for reading this)  a free association of equals and a government constituted of, by and for them.   Not to nail down every nuance of that relationship.

The US Constitution reserves powers to the states – and those powers are laid out in the various State Constitutions.

The idea that defining marriage – even into a form that we social conservatives approve of – is a dangerous one; we are one DFL sweep away from having them repeal the amendment and put forth one requiring all people to become civil partners with their dogs, with power of attorney.

Government, as a rule, at all levels, should butt out of peoples’ personal lives.  Including their marriages.  The family has survived for millenia as the bedrock of civilization, without government to define it.  It in its genuine form will survive government as well.

Will it survive government’s attempt to define it?  When has that ever worked?

And Rep. John Kriesel makes a good point; while the referendum exists for a reason, people shouldn’t have a right to vote about what people do with their personal lives – provided it doesn’t harm others, and by “harm” we mean literally and tangibly.

In my “Why The Marriage Amendment Is A Bad Idea” post, I note that using the full weight and power of government to define marriage is noxious, if you believe in limited government.

Of course, the DFL side fully believes in using the full weight and power of government for everything;  they’d vacate the Rights of Man to stop bullying (of gay kids, anyway); they’d repeal the Bill of Rights to ensure automatic social-service budget increases; if they could sic the SEALs, the CIA and Chuck Norris on opponents of gay marriage, they would.

Of course, the “power of government” they prefer is the judiciary.  And Minnesota DFLers are second to nobody in their use of the imperial judiciary to force compliance with their policy goals.

So even if you think that government has no place telling people who or how to marry – and as I’ve written over and over, there’s a respectable libertarian case to be made against a Marriage Amendment – there are two very good reasons to refer this issue to the voters for inclusion (or rejection) in the State Constitution.

It’s Just Like Shakespeare Said, All Them Peckerheads Oughtta Be Dead (And Before Andy Birkey Or Eva Young Has  A Cow, I’m Referring To Lawyers): Actually, not just this issue; indeed, it could be any socially divisive issue that’s been enacted as policy by weasel lawyers and party-fed judges, from Roe V. Wade to John Finley’s judicial sniping at the Minnesota Personal Protection Act to the definition of marriage.

Any issue that drives these issue to a referendum that can withstand trivial, pressure-group driven legal challenges is a good thing.  And not just for the “winner” of the case.  Because…

Special Interests Need To Get Ready For Prime Time, Or Shut Their Vacuous Glitter-Flinging Pieholes:  As I’ve written in the past, I’m not unsympathetic with gay marriage advocates; I’d see a reason to meet them halfway (and, while I’m at it, never participate in the civil version of marriage ever again on basic principle, sticking with purely church-based ceremonies and eschewing the state license in the unlikely event I ever marry again).  But in turn I have found the arguments of gay-marriage proponents to be extremely illogical, unconvincing and frequently childish.

I was downright depressed to watch the people on TV from the Gay Rights rally a few weeks ago. A woman – apparently a lesbian who seeks to marry, well, another lesbian, and who has gotten air time on several TV news segments on the subject – when asked why she supported Gay Marriage, replied “we deserve it”.    Not once, but several times, on different newscasts.

And I deserve a foot massage from Scarlett Johannson.  But that feeling of entitlement is not a reason.   Still, it’s no worse than the arguments of most Gay Marriage proponents; they run the gamut from “opposition is bigotry” to “opposition is big bigotry”.

But chalk it up to “the wisdom of crowds”; gay marriage proponents know they don’t have to come up with a good argument, because heretofore “convincing” people has been a moot point; since the issue was going to be decided by a patrician imperial judge anyway, “convincing people” was about as relevant as “Mitch deciding what music to play when he gets Marisa Tomei back to his place”.

But now?  With, potentially a constitutional amendment in place, weasel-proofing the issue?  Gay Marriage proponents will have get their argument out of the realm of entitlement browbeating, and actually convince people.

And that would make democracy better.

Which is one of the reasons the left hates the idea so much.  Which will bring us to the next bit, down below.

Gay Marriage, as I’ve noted many times, is not a big issue to me.  As I’ve said a’plenty, I don’t care if gays can sign a contract that binds them to share property, grants them power of attorney, and regulates the terms of any dissolution.  If I ever marry again, on the other hand, I will not get a government license, because to me, marriage is a religious thing, ordained by God, and not for the blessing of some AFSCME employee who needs a stronger deodorant.

No, there are many issues vastly more important than gay marriage.  We are at war.  Our civil liberties are being infringed from without and within.  Our economy is being, for lack of a less inflammatory term, sabotaged from within by our own government.  Our state is relatively healthy, but we are not an island; and two islands in Minnesota, the Twin Cities and Duluth, are resting on long-lost laurels and starting the spiral into becoming Cold Flints.

All of these problems need serious responses.

And at the root of all the serious responses, when you factor out all the variables related to the individual situations, is this; we need to eliminated the “progressivism” from power in state and national  politics.

Let me be clear, here; I get alongwith liberals.  Some of my best friends and relatives are libs; they vote progressive; they drive Volvos.  But they’re human beings, mostly with redeeming qualities.  This isn’t personal.

It’s business.  “Progressivism” is a debilitating social cancer that must be destroyed (politically speaking).  It’s a total cultural war.  And the price of losing, if you are a conservative, is complete extinction for our society, our freedom, our prosperity, our way of life.

At the root of every real answer is one imperative; at the state and national level, “progressivism” must not only be defeated, but relegated to backwater pariah status.

And the way you do that is to expose to the people the pustulent rot behind the happy talk.

The people don’t want judges or legislatures to define marriage for them.  It’s not even close.

The DFL is paralyzed with fear that their vote against allowing marriage to go to a referendum in 2012 will be splashed all over campaigns in 2012 – and that for all their happy talk, it will cost them votes.  Tens of thousands of them.  Because they can’t call everyone who votes against them a bigot.  This issue is going to cost the DFL, and cost it huge.

Don’t get me wrong – rendering the Democrats into a third party is going to take more than just canny takes on wedge issues.  But they count.  And we need to use them.  Rahm Emmanuel once quipped “never waste a crisis”; the corollary for a conservative is “never waste a popular mandate”.

Every opportunity it takes to crush the “progressives” – stripping mandatory union deductions, holding them to votes that will get them crucified outside the metrocrat core, and of course most of all reviving the economy and resurrecting liberty – is a gift from above, not to be wasted.

Let’s hoist them on this petard.  Light it.  And watch the fireworks.

When Tony Cornish – an actual cop – introduced HF1467, the update of Minnesota’s self-defense laws, the DFL predictably trotted out one of its oldie but goodie memes; “Police Chiefs Oppose It!”

Of course, the only “police chiefs” that they ever mention are the ones from the Metro – cops who are largely political bureaucrats who serve at the pleasure of the DFL.

But when you start talking with other cops?

Indeed, as usual, the DFL’s only response to Cornish’s bill (and its Senate companion) is…:

• Froth like Heather Martens’ risible op-ed
• lies about the cops
• Insulting Cornish himself

Further proof:  If the DFL says it, distrust but verify.  Then distrust some more.

I’ve written this before; I’m no anti-rail zealot.  I can see cases where rail transit can make sense.   I can see ery, very hypothetical case where some sort of rail line from Minnesapolis to, say, the southwestern suburbs might actually make sense; it’d take people from where they are (the bedroom suburbs, the inner city) and take them to where they want to go (commuter jobs in the city, all the jobs blooming in the ‘burbs).

I did say hypothetical.  Right?  Because that is as close as any of these projects ever gets to breaking even in a normal human lifetime.

The big case for “commuter rail” lines like the Big-Lake-to-Minneapolis Northstar Line – which differs from “light rail” in using regular rail tracks and right of way  – was that, given a few conditions, it could theoretically get to “revenue neutral” relatively quickly.  Theoretically.

The conditions:

• No buying and rebuilding of right of way.
• Buying used, or at least relatively inexpensive, rolling stock.
• Building austere stations.
• Having lots and lots and lots of riders.

These conditions, of course, are grossly offensive to Commuter Rail’s biggest stakeholders – the Urban Planning mafia.  Rights of way need to be built to further the grand sweeping visions they have (building the line all the way to Target Center), or to show the people who’s boss (the Central Corridor, which is rapidly turning Saint Paul into Cold War Berlin); used rolling stock seems faintly plebeian for fulfilling grand visions, plus the various transit consultants have to scratch the backs of the equipment vendors; urban planners must also build all stations to be monuments to their, and their patrons’, wisdom.

And as rail lines have shown over and over, people just don’t like to be herded into cars to be driven down a fixed route that may only incidentally match their own, if at all.  And usually for higher cost.  They stay away in droves.

And with the Northstar, that is apparently what they are doing:

While views vary widely over the wisdom of constructing Minnesota’s firstcommuter rail line, just about everyone agrees the number of riders for the first year of Northstar service fell far short of expectations— 20 percent and 185,000 riders short.

And that hits us all in the pocketbook.  Because the trains burn the same amount of diesel, and use the same amount of union labor, whether they’re half full or completely empty.

Guess what they are now?

When ridership comes up short, so do taxpayers, who were already expected to subsidize 79 percent of Northstar’s $16.8 million operating costs—before the shortfall. Passenger ticket sales were projected to pay for 21 percent of the cost of train rides, an operating deficit of more than $1 million per month.

Let’s chew on that figure for a moment.

The Northstar costs between $3.25 and $8 a ride; figuring an average of $6 a ride, that means the taxpayer is paying $20-24 for each passenger ride.  (Even at the lowest rate, we’re paying $13 per ride).

That’s on top of the $4 per ride we pay for every single ticket on the Hiawatha Light Rail – which is likely to be about half what we pay per ride on the Central Corridor.

And it’s getting worse:

But we already know that Northstar’s projected operating costs for 2011 will put even more of a strain on taxpayers to pick up the slack. Metro Transit lowered its projected number of passengers for 2011 by 147,000 riders, some 16 percent under its 2010 goal. As a result, Metro Transit raised the amount of its projected taxpayer subsidy to operate Northstar in 2011 to 84 percent, some 5 percent more than its 2010 goal.

You do the math.  Or I will; that $24 subsidy for a $6 ticket will grow to $30-36.  Per ticket.  Every ticket. Until such time as people decide they’d love to be jammed into metal tubes to go to work in a city where, by the way, most of us don’t work.

In 2011, Metro Transit hopes to attract 750,000 Northstar riders, about 40,000 more passengers than in 2010. Compared to last year’s less than expected passenger numbers, Northstar has posted modest increases in riders so far in 2011.

With fewer overall passengers expected to ride the rail service this year, Northstar’soperating budgetwas projected to decline slightly from $16.8 in 2010 to $16.5 million this year. Given the lower number of expected riders, ticket sales are expected to cover just $2.64 million of Northstar’s operating costs.

A rail system is one of those things that the Urban Planning mafia likes to call a characteristic of a “world class metro area”.

Apparently “world class” means “waste money like a crack whore with a stolen Platinum card”.

As I’ve pointed out on this blog in the past, I’m a former liberal.  But for the grace of God and Doctor Blake, I could still be one today.

But I also had a thing for getting the story right, even when I was a liberal. So I could see how, in an alternate world where common sense never intervened, I might be working as an editor for Twin Cities Ministry Of Independent Media (MiniIndiMed), the centralized editorial control center for all Twin Cities “alternative” media (I did say it was an alternate world, right?) where I”d be collecting a Soros paycheck (alternate worlds by their nature share some traits with our world) to take my red editorial pencil to the output of the Twin Cities’ “alternative” media community.

With that in mind, I thought I’d take a swerve through a “What If”; if I had stayed liberal, and gotten that job with MiniIndiMed.   Here might be my series of revisions – a “red pen”, which will be represented here with red type – to  this Jeff Rosenberg piece on MnPublius:

I’ve been appalled by the MNGOP’s absolute refusal to compromise. They have insisted that they either get every single thing they want or they will shut down our government. It’s an outrage.   [Jeff – I know “victorian vapours” is your gig, but they are doing what they were sent to office,with a resounding mandate, to do.  Feigned outrage looks a little comical after a while – Ed.]

I’m even more outraged, though, when I think of exactly what it is they’re fighting for. I said they insist on getting everything they want. But exactly is that? Here are a few of their top priorities:

Over 100,000 Minnesotans thrown off health care  [Jeff, your link provides no source for this claim.  And when the undecided reader (you have some of those, right?) learns that what the GOP is really doing is transitioning able-bodied, single people off of benefits, and means-testing more, it might tend to undercut your narrative.  Please check into this – Ed.]

Massive cuts to higher education  [More of the same here, Jeff; the “cuts” can be entirely made up by rolling administrative costs back to levels of a couple years ago; and just between and me, you know how much professorial deadwood there is a the U. Please check – Ed.]

A $1.4 billion property tax increase [Jeff, I keep telling you this; eventually, a Republican blogger is going to ask you to show us the bill where the property taxes were increased.  You know it’s absurd, of course – city councils and county commissions do that! – Ed.]

30,000 lost jobs [Jeff, you’re giving me a headache now.  This a number, very likely a random one – something someone at the DFL down on Plato pulled out of their ass to use as a chanting point.  Go ahead and use the number – but know that if you do, people will think MNPublius is some sort of DFL press-release site or something.  You wouldn’t want that, would you?  Of course not! – Ed.]

It’s bad enough that the Republicans are so arrogant they don’t believe they need to compromise. But look at their agenda — look what they’re fighting for. These are absolute disasters for our state. Responsible policymakers would be working hard to protect us from the worst of these cuts. The Republicans, though, are actually fighting for them. [This, on the other hand, is good stuff.  The victorian vapors play well with our base – Ed.]

Governor Dayton is trying to protect Minnesotans from the worst consequences of our budget deficit, while still making needed cuts. The Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to make sure the pain is as bad as possible. [It’s a good thing we don’t pay you to substantiate claims!  Whew! – Ed.]

Every day, in every way, I thank God I took the path I took.

Although that Soros check would be nice.

Where are those Koch Brothers, anyway/

Robert Espinosa – who, to the best of my knowledge, has never said or done anything that didn’t start with a false pretense – is the voice of today’s DFL.

Go for it, DFL.  Embrace your inner, disingenous, narcissistic, solopsistic, childish id. You’re not fooling anyone.

It’s been one of my longest-standing beeves with the education system (among many) that schools have morphed into taking a pseudo-judicial approach to handling disciplinary problems, which faithfully replicates the judicial system’s hidebound, hoary proceduralism, as well as its disregard for people as individuals.

Which makes sense in a judicial system.  Not so much in education.

Nekima Levy-Pounds writing at Learnmore MN notes the ways that the education system has been turned into the minor league for the corrections system:

Teachers, administrators, and parents are often unaware of the critical role that school policies play in determining whether a child is on his or her way to college or prison. In Minnesota, children as young as 10 years old may be incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility for violating the law…Disturbingly, roughly 25% of referrals to the juvenile justice system are made by schools. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, African American children are over-represented amongst those in the juvenile justice system. This carries with it a whole host of consequences, including high rates of trauma experienced by children in detention, a greater likelihood of adult criminality and difficulty reintegrating back into society after being released from detention.

Worse?  The school system invokes the criminal and judicial systems for the dumbest things.  Not just this sort of thing; the urban school systems refer “habitual truants” to the judicial system.

Although some may feel that if you “do the crime, you should do the time,” the lines between childish antics and criminality are often blurred when it comes to conduct that occurs on school premises. For example, when I was a student in school, a school fight would likely result in suspension or in extreme cases, expulsion. Now, when a school fight occurs, the youths involved in the fight may be referred to the school resource officer, who in turn may take the youths to the juvenile detention center (JDC).

Ditto. When I was in school, being a teenage idiot got you a stern talking, and sometimes a pounding, from the assistant principal, Mr. Luttschwager, a 6’6 inch former Marine, and maybe a date with Mr. Buchholtz, a former Marine fighter pilot, who talked all kinds of sense into a kid’s head, without necessarily putting a blot on their record that would dog them for the rest of his life.

Today?

Once a child is taken to the JDC, he or she may spend one or more nights locked in secure detention. The child will then have to appear before a judge, be appointed legal counsel and make grown-up decisions; with or without the involvement of a parent throughout the process. Although many believe that a child’s juvenile record disappears when the child turns 18, this is not often the case, as some juvenile records remain accessible until a child’s 28th birthday. As such, employers and landlords are frequently unwilling to hire someone with a juvenile history. Once this occurs, the child will more likely dive deeper into the criminal justice system and have little hope for breaking the cycle of incarceration.

And it is amazingly easy for a school to turn a matter of teenage hormones and bobbleheadery into a legal matter.

And it needs to stop:

In order to dismantle the school to prison pipeline in Minnesota, we must ensure that the JDC is reserved for only those youths who need to be there. Schools must become more selective about making referrals to the system and find creative and less damaging ways to address misbehavior on the part of students.

Unfortunately, the educational academy is being run according to two motivations that conflict directly with the idea of common sense;

• the academic academy, feminized as it’s become, regards adolescent male behavior of any type as a pathology, and…
• the teachers’ unions have done their best to change education from an intellectual job into an industrial one, with procedures and repeatable process and with policies to cover areas where thought might otherwise be required.

I’m not actually sure that the public education can be saved, anymore.

Here is the list of Minnesota House members who voted for HF1467 – which expands the human right of self-defense, and creates a legal possibility that demonstrably-legitimate self-defense shootings don’t have to plead “guilty with an explanation” for exercising the human right to defend their lives and their families from lethal threats.

If you see your representative on this list, please send them a nice “thank you”.

• Abeler, Jim (R-48B) rep.jim.abeler@house.mn
• Anderson, Bruce (R-19A) rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Paul (R-13A) rep.paul.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Sarah (R-43A) rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn
• Anzelc, Tom (DFL-03A) rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn
• Banaian, King (R-15B) rep.king.banaian@house.mn
• Barrett, Bob (R-17B) rep.bob.barrett@house.mn
• Beard, Michael (R-35A) rep.mike.beard@house.mn
• Benson, Mike (R-30B) rep.mike.benson@house.mn
• Bills, Kurt (R-37B) rep.kurt.bills@house.mn
• Buesgens, Mark (R-35B) rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn
• Cornish, Tony (R-24B) rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
• Crawford, Roger (R-08B) rep.roger.crawford@house.mn
• Daudt, Kurt (R-17A) rep.kurt.daudt@house.mn
• Davids, Greg (R-31B) rep.greg.davids@house.mn
• Dean, Matt (R-52B) rep.matt.dean@house.mn
• Dettmer, Bob (R-52A) rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn
• Dill, David (DFL-06A) rep.david.dill@house.mn
• Downey, Keith (R-41A) rep.keith.downey@house.mn
• Drazkowski, Steve (R-28B) rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
• Eken, Kent (DFL-02A) rep.kent.eken@house.mn
• Erickson, Sondra (R-16A) rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn
• Fabian, Dan (R-01A) rep.dan.fabian@house.mn
• Franson, Mary (R-11B) rep.mary.franson@house.mn
• Garofalo, Pat (R-36B) rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn
• Gottwalt, Steve (R-15A) rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn
• Gruenhagen, Glenn (R-25A) rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn
• Gunther, Bob (R-24A) rep.bob.gunther@house.mn
• Hackbarth, Tom (R-48A) rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn
• Hamilton, Rod (R-22B) rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
• Hancock, David (R-02B) rep.david.hancock@house.mn
• Holberg, Mary Liz (R-36A) rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn
• Hoppe, Joe (R-34B) rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn
• Hosch, Larry (DFL-14B) rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
• Howes, Larry (R-04B) rep.larry.howes@house.mn
• Kath, Kory (DFL-26A) rep.kory.kath@house.mn
• Kelly, Tim (R-28A) rep.tim.kelly@house.mn
• Kieffer, Andrea (R-56B) rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn
• Kiel, Debra (R-01B) rep.deb.kiel@house.mn
• Kiffmeyer, Mary (R-16B) rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn
• Koenen, Lyle (DFL-20B) rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn
• Kriesel, John (R-57A) rep.john.kriesel@house.mn
• Lanning, Morrie (R-09A) rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn
• Leidiger, Ernie (R-34A) rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn
• LeMieur, Mike (R-12B) rep.mike.lemieur@house.mn
• Lohmer, Kathy (R-56A) rep.kathy.lohmer@house.mn
• Loon, Jenifer (R-42B) rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn
• Mack, Tara (R-37A) rep.tara.mack@house.mn
• Marquart, Paul (DFL-09B) rep.paul.marquart@house.mn
• Mazorol, Pat (R-41B) rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn
• McDonald, Joe (R-19B) rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn
• McNamara, Denny (R-57B) rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
• Melin, Carly (DFL-05B) rep.carly.melin@house.mn
• Murdock, Mark (R-10B) rep.mark.murdock@house.mn
• Murray, Rich (R-27A) rep.rich.murray@house.mn
• Myhra, Pam (R-40A) rep.pam.myhra@house.mn
• Nornes, Bud (R-10A) rep.bud.nornes@house.mn
• O’Driscoll, Tim (R-14A) rep.tim.odriscoll@house.mn
• Peppin, Joyce (R-32A) rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn
• Persell, John (DFL-04A) rep.john.persell@house.mn
• Petersen, Branden (R-49B) rep.branden.petersen@house.mn
• Poppe, Jeanne (DFL-27B) rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn
• Quam, Duane (R-29A) rep.duane.quam@house.mn
• Runbeck, Linda (R-53A) rep.linda.runbeck@house.mn
• Sanders, Tim (R-51A) rep.tim.sanders@house.mn
• Schomacker, Joe (R-22A) rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn
• Scott, Peggy (R-49A) rep.peggy.scott@house.mn
• Shimanski, Ron (R-18A) rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
• Smith, Steve (R-33A) rep.steve.smith@house.mn
• Stensrud, Kirk (R-42A) rep.kirk.stensrud@house.mn
• Swedzinski, Chris (R-21A) rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn
• Torkelson, Paul (R-21B) rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn
• Urdahl, Dean (R-18B) rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
• Vogel, Bruce (R-13B) rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn
• Ward, John (DFL-12A) rep.john.ward@house.mn
• Wardlow, Doug (R-38B) rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn
• Westrom, Torrey (R-11A) rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
• Woodard, Kelby (R-25B) rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn
• Zellers, Kurt (R-32B) rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn

I bolded the names of the DFLers who bucked their party’s elitist, anti-civil-liberty stance (knowing that their outstate districts would not be amused); if you are represented by any them, send them an especially nice note.  Gun rights in Minnesota depends, at the moment, on DFLers with principle standing up to the vile, statist rot that is the Metrocrat wing of the party.

The bad news?  Here are the ones that walked in the footsteps of Stalin and Pot and Mao, and voted against the bill:

1. Benson, John (DFL-43B) rep.john.benson@house.mn
2. Brynaert, Kathy (DFL-23B) rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn
3. Carlson Sr., Lyndon (DFL-45B) rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn
4. Champion, Bobby Joe (DFL-58B) rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
5. Clark, Karen (DFL-61A) rep.karen.clark@house.mn
6. Davnie, Jim (DFL-62A) rep.jim.davnie@house.mn
7. Dittrich, Denise (DFL-47A) rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn
8. Doepke, Connie (R-33B) rep.connie.doepke@house.mn
9. Falk, Andrew (DFL-20A) rep.andrew.falk@house.mn
10. Fritz, Patti (DFL-26B) rep.patti.fritz@house.mn
11. Gauthier, Kerry (DFL-07B) rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn
12. Greene, Marion (DFL-60A) rep.marion.greene@house.mn
13. Greiling, Mindy (DFL-54A) rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn
14. Hansen, Rick (DFL-39A) rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
15. Hausman, Alice (DFL-66B) rep.alice.hausman@house.mn
16. Hayden, Jeff (DFL-61B) rep.jeff.hayden@house.mn
17. Hilstrom, Debra (DFL-46B) rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
18. Hilty, Bill (DFL-08A) rep.bill.hilty@house.mn
19. Hornstein, Frank (DFL-60B) rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn
20. Hortman, Melissa (DFL-47B) rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn
21. Huntley, Thomas (DFL-07A) rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn
22. Johnson, Sheldon (DFL-67B) rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
23. Kahn, Phyllis (DFL-59B) rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn
24. Knuth, Kate (DFL-50B) rep.kate.knuth@house.mn
25. Laine, Carolyn (DFL-50A) rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
26. Lenczewski, Ann (DFL-40B) rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn
27. Lesch, John (DFL-66A) rep.john.lesch@house.mn
28. Lillie, Leon (DFL-55A) rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
29. Loeffler, Diane (DFL-59A) rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn
30. Mahoney, Tim (DFL-67A) rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn
31. Mariani, Carlos (DFL-65B) rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn
32. McFarlane, Carol (R-53B) rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn
33. Moran, Rena (DFL-65A) rep.rena.moran@house.mn
34. Morrow, Terry (DFL-23A) rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
35. Mullery, Joe (DFL-58A) rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
36. Murphy, Erin (DFL-64A) rep.erin.murphy@house.mn
37. Murphy, Mary (DFL-06B) rep.mary.murphy@house.mn
38. Nelson, Michael V. (DFL-46A) rep.michael.nelson@house.mn
39. Norton, Kim (DFL-29B) rep.kim.norton@house.mn
40. Paymar, Michael (DFL-64B) rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
41. Pelowski Jr., Gene (DFL-31A) rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn
42. Peterson, Sandra (DFL-45A) rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn
43. Scalze, Bev (DFL-54B) rep.bev.scalze@house.mn
44. Simon, Steve (DFL-44A) rep.steve.simon@house.mn
45. Slawik, Nora (DFL-55B) rep.nora.slawik@house.mn
46. Slocum, Linda (DFL-63B) rep.linda.slocum@house.mn
47. Thissen, Paul (DFL-63A) rep.paul.thissen@house.mn
48. Tillberry, Tom (DFL-51B) rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn
49. Wagenius, Jean (DFL-62B) rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
50. Winkler, Ryan (DFL-44B) rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn

I bolded the two Republicans who should have known better.  If you are represented by either of them – or have an interest – please send them a polite note asking for their reasons.  Feel free to forward them to me, if you get a moment.

As to the other 48?  Most of them are metrocrats.  Most of them would get turned over their chairman’s knee and spanked if they broke with the DFL’s racist, paternalistic party line on this issue.  None of them is authorized to actually consider the facts, and none of them will.

(Lists courtesy of GOCRA)

(SCENE: BUD OLSON and TREVOR PUCKETT, two City of Saint Paul Public Works employees, are having breakfast at Mickey’s Diner on West Seventh Street).

WAITRESS: Here’s your coffee.  Pancakes’ll be up in a minute.  (Walks away).

PUCKETT:  So you get that car for your daughter yet?

OLSON: No.  I’ve been trying to find her one of them rice-burners, a Toyota or a Honda or a Mazda or somethin’.  Can’t find ’em.

PUCKETT: Why’s dat?

OLSON: Oh, cuz of dat “Cash for Clunkers” thing the Republicans foisted on us.

PUCKETT:  Sheesh.  That’s what Chunky, my mechanic – you remember Chunky?

OLSON: Nooo.

PUCKETT: He’s the guy who was at that cookout I threw a couple a years ago, who told that joke about the two nuns and the camel?

OLSON: (shakes head)

PUCKETT: Oh, I laughed.  Anyway – Chunky says that he can’t find used engines, because the Republicans made them pour acid into the engines after da government bought ’em.  If you wanna put a new engine in your winter beater, you gotta buy a new one.

OLSON: Oh, ya.  Anyhoo, used cars are expensive as hell.

(WAITRESS puts plates of pancakes and eggs on table).

(Both men plow into their pancakes).

PUCKETT: So what are you doing today?

OLSON: Me and the crew got teardowns all week.  Just a buncha 1930s houses that got foreclosed, that the banks that own ’em wouldn’t bring up to code.   So the city’s tearin’ em all out!

PUCKETT: Oh, ya.  My brother in law, Harvey – you remember Harvey?

OLSON: No.

PUCKETT: Harvey Torstenson?

OLSON: Nope.

PUCKETT: He’s about yay tall, has a blonde mustache?

OLSON: Not ringin’ a bell.

PUCKETT: Anyway, he’s a sheet-rocker, and when the city passed that law requiring old vacant homes to get brought up to code, he figured he was gonna make a mint, cuz they all gotta get brought up to code!

OLSON: How’s he doin’?

PUCKETT:  Nothin’.  He says it’s Bush’s fault.

OLSON: So how’s your daughter and her husband doing finding a place to live?

PUCKETT: Oh, same s**t, different day. They can’t find a place to rent in Saint Paul that they can afford.

OLSON: Still in your basement?

PUCKETT: Ya.  There’s just noplace to rent out there.  Or nothing they can afford, anyhow.

OLSON: Huh.  Have they tried going to the city?

PUCKETT: Good idea.

OLSON: (Gathers stuff from seat) Well, time to get going.  Another day another dollar.

PUCKETT:  Workin’ hard!

OLSON: Or hardly working!

PUCKETT: (Laughs)