“Hey, why don’t you come over to teh MinnPost to debate?”:  For the same reason I don’t “debate” at MPR, Startribune.com or on much of any other website or blog.   Between my blog, Twitter and, I dunno, my freaking day job, not to mention trying to maintain a modestly-well-adjusted real life, I gotta draw the line somewhere.  I’ve given up a lot of online diversions lately .

And, let’s face it, the MinnPost’s comment section is about the same as the Strib’s these days; it’s all noise and no signal.  Both of them have come to represent the worst of online “discourse”; mostly people who hide behind anonymity to bellow with rage at people who are different than them.   Usenet Newsgroups phoned the Strib and MinnPost comment sections and told ’em to dial back the crazy.

Both are a waste of time.  I try not to waste time.

“Why do you oppose banning teh automatic weapins?”:  They’ve been mostly illegal since 1934.  Seriously – learn the issue before you try to regulate other peoples’ civil rights.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Nope. That is a reasonable “reasonable restriction”.

“If you debate at teh MinnPost you’ll lose!”:  In the same way a black guy walking into a Klan rally will “lose”.  I’ll get shouted down, sure.

But I won’t lose a “Debate”.

In fact, I may as well reiterate this; I’ll meet any liberal figure – blogger, talking head, pundit, reporter (oh, snap), politician, what have you – in an actual debate about anything we mutually care to debate about.  Guns are the hot topic these days – and on Second Amendment issues in particular, I’ll not only meet the libs in an actual debate, I’ll likely make their argument better than they can, before I destroy it.  I’m not limited to guns – we can talk education, taxes, transit, whatever.  I’m pretty solid on all of ’em.  On Second Amendment issues?  Let’s just say I’m confident.

Just saying.  Try me.

In a real debate, mind you; at a neutral location, with some basic “rules” (they don’t have to be all that formal, but shouting matches bore me) and we can go to town.

Recursive institutionalized (heh) pissing matches like “newspaper” comment sections don’t really make the cut, thanks.

“Why are you constantly bagging on the DFL leadership for not supporting gay marriage?  The effort against the Marriage Amendment wasn’t a referendum on gay marriage, after all.”:  That’s not the way “Minnesotans United For All Families” and the rest of the anti-Amendment crowd put it.  Their rhetoric – “we don’t have popularity contests on civil rights!” – wasn’t focused on the procedural battle over what does or doesn’t go into the Constitution.  It was over Adam and Steve and their picket fence.

For Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen not to jam a bill through the legislature that they control largely because of the campaign against the Amendment is intensely hypocritical.  For the people who voted for the DFL based on the Amendment not to demand better of the caucus they elected is a betrayal of Gay Minnesotans.  Now that the left-leaning PPP poll shows Minnesotans supporting gay marriage, there is no reason whatsoever for Bakk and Thissen not to jam this issue down.

Other than political cowardice and hypocrisy.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Asked and answered.  Nope.

“Hahahaha, Merg!  You won’t come to teh MinnPost to debate! You are teh coward!”:  Real debate.  Say when, where, and agree on the rules.  If you’ve got the cojones.  We all know what an “if” that is.

“But Mitch?  There’s a court case in Henco that’ll basically end in legalize gay marriage sooner or later.  Bakk and Thissen needn’t lift a finger”:  Well, there’s a profile in courage for you!

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er, I answered this twice already.  No.

“Mark G***eson says you’re like teh Lord Haw Haw?”:  I get called ugly things by people sitting at the back of the bus that also bark at the moon and have tinfoil wrapped around their heads.  I give ’em about the same weight.
“Hey, Merg!  The Second Amendment refers to “Militia”!  Are you in the National Guard?”:  I’m sorry – were you in treatment for the past five years or something?  The SCOTUS in Heller said “right of the people” means “people” – not government.  We – every able-bodied adult – are the militia.  That means you, me, and everyone around you that doesn’t have a disqualifying criminal record.

 “You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er, no.

“I’m sick of your arguments.  It’s time to re-consider what “reasonable restrictions” are!”:  Well, at face value, I’m with you.  Most of the restrictions that exist today – gun bans like in Chicago, bans on weapons based on cosmetic features – are utterly useless.  Let’s reconsider them!

But that’s not what you’re talking about, is it?  This is sort of like the “new conversation about guns” from a few weeks back, which involved your side talking and my side shutting up.

You want to eliminate the Second Amendment, because you think that civilians shouldn’t have guns.  It disturbs your idea of the natural relationship between people and government, with citizens toiling away and a benevolent government protecting us, like a dutiful parent.  I believe that’s a noxious and repugnant idea of what government is supposed to be, and the Second Amendment helps keep it that way.

“Why don’t you write more about music and history?”:  Oh, I meant to over this past two months, trust me.  Real life – doing my little bit to defend a vital civil right – got in the way.  But there’s more to come.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  Er…

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  It’s cold out, isn’t it?

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  There are no bones in ice cream.

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”:  That surely is a writing implement of immense magnitude.

“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright?  Isn’t that a rather demeaning fiction?”:  You’ve never met my “critics”, have you?

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: Um…

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: …

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: (facepalm)

“You oppose gun control?  So you think felons should have guns?”: …

The media yaks endlessly about the thin film of Minnesota law-enforcement leaders – Dakota County sheriff Bellows and prosecutor Jim Backstrom, Chaska’s Scott Knight and a few others – who bark for gun control when the DFL tells them to.

The following group – related in a news release from the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance – somehow got less coverage (emphasis added):

Yesterday, Minnesota sheriffs — experts in both crime and politics — joined judges and legislators in proposing fact-based, realistic solutions to the problem of violence in our society.

These proposals focused on enforcing existing laws and making government bureaucracies do their jobs without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding 99%

The Minnesota Sheriffs Association, represented by Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek and Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson, laid out five specific recommendations:

Improving the completeness and accuracy of the state criminal records system

Making Minnesota courts quickly and accurately report civil mental health commitments that result in a firearms prohibition

Making these public mental health commitment records instantly available to street cops so they know who they may be facing when they arrive at a call for service

Providing earlier mental health assessments for jail inmates, so they get the help they need sooner

Reassessing Minnesota’s civil commitment laws to ensure that dangerously ill people get the treatment they need

GOCRA fully supports these policy proposals, and applauds the sheriffs and other coalition members for focusing on real, solvable issues, and not on fear-mongering. GOCRA also congratulates Senator Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park), formerly an opponent of gun rights, for signing on to this practical approach.

These elected leaders and sworn law enforcement officials recognize that their law-abiding, gun-owning constituents are not the cause of societal violence, and that infringing on the Constitutional rights that they swore to support and defend will not make us safer.

Their common-sense, to-the-point recommendations should be given immediate attention by the Minnesota Legislature.

You would do well to contact Sheriffs Stanek and Olson – and especially Rep. Latz.  Yes, he’s DFLer, but not only is he one of the DFLers that actually thinks about the issue, he’s one of the first in the metro area to break ranks with the orcs.

Mess with the Second Amendment, and your bottom line is gonna bleed red:

A massive boycott sparked by the NRA and other gun-rights groups outraged that the nation’s largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show’s organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry and outdoorsmen yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states.

It’s also a sign that the Administration’s attempt to drive a wedge between “sportsmen” and defense shooters is failing.

The show is the biggest in the nation and features several outdoors groups, hundreds of exhibitors and the most popular TV hunting show stars. It draws thousands from the Washington-Baltimore area. As the assault rifle ban became known, exhibitors, sponsors and the TV stars withdrew by the dozens.

The NRA is a huge sponsor of the show and pulled out Tuesday after Reed moved to ban assault rifles like Bushmasters and AR-15s at the show. A Bushmaster was used in the Newtown, Conn., shootings, according Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance, and Reed said it was bowing to concerns about the gun in banning it from the show.

Real Americans know that guns are inanimate objects.

The rest of the right could learn a lesson or two from the Second Amendment movement; fire the Beltway consultants and do what’s right, for starters.

…to send my best wishes and prayers to my friend and former NARN colleague Michael Brodkorb and his family.  Michael was critically injured in an accident last night.

And whatever your political point of view, I’d urge you to do the same.

Not much information is available.

UPDATE:  A demented ghoul tried to comment that I was “defending (alleged) drunk driving”.  No; for starters, it’s alleged.  Beyond that?  The time for hashing that out is after he’s recovered.

It’s been a big day for dementees on this blog.

Just a quick note:  this past month of defending the Second Amendment against orcs great and small has taken time away from what’d been intended from this blog’s “hiatus” from political writing, between the election and the opening of the session (and beginning of the 2014 campaign).

Which has meant that two of my pet projects – “Bruce Springsteen is America’s Greatest Conservative Songwriter” and the upcoming “Rethinking The Seventies”, music-wise – have been delayed.

I hope to continue and hopefully conclude the former next week, and kick off the latter the following week.  Hopefully.

‘Til then?  As a mental and musical apertif, I present Sean Hyson’s Top 10 Springsteen workout songs (guesting on Jason Ferrugia’s blog) – a list that’s pretty dang close to the one I’d pick.

(With a thankew to Chief)

I listened to Hillary!’s little outburst in front of Congress yesterday – her “What difference does it make?” outburst, and I thought “Madame de Torquemada just set feminism back 50 years”.  She could not have played the “stop picking on me, I’m a girl” card any more blatantly.

James Taranto:

[WI Senator Ron] Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

“The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

Tobin has more faith in the media-addled American attention span than I do – but we’ll certainly do our best.

Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

I’m trying to imagine the outrage in the media had Ronald Reagan (or his SecState, George Schultz) said “what difference does it make?” after the Marines were blown up in Beirut.

Hillary’s bit about the 3AM phone call was one of the best lines in the 2008 Democrat primary.  About Obama, it’s been resoundingly true.  But I’m guessing that if a President Clinton got awoken by a 3AM phone call, “what difference does it make?” is not the answer the country’ll need, either.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Godwin’s Law says the first person to bring up Hitler in a debate, loses. Is there a comparable law for playing the race card?

“The person who attributes opposition to a public policy proposal to racism is presumed to have no valid arguments in support of the public policy proposal and the opponent no longer need participate in the discussion, having won by default.”

Joe Doakes

Como Park

Well, we should at least try to get this generally accepted.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails to elaborate on the subject of this piece, assailing the MinnPost’s Eric Black’s participation in the resurrection of the long-forgotten “Second Amendment Was Written To Protect Slavery!” meme:

I forgot about this when I wrote to debunk Carl Bogus’ law review article.  Bogus relies for some of his historical evidence about firearms use on Michael Bellesiles, saying:

“Most militiamen were not even good shots.[168] We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America.[169] We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns.[170] When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and [Page 342] fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working.[171] In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: “From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain’s Parliament.”[172]

You remember Michael Bellesiles?  He supposedly studied probate records and found practically nobody owned guns in those days, so he wrote a book called “Arming America” saying the scarcity of private firearms ownership proved the Founding Fathers could not have intended the Second Amendment to refer to private firearms ownership, but must have intended it to refer to government militias.

James Lindgren at Northwestern University writes on The Volokh Conspiracy to remember his work taking Bellesiles down.   And I know you remember how Bellesiles claimed to have lost his research notes in a flood.

No serious historian believes Bellesiles today.   And to the extent Bellesiles is the foundation for Bogus, no serious legal scholar should believe Bogus, either.

Joe Doakes

Como Park

Reading Bogus’ original article, most of the citations are to, well, himself.  But listing Bellesisles is about on par with listing Milli Vanilli.

Brian Lambert may now respond with a dismissive, name-calling bit of snark before going back to metaphorically painting Mark Dayton’s toenails.

While the Minnesota Bar Association is officially non-partisan, most “Trial Lawyers” support the DFL; “Trial Lawyers'” political giving runs about 11-1 for the Democrats, nationwide.

In other words, like most liberals, they’re all for taxes…that affect other people.

But Governor Messinger’s Dayton’s new budget?  That’s different:

Today Gov. Dayton unveiled a budget plan that includes a sales tax on legal services. If the proposal becomes law, Minnesota would become only the fourth state to tax legal services. The Minnesota State Bar Association strongly opposes taxing Minnesota citizens and businesses that need legal advice to plan for their futures and protect themselves.

Robert Enger, a legal aid attorney from Bemidji and president of the Minnesota State Bar Association, refers to a tax on consumers of legal services as a “misery tax.” Individuals and families often need to hire lawyers when they are vulnerable and suffering; such as a victim of the economy filing for bankruptcy, a family facing foreclosure, or an innocent victim paralyzed by a drunk driver. A sales tax on legal services would push citizens to either forego their legal rights or attempt to represent themselves in the complex justice system. Minnesota’s court filing fees are among the highest in the nation, which creates an access to justice problem that will only be exacerbated by taxing legal services.

A 5.5 percent sales tax on lawyers means 5.5 percent fewer people will hire lawyers.

The overwhelming majority of states don’t tax legal services because it is widely considered poor public policy and economically damaging.

(Note: that’s true of every good or service.  But let’s not digress)

Business will be burdened with significant additional costs, and the tax will be especially unfair to small businesses. Corporations large enough to employ lawyers will avoid the sales tax, while smaller businesses will have to pay. Businesses needing legal assistance to expand or locate in Minnesota may choose to do go elsewhere, and Minnesota law firms with national and international practices will have every incentive to relocate attorneys and staff to one of the many states that do not tax legal services.

It’s not just that lawyers are having trouble – although even in good times, Minnesota creates about a third as may lawyer jobs as it does law school graduates.

It’s that when a regular schnook does need a lawyer, it’s usually a stressful situation; it’s already hideously expensive.   And if you need the lawyer to fight a big corporation or any level of government, you’re already at a disadvantage; Governor Messinger’s Daytons’ plan will leave you at a 5.5% worse disadvantage.

To which liberals – in this case, a west-metro DFLer on Twitter – say “Let them eat cake!”:

@mitchpberg @patkessler middle class can go pro se if not poor enough for pub defender & too cheap for atty. Thousands are pro se.

— Sue Lantto (@SueLantto) January 23, 2013

I guess that settles that, then!

Governor Dayton released his list of payoffs to his key contributors budget yesterday.

Is it a coincidence that the budget was called “Budget For A Better Minnesota?”

Maybe.

But the Governor released the budget at an 11AM press conference yesterday.

At 11:13, Carrie Lucking – the “Executive Director” of the “Alliance for a Better Minnesota”, one of the huddle of lefty non-profits via which liberal plutocrats and the unions launder millions of dollars and run the DFL’s entire messaging operation – tweeted:

Thirteen minutes.

Maybe Carrie Lucking is an incredibly fast reader.

Of course, she’s also romantically involved with Dayton’s deputy chief of staff Bob Hume.

A flurry of conservatives on Twitter wondered last night – is that how Lucking got enough detail about the budget, 13 minutes after it was announced, to call a critic a “liar?”

I thought that showed too much faith in Governor Dayton.  I think it’s more likely ABM gave the budget to the Administration.

Either way – I need your help here.

Back in the 2000s, the media spun up a tempest in a teapot over Governor Pawlenty’s involvement with an outside group, and the potential impact that had on the Pawlenty Administration’s message and policies.   It passed quickly, because there was no there there.  But the media gave it its’ 15 minutes.

Does anyone remember the parties involved in that?  I only remember the dimmest possible outlines of the episode.

But compared with the collegial clubbiness between the Twin Cities media – especially the Strib and the MinnPost  – and the various political non-profits and advocacy groups, I think it’d be useful for comparison’s sake.

UPDATE:  I need to point out that the heavy lifting on Twitter was done by Dave Thul and Sheila Kihne.  They smelled the rat.  I just wrote about it.

Brian Lambert took umbrage to Joe Doakes’ and my dissection of Eric Black’s anti-gun piece last week in the MinnPost, which cited a justifiably obscure theory by Dr. Carl Bogus.

Look out! It’s gun owners! At least, according to the MinnPost. I can just see the “job” interviews at the MinnPost; “do you now, or have you ever, supported an originalist interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, or ever blasphemed against the Commerce Clause?” Behold the liberal alt-media.

And Lambert took after that dissection with the keen analytical mind and the rapier logic I’ve associated with Lambo for the 26 years I’ve known him:

At the conservative consortium blog True North, Mitch Berg goes after our Eric Black on the issue of … “gun grabbin’ ”: [lengthy quote from my piece removed] The sweat stains are showing among our gun-fondling friends.

“Grabbin'”.

“Fondlin'”.

Must be that “reporter badge” doing the talking.

Er, “talkin'”.

The 2nd Amendment movement is winning this one.

I thought about writing a long, acerbic piece about Roe V. Wade, the SCOTUS decision handed down forty years ago today.

About how the decision – which sniffed imaginary emanations of penumbras from between the lines of the Constitution – was an incredibly badly-written decision.  About how it was a deeply wrong-headed over-run of the Tenth Amendment.  About the two-faced notion of “rights” that it bequeathed to a couple of generations of identity feminists.

But honestly, it’s all too depressing.  If I were to write a history of the decline and fall of the United States, Roe would have a chapter of its own.

Not just because it legalized infanticide – although that is damning enough.

But because it was, and is, emblematic of the trivialization of thought, of logic and of reason that is degrading our society at every level today.

So celebrate like it’s 1999, baby-killers.

The legislature’s been in session for a week, now.

And after running a fierce, lavishly-funded campaign telling Minnesotans that gay people were just like them, and that we “don’t have popularity contests with civil rights”, there is still no bill to undo Minnesota’s gay marriage ban – because Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen are worried about losing a popularity contest over gay rights.

Gays are planning a Valentine’s Day rally…:

They will hold a “Freedom to Marry Day Rally ” on February 14, kicking off what is expected to be a massive effort to rescind the current law banning same-sex marriage and replace it with a law blessing same-sex unions.

The Capitol effort comes after a multi-million dollar campaign last year that successfully turned back a ballot measure that would have constitutionally banned gay marriage in Minnesota.

Opponents say Minnesota may be the first state in the nation to vote against a same-sex marriage ban but that doesn’t mean the state will accept gay marriage.

…but they’re barking up the wrong tree.

Let’s make sure we’re clear on this; from 2006 to 2010, the DFL and its’ supporters whinged that while they controlled the legislature, they didn’t own the governor’s office, so there was no point to passing the legislation, since it’d just get vetoed.  Which is a lame excuse; if most people did, in fact, favor gay marriage, the futile vote on principle would redound to the DFL’s benefit in the next election.

But that was then.  This is now. The DFL controls both chambers and the governor’s office.  There is absolutely no political reason not to push a gay marriage bill – and if there were a political reason, it should be swept aside because, remember, we don’t have popularity contests with civil rights.

Except guns.

But I digress.  Gays – why aren’t you demanding the DFL get off its ass?

Over the weekend, the left’s chanting-points bots erupted on Twitter with the story of Christian Oberender’s arsenal.  As reported in the Strib by Paul McEnroe and Glenn Howatt (under the rather tabloid-y title “Murderous ‘monster’ acquires an arsenal”), it’s one of those stories that’s intended to put Second Amendment activists on the defensive.

It’s an ugly story, on its surface:

They knew the Delano house far too well. It was where Christian Philip Oberender, then 14 years old, had murdered his mother in a shotgun ambush in the family rec room in 1995.

Now, 18 years later, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson was sending his deputies back to the home where Oberender still lives. Just two days earlier, Olson had scanned the day’s shift reports and froze when he tripped over Oberender’s name. A scan of a Facebook page then showed firearms spread out like a child’s trophies on a bed inside the home, along with notes about the Newtown, Conn., gunman who shot 20 children to death.

A Star Tribune review of state court records found case after case in which individuals deemed mentally ill in judicial proceedings later wound up in possession of guns and accused of violent crimes.

At least 84 people have been charged since 2000 with illegal gun possession or assault with a dangerous weapon even though they had previously been committed by a judge as mentally ill. Of that group, 29 were charged with multiple counts of weapons possession and nine were considered by a judge to be mentally ill and dangerous.

Additionally, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) has more than 168,000 “suspense files” — records on Minnesotans who have been arrested since 1990 but whose files are so incomplete that the state can’t determine if they should have the right to buy guns.

“The system failed in this case,” Olson said in an interview. “We are having discussions with the BCA to make sure there aren’t similar things like this hanging out there.”

How did Christian Oberender succeed in obtaining a gun permit?

The answer lies in a combination of deceit on his part, failures in the state court system, and haphazard data collection by state agencies, according to interviews with law enforcement officials.

No state permit is required to purchase a long rifle or a shotgun in Minnesota. Buyers going to a licensed retailer must pass a federal background check at the counter — but those records can also be incomplete because they are supplied to the FBI by state agencies.

Minnesota’s gun laws don’t require an applicant to provide a fingerprint or a Social Security number to verify identity.

“This was one of our concerns during the ‘Conceal and Carry’ debate in Legislature 10 years ago and it was beaten down like everything else,” said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota, a gun violence prevention organization.

Martens said Oberender’s case highlights the reluctance of lawmakers to tighten gun laws because they fear being accused of infringing on individual rights. “Public schoolteachers have to go through a complete background check, even including a fingerprint,” Martens said. “For buyers of assault weapons and pistols, law enforcement currently has only seven days to verify the person’s identity and criminal history — otherwise, a permit is automatically granted. We should at least allow police enough time to verify the person’sidentity.”

At the BCA, a spokesperson said the agency’s database will catch closely matched names and aliases, but it would not snag a name like the one on Oberender’s application.

In Oberender’s case, the first glitch was that he simply transposed his first name and middle name on the gun permit application, apparently in an attempt to avoid recognition by the BCA’s database.

Additionally, when Oberender applied for his permit, records show, he lied about his mental health history, a move that triggered no red flag in the computers — the BCA’s system doesn’t contain any state commitment records of the mentally ill and dangerous.

Speculation is that, along with the budget, Governor Messinger Dayton will be proposing “reforms” to the state tax code today.

My predictions:

1. The budget will be over $40 billion.  That’s how many chits she he owes.
2. Re: Tax “Reforms”:  I suspect unicorns may actually be involved: Like the French and the Californians, the DFL has a history of assuming money grows on trees, or is borne down from the sky in golden bags on the backs of unicorns.
3. GOP Territory = Salt Mines: Look for Local Government Aid – used as a subsidy of Minneapolis, Saint Paul ,and Duluth – to make a triumphant return, like Lenin coming back to Petrograd. LGA will revert to its nineties-era form; the parts of the state that work (i.e. are mostly GOP) will be impelled to subsidize the parts that don’t (Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Duluth), on top of the parts that LGA was originally supposed to help (small, poor, older towns, and the perpetually-ailing Iron Range).
4. Lots of “aid” to the Iron Range, to help make up for the fact that the metrocrat DFL Environmental movement is going to accelerate the strangling of the mining industry.

Bonus question 1:  Which company will be the first to announce layoffs?

Bonus question 2: Will Governor Messinger Dayton videotape of this event?

With French and African forces bearing down on Islamist rebels, the question arises – is Europe lying to itself about their commitment to Mali?

As Barack Obama declared that “a decade of war is now ending,” French warplanes hit the positions of Islamists who didn’t get the memo.

The re-taking of two Malian towns signified immediate progress for French forces fighting to prevent a Somalia-like failed state in what foreign policy experts call “the largest al Qaeda-controlled space in the world.”  The instability of Mali predates NATO’s Libyan intervention but was significantly exasperated by the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.  Malian fighters, both for and against Gaddafi, flowed into Libya as fast as arms flowed back into Mali once the major fighting was done (to say nothing of the present violence in Libya).

The French intervention has gained tepid material support from the U.S. and NATO allies (with onerous financial strings attached), showcasing once again the limitations of “leading from behind” – including placing a far from resolute President at the heart of the fighting in the shape of French President François Hollande:

It was supposed to be a quick and dramatic blow that would send the Islamists scurrying back to their hide-outs in northern Mali, buying time for the deployment of an African force to stabilize the situation. Instead it is turning into what looks like a complex and drawn-out military and diplomatic operation that Mr. Hollande’s critics are already calling a desert version of a quagmire, like Vietnam or Afghanistan…

Mr. Hollande, who has a reputation for indecisiveness, has certainly taken on a difficult task. The French are fighting to preserve the integrity of a country that is divided in half, of a state that is broken. They are fighting for the survival of an interim government with no democratic legitimacy that took power in the aftermath of a coup.

Hollande has continued the post-WWII French tradition of an obtuse foreign policy.  Despite saying almost nothing on foreign policy during his campaign, Hollande has at once suggested that France will leave Afghanistan, NATO and yet invade Syria.  It’s little wonder than that France’s stated position on Mali is equally confusing.  An objective of “total conquest” (a charged word when fighting Muslims; or so we’re told when a Republican President says something similar) sounds aggressive and determined.  Instead, it represents something entirely different:

Camille Grand, a defense expert and director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said the French objective is “to return to the status quo ante, where those Islamist groups are cornered in the gray zones on the borders, with limited ability to act and not controlling population centers, where it is difficult for them to make raids or take hostages.”

Those goals, he said, are “definitely something that makes sense from a military standpoint. But “if the ultimate objective is to eradicate the presence of radical Islam in the Sahel,” he warned, “it probably won’t happen; it’s a bridge too far for anyone.”

The French offensive is designed to push the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) back to their southern stronghold – a sort of Malian 38th parallel.  Considering there might be as few as 3,000 Tuareg fighters for the MNLA, the French objective might be quickly reached.  What remains less likely is that a French victory along these lines will accomplish anything.  The MNLA, or an offshoot, will likely just regroup and march north again unless Malian government soliders, which have significantly outnumbered the MNLA, can stand their ground.  Talk of French or NATO training of Malian troops sounds promising, but after a decade-plus of a similar commitment to Afghanistan, the historical results of such training don’t look promising.

So we’re left with Libya – the sequel.  Neither Europe, or NATO, or the U.S. have the stomach to resolve the conflict nor stand aside and watch as Mali falls and al-Qaeda gains a new forward base for attacks abroad.  The moves of the French and others thus far provide limited political or military risk, but also limited to nonexistent gains.  Again, like Libya, if Europe or the West want their preferred side to prevail, they’ll likely have to do most of the fighting themselves.  Considering the nomadic Tuareg opposition (literally translated into “abandoned by God”), are solid guerilla tacticians, a long-term French ground war will inevitably bring French casualties.  The intervention is politically popular in France – for now.  What happens if that changes?  The outlook isn’t good when the man in charge is known as “Flanby,” a type of flan dessert.

The lack of U.S. leadership in the matter isn’t going unnoticed in Europe either.  In the choice of victory or defeat in Mali, the American choice seems to be to vote ‘present.’

Over the years on this blog, I’ve made certain observations about human behavior as manifested through online media, like blogs and Twitter.

I’ve captured and codifed some of these observations as “Berg’s Law“, a series of common observations that I’m pretty sure are universal.

One of the most commonly-invoked Laws is “Berg’s Seventh Law”, which states “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.

I’ve rung up quite a number of occurrences of Berg’s 7th over the years. And I’ve found another.

Big-time.

(more…)

Unemployment is the same today as during the last inaugural.

To:  Eric Black, MinnPost
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  The New JournoList?

Mr. Black,

You built your reputation as a reporter.  And for that, I give you all due respect.

I was a reporter, too.  Not much of one; a couple of radio stations, some free-lance print work.  Nothing big, and certainly nothing to build a career out of – but I did learn one thing, and practice it; a reporter is supposed to ask questions.

And while I apply only the broadest possible definition of “journalist” to myself, I do ask questions.  I’m told I’m not bad at it, at least on the radio; even a reporter on your side of the aisle commented on it (I’ll direct you to paragraph 16).  So it’s not a foreign concept to me.

Now, far be it from me to gainsay one of the deans of Minnesota political writing, but I’ve got a question here.

Last week, you wrote about Dr. Carl Bogus’ assertion from fifteen years ago that the Second Amendment was written to protect slavery.  Now, my friend and frequent commenter Joe Doakes – who actually is a lawyer – pointed out that Bogus’ theory is given no weight by the legal academy, because it’s been pretty soundly debunked and, more signally, ignored by legal scholars; Bogus’ theory is only kept alive by anti-gunners who like, as Doakes put it, to “borrow his degree to lend them legitimacy”.

So here’s what I’m curious about.

Bogus published his theory fifteen years ago.  It was roundly shredded in short order.  It was substantially ignored (beyond a few trivial references to incidental research) in the SCOTUS’ debates that led to the Heller and McDonald decisions, which respectively adopted the “individual right” definition of the 2nd Amendment and incorporated that definition onto the states.

And yet somehow last week Bogus’ theory was pulled from legal history’s scrap heap and restored to glorious prominence by the gun-grabber left.

Hey! It’s Confederate soldiers, defending slavery! The MinnPost ran this image in Eric Black’s story last week about Carl Bogus’ theory. I’m never going to let the MinnPost live this one down!

So I got to checking.  The first I heard about it was a comment on my blog on 1/17, which pointed to your article in MinnPost the same day; around that time, I started seeing a lot of lefties on Twitter chanting more or less the same thing.  Danny Glover and Roger Ebert had spoken or written about it, stating the “slavery” theory as settled fact, around the same time.   And the story was churning around the leftyblog fever swamp, as these things do, once the likes of Kos and  Crooks and Liars repeated the meme (which meant every bobbleheaded leftyblog carried it like it was the revealed truth).

Disarmed people – Jews, in this case – dealing with the SS, which is short for “Schützstaffel”, which loosely translated means “Department of Homeland Security”. Connect the dots, people. The MinnPost can run its inflammatory, searing, emotionally manipulative images, I’ll run mine. Mine happen to be good analogies based on historical fact, but whatever.

Now, a concerted Googling (and a reading of your piece) seems to show that the “writing” about the subject links back to last Tuesday, when lefty talk show host Thom Hartmann – who is sort of the Dennis Prager of the left, only without the intelligence or credentials – wrote a piece on the lefty überblogs TruthOut and Smirking Chimp , lavishly citing Bogus’ theory.

Oops, I did it again! More disarmed people! The sign above their heads says “Arbeit Macht Frei”, which is German for “Work Creates Freedom”, which was sort of the “Hope and Change” of the era. Again – you publish your inflammatory, emotionally manipulative images? I’ll publish mine.

And I thought the dynamics of the story were interesting; in two days, the “story” of Bogus’ “theory”, which had laid mostly dormant since being shredded in the court of academic and public opinion half a generation ago, suddenly was on the lips and minds and blogs of, it seemed, every lefty,  from the fever swamp to Hollywood (pardon the redundancy) to, well, MinnPost and a half a million chuckleheaded leftybots on Twitter.

I’ve been writing online for a long time, Mr. Black.  I’ve seen memes come and go.  The “come” side usually takes a while; someone writes something, it gains traction, it holds sway, it rolls away like the tide.  It usually takes a little while.

The Klan attacking black people! And therein lies the real truth – and the Berg’s Seventh Law reference; Gun Control actually has its roots in American racism. The first serious American gun control laws were aimed at – you guessed it – blacks. In fact, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was written in part in response to a Texas law aimed at former slaves who’d been shooting up Klansmen.

But the Bogus  theory went, metaphorically, from zero to sixty in four seconds flat.

Didja notice that?

Anyway, those are the facts; Bogus’ theory came, was shredded, went away for fifteen years, and suddenly re-germinated across the broad swathe of lefty opinion over the course of two measly days.  Now, leaving aside the fact that the theory is, well, bogus (as noted last week) – wouldn’t it have been a useful fact for the reader to know that Bogus’ theory has been languishing in academic obscurity for 15 years for a reason? I know, that would have been a statement against your interest and, I suspect, the MinnPost’s, but it’s kinda significant, no?

But here’s my question:  aren’t you the least bit curious as to the, er, pace at which this meme swept the left?  From “forgotten” to “conventional wisdom” in two days?

It almost seems as if there’s some sort of back-channel communication – one might even call it a list of journalists, absurd as that sounds – a, for lack of a better term, “Journo List” that syncs the leftymedia up on the major chanting points.

No, I know – that’s just crazy talk.  I know.

Anyway – did that strike you as odd in any way?  If not, why?

That is all.

PS:  Well, no.  It’s not.  Because while the theory that the Second Amendment was “about protecting slavery” is pretty much a fringe, fever-swamp conceit, it is a matter of settled historical fact and Constitutional Law that the roots of the gun control movement are intensely racist.

More at noon today.

To: His Holiness, Pope Benedict
From: Mitch Berg, Protestant
Re: None Of Your Business

Your Holiness,

With all respect due to your eminence in your church on spiritual issues, and to your predecessor’s stances in defense of freedom, I must confess that when I see you and your various ecclesiastical bureaucrats saying things like this…:

In an editorial aired yesterday on Vatican Radio, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the press office of the Holy See, called “initiatives announced by the United States government in view of limiting and controlling the diffusion and use of arms … a step in the right direction.

 

“Forty-seven religious leaders of various confessions and religions have issued a call to American politicians to limit firearms, which ‘are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths,’” Lombardi stated in his address. “I’m with them.”

…and especially twaddle like this (I’ll add emphasis)…:

While acknowledging “that arms, throughout the world, are also instruments for legitimate defense,” and even admitting “No one can be under the illusion that limiting their number and use would be enough to impede horrendous massacres in the future,” Lombardi nonetheless asserted “it is necessary to repeat tirelessly our calls for disarmament, to oppose the production, trade, and smuggling of arms of all types.

“If results are achieved, such as international conventions … all the better!” he proclaimed.

…it fills me with protestant pride.

Your line, it seems, is “sorry about all the dead innocents who won’t  be able to defend themselves, but let’s hear it for those great guardians of the sanctity of human life, the U F****ng N”.

Sorry, Fr. Lombardi.  We fought a war in this country at least in part to be free of the rule of monarchs, whether secular or ecclesiastical.  And when I read your church’s official word on self-defense (again, emphasis added)…:

“According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, individuals have a right and a duty to protect their own lives when in danger, and someone who ‘defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow,’” CNS concedes, but offers a significant caveat. “According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to ‘repel aggressors’ or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for ‘those who legitimately hold authority’ and have been given the duty of protecting the community.”

…it puts me in mind of the fact that functional representative democracy came much, much later to the Catholic than the Protestant world for a good reason.

In other words, Fr. Lombardi, your assistance is not needed here.  Thanks.

Here’s “The Racist History of Gun Control” by Clayton Cramer.

And here’s the website for the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talkradio show – brings you the best in Minnesota conservatism, as the Twin Cities media’s sole source of honesty!

• I’m in from 1-3.  I’ll be talking with Andrew Rothman of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, and going over the latest from the Minnesota Legislature.
• Brad Carlson’s show – “The Closer” – is on from 1-3 on Sunday.

(All times Central)

So tune in to all four hours of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, the Twin Cities’ media’s sole guardians of honest news. You have so many options:

• AM1280 in the Metro
• Streaming at AM1280’s Website,
• On Twitter (the Volume 2 show will use hashtag #narn2)
• Check out our new UStream video and chat .
• Send us an SMS text message – 651-243-0390
• Good ol’ telephone – 651-289-4488!
• Podcasts are now available on the AM1280 page!  (Saturday show is #2 – Sunday is #3).
• And make sure you fan us on our new Facebook page!

Join us!

To:  Everyone in the media and alt media that lionizes “PolitiFact”
From: Mitch Berg, person who actually cares about the truth
Re:  Suck It.

All,

Politifact’s “Lie Of The Year” was in fact true.

Please go reassess the tragedy that is your life and career.

That is all.

(Via Bill C)

Remember – tomorrow’s the “Guns Across America” rally, on the steps of the capitol of whatever state you’re in.  Including here in Minnesota.

The Strib has the basic details of the Minnesota rally, without much editorializing.  Or you can go to the Facebook page for all the official info.

I’ll be there before the event, but I’ll have to leave before it starts; it’s smack in the middle of my show-prep time.

Speaking of which, tomorrow’s guest on the NARN will be Andrew Rothman to talk about the President’s power grab and the outlook in the legislature.

We’ll be seeing a lot more stories about the national crisis of fictional girlfriends and “catfishing”, about Kate Middleton’s pregnancy and weight, about Lance Armstrong, and of course about all those precocious children and their demands for gun control

Wny do I predict this?

Just a hunch.