Reaction

I don't understand why it's all of a sudden controversial to suggest that people react to other people's actions and words.

I suspect that there are a fair number of voters who plan to vote for Trump, but know that saying so out loud will expose them to all sorts of negative responses.  So they stay quiet, don't respond to polls, don't post on socials, but they do vote.   Not only do they vote, but the way people portray them actually makes them more likely to vote and it makes them more persuasive when they engage in private conversations with their friends.   

Likewise, if you are always told that you are a "X", why would it be surprising that you end up actually being a "X"?

I've written about this before in the context of simply attacking and demonizing your opponents isn't a good way to win them over.

It's ironic that so many folx get surprised by unintended consequences so often.

Potpourri

One of the people who has influenced my attitudes on issues of "race" is John Perkins, I know he doesn't have the fancy academic credentials some people worship, but he might be one of the wisest people I've ever met.   It's good to see National Geographic agreeing with him.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

This speaks for itself.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-investigates-feminist-grad-student-for-saying-men-cant-become-women/

What a radical notion.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/critical-race-theorys-toxic-destructive-impact-on-america

Hypocrites much?   

https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-council-members-get-private-security-after-threats

Great example of fake news.    The Washington Post headline certainly over promises what the article and the graphs deliver.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-post-beclowns-itself-with-desperate-trump-fact-check

Why do so many people think that Marx offers the best pathway to reconciliation between ethnic groups?

I'm guessing this won't really surprise many people

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/joe-biden-2020-campaign-staff-diversity

Months after making claims about how diverse his staff is; rich, old, white, male, Joe Biden refuses to provide proof of his claims.

That's right POC, Joe's got your back.

Mob Rules

As we increasingly see mobs fanning out across the country to commit crime, and to cleanse the landscape of anything they find offensive, all in the name of fighting "racism", one question keeps coming up.

How does tearing down statues of abolitionists, statues commemorating the freeing of the slaves, or statues of those who led the charge to eradicate slavery promote ending "racism"?

News and fake noose

First, it’s been reported that Chauvin is a Democrat.   Unconfirmed, but wouldn’t be surprised.

Second, apparently after a big demonstration of solidarity and a 15 agent FBI investigation we learn that the noose that caused so much uproar had been there since 2019, and wasn’t actually a noose, as much as a loop in the rope to pull down the garage door. 

More Fake news

The term "fake news" gets thrown around quite a bit, and is probably on the way toward being meaningless because it means everything and nothing simultaneously.  

I think it might be helpful to look at some types of "fake news", and the differences between them.

1.  The "fake news" that comes from people, organizations, or governments who are masquerading as a legitimate news organization with the express purpose of posting stories on social media that are either false, or significantly distorted.   This is essentially propaganda.   Part of what makes these stories seem credible is the profusion of "news outlets" that live on the internet and are independent of traditional news organizations.  Most of these are at least attempting to cover the news, although they likely have a bias that might slant their coverage.   Many of these (Brietbart, Huffpo, etc) have gained some degree of credibility the longer they've existed.   The existence of these types of news outlets, makes it relatively easy to manufacture sites that look and act like the more credible sites pretty easily.   The difference is that they are simply trying to push a narrative with little regard for the accuracy of the "news" they report.   Since social media will push things towards you based on your past consumption, these fake sites will likely align with the views of the reader, which makes them more believable.    At this point, I will more than likely check anything I see on social media if it seems too good to be true.   The spread of these sites is fairly easy to mitigate, as long as people are willing to do the research to verify the stories.  

2.  The other "fake news", which seems a bit more concerning, is when legitimate news organizations report legitimate news falsely.  Now, I'm not talking about mistakes, those happen and are understandable.  I'm talking about things like multiple news sources using edited video to support a story that the unedited video shows to be false.    The other things we see are headlines that are intentionally misleading or that convey a version of the story that is either false, or contradicted in the body of the story.  Of course, eventually there will be "apologies" and maybe "corrections/retractions", but because so much of the impact is in sharing the story on social media, the "correction" is seen by virtually no one compared to the false story.

Both of these are concerning, and both can be mitigated by actions of the consumer.   In short, read the entire story no matter how difficult the ads and page clicks make it.  Check other sources to compare the coverage.  Don't re post things without verifying the accuracy of them.   In short, read the "news" you see on social media with a healthy skepticism.

As far as the first category, you can certainly block/delete/report those sites,  and should do so.  Unfortunately, they'll likely pop back up under a new name with new graphics.  As for the second, I'd suggest that (as with any business) it's your prerogative to patronize business that choose truth and accuracy over falsehood and sensationalism.  

Cup closes again

https://www.fox9.com/news/cup-food-closes-again-citing-safety-concerns-due-to-recent-shootings-in-area

Cup Foods, the business that set in motion the chain of events that ended with George Floyd's death, closed again after a brief reopening. 

It seems as though the owners are concerned about the recent spate of shootings in the area.   Despite the semi permanent memorial in the street in front of Cup Foods, there has been a significant increase in shootings in the area.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/21/1-dead-11-injured-in-uptown-minneapolis-shooting/

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/22/8-hurt-in-separate-n-mpls-shootings-within-2-hours/

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/crime/four-people-shot-monday-afternoon-in-north-minneapolis/89-93ee6dd2-b60f-4bcb-a200-11aa8ff489be

This comes against the backdrop of a recent spate of shootings throughout Minneapolis.  

This seems to beg the question around any connection between that "abolish the police" message from city governmental leaders and the increase in shootings.

I'm not sure why this is surprising

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243665777.html

Apparently, a bunch of PP staff have accused a former boss of racism, and all sorts of other stuff.   I'm shocked that anyone would complain that an organization like PP was engaging in "systemic racism", it just seems like some degree of that would be expected.

Y'all must be so proud

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/06/22/blueleaks-huge-leak-of-police-department-data-follows-george-floyd-protests/#16ff03cb509b

In these times of ethnic strife... Updated

When we're prepared to "cancel" people for even the slightest transgression, no matter how long ago, it seems like appearing in black face (with the obvious exception of military members use of black camo), would be high on the list of sins to be called out.

Yet, it's surprising that there are quite a few "get out of jail free" cards out there as well.   People and institutions that don't seem to get people as upset as others do.

Ralph Northam

The WAPO party guest, the Black Faced Lady

Joy Behar

Justin Trudeau

Howard Stern

Jimmy Kimmel

Ted Danson

Sarah Silverman

Mark Herring

Dov Hikins

Colton Hayes

Billy Crystal

Fred Armisen

Luann de Lesseps

Gigi Hadad

Joni Mitchell

Julianne Hough

Claudia Schiffer

Rob McElhenny

Chris Lilley

Jemie Kennedy

Tracy Ullman

Robert Downey Jr

Tina Fey

Jane Karakowski

John Hamm

Ken Jeong

Sarah Chalke

Zach Braff

Of course, we're seeing certain universities get a pass from the mobs despite being named for racists and slave traders, and let's not ignore the two large non profit organizations founded by racists.  Racists who's avowed purpose was to rid the world of blacks (and others), and who's names are still attached to awards given to people like Hillary Clinton.

Double standard, or not.

This for now.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/nooses-found-in-oakland-being-investigated-as-hate-crimes-mayor/2349557/

People in San Francisco found some ropes hanging from trees in a park, and lost their damn minds.  Even after the black man who put them there explained why, the mayor demanded a "hate crimes" investigation.

Since a "hate crime" is literally based on the intention of the person engaging in an act that is already criminal, it seems strange and out of touch to announce that "intentions don't matter", and to be investigating something that isn't illegal.

This seems excessive

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus3&ei=89nrXvaEE8HbtAa2gbzACA&q=Bring+Me+The+News+MPR+executive+pay&oq=Bring+Me+The+News+MPR+executive+pay&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDIHCCEQChCgATIHCCEQChCgAToHCAAQRxCwAzoFCCEQoAE6CAghEBYQHRAeOgUIIRCrAlDHWFjfkQFg9aoBaABwAHgAgAHiAYgBwxKSAQYxLjE2LjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi2yqPzpIzqAhXBLc0KHbYAD4gQ4dUDCAs

The local bastion of conservative propoganda has fallen on hard times recently.  As they make major staff cuts, one wonders is anyone at a public radio station should be getting paid over $700,000.   I'm going to guess that the folks who donate $100 to get a coffee mug or tote bag didn't think that their donations were going towards such high salaries.   

This is all the more reason for taking "public" radio off the taxpayer teat and letting their programming take it's chances in the marketplace like everyone else.  

This deserves to be seperate.

"What I'm saying in response to that is that we do not have freedoms to oppress and cause harm to people."

Oh my goodness, thank your for repeating this drivel once more, I finally figured out that this was what you were saying.   

1.  Yet we do have the right to engage in activities that harm others.  You've been suggesting for weeks that the rioters had the "right" to riot.  Yet their rioting harmed and oppressed thousands.   By your vague "right to the opportunity to work" standard, anyone who's denied a job could claim harm or oppression.  

"This is why it's against the law in the United States, because we believe in human rights and rightfully legislate against those who would deny human rights to others."

Where exactly do our rights come from?

Is it a "human right" to be hired for any job you apply for?

I saw this today

"End qualified immunity. Get cops to carry individual malpractice insurance. Take the billions normally paid out in settlements and give cops raises to cover the insurance. Can't get insured? You're not a cop anymore."

This might be the most simple, direct, and effective solution to weeding out bad cops I've seen.   Not only does it place the responsibility where it belongs, on the individual, it is a market based solution.   The only refinement I would give would be to incentivize cops by giving them a set pay increase to cover the insurance, (indexed to inflation and to general rate increases) then allowing them to keep the difference if their rates go down because they have no claims.

BVMLTT

"One of the first things the “gospel” of social justice does is strip Jesus of His deity and reduce Him to merely an “oppressed man.” But it wasn’t an oppressed man who raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, and forgave sins. Jesus wasn’t an “oppressed man.” He was the God-man."

Darrell B Harrison

"This is the Church

We will rebuke you when you are wrong

We will forgive you when you repent

But we will not cancel you when you are down...for Christ will not cancel us

"Cancel culture" is not Kingdom culture.

We don't just applaud the righteous, we restore the fallen."

KB (Kevin Burgess)

"I have an idea...For all those people who don't want any police, I'd love to meet with American Airlines, Delta, and Southwest and make a deal to fly them to countries who don't have police.  I want them to be happy!"

Herschel Walker

It's heartwarming to see such a generous offer from such a kind and considerate black man.

"My dad grew up in the deep south as a poor black man and turned himself into an notable athlete, business man, and person.  No, i don't feel bad for 'oppressed' people who run around burning buildings down.  I'm not sorry I'm grateful for the country /the opportunities it's given me."

Christian Walker

“There have always been ignorant people, but they haven't always had college degrees to make them unaware of their ignorance. Some people imagine that they are well informed because they have memorized a whole galaxy of trendy dogmas and fashionable attitudes”

Thomas Sowell

“The root cause of all hatred, including that of ethnic prejudice, is sin. Sin will always be the root cause—always. And because sin will always be the root cause of the problem of hatred—regardless of how that hatred manifests itself—the Gospel will always be the only solution.”

Darrell Harrison 

“Dear Trump Supporters:

We already know that Democrats were slave-supporting Confederates 155 years ago. But we also know whites stopped voting for Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We paid attention in history class while you were telling n****r jokes.”

Keith Boykin

I wonder if Mr CNN commentator knows this is fake news?

"Fighting white people is a skill."

“Some white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom,” which he said was in reference to Heather Heyer, a white woman who died protesting with Black Lives Matter at the 2017 Charlottesville white supremacist rally.

“I’m not going to let that quest for truth get distracted by what some people think my words might make some other people do,” Osei-Frimpong said. “We’re not in college to sugarcoat the truth. We’re in college to figure out what’s going on, figure out its logic [and] how these ideas are produced and sustained.”

Mr Osei-Frimpong

“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.”

"Members of the Jewish community, who owned a lot of plantations, please don’t get angry and upset because this is real history, you put us back on the plantation as share croppers and began riding down on us, and if any of us escaped the plantation many of the Irish that were coming over, they call them the paddy wagon, they would come after us and bring us back to the plantation; those were hard days, hard days.”"

Louis Farrakahn

“Some Africans brutalized, killed, tortured, enslaved and sold other Africans. And all of that is STILL going on even to this day. 

Some black people in America even bought, sold, and owned slaves. 

Why is there absolutely no hostility toward any of them or their descendents?”

Leonydus Johnson 

ome white people may have to die for Black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom… To pretend that’s not the case is ahistorical and generally naive

This man even gets weirder, in his reply concerning the outrage by his comments he told WSB-TV:

I’m confused why that is so controversial

He explained his thoughts further in a Medium post when he wrote:

Killing some white people isn’t genocide; it’s killing some white people…We had to kill some white people to get out of slavery. Maybe if we’d killed more during the 20th century we still wouldn’t talk about racialized voter disenfranchisement and housing, education, and employment discrimination. This should not be controversial.

Read More: Some White People May Have To Die? | https://wbckfm.com/some-white-people-may-have-to-die/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

ome white people may have to die for Black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom… To pretend that’s not the case is ahistorical and generally naive

This man even gets weirder, in his reply concerning the outrage by his comments he told WSB-TV:

I’m confused why that is so controversial

He explained his thoughts further in a Medium post when he wrote:

Killing some white people isn’t genocide; it’s killing some white people…We had to kill some white people to get out of slavery. Maybe if we’d killed more during the 20th century we still wouldn’t talk about racialized voter disenfranchisement and housing, education, and employment discrimination. This should not be controversial.

Read More: Some White People May Have To Die? | https://wbckfm.com/some-white-people-may-have-to-die/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

ome white people may have to die for Black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom… To pretend that’s not the case is ahistorical and generally naive

This man even gets weirder, in his reply concerning the outrage by his comments he told WSB-TV:

I’m confused why that is so controversial

He explained his thoughts further in a Medium post when he wrote:

Killing some white people isn’t genocide; it’s killing some white people…We had to kill some white people to get out of slavery. Maybe if we’d killed more during the 20th century we still wouldn’t talk about racialized voter disenfranchisement and housing, education, and employment discrimination. This should not be controversial.

Read More: Some White People May Have To Die? | https://wbckfm.com/some-white-people-may-have-to-die/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

Dammit

Don’t you hate it when things you’ve defended and politicians you support end up turning out to not be what you thought.

Remember Dan defending the cultural appropriation of the DFL leadership in Kente cloth.  And the woman who couldn’t stay balanced trying to hide looking at her phone.

Then doesn’t it suck when old, embarrassing Bernie photos show up?

The man who should be...

Tim Kaine is apparently a complete idiot.

Do y'all think Northam will wear blackface on Juenteenth?

What is wrong with people

I've seen two videos recently that I have found very disturbing.

In one, an older woman is pushing a cart of something down a street, when a young man walks up to her and punches her in the head, then just keeps on walking as if nothing happened.   Update, the woman was 92 and the assailant has been arrested.   Update 2.  The assailant had been arrested around 100 times, is a sex offender, and was apparently out thanks a DiBlasio program. 

In the other a large , muscular, man (20's ish) chases down a young woman, who falls to the ground.  While she's on the ground that man strikes her repeatedly in the head.  The first, as she's trying to sit up which knocks her back to the ground, then twice more as she lays there defenseless.   Update, the assailant did get the crap knocked out of him. 

Clearly the acts themselves are, or should be disturbing,  as should the ethnic makeup of the people.  Yet what I find most disturbing of all is the fact that people stood by and captured these acts on video without getting involved.   We live in a society where it's more important to capture an assault to post on social media, than to actually get involved and help.

The only possible way to take anything positive from this is that the video might help convict the assailants should they go to court.

New information

Earlier I posted a question based on the contamination of beverages served to LEO that made them sick.  At the time I wrote the post, I was responding to news reports from the mainstream media, and was influenced by the number of "F### the police" and "Kill the police" slogans I've seen spray painted on the OSB over windows here in the riot zone.

Stan, pointed out that there was new information, that demonstrated that the information I based my post on was incorrect.   Given that reality, I had no choice but to delete that post, and post this correction.

While I based my post on the best information available at the time, and posted in good faith that the information was correct,  I felt like the only appropriate course when I learned of the mistake, was to delete it, instead of correct it.

I'd like to hope that this is an example of valuing accurate, correct, and true information over inaccurate, incorrect, and false information.

Thanks to Stan for pointing out my mistake.  I suspect I would have gotten there on my own, but I'm glad he caught me before it stayed up any longer.

Transparency for thee, but not for me

https://meaww.com/minnesota-freedom-fund-spends-200-k-20-million-bail-protesters-internet-demands-transparency

The Newsweek link, perhaps not surprisingly, isn't working.  So, I'll post this one.

For those of you who didn't hear about this, there was a great fundraising effort led by many celebrities to raise money for bail money to bail out the rioters in MN.  

They raised around $20,000,000 for aiding the rioters, looters, and arsonists bail.

And they've spent $200,000.   Shockingly some people are wondering what happened to the rest.

"One user wrote, "Let me get this straight...[million] dollars in donations for bails but $200k has only been used. I might not be a mathematician but something isn’t adding up. We need a breakdown of where the other monies will be going." Another user opined, "This white run organization allegedly collected [millions], and only used $200k to actually bail out protesters. Those of us in the real Black grassroots have been getting folks out of jail on our own. This is why we have to stop the coopt #NoAntiBlackRacism."

MFF's Twitter account has since tweeted, "Appreciate all those calling for transparency. We see y’all. Our values and mission have not changed since 2016. Be on the lookout for things coming on our end. Be well." A user responded, "How are you “working on” it this late in the game? It’s been two weeks since this has started, you couldn’t mobilize any more funds, or commit excess/unused funds to other organizations? Or is that not a priority for your majority white board?""

New Information

My Cousin, who is both a vocal supporter of the protesters/rioters here in town as well as someone who is trying to gentrify South Minneapolis, posted the following on her social media this morning.

"Normalize changing your opinion when presented with new information."

This is one of those things that sounds great when you first read it, but also rings a little wrong.

What is being communicated is that all "information" is equally valid and equally worthy of changing one's opinion.

Clearly the premise that information shouldn't be vetted or researched for accuracy seems flawed.

What I will say is that when I see people who share bad/false information to try to persuade others to agree with the narrative they are promoting, I definitely change my opinion of them.   If your narrative is so fragile that it needs false information to survive that my respect for you will drop significantly.  

Some interesting questions

I pulled some questions from a longer list that I think are interesting.   My posting doesn't indicate agreement with the premises behind the questions, just that I thought they might generate some interesting responses.

1.  Do you think the same laws should apply equally to citizens, regardless of their political opinions, unless they favor the violent overthrow of the government?

2.  Or is it okay for whatever faction is more powerful to silence the expression of contrary ideas, insofar as they can get away with it?

3.  Should we make “hate speech” exceptions to silence people whose speech we really, really hate?

 4.  Should small groups of people be able to dictate public policy without democratically passing laws?

5.  Do you believe that generally, people should be free to associate with whomever they wish, and hire whom they like?

6.  Or should the federal government scrutinize every private decision made by any citizen or business, to see if it has “disparate impact” on minority groups?

7.  Should members of minority groups be subject to similar laws regarding their conduct, or should they be exempt?

8.  Should white males be subject to discrimination, as a non-protected class, while others are protected from it?

9.  Should orthodox Christians be likewise unprotected from discrimination?

10.  Should the government officially adopt the position that sexual “identity” (gay, transgender, etc.) is the moral equivalent of race or ethnicity? Hence disapproval of homosexual or transgender activity amounts to hate, which the government should repress?

11.  If Christianity isn’t true, and the human race emerged by random natural selection, why is racism wrong? What part of “survival of the fittest” forbids it?

12.  Defunding the police and abolishing the nuclear family are key demands of Black Lives Matter. Would doing that help black people or hurt them?

13.  Which non-Christian societies had indigenous abolitionist movements, and got rid of slavery thanks to moral revulsion among citizens? Please list them.

14.  Muhammad enslaved defeated Christians, and taught Muslims to make captured Christian women sex slaves (“concubines”). The Muslim slave trade continued doing that till Western countries stopped them by force in the 19^th century — and ISIS was doing it two years ago. But crowds aren’t attacking mosques. Why is that, do you think?

Defund the police

The above is essentially a hashtag that's become very popular among certain groups of people.  It's awesome, because it can mean anything anyone wants at any time.  This post will be a  place to collect that various ways people interpret this statement and to examine the contradictions.

Not that it'll matter much, but I've been quite clear that we are at a point where significant, even radical, changes to how police operate are appropriate and that one significant step should be to decertify police unions.   I also believe that it's not enough to focus only on the police, but that any reform must put accountability and consequences on the politicians who have failed to halt police corruption for decades.  My problem isn't with the concept, but with the terminology and the scapegoating of the police.

(I've decided that for the purposes of any further discussion of this issue that I will use the term corruption as the primary term to describe police actions.)

The point has been made that police departments spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort ticketing people for traffic violations, I don't disagree with notion.  The question needs to be asked though, "Who is responsible for this focus?".  Is it the individual officers or the department leadership?

Isn't controlling things like speeding, drunk driving, and unsafe vehicles providing an important service to keep the community safe?

Enough editorial comment.  I'll continue to add things as appropriate and I'm sure we'll see additions in the comments.

"Nobody is going to defund the police," Clyburn, the House Majority Whip and one of the leading African American members of Congress, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of The Union." "We can restructure the police forces. Restructure, re-imagine policing. That is what we are going to do."

He continued, "The fact of the matter is that police have a role to play. What we've got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times, one that responds to these communities that they operate in."

Jim Clyburn

"We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive."

BLM

"What does an America with defunded police look like to you?" Ocasio-Cortez responded, "It looks like a suburb."

AOC 

(I hate to break it to AOC, but suburbs fund the police)

"Yes, we mean literally abolish the police."  Congressional Democrats want to make it easier to identify and prosecute police misconduct; Joe Biden wants to give police departments $300 million. But efforts to solve police violence through liberal reforms like these have failed for nearly a century," Kaba began. "Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police."

Kaba claimed there was "not a single era" in American history when the police was not a "force of violence against black people" dating back to slavery.

"When you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America" from officers who believe it's "his job," Kaba wrote.

 Mariame Kaba

I saw a story on the local news over the weekend

The reporter interviewed multiple young women of African American descent who were protesting that the U should remove the campus police.

We've also seen a significant number of rapes around the Twin Cities campus of the U.  In 2017 there were 93 with another 45 at two other U of MN campuses.

One rapist in particular was arrested for multiple sexual assaults over a period of at least 4 years in the neighborhood surrounding the U.

We're told that sexual assault is very high in and around college campuses, so it seems strange and inconsistent for women to be advocating for removal of campus police after the U severed it's ties with the MPD.

On a slightly different note, the top two stories on one local news station were about the notion of "defund the police".  The third story was about an incident in North where 6 people were shot outside a bar late it night.   But, we don't need cops.

Empathy

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a growing number of social media posts discussing the fact that the poster had a family member who had died recently and expressing sadness that they were unable to be with them.    The other thing I'm seeing is people who are being forced to limit attendance at funerals or to forgo or postpone funerals already.  

I suspect that as these people watch the news and see thousands of people gather with impunity, that they are asking themselves something like "Why isn't my loved one important enough to die with family present, or to mourn together?".

I further wonder what the Jewish congregations in NYC thing as DiBlasio sends cops to prevent them from holding services, while thousands gather to protest, riot, and loot.

it's becoming more and more clear that the Covid reaction was an overreaction, and that any semblance of justification for social distancing or limiting numbers of gatherings, is a joke. 

I feel sorry for the small business owners whose life's work has been severely damaged or destroyed, and for those whose loved ones have had to die alone, all based on really bad science.

To the folks who've occupied part of Seattle and seceeded...

It's an interesting commentary on their priorities that one of the first things they did was steal the materials to build a wall.  It's almost like they believe walls are effective and valuable.

As I saw their please for food, water, and supplies, I couldn't help but wonder if they actually know what the word "autonomous" means.

One wonders if their autonomy extends to commandeering the plumbing of others, or if they'll follow the lead of San Francisco and just leave fill the streets with excrement.  At some point, I suspect that it will get so bad that they'll move the autonomous district to somewhere not covered in crap, or open the wall long enough to let people clean up their mess.

If you had to guess

"One Massive Satanic Ritual of Dehumanization"

If you came across something with the above title, what guesses/assumptions would you make about their political/theological position?

Celebration!!!

I'm so excited!  I just can't hide it!

Dan gave me permission to exercise my first amendment right to express myself how I want to!!!

Dan give me his blessing and permission to quote whoever I want to on my very own blog!!!!

Isn't that generous!!!!!

Of course, it's conditional.  I can only quote the people I want to quote if I abide by his rules.  

So, maybe celebration is premature.

Can we agree?

Can we agree that completely eliminating all police is not a good idea?

The MI protest and Boston Tea Party protest fallacies.

I'm going to try for two in one post today.

1.  The "MI protesters were protesting because they didn't want to wear masks" fallacy.

The MI protesters were quite clear about the fact that their protest was about government overreach, and how their governor was handling policies regarding the reopening or more stringent lock down of the state.   The MI narrative was "Look at the scary guys with scary guns." protesting.   Yet, those guys for the most part stood quietly.  They certainly, not that I'd seen, didn't brandish their weapons, or engage in any actions that would have signaled the intent to harm others.  In general the MI protest was peaceful, if one applies the current standard of how peaceful protest is defined, the MI protest was damn near a Zen garden.   Further, the MI protesters protested, made their point, and left.  

The MI protesters didn't riot for days on end.  They didn't attract "white supremacist agitators" who pushed things out of control.  They burned nothing, robbed no one, robbed no banks, killed no LEO's.  In short, they were the polar opposite of these recent protests.  They seemed to even respect social distancing more that the Floyd protesters/rioters.   There really is absolutely zero equivalence to be had in this comparison.

2.  The "Tea Party" fallacy.

I won't belabor the actions of the Floyd rioters again, we see it every night on TV.

The Boston Tea Party was a well planned, well organized, limited, specific action, directed at a specific unjust tax.   Yes, it was after many other injustices perpetrated by the crown, but this was not an out of control generalized wanton destruction. 

The perpetrators were a "quasi official" group representing the forming (soon to be formed Continental government).  They quietly infiltrated the specific ships carrying the tea subject to the new tax,  took great pains to make sure that they destroyed or damaged nothing except the tea, cleaned up and left quietly.   They even went to the trouble to replace a lock that was broken.

What these men weren't doing was looking for personal gain.  In reality the Tea Party and following events probably cause them more harm that they caused to the crown.   These men has a specific (arguably noble) purpose in their act.  (It could be argued that the "goal" of the rioters was noble as well)  They were trying to send a specific, direct message to the crown, and succeeded.   Finally, these men engaged in this act knowing that if they were caught, that the likely outcome was death.  

It seems pretty obvious that the comparisons between these two acts as at best only superficial, at worst in service of a false narrative built on falsehood.   Both fallacies seem to be an attempt to give the rioters a veneer of legitimacy and justification.

Bricks and Mortar

The "Bricks and Mortar" defense is something that in a society that claims to value lives sounds like it should be true.  However, in the context of the riots, is problematic.

The reason it's problematic is that it is a distortion and false representation of what people are actually saying.

1.  It ignores or misstates that many of the buildings burned down contained businesses, and that businesses are people.

    A.  In the case of the large businesses, it's the people who work there, shop there, bank there, or otherwise patronize the business.  It's the parents who can't got to the store for necessities or to the drug store for medication.

B.  In the case of small business, the buildings contained years of effort, money, sacrifices, and dreams.  To many people, owning your own business is the pinnacle of the American Dream, yet we've seen business owners who've weathered 2 months of being shut down see their business destroyed on the cusp of reopening.

2.  It ignores or misstates the fact that private property is foundational to our economic system and tto deprive someone of their private property does in fact harm the property owner.

3.  It's simplistic.  It ignores the fact that most humans can acknowledge that wrongly killing a person is a horrific thing, and they can acknowledge that wanton destruction of both property as well as people's lives is also horrific.   They aren't the same, they aren't equal, but acknowledging both doesn't diminish either.  

4.  It ignores the plight of the thousands of Twin Cities residents who live in substandard housing.  This affordable housing deficit is partially caused by the city/county governments.  The fact that 400 families who had hope of access to newly constructed affordable housing, now don't have that hope is a real blow to those families. 

5.  Insurance can be expensive.  Many small business owners have had to cut expenses because they've been denied customers, to varying degrees, since March.  Often, one budget item that gets cut when money gets tight is insurance.  To blithely assume that everyone who owns a business has enough insurance to get through the rebuilding phase unaffected is shortsighted and foolish.   Further, what of the business owner who has adequate insurance, but who's landlord decided to forgo insurance?  Insurance is a great thing, but it's rarely ever a 100% substitute for business income.

George Floyd's death was a tragedy.  It was an avoidable tragedy.  First, he could have chosen not to engage in the behavior that caused the Cup Foods employee to call 911.  That may be difficult to accept, but it's true.  Second, the city of MPLS could have done a better job of disciplining/reassigning/firing Chauvin so he wouldn't have been anywhere near 38th and Chicago.  Third, the other officers could/should have intervened and gotten Chauvin off of Floyd.  Fourth, the bystanders could have intervened (I know that would have entailed risk to them, but I think that "laying down one's life for a friend" is a pretty good thing), I'm pretty familiar with that corner and can't believe that there weren't enough bystanders around to have affected the situation.    I'm sure there are other ways that Floyd's death could have been avoided.   Yet once Floyd was killed, the rioting, looting, arson, etc was not inevitable, it could have been avoided as well.

I'll close by saying that despite the harm inflicted some of the innocent citizens of MPLS, their fellow citizens (from throughout the metro) have banded together to provide necessities, to clean up the damage, to donate millions of dollars to pay for rebuilding.   These aren't things that the city/county government have done.  It's an organic, multi ethnic, multi generational, outpouring of concern for those harmed by the rioters.     It's that sort of coming together around a tragedy that will go a long way towards healing.

Hope

Amid the destruction wrought on MPLS over the last several days, there is one shining beacon of hope among the boarded up and burned out storefronts.   As we see large groups of people of all ethnicities,  skin colors, religions, representing countries from around the globe gathering to extol the value of "Black Lives", and thousands of those people band together to clean up the damage, and collect and distribute necessary supplies to the innocent victims, one beacon shines brightly.

That's right Planned Parenthood is open for business.  Pandemics, riots, looting, and burning can't get in the way of abortion.

Stand proud MPLS, you've got your priorities straight.

Excuses

I've seen several excuses offered as a way to try to life the responsibility that is currently the centered in the Corcoran neighborhood in MPLS, but which extends as far away as N MPLS.    This carnage includes, but isn't limited to, recreation of a food desert after years of trying to correct that imbalance, destruction of @400 units of affordable housing in a city that has a massive deficit of affordable housing, the removal of public transit which many depend on, the removal of virtually all drug stores, denying the sick access to prescription, and finally the destruction of a large number of small businesses owned by POC.   I'd like to list those here than look into them all later.

1.  The "Bricks and mortar isn't as valuable as one human life" defense.

2.  The "Well, white people in MI protested because they didn't want to wear masks." defense.

3.  The "Riot is the language of the unheard" defense.

4.  The "Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple." defense.

5.  The "75,000 agitators are coming from out of state to disrupt the peaceful protests" defense and the corollary, the "Don't believe the video you see of "black folks" rioting, looting, and damaging things, it's really white supremacists." defense.

6.  The Boston Tea Party defense.

I'm sure there are some others, but for now these are the ones that predominate.

I may also take on the "The police exist to protect our lives and property and to prevent things fallacy."

I'm not going to allow comments on this, I will on the individual posts. 

Big News

Walz, decided that it was expedient to try to appease the protesters by throwing the elected Hennepin county DA under the bus and to appoint Kieth Ellison in his place.  

While I think that it's a tacit acknowledgement that the current county and state prosecutor system is corrupt and that Walz, Ellison, and the County commissioners have failed to either discipline or replace Mike Freeman who has been the Hennepin County DA for 23 of the last 29 years.    After being reelectd by an "wide margin in  2006".

On a purely political level, the optics of an apparently popular and well respected DA being yanked look like the governor overturning the will of the voters.    Having said that, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the Hennepin county residents protesting him and his corruption have voted for him multiple times.  One wonders why a people being oppressed by a particular elected official would continue to vote for him.  But that's neither here nor there.

Ellison on the other hand, has (along with his son) come out supporting or appearing to support ANTIFA, which doesn't seem like a particularly good look, but who knows.  

My personal experience with Ellison a fairly extensive audience with him in his DC congressional office, left me unimpressed.  But again, that's neither here nor there.   As is Ellison's checkered legal history.  He's had documented problems with campaign finance irregularities, failure to pay traffic tickets, and failure to pay income taxes.  In addition to the highly publicized domestic abuse charges.

I'll have to look, but I suspect Mike Freeman was involved in the decision not to investigate/prosecute Ellison.  

For all of this grandstanding, and attempts to appease the crowd, this decision is pretty meaningless.  The actual work of the investigation and prosecution will likely be done by experienced, professional investigators and attorneys.  The only real difference is that, in the event that there is no conviction, Ellison is much more likely to escape with relatively little political damage.  The only box Ellison doesn't check on the protected class bingo card is "woman", and as we know that can change instantly if it's necessary.

I think that History shows what happens when appeasement is tried, and we'll have to wait and see how this goes.  I do think that given the fact that the "system" that everyone is complaining about is the same "system" that gave us Ellison, Frey, Carter, Walz, Ellison, etc.  Sure looks like a fox/chicken coop situation to me.