Taking Mitch Berg more seriously than he deserves.

Basically, Berg is not someone whose opinions I read. Looking once or twice, yawn. However, Brian Lambert's Glean, here, IS worth reading and mentions Berg saying stupid stuff about Amy Koch's as yet unfrocked paramour, but without linking to the specific Berg post. I had to wade through all that cr stuff at Berg's dark shooting, .and he referred back to his stuff that Lambert mentioned, but without any link back. Well, Berg's new stuff, not worth looking at at all, here; with the older stuff Lambert mentioned, here. Read Lambert, and as much Berg as you can take. Without any Berg, you get the gist from Lambert's writing.

Basically Berg says Brodkorb can sue many for following a logical implication that can be reached from considering circumstantial evidence, a logical step since as Berg and Lambert note there is no direect evidence, no Brodkorb saying it was/was not him as "male staffer" inappropriately relating to Koch, with her equally silent. Specifically Berg dislikes the most reasonable circumstantial inference, that Brodkorb's firing and the near contemporaneous disclosure by Geoff Michel and henchmen of Koch's "inappropriate affair," and her stepping down as GOP Senate boss, are somehow connected, i.e., Berg dislikes drawing the circumstantial conclusion Koch and Brodkorb at some point might have been inapproriately connected. All Brodkorb needs to do is publicly deny it. Clearly. One can circumstantially infer why he declines.

Berg-wise, Let's say this.

.........................
1. Brodkorb's employment with the Minnesota Senate was at will, he could be terminated or could quit at any time, for any reason or for no reason. (That's been reported as fact, affirmatively stated to the press by a senate staff muck-a-muck, and is something Berg does not contradict or deny).

2. Koch's affair, whatever its nature, was at will; she could have ended it at any time for any reason, or for no reason. It is the nature of such things unless the "inappropriate relationship" was a coerced loan or something akin, where one cannot lawfully terminate a pay back relationship and duty, "at will." Ditto, at will, for the "male staffer" in the "inappropriate relationship."

3. Brodkorb's severance from his big Senate paycheck was related to his "at will" status.
........................


I hope Mitch Berg might like that better. Not too many "at will" references to confuse him.

BOTTOM LINE: The Minnesota Senate is better off with Brodkorb gone because he was a partisan hack on staff in a position that was supposed to be for communication of Senate matters, not his own opinions and prejudices. (That's a matter of judgment and opinion where Mitch Berg can disagree, if anybody cares.)

Moving on, of interest within Berg's dark shooting, he likes Ron Rand Paul; he lists "Dumbest Arguments For Public Subsidy For A Vikings Stadium," and, as Republicans are prone to absurd simplifications, he limits it to seven.

There are more. Some dumber, but that's opinion too. One Berg disagrees with, seven being agreeable to him. Whether creationism is at play in a choice of seven, that would be a circumferential, circumstantial inference for the preference for seven which might equally be based on his liking the one Kurosawa film.

This is the last you will likely ever read on Crabgrass about Mitch Berg, and I expect he cares little about Crabgrass either way, likely not reading it (or if reading it, not being educated to any modification of his own opinions by the experience).