Pages

Friday, March 09, 2012

Brian Lambert juxtaposes Bruininks and Franson news. One story is of government dependence for extreme largesse, the other a story of berating dependence of the poor on the government to have enough to eat. With the two stories as sequenced, you wonder, is Franson flogging the wrong "government dependence" situation?

Start with the thought that whenever the government spends outside of intergovernmental payments, it is giving some money raised by taxes and fees, to others outside of government - witness the host of planner-consultants that feed off the Met Council's frivolous demands for vision-and-revision Comprehensive Plans. Witness BNSF gains from Northstar commuter rail spending - they own the tracks and exact a very favorable fee. Witness Department of Defense spending. Witness Wilfare in all its hoped-for governmental dependence glory. Witness programs aimed at helping the hungry and homeless. Witness top-down taking care of friends, at the U. of Minn. I am at a loss to see why Ms. Franson's wise-assed venture into bad humor is not aimed at real culprits beyond the truly needy.

It seems an unbalanced and uncharitable world view to verbally beat up on the poor, who already have hard times merely surviving in the absence of Franson commentary against them.

Turning a blind eye to excesses of the wealthy [and powerful and connected, with ways to make a reply or gain a revenge] and instead whomping up sanctimoniously on the needy looks to be an attempt at slugging a punching bag rather than taking on a fighting opponent. Beat up the downtrodden, they don't fight back, or were not expected to, by Franson. But the thing backfired. It went viral. Objections were voiced. Then knight-on-charger Mitch Berg with his always exceptional rhetoric comes to the damsel's rescue. It's a set of stories fit to print. Or as Brian Lalbert tells it by sequencing, one thread of a story in all:

GOP Rep. Mary Franson’s problems are not receding. As Don Davis of the Forum papers reports: “Protesters chanted for Rep. Mary Franson to resign and a liberal organization submitted a petition this morning demanding that she apologize after making comments that some say insulted poor Minnesotans. Welfare Rights Committee members held signs proclaiming “People are not animals ever” and “Rep. Franson, you are out of touch” as they waited for her to go into a House Agriculture Committee meeting in the State Office Building across from the Capitol. The reaction was to a video the Alexandria Republican posted Friday on YouTube in which she said: ‘I’ll read you this little funny clip that we got from a friend. It says, ‘Isn’t it ironic that the food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to please not feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.’ ”

On the conservative blog “Hot Air,” Mitch Berg responds, saying: “Franson has been a lighting rod for Minnesota’s demented left for a long time now. A Central Minnesota teacher and leftyblogger apparently expressly condoned some of the local droogs-in-the-making in bullying one of Franson’s children in school because, in his role as moral judge, jury and executioner, he figured it served her right, having a parent who opposed gay marriage (LL has the audio; it’s a fairly searing indictment of the “Clockwork Orange”-y inner id of way too much of public education today, not to mention the dingo-like morality of a good 80% of Minnesota leftybloggers). By extension, it served her right, being a conservative woman. Because women, like blacks and latinos and gays, are supposed to be liberals. And if they wander off the reservation, there need to be consequences. … So the story is this: the hyenas of the Ministry of Truth twist Franson’s statement far out of context to whip up hysteria – part of a long-running campaign to harass Franson and, indeed, all conservative women, to make being involved in politics too emotionally draining for all but the supernaturally-toughest conservative women (and by God, your leading conservative women could make a Navy SEAL cry uncle). Hysteria duly ensues, with less-mentally-gifted DFLers promising one of their made-to-order mini-riots on Saturday.” Now THAT, my friends, is working up a sweat.

Sarah Janecek praises Stribber Anthony Kennedy’s eyebrow-raising piece on former U of M President Bob Bruininks’ new, well-feathered nest. Then she says: “As best I understand Bruininks’ feather defense is that the money he channeled to the U’s Center for Integrative Leadership (CIL) was used to leverage a million dollar contribution from Marylin Carlson Nelson. Let me respectfully suggest that Carlson would have made the contribution regardless of who was doing the asking. After all, Carlson chairs the CIL. Further, the U’s Carlson School of Management and the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs share oversight of the center.”... From my perch as an alum of the College of Liberal Arts and the Law School, Bruininks seemed to do an ok job running the U. But, really, Bob? You just finished a tenure as President of the U from 2002-2011. In that position, you made $733,421 a year. [Plus you had no mortgage or expenses to pay while you were living at Eastcliff.] Then, you received $455,000 last year to take year-long a break for the purpose of ‘assisting [your] return to the University.’ Now you’re going to make $341,000 (plus a benefits package that has not been disclosed) in your new faculty role at the CIL. And you finessed another $355,000 out of mystery funds — while you were President — to take care of long-time staffers.”

The above quoted commentary is in the middle of Lambert's gleaning of current news, and his links were omitted, so, again, the entire Lambert item on MinnPost is here.

Until reading Lambert's webpost, I was unaware of Sarah Janacek's exceptional coverage and commentary, here.

Janecek's choice of target strikes me as better than Franson's. The experienced Republican vs the sanctimonious one. One writing something worth reading, vs the other, whose cliche has value only in watching its ripple effects.

If you care, the other thing Lambert linked to, Berg-spin at the "Hot Air" outlet, is here.

Again, Janacek's coverage and commentary is excellent. Berg is worth a look. Janacek cuts at "government dependence" excess, of the real and offensive kind, taking on an enemey Franson blind-eyed for certain.

Berg wants to deflect attention to overreaction against the messenger because of distastefulness of the message (one which the messenger voluntarily - even gleefully - offered). There is some value in noting and opposing a kill the messenger reaction over a message, it is a part of things, but to elevate that as the key dimension when the real news is an outrageous, tactless, merciless messenger and message pairing - an ill-phrased policy message from a legislator - it is news that Berg's spinning of the real news is at play, intentionally so, by a partisan such as Berg, to attempt to deflect attention from what has been actual news.

You might disagree with my view: Berg spins. Janacek analyzes and reports. But you can legitimately do so only if you read what the two of them say and then think about it first.

________UPDATE________
Sarah Janecek has been writing some good stuff. During her coverage of the Koch-Brodkorb situation, I bookmarked

http://sarahjanecek.com/

But then I neglected to keep reading her web posting. That was a mistake. Have a look at what she's said before the latest Bruininks-UMinn material - between the Koch-Brodkorb coverage and the latest. She is worth reading.