April 13-14, 2015
Apr 13 00:07 Narrative-driven media Apr 13 09:40 Transportation philosophy Apr 13 14:32 Rubio: Hillary is yesterday Apr 14 00:34 TNR already attacking Sen. Rubio Apr 14 01:52 The 'freshman senator' argument Apr 14 06:57 Minnesota needs more lawyers? Apr 14 12:27 Necessity: the mother of re-invention Apr 14 12:59 Wasserman-Schultz chimes in
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Narrative-driven media
Much has been written recently by conservatives about narrative-driven reporting. That's the latest nickname for something I started talking about in March, 2006. Back then, I coined the phrase Agenda Media . Glenn Reynolds' USA Today column is just a newer way of talking about the same thing. Here's how Reynolds breaks things down:
Why did Rolling Stone make such a colossal - and, potentially, very expensive - mistake? Like The Times editors, the editors at Rolling Stone had bought thoroughly into a narrative. For The Times, it was the hypocritical NRA. For Rolling Stone, it was sexually predatory fraternity members. In both cases, excitement about this narrative led to the reporting of things that weren't true, and humiliation for the reporters and editors.
Ultimately, Rolling Stone and the NYTimes published those articles for this reason:
The other thing these stories have in common is that they all served Democratic Party talking points, whether based on anti-gun thinking, "war on women" sloganeering, or pro-Hillary sentiment. For whom journalists are rooting, of course, is no mystery to most news media consumers, but it's telling that the errors so often point in the same direction. (As columnist Kurt Schlichter tweeted, the corrections to news stories never seem to make conservatives look worse than the original.) That's a diversity problem, too, of course: When everyone in the newsroom shares the same political leaning, groupthink and outright propagandizing get a lot easier.
That's just a more polished way of saying what I've written about since 2006. The Agenda Media isn't interested in reporting the truth. They have to oppose the truth if they want to stay on the Democratic Party's good side. The Agenda Media isn't about old-fashioned reporting of facts. It's about advancing the hardline progressives' agenda. If that requires lying, then that's what they'll do without hesitation.
The secret to being an accepted member of the Agenda Media just requires a few things. First, you can't have a conscience. Next, you have to love the hardline progressives' political agenda more than you love the truth. Third, you have to follow the hardline progressives' chanting points without question. Finally, you must enthusiastically deny that you have an agenda even if a conservative exposes your agenda.
Posted Monday, April 13, 2015 12:07 AM
No comments.
Transportation philosophy
The DFL is opposed to not raising every Minnesotan's taxes. The Dayton-DFL transportation plan would impose a tax increase on everyone who owns a vehicle. It would also impose a tax increase on everyone in the 7-county metro area via a sales tax increase. The 7-county sales tax increase is collected from anyone buying things in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties. The sales tax revenue collected, however, mainly gets funneled into transit projects in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
The Move MN plan isn't focused. It wants to raise taxes on everyone to pay for this list of items :
Any plan that prioritizes everything doesn't prioritize anything.
Minnesotans are imploring politicians to fix their roads and fill their potholes. The Republican plan focuses their attention on that. In fact, the Republican plan essentially told transit lobbyists that they're on their own. That's a bit of an oversimplification but it isn't an outrageous oversimplification.
If I polled Minnesotans what they wanted their money spent on this session, bike trails and pedestrian infrastructure wouldn't break the top 25 items. It just isn't a priority. It wouldn't be surprising if that same imaginary poll found that transit projects in the 7-county metro area would be a priority for a plurality of voters in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
Predictably, the DFL is outraged by the Republicans' plan. It's predictable because Republicans listened to Minnesotans' priorities while the DFL listened to transportation lobbyists. The DFL opposes redirecting the sales taxes away from the general fund.
The question Minnesotans should ask DFL legislators is straightforward. Why should taxes collected on vehicles and auto parts not be part of the solution for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges? Another question that would be appropriate to ask is why those sales taxes are being directed at anything from funding corrupt organizations like Community Action of Minneapolis to funding MnSCU's Central Office to paying for outrageous pay raises for Gov. Dayton's commissioners .
Follow this link for more on this subject.
Posted Monday, April 13, 2015 9:40 AM
No comments.
Rubio: Hillary is yesterday
I've frequently said that Marco Rubio will highlight the image that he's the future and that Hillary's 'sell-by date' had passed. This article verifies that I was on the right track:
Portraying Clinton as a candidate of the past, Rubio, 43, talked about the opportunity awaiting the GOP as it seeks to recapture the White House after eight years out of power.
"The Republican Party, for the first time in a long time, has a chance in this election to be the party of the future," Rubio said on the call. "Just yesterday, we heard from a leader from yesterday who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow."
Hillary will do her best to run away from Washington, DC, partially because the average voter doesn't have a positive opinion of DC but partially because she's had a high profile, non-productive career as a Washington fixture. When initially asked what her accomplishments were, State Department officials touted the fact that she'd put on more air miles as Secretary of State than any of her predecessors.
Appropriately, Carly Fiorina brought the house down at CPAC with this riff:
In a debate on foreign policy, there's no question in my mind that Sen. Rubio would convincingly win that debate with Hillary, starting with her giving the Russian foreign minister that gimmicky-looking reset button. Part of the reason why Sen. Rubio would convincingly win that debate is because Hillary would either have to defend a pathetic Obama foreign policy or she'd have to distance herself from President Obama's foreign policy.
If Hillary runs away from the Obama administration's foreign policy, she'd open herself up to charges of being less than forthright. That plays into the narrative that's haunted Hillary for 25 years in DC. That's a damned if you, damned if you don't situation.
The other thing working against Hillary is the fact that he's youthful and energetic, 2 words that aren't associated with Hillary. That isn't sexist. It's politics in the TV age. Starting in 1960, image has mattered. In that Kennedy-Nixon debate, people that listened to the debate thought Nixon won it. People that watched it thought JFK won it.
It's been that way ever since.
The other thing that's working against Hillary is that she isn't a great campaigner. Her book tour was a disaster. Yesterday, Hillary's team botched it with this:
Bill's people never would've made that mistake. Period. For all the credit she's been given for being a top-tier candidate, there's ample proof that suggests she isn't. Winning the Democratic nomination will be relatively easy. Winning the general election is an entirely different matter.
Posted Monday, April 13, 2015 2:32 PM
No comments.
TNR already attacking Sen. Rubio
Brian Beutler is one of the left's most prominent attack puppies. He didn't even wait for Sen. Rubio to declare his intention to run for the White House before launching an intellectually feeble attack . If this is the Left's best shot, they're in trouble:
Senator Marco Rubio, who will announce his candidacy for president on Monday, was supposed to lead a GOP breakaway faction in support of comprehensive immigration reform, but was unable to persuade House Republicans to ignore the nativist right, and the whole thing blew up in his face. In regrouping, he's determined that the key to restoring Republican viability in presidential elections is to woo middle class voters with fiscal policies that challenge conservative orthodoxy.
His new basic insight is correct. The GOP's obsession with distributing resources up the income scale is the single biggest factor impeding it from reaching new constituencies, both because it reflects unpopular values and because it makes them unable to address emerging national needs that require spending money.
It also happens to be the raison detre of the conservative establishment. Challenging the right's commitment to lowering taxes on high earners, and reducing transfers to the poor and working classes, will encounter vast resistance. Where Paul can appeal to the moral and religious sensibilities of elderly whites who might otherwise oppose criminal justice reforms, a real challenge to GOP fiscal orthodoxy will get no quarter from GOP donors.
If Rubio were both serious and talented enough to move his party away from its most inhibiting orthodoxy, in defiance of those donors, his candidacy would represent a watershed. His appeal to constituencies outside of the GOP base would be both sincere and persuasive.
The first point worth making is that Mr. Beutler's opinion is based on his belief that conservatism has been rejected. Starting from the perspective that a political philosophy is antiquated means the person thinks that philosophy isn't viable. The next point worth making is that Mr. Beutler believes that the book John Judis co-wrote with Ruy Teixeira titled The Emerging Democratic Majority is still Gospel truth. It isn't. Third, Mr. Beutler apparently thinks that Rand Paul appeals "to the moral and religious sensibilities of elderly whites." That's delusional thinking. Rand Paul has a following but it isn't with Christian conservatives. Let's examine Beutler's opinions one at a time.
Conservatism wasn't rejected by the public. It's been rejected by politicians like John McCain, John Boehner, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham. These politicians have spent too much time listening to the DC Echochamber. When conservative principles are applied, like they've been applied in Wisconsin and Texas, they've produced fantastic results. Further proof that conservatism still resonates with people is that Marco Rubio repeatedly got standing ovations in his announcement speech and Scott Walker, supposedly a guy who was too boring to be a top tier candidate , got rave reviews for his speech in Iowa.
Next, The Emerging Democratic Majority worked for a couple of election cycles before failing the last 2 cycles. It's even more pronounced during the midterms. The number of state legislative seats, not to mention the number of legislative majorities that flipped from blue to red, was nothing short of overwhelming.
Finally, Rand Paul isn't, and never will be, beloved by Christian conservatives. I won't say that libertarianism and Christian conservatism fit together like metric wrenches fit together with standard bolts. They're not that incompatible. Rather, I'd say they aren't a close fit and leave it at that.
There's no question that the Clinton Machine will do its best to bloody the Republican nominee. It's their only hope against young, attractive candidates like Gov. Walker and Sen. Rubio and their reform-centric agendas. If they can't vilify these candidates, Hillary can't win.
That's why Hillary's consultants are drinking Maalox like it was Gatorade on a hot summer's day.
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:34 AM
No comments.
The 'freshman senator' argument
CNN's Brooke Baldwin and Dana Bash talked about Sen. Rubio's youth and turning it around now vs. how they criticized then-Sen. Obama about it in 2008:
Here's what Baldwin said that caught my attention:
BROOKE BALDWIN: Well, they tried to slam the then-Sen. Obama for it and now you have all these freshman GOP senators in the same situation.
It's fair game to ask whether Republicans should've criticized then-Sen. Obama. The answer to that question is simple. Yes, it was fair that Republicans questioned then-Sen. Obama because he was just 2 years removed from being a back-bench state senator when he started running for president.
First, let's remember that Barack Obama served only a total of 4 years in the Senate. In 2003, Obama was a state senator who frequently voted present. He didn't have any accomplishments to speak of. Upon joining the Senate, he essentially started running for president. Just 2 years after getting elected to the US Senate, Obama announced that he was running for president. As a result, he didn't take his committee assignments seriously. That's one of the reasons why President Obama's policies have been disastrous. (The other reason why they've been disastrous is because of his belief in a failed ideology.)
By comparison, Sen. Rubio and Sen. Paul are in the fifth year of their respective terms in office. They've taken their committee assignments seriously. Sen. Rubio, for all his faults, is an expert on national security and terrorism. I said here that Sen. Rubio would mop the floor with Hillary's behind if they ever debated foreign policy or national security.
It's substantially different to go from being a state senator to president in 5 years than to go from Speaker of the Florida House to presidential candidate in 7 years. Sen. Rubio's understanding of the issues is significantly better than President Obama's understanding of the issues.
I don't doubt that Sen. Rubio was nervous initially when he started his presentation. It's an emotional moment for him and his family. I'd be worried if he wasn't a little emotional. It's worth noticing that Ms. Bash said that he settled down once he got a little ways into the speech. That's why I wrote that Sen. Rubio blew Hillary away .
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:52 AM
No comments.
Minnesota needs more lawyers?
Minnesota Needs More Lawyers!
by Silence Dogood
An article in the SC Times on Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 announced " SCSU, William Mitchell partner on law program ." In this program, students will attend SCSU for three years and then " skip their fourth year " and enroll in William Mitchell law school. After the first two semesters at William Mitchell, " St. Cloud State University will accept credits from the first two semesters of law school, assign them as electives, then grant a diploma ."
According to the article, Kathy Uradnik, a professor and prelaw adviser at SCSU is quoted as saying " The whole point is to save undergrads money ." Essentially, through this program, SCSU is giving away approximately $8,700 in tuition revenue. As a result, unless this program attracts significantly more pre-law students than currently attend SCSU, there will be a net loss of revenue to the university.
St. Cloud State University is in trouble. A 21.8% decline in enrollment since FY10 and a poor decision to enter into a long-term lease with the Wedum Foundation for an off-campus apartment complex, which has lost the university a total of $7,700,000 in the first five years of operation, have left the university with a Composite Financial Index (CFI) for FY14 of 0.07. Given the projected $9,542,000 deficit for FY15 and the commitment of over $8,000,0000 from the reserves to offset the deficit and fund early separation incentives, the CFI will likely go negative for FY15.
This has led to a hastily conceived process to evaluate programs and make recommendations for cuts, which will likely include retrenchment of faculty and staff (The administration announced at Meet and Confer on April 2 that they were considering retrenchment as a solution to the financial debacle that SCSU now finds itself). Budget documents released by the administration call for the reduction of 76 FTE of faculty and 50 FTE of staff. The timeline for this process could only be described as extremely short! Ultimately, $9,000,000 has to be cut from the FY16 budget. Unfortunately, even cutting $9,000,000 from the FY16 budget leaves SCSU with a projected deficit for FY16 of $679,000 and a financial reserve balance of $0! Unfortunately, that is not a typo! The minimum $10,500,000 reserve required by MnSCU is now gone.
So here comes what President Potter calls an "innovative" program that certainly looks like a financial loser. In fact, Professor Uradnik is quoted as saying that although SCSU will be losing a year of tuition from three-plus-three students: " It isn't always about the money ." Given SCSU's current financial situation, I beg to disagree. It's all about the money! Every program at SCSU has been directed to plan for cutting between 5-10% from their budgets for FY16. However, here is a new program that looks like something that is going to result in a financial loss for the university.
In order to be revenue neutral, at a minimum, enrollment in this new pre-law option will have to result in a net increase in pre-law students. For every 3 pre-law students that participate in this 3+3 program, a net increase of 1 FYE student will needed to offset the 25% decrease in tuition revenue. Additionally, if the current pre-law students switch to this new program, there will be an even greater need to recruit more pre-law students to offset lost revenue.
With marketing and advertising, attracting new pre-law students may on its face seem possible. However, Professor Uradnik is quoted as saying that: " The model is becoming fairly common across the U.S. " As a result, the advantage of uniqueness is lost so it looks simply like a program that is going to lose money and lose even more money if this program expands.
According to Professor Uradnik: " The whole point (of this program) is to save undergrads money ." But will this program ultimately save students money? The answer is not quite so simple as saying yes because of the cost savings of one less year of undergraduate tuition. Approximately 10% of students drop out of law school during their first year in law school. For these drop outs, in addition to owing $41,000 in tuition for that first year in law school, students will now have to go back to college to complete their undergraduate degree - potentially eliminating the once saved year of undergraduate tuition. However, when the student now graduates, they are faced with that $41,000 loan for law school tuition. So not all students will actually be saving money!
This program will also significantly limit the ability for students to transfer. A non-trivial number of students transfer law schools during their first year in law school. Unless the new law school has a similar 3+3 program with SCSU, if a student transfers after one semester, they may not ultimately earn a degree from SCSU. As a result, limiting the ability of a student to transfer during the first year will significantly limit the options of these students.
Ultimately, the final question that needs to be answered is really whether we need more lawyers. I have nothing against lawyers. However, recently most law schools have been reducing the numbers of students admitted because graduates are not finding employment, the need for a law degree has declined, and the salaries lawyers command has shrunk considerably. Two years ago, Hamline cut the number of its incoming law school class by half! Additionally, just recently, Hamline and William Mitchell announced that they are combining programs, which reduces the number of law schools in Minnesota from four to three.
A quick review of headlines in the past month:
An article: Drop in Applications Spurs Changes at Law Schools in U.S. News online on March 11, 2015 cites " enrollment in 2013 was down 24 percent from what it was in 2010 ."
A second article from U.S. News online on March 24, 2015 cites: " Law school applications are on the decline. A mere 55,700 students applied to law schools approved by the American Bar Association in 2014, according to data from the Law School Admission Council. That's a far cry from the more than 100,000 prospective attorneys those schools drew a decade earlier ."
Bloomberg on March 19, 2015 published an article entitled: Law School Applications Set to Hit 15-Year Low . The article states: " Law schools keep getting less attractive to young professionals, with schools receiving 6.7 percent fewer applications this year than they did in 2014, according to numbers released by the Law School Admission Council on Wednesday, March 19. The number of individuals applying has also fallen, by 4.7 percent. If the pace continues as it did last year, the number of people who applied to law school for the Fall 2015 semester will hit its lowest level in 15 years ."
Crain's New York published an article on March 24, 2015 entitled: Poor job prospects, huge debt. Why in the world would anyone want to go to law school ?
Quartz on March 10, 2015 published an article entitled US students are fleeing law schools and pouring into engineering .
Considering this information and much more that is easily found, one might reasonably ask why anyone would want to increase the numbers of students heading to law school? As far as I can tell, the demand for lawyers is down sharply, and St. Cloud State looks to lose money on each student participating in this new program. At a time of budget deficit and cost cutting, what could be wrong with creating a program that projects losing money on each student?
Perhaps the thinking by the administration is that what is lost on each student can be made up in volume! And one wonders why SCSU is in such bad financial shape? Silly question!
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:25 AM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 14-Apr-15 07:22 AM
The only unit that mentioned layoffs as a potential cost savings measure was University Advancement, and that was in terms of a reduction that would be larger than 10%.
One interesting bit of data that was shared was data that compared our staffing to peer institutions - nearly across the board SCSU is staffed at 70% compared to those institutions. Our student population is about 90% of those institutions. Many units provided data that showed that staffing was below standard, from financial aid to GMW.
It makes me wonder why the CFO keeps talking about jobs having to be cut - particularly from instruction - rather than fixing what appears to be a problematic revenue model.
Necessity: the mother of re-invention
If there's anything that's constant about Hillary, it's that she's constantly re-inventing herself. If people gave me a $10 bill for every time Hillary's re-invented herself, I'd have enough money to make the house payments on the Clintons' Georgetown mansion when they were dead broke.
Prior to her announcement Sunday, someone must've told Hillary that she was too distant. We know this because Mark Halperin admitted as much:
Check this out:
"Her problem now is not to prove to people that she's ready to be president because people think she is,' Halperin observed. 'The two words she needs are 'fun' and 'new.'
If the GOP nominates a youthful ticket with a thoughtful reform agenda, Hillary can reinvent herself once a month for the rest of the campaign and it won't matter. It won't matter because Hillary is stiff and inauthentic. Hillary isn't spontaneous like Bill was on the campaign trail.
Hillary's had to reinvent herself because she rubs people the wrong way too often. Moments like this cement that image:
At the time, progressives praised Hillary's response. The rest of America flinched. They flinched because they couldn't believe that a US Secretary of State was that flippant about the assassination of a US ambassador.
Immediately after Hillary's 'defense' of Bill, they quarantined her. Bill's staff quarantined her because of her "vast right wing conspiracy" statement. That quarantine ended with Hillary's "pretty in pink" puff piece interview.
Halperin is right in that America has formed an opinion about Hillary. Unfortunately for her, she's been one of the most polarizing political figures of this generation. Hillary's advisors understand that, which is why they've instructed her to run on her 'champion of every day people' theme. Between that and her 'Let's crack that last glass ceiling' theme and the certainty to run one of the most negative campaigns in presidential history, many more reinventions will be required before election day.
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:27 PM
No comments.
Wasserman-Schultz chimes in
It was inevitable that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would weigh in on Marco Rubio's presidential announcement. Here's what she said :
Hours before his rally, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, criticized Rubio as just another establishment Republican with no new ideas. 'He's a follower, peddling the same tired Republican playbook,' she told reporters. 'Marco Rubio has pandered to the Republican base throughout his whole career.'
You'd think that Democrats could find a more skilled leader of the DNC. Apparently, their bench for presidential candidates isn't the only thin bench they've got. Apparently, their bench for DNC chairs is thin, too.
One thing that's clear is that the DNC chair, like their presidential-nominee-in-waiting, isn't particularly wedded to the truth. Saying that Sen. Rubio "has pandered to the Republican base" is a bit melodramatic. If Wasserman-Schultz wanted to be accurate, she could've said that Sen. Rubio holds views that many Republicans hold. That won't work, though, if the goal is to vilify Sen. Rubio and turn him into a living, breathing Frankenstein.
As for Rubio's beliefs, here's what he rattled off as his agenda if he's elected:
Now, the time has come for our generation to lead the way toward a new American Century.
If we reform our tax code, reduce regulations, control spending, modernize our immigration laws and repeal and replace Obamacare, the American people will create millions of better-paying modern jobs.
If we create a 21st century system of higher education that provides working Americans the chance to acquire the skills they need, that no longer graduates students with mountains of debt and degrees that do not lead to jobs, and that graduates more students from high school ready to work, then our people will be prepared to seize their opportunities in the new economy.
If we remember that family, not government, is the most important institution in society, that all life deserves protection, and that all parents deserve to choose the education that's right for their children, then we will have a strong people and a strong nation.
And if America accepts the mantle of global leadership, by abandoning this administration's dangerous concessions to Iran, and its hostility to Israel; by reversing the hollowing out of our military; by giving our men and women in uniform the resources, care and gratitude they deserve; by no longer being passive in the face of Chinese and Russian aggression; and by ending the near total disregard for the erosion of democracy and human rights around the world; then our nation will be safer, the world more stable, and our people more prosperous.
That's a lengthy, substantive agenda, one that will appeal to voters. If that agenda gets signed into law, job creation will accelerate, wages will rise and the economy will consistently grow at a 3.5% rate. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it exceeded that.
This isn't just Sen. Rubio's agenda, either. Gov. Walker lists these things as priorities, too.
Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 14-Apr-15 08:44 PM
Debbie W-S opened her mouth and she managed to embarrass herself. Her words were so yesterday, using all the old and tired leftist rhetoric. Rubio was correct when he said Hillary Clinton & her policies represent the past. Debbie W-S is from the same school as Hillary. No spark for future progress, just more of the same, lame progressive concepts that have proven so disastrous for the country.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Apr-15 01:12 AM
If you think DWS sounded like a blithering idiot there, check this op-ed out. DWS really outdoes herself.
