April 21-24, 2013
Apr 21 07:20 MSM as OFA's Praetorian Guard Apr 21 08:00 Bill Maher: "Let's keep it real" Apr 21 09:17 Matt Entenza's foot-in-mouth moment Apr 23 01:46 The all-day Pre-K myth Apr 23 13:03 As the NFL Draft nears... Apr 24 21:13 Sequestration is Obama's Katrina
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MSM as OFA's Praetorian Guard
A number of years back, I heard a joke, part of which I can't remember. Still, I can remember enough of it to make a point. Historic military figures were looking at the Soviet Union's military hardware. When the tanks rolled through Red Square, Alexander the Great replied, "If I had had these chariots, I would've ruled the entire world." On his left stood Napoleon Bonaparte. After Napoleon read the current copy of Pravda, he replied "If I had this as the official newspaper, nobody would've heard of Waterloo."
The point of the joke isn't to get people laughing. It's to make the point that there's a more insidious type of Pravda operating inside the United States. For the last 5+ years, I've called that operation the Agenda Media. The Agenda Media doesn't think it's their responsibility to get people important facts. In their minds, their responsibility is to push their politicial agenda. If that means omitting important facts, that's what they're willing to do. This video is a perfect illustration of the Agenda Media's selective editing:
Thankfully, citizen journalists with cell phones are recording things as they happened. Thankfully, citizen journalists with video cameras are informing people by filming protests like this, then posting the video to Youtube, then reposting the videos to their Facebook page, then posting the links to their videos to Twitter.
There's a more important point to this. OFA isn't just about protesting against constitutional conservatives. They're identifying people in communities who might vote for progressives. Conservatives will show up to counterprotest against OFA. The big question is whether they'll get into the neighborhoods and identify people that might appreciate the conservative/capitalist message.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul should be the blueprint for Republicans for 2014. They're picking fights with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, which is essential to winning elections. They're framing debates. For instance, Sen. Coburn is highlighting tens of billions of dollars of duplicative spending that should be eliminated in this budget. Sen. Johnson is highlighting how government is used as a weapon against the citizenry . Paul Ryan is fighting for a pro-growth budget that will eventually balance within a decade.
It's despicable that the Agenda Media would distort what happened at a protest. As despicable as that is, that's only part of this story. OFA is already identifying potential Democrat voters. Republicans need to start this week at identifying potential conservative voters.
Tags: Organizing for Action , Gun Control , Protests , Agenda Media , Censorship , Voter ID , Democrats , Tom Coburn , Sequester This , Ron Johnson , Victims of Government Project , Mike Lee , Cut This, Not That , Ted Cruz , Second Amendment , Paul Ryan , Balanced Budget , Rand Paul , TEA Party Conservatives , Election 2014
Posted Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:20 AM
No comments.
Bill Maher: "Let's keep it real"
I know I'm late to this story but it's time to talk about the watershed moment that happened this week on Bill Maher's show . Here's a partial transcript of Maher's exchange with Brian Levy, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino:
BILL MAHER, HOST: So you're obviously the perfect person to have here today. You study this all the time, the mind of crazy people who do horrible things. I'm always interested to know how people like the people we caught today up in Boston can have two minds going at the same time.
I mean, if you read what the older brother wrote on his, on the internet, he said his world view [is] Islam; personal priorities: career and money. And we see this a lot. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.
BRIAN LEVIN: But could I just interject? Look, it's not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they're out for God and end up doing not so nice things.
MAHER: You know what? Yeah, yeah. You know what? That's liberal bullshit right there. I mean, yes, all faiths --
LEVIN: Are there no Christian hypocrites?
MAHER: No, there are. They're just --
LEVIN: You make a career on that.
MAHER: They're not as dangerous. I mean, there's only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There's only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I'm just saying, let's keep it real. (Real Time, April 19, 2013)
I've read the Bible through from cover-to-cover 7 times in my life. (That doesn't make me an expert but I certainly know what isn't in it.)
Nowhere in the Bible does it say "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him."
Further, I haven't read any recent articles of Christians killing movie producers for making a movie that denigrates Christ. It took me a matter of seconds to find an articles about how a filmmaker was assassinated by Muslim terrorists for creating a provocative film about Allah .
When Levin tried talking about Christians throughout history, Maher said that we aren't living throughout history. "We're living in 2013."
This doesn't mean I think Maher is changing into a conservative. I expect him to continue to criticize conservatives and curse Christians. My point is simply that, this time, Maher stood for the truth.
Tags: Islamic Terrorists , Koran , Bill Maher , Liberal Bullshit , Brian Levin , U Cal-San Bernardino , Theo van Gogh , Salman Rushdie
Posted Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Apr-13 12:05 PM
Do not get crosswise with Matt Entenza or he'll have a private detective shadowing your tracks, where you park, etc. The Democrat from United Health.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-13 02:08 PM
Thanks for the concern, Eric, but there's nothing to worry about. I don't plan on running against him for a DFL endorsement anytime soon.
Matt Entenza's foot-in-mouth moment
There's a price I pay for watching @Issue and Almanac each week. That price is worth it, though, when I watch and people like Matt Entenza regurgitate the DFL's chanting points on raising taxes. Tom Hauser asked him if it was a PR blunderfor the House to introduce their $2,500,000,000 tax increase on April 15, the day Minnesotans were paying their taxes.
After quickly dodging that question, Entenza cited a study that showed spending had decreased by $500 per person the last 10 years. Then he said something I'll crucify him for saying. Here's what he said:
Part of what Democrats are responding to is an election where people said 'We're tired of higher class sizes. We're tired of roads that are falling apart and a Human Services Department that doesn't work as well as it should.
I can't wait for Mr. Entenza to explain how raising taxes on liquor, income tax and cigarettes will fix a single pothole. How will raising these taxes reduce class sizes, especially considering the fact that the Thissen House won't pay off the school shift that they call a budget gimmick?
Mr. Entenza, how will raising taxes on cigarettes raise revenues this time? The last 2 times they've been raised, revenues from that tax have dropped.
Citing the fact that per person spending has decreased by $500 a person means nothing. Businesses wouldn't survive if they didn't figure out new ways to deliver goods and services more efficiently. Why shouldn't government be required to do the same? Why shouldn't I think that money isn't being spent efficiently when I hear that $30,000 of a professor's $73,000 a year salary is paid for managing a community garden?
The premise behind the DFL budget is that a) every penny of the last budget was spent efficiently, b) every penny of the last budget was spent on needs, not on their special interest allies' wish lists and c) every penny that was spent last time needs to be spent again this time.
There isn't proof that that's the case. The DFL's mantra that we need to 'invest more' on education and transportation without giving taxpayers specific justifications is getting tiresome. The devil is in the details. How much of the increased spending on K-12 education is being pissed away on excessive amounts of administrators and all-day kindergarten? How much are taxes getting raised to fund transit? Those tax increases don't fix a single pothole.
Shouldn't the case be made to defund transit while boosting funding for road, bridge and pothole repair? Shouldn't the case be made that spending K-12 money on administrators is stealing money that would be used to reduce class sizes? Will the DFL tell us how much of the K-12 funding has gone towards reducing class sizes vs. how much was spent on increasing the size of the school districts' administration?
The DFL's scam is about to get exposed. Money isn't being spent efficiently. It isn't getting spent only on Minnesota's highest priorities. The DFL's tax increases won't fix a single pothole.
In short, Minnesota's taxpayers are getting stiffed.
Tags: Matt Entenza , Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Income Tax , Liquor Tax , Potholes , K-12 Education , Administration , Transit , Pork , Paul Thissen , Cronyism , DFL
Posted Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:17 AM
Comment 1 by Curtis Loewe at 22-Apr-13 09:58 AM
I would rather be the party of wanting good roads, an education system that has reasonable class room sizes and a state government that cares about the safety net of its people than being a Republican that is the party of "NO" to everything except tax breaks for the rich. Matt Entenza did not misspeak he spoke the truth.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-13 02:18 PM
Curtis, I wish the DFL was the party that wants smaller class sizes but they aren't. The Democrats on school boards have used the spending increases to increase the number of administrators, increase the administrators' salaries and pensions while ignoring reducing class sizes.
As for transportation, the DFL is focusing on raising taxes that increase funding for transit when they should've focused on repairing roads & bridges and creating more lanes on the major industrial highways.
As for heartless, it's the elitist Metro DFL that's fighting tooth & nail to prevent Iron Rangers from earning a better living by preventing important mining projects. As a result, the median household income in St. Louis County is 25% lower than the statewide average. Poverty is 16% in St. Louis County, compared with 11% statewide.
The DFL preventing these people from making a better living is the true definition of being heartless.
Comment 2 by Fritz Dahmus at 22-Apr-13 02:22 PM
Mr Loewe,
You are right about wanting to be the "party of good roads, reasonable class sizes, and safety nets. Nobody can argue that, because we all want that. The methods we are using are not leading us to there.
Increase spending on education has reduced class sizes since IDEA was instituted (1974). Education administrators have increased 300+ percent while students populations have risen in the double digits. Student achievement scores have dropped considerably.
Our infrastructure has not been touched in any significant way since the 50's or 60's. Bridges are falling or will fall. Metro roads (anywhere) don't keep up with rush hours. Mass transit is mostly insignificant at this point in most metro areas. We build stadiums instead of bridges (35W bridge fell on the day the ground-breaking ceremony was to held for Target Field).
Despite safety nets provided, more Americans are receiving welfare in one form or another since the Great Depression. Have I made my point Mr. Loewe??
We all need to quit towing the party line (insert party here)......and solve these issues by trying something different.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 22-Apr-13 04:01 PM
Mr. Lowe:
A couple of years there was a gas tax increase and car tab increase (that's why you pay more than $99 on your newer cars). At the time the Republicans showed you can get the road construction done which democrats were complaining about without increasing any taxes.
The tax increase hurt the poor and middle class like us.
By the way has road construction picked up? No they used this along with the diversion of road money on title transfers to costly trains that carry just a couple of people and don't break even once built.
The Republicans said no because they were being on your side!
The Democrats said yes because they didn't care about you.
And Chad when the Republicans passed the bill which gave the schools back the famous school shift Democrat Mark Dayton veoted the bill. In 2012 after running on restoring the shift the Democrats decided not to pay it back.
Another clear example where the Democrats weren't on your side.
so I guess the person who isn't speaking the truth here is Curtis Lowe.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Speed Gibson at 22-Apr-13 07:40 PM
Here's the real reality of lower class sizes: the DFL literally cannot afford to give them to you. A certain Twin Cities suburb having been prudent had not issued any debt for many years, then wanted to for a project. The referendum was voted down handily. An administrator lamented that had they been bonding regularly like most other suburbs, it would have been routine. Similarly, the DFL cannot afford for class sizes not to be an issue.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-13 09:29 PM
Speed, I've given that a ton of thought & I think you're exactly right. The DFL has been whining about class sizes for 10-15 yrs. School boards have had years where they could've passed levies that would've alleviated that problem but didn't.
Later tonight, I'm posting something thought provoking about E-12 education & the myth of all-day pre-k being a great investment.
The all-day Pre-K myth
Last week, DFL senators introduced the details of its proposed E-12 education budget. Unfortunately, it's doomed for failure because its emphasis is on a failed policy. Dr. John Kern's analysis of the return on investment for early childhood education shine a bright light onto the myth that a $1 investment into early childhood education programs will produce a $17 return on investment, aka ROI.
First, a little background is in order to introduce Dr. Kern to Minnesotans. Dr. Kern is an independent research scientist with BS and MS degrees in Mathematics and a PhD in Statistics and is regularly hired by state and federal agencies and Fortune 500 companies involved in the USEPA Superfund Program negotiating $500M+ environmental risk management decisions. Dr. Kern has testified about such issues before the National Academies of Science as well as on behalf of the United States Department of Justice as an expert witness. Dr. Kern derives no part of his income from education-related issues.
In other words, Dr. Kern's skills have thoroughly equipped him to do statistical analysis of public policies. Next, here's the list of early childhood education studies Dr. Kern analyzed:
I recently conducted an independent review of the studies repeatedly cited by Grunewald and other proponents of publicly funded universal early childhood programs and offered to provide the results of my evaluation to the Legislative committee on All-Day-K.Here's part of Dr. Kern's analysis of the various studies:
The primary studies cited by Rolnick, Grunewald and virtually all others include:Some additional studies I reviewed include
- High Scope Perry Preschool Study
- Abecedarian Project
- Chicago Child Parent Center
- Minnesota School Readiness
- Michigan School Readiness
- Minnesota Burnsville District 191 All-Day-K
- Clark County Nevada Full-Day-K
- Tulsa Oklahoma Pre-K
- Head Start
Primary FindingsThis information is particularly noteworthy:
The consensus I found is that: 1) socioeconomic conditions are the single largest determinant of success in school and life, 2) benefits of intervention accrue primarily to children in dire socioeconomic circumstances, and 3) benefits to the general population are minimal, fading by third grade, presumably because they are getting what they need in their home environments.
Dr. Rolnick teaches (PA5490) 'Economics of Early Childhood Education', suggesting his expertise in the latest research. Yet, the Perry Pre-School Study is the sole source of data supporting his claim of a ten- to seventeen-dollar return on investment from ECE.It's important that we pay attention to these important caveats. It's foolish to think that the ROI on K-12 education spending will be 17:1 when the incarceration rate didn't start at 50%. Reducing a high incarceration rate apparently accounts for most of this report's 17:1 ROI. Where's the ROI on K-12 education funding when the incarceration rate starts at 5%?
I reviewed Dr. Rolnick's calculations and indeed, the benefits for 123 pre-school children studied in Ypsilanti Michigan, were giant - 50% reduced incarceration rates. However, in their policy discussions, Rolnick and Grunewald downplay the nominal 50% incarceration rate in this community. Yes, the return on investment supporting now famous claims of 17-dollar ROI...are based almost entirely on money saved by reducing incarceration rates from 50% to 25%.
In spite of the highly unusual nature of the circumstances surrounding these children's lives, proponents of these programs regularly extrapolate a 17 to 1 ROI to every dollar spent on virtually any early childhood program. It is extremely cynical or delusional that Rolnick and Grunewald fail to emphasize the critical caveats to these estimates based on just 123 subjects from one pre-school in desperate need of help.
The DFL is only too happy to cite this bogus statistic because it's great political cover. With that bogus statistic in their arsenal, they're free to propose massive payoffs to the teachers' union.
When this funding free-for-all ends and the DFL's policies fail, which will happen, Minnesotans will have less money, the state won't have a well-trained work force and the DFL will be forced to explain why they thought their failed proposal had a chance at succeeding.
At a time when the DFL has proposed gutting teacher accountability and qualiity, Republicans should be insisting that teacher quality be the first priority. Spending lots of money on teachers that aren't qualified in math and science is just throwing money away.
This is a terrific time for the GOP to make a stand. They'd get credit for insisting that teachers be qualified to teach high school math and science at a time when too many high school math and science teachers aren't qualified:
'...more than 900 MN teachers over the past 5 years have violated licensing rules: including 62 who taught with no license at all. Violations mostly involved instructors teaching the wrong subject or grade level affecting as many as 57,000 students...'That's just the tip of the iceberg:
The Sauk Rapids-Rice school district has four teachers with 'elementary education' degrees teaching secondary math or science.When Greg Vandell left, only 19% of students graduated grade proficient in math. With unqualified teachers teaching math, that statistic isn't surprising. If anything, it's surprising that that statistic isn't higher.
If the GOP wants to give itself a major advantage in 2014, they should announce a new initiative, starting with an inner city and outstate listening tour. Focus should be on dissatisfied minorities and disgruntled suburbanites who aren't satisfied with the DFL's status quo throw-more-money-into-a-failed-system approach to education. By listening to dissatisfied people, by stating that the MNGOP's goal is to improve teacher quality, by touting a parents- and students-first agenda, the DFL would be left in the dust defending a failed system.
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Apr-13 07:38 AM
"... and the DFL will be forced to explain why they thought their failed proposal had a chance at succeeding."
That's the problem, though, isn't it? The DFL is NEVER forced to explain why their policies fail, were doomed to fail, could never do anything BUT fail, and were enacted without regard to their inevitable failure, while effective policies were consistently prevented from implementation, if they even get a hearing. It OUGHT to be criminal malfeasance in office and somebody ought to go to jail.
Comment 2 by Speed Gibson at 24-Apr-13 09:39 AM
We also must be careful about this "qualification" concept which the DFL equates with "certification." I submit there are parents out there who've never even been to college that could teach, say, third grade, far more effectively than those many ineffective or lazy tenured teachers with Masters degrees. We need a system that finds these winners and removes those losers, respectively.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-13 10:54 AM
Speed, I wholeheartedly agree with that. A education major teaching trigonometry might be certified but they aren't qualified.
Comment 3 by Art Rolnick at 29-Apr-13 11:08 AM
More than one study:
Age 26 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Early Education Program
Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, Barry A. B. White, Suh-Ruu Ou, Dylan L. Robertson
Child Development
Special Issue: Raising Healthy Children
Volume 82, Issue 1, pages 379-404, January/February 2011
Abstract:
Using data collected up to age 26 in the Chicago Longitudinal Study, this cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Centers (CPC) is the first for a sustained publicly funded early intervention. The program provides services for low-income families beginning at age 3 in 20 school sites. Kindergarten and school-age services are provided up to age 9 (third grade). Findings from a complete cohort of over 1,400 program and comparison group participants indicated that the CPCs had economic benefits in 2007 dollars that exceeded costs. The preschool program provided a total return to society of $10.83 per dollar invested (18% annual return). The primary sources of benefits were increased earnings and tax revenues and averted criminal justice system costs. The school-age program had a societal return of $3.97 per dollar invested (10% annual return). The extended intervention program (4-6 years) had a societal return of $8.24 (18% annual return). Estimates were robust across a wide range of analyses including Monte Carlo simulations. Males, 1-year preschool participants, and children from higher risk families derived greater benefits. Findings provide strong evidence that sustained programs can contribute to well-being for individuals and society.
Comment 4 by jackson cage at 29-Apr-13 03:20 PM
Wow, thanks Dr. Rolnick. When overlooking or ignoring such an important factor, it really makes his entire study suspect. Very troubling for someone claiming to be an expert. I'd be very concerned if I were hiring him.
As the NFL Draft nears...
Last night, as with most nights for the past month, I watched the NFL Network's Path to the Draft. I watch because they usually have some pretty decent talent evaluators, including former Redskins GM Charlie Casserly, former Vikings broadcaster Brian Baldinger, former Baltimore Ravens chief scout Daniel Jeremiah & Mike Mayock.
Last night's program included a segment in which they played out possible draft day scenarios. One of the first scenarios they presented was whether the Vikings would trade the 23rd overall pick in the draft and the 52nd overall pick in the draft to the Jets for Tayvon Austin.
I was stunned to hear Casserly say that he thought that'd be a great deal for the Vikings. In my opinion, that'd be highway robbery, with the Jets being the looters. That specific trade won't happen because the Vikings would do better just staying put.
If the Vikings stay put, they'll almost certainly have their pick of WRs Cordarelle Patterson, Robert Woods, Justin Hunter, DeAndre Hopkins and Keenan Allen. They'd likely have their pick of MLB Manti Te'o, DT Sylvester Williams, S Johnathan Cyprien or CB Desmond Trufant.
Those are players that will likely be available into the 2nd round. Why would the Vikings trade up for Tayvon Austin when the cost is a third starter from this draft. This isn't a criticism of Austin, who is a genuinely talented WR. Rather, it's showing the opportunity cost of trading up 10 spots in the first round.
Simply put, would the Vikings rather have Tayvon Austin and Manti Te'o or would they rather have Desmond Trufant, Sylvester Williams & DeAndre Hopkins? Frankly, I don't think that's that difficult of a decision.
Posted Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:03 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Apr-13 04:45 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget one other factor. Everybody thinks because we traded Harvin we have to replace him.
Um Wright especially when he got the playing time because of no Harvin looked pretty good last year. Not to mention he caught a few bombs.
We signed Jennings!
Given that it's quite obvious that the Vikings have to fill defense and the question is what two of the three glaring weaknesses do we fill? We need a good lineman since all four starters are free agents, we need a new middle linebacker, and we desperately need a corner.
The trade I think might happen is late in the first round a team might want to move up to get a player and the Vikings because they have two picks might move down if they're offered a second this year and another pick this year that they might package to trade to get three second round picks since it sounds like there is a lot of quality this year. Did they talk about that?
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Sequestration is Obama's Katrina
Alexis Simendinger's article about President Obama's mishandling of sequestration highlights something that shouldn't be overlooked. Here's part of what Ms. Simendinger wrote:
Amid a terrorism investigation, plus assertions that the federal government should have inspected a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, before it caught fire and exploded, the president becomes the government's go-to manager.
When the Veterans Administration became mired in a backlog of disability claims, the public unease migrated to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. When the Department of Health and Human Services missed deadlines to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the president was held to account by supporters and detractors of the law.
And this week, misgivings about the FBI's 2011 investigation (at Russia's request) into the suspected radical leanings of deceased Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev earned a second look on Capitol Hill. Concerns that the FBI had stumbled over what might have been important terrorism information prompted private briefings for lawmakers and a written statement of support for the FBI from the president.
President Obama thought that his allies in the media would help him criticize Republicans for the difficulties that sequestration would cause. Thus far, Republicans have done a fantastic job highlighting the cuts that could get made that President Obama won't agree to.
Things like conventions costing $750,000 or more and tens of billions of dollars of duplicative programs (per year) have hurt President Obama in the public's eyes. Another thing that's happened as a result of the Republicans' messaging is that more people than ever are familiar with 'the Washington Monument Strategy'. That's where a president closes a high-profile destination, whether it's the Washington Monument, major national parks or, in this instance, White House tours. In this instance, that also includes furloughed air traffic controllers.
They're included because the furloughed air traffic controllers are causing flight delays. People, especially business travellers, can't stand long delays. They're criticizing President Obama for the delays, not House Republicans.
As a direct result of sequestration, with a special nod to his constant campaigning rather than governing, people are questioning President Obama's ability to govern. That's what started President Bush's steep decline in the polls after Katrina.
Thanks to President Obama's campaigning-rather-than-governing M.O., President Obama has opened himself up to be disinterested in governing. When unemployment is high,wages are stagnant and government isn't functioning, presidents can't afford to look disinterested in governing.
Tags: Sequestration , President Obama , Air Traffic Controllers , Airports , Flight Delays , FAA , FAA , Hurricane Katrina , Democrats
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:13 PM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 24-Apr-13 10:23 PM
What's almost amazing is how the press is treating sequestration as the new normal. Coverage has been minimal. No probing the "Washington Monument" strategy on the left, no blaming the right. Coverage could be more accurate (cut in growth, not actual spending e.g.) I suppose, but I think the public might actually understand what's happening - and be OK with it. Interesting situation.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-13 12:44 AM
Fair points, Speed.
