April 26-29, 2018
Apr 26 00:59 The Democrats' map problem Apr 26 08:44 Whose Values? What Values? Apr 26 23:30 What Husky pride? Apr 27 14:53 Democrats' Ronny Jackson problem Apr 27 15:15 Another Slap in the Face Apr 28 09:39 Jon Tester's impending demise Apr 29 11:43 Restorative justice, implicit bias are destroying education
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
The Democrats' map problem
John Feehery's op-ed talks about 2018 in a way I hadn't seen prior to tonight. Feehery opens his op-ed by saying "Money, message and ultimately the map, in equal measures. That's what wins political campaigns." I couldn't agree more.
Back in 2011, I wrote lots of articles about redistricting. The effects of redistricting didn't highlight themselves in 2012 because that was a presidential election. In 2014, they showed up when Republicans flipped the House. This year, redistricting is likely to kill the national Democrats' wave. The GOP landslide of 2010 wasn't just about winning 63 net seats in the US House. It went well beyond that. When I wrote this post , I wrote about watching the Journal Editorial Report. During the show, they said "Republicans gained 680 state legislative seats in last Tuesday's elections.
According to their map, Republicans control both houses of their state legislatures in 25 states . Here's the list of states where Republicans control both houses of the legislature: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina and New Hampshire."
That meant Republicans had full control of the redistricting process. That, in turn, meant that they could strengthen the marginal districts that they just won. Fast forward to Feehery's op-ed, in which he said this:
Finally, there is the map. Republicans have a distinct national advantage going into this election. As Mother Jones reported in March, "A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice calculates just how much of a landslide Democrats will need in order to win in districts that were drawn specifically to withstand Democratic waves and elect Republicans. The result, report co-author Michael Li says, should be a 'reality check' for Democrats." To win the House, the Democrats would have to win the popular vote by 11 points, according to this left-leaning organization.
Is that possible? Yes. Probably? No.
Let me rephrase that in my own way. Is that possible? No. Is that possible? Not a snowball's prayer in hell.
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:59 AM
No comments.
Whose Values? What Values?
Whose Values? What Values?
By Rambling Rose
Protests about gun control and efforts to update an "antiquated" Second Amendment abound in the media. However, there is little to no coverage of student-led protests to protect the yet-to-be-born babes in the womb or those that speak out in favor of use of guns for defense. Only by chance did I see a post by Franklin Graham on Facebook that alerted me to the April 23rd "sit-out." On the 24th, I still found only one article that published coverage of the protest.
Parents entrust their precious children to the schools in good faith and trust that the instruction follows traditional values of the USA society. WRONG!
Just as parents were unaware of the educational boondoggle of the Obama administration, funded by Bill and Melinda Gates and forced upon 45/46 states of the nation by Arne Duncan with Race to the Top, known as Common Core (still alive in many states as per the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015), so are parents unaware of the leftist infiltration of the curriculum and the perverse values that even the youngest learn. Some call this health curriculum "Pornography 101."
In North Carolina, the elementary schools initiated a program called Welcoming Schools to promote "family diversity" (interpret - same sex parents) and "gender-inclusive, non-binary schools" (interpret - same-sex and transgender platforms). "The program, developed by the LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, subjects students to opposite-gender role-play, and encourages them to cross-dress and to view traditional attitudes of family structure as harmful: " Students who question the curriculum are referred to Planned Parenthood.
In Cumberland County, North Carolina, another Planned Parenthood program, Get Real, was introduced into the sixth and seventh grade program. When parents objected to the promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion and explicit descriptions of sex acts, the schools dropped the program.
The progressives have utilized other names to promote similar programs, including Making Proud Choices and Safe Schools. Sadly, their agenda for gender identity and sexual behavior has integrated the entire curriculum. Sadly, too, is the guise of promoting the inclusion of these deviant practices as a program to combat bullying - a farce, a lie: but a strategy that has not received much attention by anyone.
Thanks to the vigilant eyes of parents in North Carolina, programs were changed. Thanks to those same parents a global protest did occur (reportedly) on April 23, 2018. How many parents are still unaware of the pervasive practices occurring daily in this country's schools? Whose values should be included in the classroom? The parents/the family, naturally. But is that reality?
Parents need to be involved - ask your children about their classes, discuss the books that they read, ask about "ceremonies" performed/celebrated in their classes: VISIT the schools and ATTEND classes.
Many have predicted the fall "from within" without a single gunshot. Yes, the LGBTQ community indoctrinates the next generation and has radicalized young people against their parents and their values to embrace "what they learned in school."
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:44 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 26-Apr-18 11:24 PM
Rambling Rose rocks! Excellent article.
What Husky pride?
Husky Pride?
by Silence Dogood
It's a sample of one class on one day. As a result, making any kind of broad generalization is a stretch. However, it remains a sample worth considering. On Thursday morning fifty-three students showed up to take the last exam before finals. Of the fifty-three students, only a single student wore an SCSU branded shirt/jacket. The student that did show Husky pride happens to be an athlete at SCSU so they are somewhat obligated to wear the school colors. A single student out of fifty-three represents less than 2% of the class. Five other students in the class were wearing shirts with other school brands:
Bemidji State
Minnesota State Mankato
Minnesota
Wisconsin (football)
Air Force (hockey)
Two female students in the class wore 'Pink' monogramed shirts. So, 'Pink' branded shirts out-performed the home school brand.
What does this mean? With such a small sample it's hard to reach a definitive conclusion. However, a simple walk around on campus (unless it is a day when they are recruiting students), you might get the idea that what was true in one class on one day was true in general.
Maybe the cost of SCSU branded apparel is much more expensive than that from other schools so fewer people can afford them. Perhaps there was a YouTube challenge on Thursday to not wear your school colors to class. Many explanations are possible. However, these two explanations are probably less likely than the fact that SCSU has an image problem that rebranding and giving away free tee shirts won't solve.
If there is a solution for an apparent lack of Husky Pride or for increasing the value of the brand, it's seems to be a closely guarded secret. What I do know is that 'unleashing' a tired old dog won't make that dog fetch. Will an increase in Husky Pride solve SCSU's enrollment and financial problems? Perhaps, but doing the same old things over and over and expecting a different outcome is nothing to be proud of nor will it solve any problems. It seems that something new is needed or a lot of SCSU branded merchandise will be found on the discount rack or at yard sales.
Originally posted Thursday, April 26, 2018, revised 27-Apr 8:18 AM
No comments.
Democrats' Ronny Jackson problem
Though they might not know it yet, the Democrats have a major Ronny Jackson problem on their hands. Former Obama State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf is part of that problem, saying that Democrats have to take seriously the "credible allegations" against Admiral Jackson. My first reaction is that the smear campaign isn't credible for multiple reasons.
First, Admiral Jackson has gone through FBI background checks 3 times, once when he first became President Bush's personal doctor, again when he stayed on as the Obama family doctor and finally when he became the Trumps' WH family doctor. Admiral Jackson went through a background check when he became an admiral, too.
These "credible allegations" have gotten shot down . The article says "Over the last 48 hours, media outlets have alleged that U.S. Secret Service personnel were forced to intervene during a presidential foreign travel assignment in order to prevent disturbing (former) President Barack Obama. The Secret Service has no such record of any incident; specifically, any incident involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson."
The statement continues with this:
Rear Admiral Jackson, in his role as the official White House Physician, has provided years of dedicated support to the men and women of the Secret Service, often miles from home and under difficult travel conditions, in order to ensure our personnel are healthy and prepared to execute our critical mission.
In other words, this was a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the reputation of a good man who had the bad misfortune of being associated with President Trump. Democrats just sabotaged a distinguished member of the military for purely partisan points. That's as disgusting as it gets. This video highlights the fact that Democrats are behind this:
[Video no longer available]
At the start of the video, MSNBC's Ali Velshi identifies "Democrats on the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee" as putting out this information. Further, these Democrats accuse Admiral Jackson of writing prescriptions for himself, then accused him of "multiple counts of drunkenness while on duty, including incidents while on overseas travel."
These accusations supposedly came from 23 unidentified members of the military, "many of whom are still in uniform." Until they're willing to step into public view and be questioned and interrogated, these statements are too self-serving to be credible.
These Democrats aren't guilty of a crime but they're definitely guilty of attempting to ruin a good man's career by using anonymous sources to make unsubstantiated accusations. This isn't the American way as the Founding Fathers envisioned it. That's why they wrote the Bill of Rights to include the right of a defendant to question his accusers.
Originally posted Friday, April 27, 2018, revised 28-Apr 9:19 AM
No comments.
Another Slap in the Face
Another Slap in the Face of the University!
by Silence Dogood
The first person someone meets when they come to the St. Cloud State University campus is usually one of the clerical staff - they are the public face of the University.
In case you didn't already know, summers are short and precious in Minnesota. For many years, staff - with approval of their supervisors - were allowed to work four ten-hour days per week (with Fridays off) instead of the usual five day a week eight-hour workday.
Three years ago, President Potter decided that in order to save money, revised summer hours would no longer be allowed. When it was pointed out that this did not in fact save any money (working forty hours per week whether in four ten-hour days or five eight-hour days is still the same number of hours), he tried to recover and cited that it was to be able to "serve student needs." This might be a noble sentiment. However, this also is a joke because the campus is almost a ghost town on Fridays in the summer.
Schedule EMS (campus planner) lists 749 entrees between 5/14/2018 and 8/2/2018. Only 75, which is almost exactly 10% have a class meeting scheduled on Fridays. If you search on the Summer School link for all classes, the first 250 summer classes are displayed. Of those, only 30 have a class meeting time on Friday and, of those, 7 are graduate courses that meet class on Friday and Saturday.
Several university staff quit/retired over the original decision. The next year, the administration reversed their decision and allowed staff, again with approval of their supervisors, to work four ten-hour days. Life was good again.
The following year (i.e., last year), the administration changed their mind and university staff were again required to work five eight-hour days per week. The staff were told that they could use vacation days if they didn't want to work on Fridays. So, the idea that it was to serve student needs was nonsense. Additionally, if staff use vacation days to take Fridays off, they still get paid - so there are no cost savings!
Thursday, the following email was sent to the campus community.
The summer hours taskforce recommendation on summer hours was ignored and the result of this process resulted in the same outcome. Staff would no longer - with permission of their supervisor - be allowed to work four ten hour days. The reason given now: "With the upcoming presidential transition, the decision was made to remain consistent with last year during this upcoming summer." Can I say that this is nonsense? The VP's and Interim President knew for a year that a presidential search was occurring and that a transition to new leadership would be occurring during the summer of 2018 so why blame that fact for a bad decision? Why delay this decision and not other decisions?
Just to be consistent, for only two of the last 36 years, staff have not been allowed to work the alternate summer schedules - again with approval of their supervisors. So, to be consistent, staff should be allowed to decide (in consultation and approval of their supervisors).
Several staff have posted their comments on the university email system regarding this decision:
This decision has increased the lack of morale on campus. Proof again the decisions made at the top who cares how it affects the employees below. This is another beat down and if they have run out of hammers maybe facilities will borrow them some so they can continue to keep us down.
I am very disappointed that our administration once again has ignored the recommendations of our community and has shown us all that we are not valued as employees or people.
This is the second time this month that I have felt like the people who provide the critical foundation for this campus to operate have been disrespected.
Yet another slap in the face by this administration.
I couldn't have said it better myself. None of the administration has come to the defense of this policy. Perhaps because there is no defense and perhaps that is why the top Huskies have not taken individual responsibility. The top 'dogs' must not feel they are unleashed to do amazing things and they collectively blame a process and a new person for their actions, which is consistent with their past efforts to avoid being held accountable.
Clearly, morale has been low at SCSU. It you are not certain, just look at the results of the Great Place to Work Survey. Moral has just gotten even lower for those people that are the first ones to greet visitors to the campus. Makes sense to me.
Posted Friday, April 27, 2018 3:15 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 27-Apr-18 04:27 PM
Interesting letter. Perhaps Michael Greer the SCSU Chief Human Resources Officer is in a foul mood over his controversial resignation from the Forest City Council position and the fact SCSU only spent $10,000 to move him 35 miles away from where he was a city councilman. The controversies at SCSU never seems to end. If the enrollments keep dropping and employees keep leaving, then low campus morale just won't be a problem. The good news is that Chancellor Malhotra is all over this one. No wait...he was the former provost at SCSU.
https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/07/controversial-forest-lake-council-member-resigns-he-was-accused-of-not-living-in-the-city/
Jon Tester's impending demise
Sen. Jon Tester, (D-MT), has been skating on thin ice since President Trump crushed Hillary in Montana, winning by more than 100,000 votes. When Sen. Tester voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts, he likely sealed his fate. If that didn't seal his fate, Sen. Tester's vicious attack on Ronny Brown pounded the final nail into his political coffin.
This morning, the NY Post's editorial certainly criticizes Sen. Tester, saying "Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) unveiled a stunning laundry list of complaints allegedly made by unnamed whistleblowers - claims that Jackson was routinely drunk on duty (to the point of being 'unresponsive'), created a 'toxic work environment' and handed out prescription opioids like 'the candy man.' And yet no one seemed to notice any of this as Jackson was treating three presidents and their families over a 12-year period."
Like I said in this post , it's incredible that nobody noticed any of these traits during his multiple FBI background checks. Further, I cited this article , which states "Over the last 48 hours, media outlets have alleged that U.S. Secret Service personnel were forced to intervene during a presidential foreign travel assignment in order to prevent disturbing (former) President Barack Obama. The Secret Service has no such record of any incident; specifically, any incident involving Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson. Rear Admiral Jackson, in his role as the official White House Physician, has provided years of dedicated support to the men and women of the Secret Service, often miles from home and under difficult travel conditions, in order to ensure our personnel are healthy and prepared to execute our critical mission."
In other words, Sen. Tester's vicious attack against Rear Admiral Jackson wasn't justified but it was likely orchestrated. Now President Trump is chiming in on Sen. Tester:
Allegations made by Senator Jon Tester against Admiral/Doctor Ron Jackson are proving false. The Secret Service is unable to confirm (in fact they deny) any of the phony Democrat charges which have absolutely devastated the wonderful Jackson family. Tester should resign. The.....
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 28, 2018
....great people of Montana will not stand for this kind of slander when talking of a great human being. Admiral Jackson is the kind of man that those in Montana would most respect and admire, and now, for no reason whatsoever, his reputation has been shattered. Not fair, Tester!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 28, 2018
Ruining an innocent man's career for purely partisan reasons is disgusting. Montana can do better than Tester. In fact, it's difficult to picture how they could do worse than him.
As for the orchestration accusation, what else explains the 23 faceless accusers who've made this accusation? They've never shown their faces. They've never been subjected to scrutinization by a profession interrogator. (Not that it would happen but wouldn't you love watching Trey Gowdy interrogate these 23 cowards?) This is pretty cowardly, too:
Tester's office has not specified the time frame during which the alleged misconduct occurred. The senator's spokeswoman Marnee Banks said the office would not comment until it knew more about the White House records.
The 23 cowards are mentioned in this report:
[Video no longer available]
Then there's this:
CNN had reported allegations that Jackson drunkenly banged on the hotel room door of a female employee and that Secret Service personnel intervened out of concern that he would wake Obama.
And this:
The Democratic staff on the committee considering Jackson's nomination also claimed Jackson had doled out such a large supply of a prescription opioid that staffers panicked because they thought the drugs were missing.
That sounds pretty orchestrated. Faceless (aka cowardly) staffers make the accusation, the media dutifully reports it and Democrat senators announce that they won't comment on it. Tester's office won't even say when the alleged incident happened.
What part of that sounds like it's on the up-and-up?
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2018 9:39 AM
No comments.
Restorative justice, implicit bias are destroying education
What wasn't written in Kathy Kersten's latest article on Minnesota education is that the principles of implicit bias and restorative justice are destroying what's left of education in Minnesota.
First, the article talks about how "MDHR also announced the filing of 'charges' of 'educational discrimination' against the St. Louis Park School District and Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District. Apparently, these two districts declined sufficiently to bend to the department's will, though a St. Louis Park school official told MinnPost that the district is, in fact, 'seeking to enter into an agreement' with the department."
What's particularly frightening is the fact that school districts that don't heed the MDHR's threats are faced "with a choice: enter into an agreement with the department to come up with a plan to address [discipline] disparities, or face litigation." In other words, do it our way or we'll destroy you with expensive litigation. The DFL hasn't explained how that isn't oppressive. The DFL hasn't explained why these threats of intimidation and financial ruin aren't based on official complaints instead of statistical disparities.
For districts and charters that have chosen to enter into a collaborative agreement with the Department, all have submitted three-year plans that outline the specific strategies they'll be implementing. These strategies include a broad range of things like professional development trainings to help educators address the "implicit bias that influences perceptions of student behavior" and ways to increase student and community engagement.
This is insane. How can you fight something that exists only in the minds of the most whacked-out liberals? Let's see if you can spot the flawed thinking in the opening paragraph of this article :
Ten Minnesota school districts and charter schools have reached a pact with the state Department of Human Rights to fix racial disparities in student discipline.
I'm betting everyone reading that noticed the flawed thinking that deals with discipline disparities, not behavioral disparities. Next, notice Commissioner Lindsey's statement:
"I'm encouraged. There was some good ideas that came out of the conversations with the school districts and charter schools. They are going to drive change and we will see positive results in Minnesota because of their efforts."
Next, check out this sentence:
State leaders say the discipline disparities amount to human rights violations.
Commissioner Lindsey didn't define what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Until that's defined, his declarations are subjective. Next, check out this video on implicit bias:
[Video no longer available]
How many people think that "for like 75% of white Americans, it's hard to put black and good together"? I don't buy that for a split-second. I know that's a phony 'statistic.' This isn't the way to achieve justice. FYI- the definition of justice is "the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness." Righteousness isn't situation-based. It's defined by the Word of God, who is never-changing.
Just like other progressive social experiments, restorative justice and implicit bias will fail. The only question left is how much society will be harmed.
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:43 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 29-Apr-18 12:27 PM
Perhaps Commissioner Lindsey would like to explain why the city of St. Cloud gave him rent free office space in city hall and the human rights officer was rarely ever there. Granted, it was a part time office but the public was constantly met with a locked door with lights off. There was no posted sign with office hours or a phone number for the Human Rights office in the Twin Cities. Maybe Lindsey is trying to make his mark before Dayton leaves office. The Human Rights Commision is a joke.
Comment 2 by Beth Schlangen at 30-Apr-18 12:19 AM
Isn't restorative justice restitution to party harmed, restoration to right living for one who did wrong? At least that is what Bible teaches, not done in prison.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-18 03:35 AM
Beth, that's the biblical definition. That isn't the Democrats' definition, though.
