August 29-31, 2011
Aug 29 02:00 About Minnesotans for a Fair Economy Aug 29 02:59 Ron Paul's 9/11 Theory vs. Verifiable Proof Aug 29 08:49 That's News to America Aug 29 12:12 I can prove President Obama is a bad president Aug 30 00:19 Perry's surge continues Aug 30 05:10 Rep. Hosch's higher ed hysteria Aug 30 16:13 The DFL's Extremist Problem Aug 31 18:11 DOJ announces lawsuit to prevent AT&T/T-Mobile merger
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
About Minnesotans for a Fair Economy
Minnesotans for a Fair Economy is part of the progressive shock troop brigades, which means that they aren't interested in harassing people equally. This post on their blog proves that:
Leon Whiteman-Cariveau
TakeAction Minnesota joined with our allies from Minnesotans for a Fair Economy at Noon today, chasing Wells Fargo CEO Jon Campbell and the politicians he supports through Wells Fargo PAC, down Nicollet Mall. Banks got billions in bailout money, politicians got $5 million. And all the rest of us got was this crummy economy. Watch, then share it out!
It's well within TAM's First Amendment rights to protest Wells Fargo CEO Jon Campbell. In fact, TAM might be surprised that alot of conservatives oppososed TARP, too.
What's painfully obvious is that TAM and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy don't treat different bailout recipients the same way. They certainly didn't create a stink about the UAW getting their bailout from the Obama administration.
It's painfully apparent that TAM and MAFE have a double standard. If unions get bailout cash, that's sticking up for the working man. (Nevermind the fact that 'the working man' has Cadillac health insurance and a defined benefit pension plan that most middle class people would envy.) TAM and MAFE are fine with that.
The minute that perceived fatcats get bailouts, though, TAM and MAFE are furious. They'll put a protest together against banking fatcats on a moment's notice.
The other thing that they're getting famous for is protesting those they don't agree with while giving a free pass to politicians they agree with :
The crowd, organized by the community coalition Minnesotans for a Fair Economy and other groups, had followed the politicians and high-dollar donors, who made a last-minute change of venue from the exclusive Spring Hill Golf Club, apparently to avoid facing Minnesotans angry over their job-killing policies.
They watched as a plane flew overhead bearing a banner reading, 'Where's our piece of the pie? JOBS NOW.' The group was joined by puppet versions of Reps. Boehner, Bachmann, Cravaack, Paulsen, and Kline, who arrived in a limousine.
'These job-killing politicians are pushing radical budget cuts that threaten the jobs of nurses, teachers, and other hardworking Minnesotans,' said Minnesotans for a Fair Economy spokesperson Donna Cassutt. 'It's shameful that Reps. Bachmann, Cravaack, Paulsen and Kline are more interested in donors willing to pay $10,000 for a round of golf in order to protect tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, while the Twin Cities has the second highest rate of black unemployment among large metropolitan areas in the United States."
Ms. Cassutt better take off her rose-colored glasses. They're preventing her from seeing that President Obama's policies are killing jobs. Obamacare is killing job creation. Ditto with Dodd-Frank, the EPA's and the NLRB's regulatory unconstitutional overreach.
In fact, the Obama administration's EPA is doing more to kill jobs than all of the Republicans' spending cuts could possibly kill.
TAM and MAFE live in a fact-free world where everything they say should be treated like it's etched by God's finger in stone tablets atop Mount Sinai.
Shame on TAM, MAFE and other DFL surrogates for ignoring reality. Shame on them for ignoring that that President Obama's policies and spending have taken an ailing economy and turned it into a total mess without a direction or purpose.
Despite TAM's and MAFE's vehement protests, President Obama is responsible for killing jobs.
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011 2:00 AM
No comments.
Ron Paul's 9/11 Theory vs. Verifiable Proof
Let me preface this post by saying that I'd be ok with Ron Paul being president if the president wasn't also commander-in-chief. I agree with Ron Paul's agenda of limited government that lives within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.
He wouldn't be my first choice but I'd be ok with him.
The thing that eliminates him from being a top tier presidential candidate is his perspective on who caused 9/11. This is typical Ron Paul thinking :
At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.
'Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?' Paul asked.
'If you're looking for specifics, I'm talking about Islam. Radical Islam,' the man answered.
'I don't see Islam as our enemy,' Paul said. 'I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.'
Anyone that thinks that the strain of radical Islam isn't motivated by their thirst for ushering in a worldwide caliphate hasn't done their homework. Fortunately, Patrick Poole did his . Read this and tell me if Ron Paul's theory is solid thinking or insanity:
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization's international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, 'Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.'
The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al- Aqwa's involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.
Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada's Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982 , which outlines a 12-point strategy to 'establish an Islamic government on earth ', identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by 'Islamic researchers' associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ron Paul's theory is that al-Qa'ida plotted 9/11 as a response to the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Those with a willingness to accept verifiable truth, though, are forced to admit that 9/11 had everything to do with a "12-point strategy to 'establish an Islamic government on earth', identified as The Project."
It's time for Ron Paul to admit he's been badly wrong about the jihadists for a very long time. If he won't accept these planning documents as proof that the Muslim Brotherhood is determined to create a worldwide caliphate, then Ron Paul isn't qualified to be commander-in-chief. PERIOD.
The documents don't talk about U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. The only thing they talk about is a steely determination to establish a Muslim caliphate that will rule the world.
It's time for Ron Paul to pull his head out of his ass and accept the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood's version of radical Islam. If he isn't willing to admit the truth, then his political career should come to a crashing halt this winter.
We don't need an ill-informed idiot as commander-in-chief.
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011 2:59 AM
Comment 1 by Evil Otto at 29-Aug-11 06:08 AM
"We don't need an ill-informed idiot as commander-in-chief."
Well, ANOTHER ill-informed idiot. ;-)
Comment 2 by Winston at 29-Aug-11 05:03 PM
ru paul is mentally unfit for any government job
Comment 3 by Joseph at 01-Sep-11 12:52 AM
Gary:
You paint a nice story but it doesn't disprove Paul's theory that 9/11 was a response to military bases. You want verifiable evidence, see Osama bin Laden's letter to the American people. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
Specifically, "Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures."
I am sure that there are groups and individuals that take umbrage with our occupation of foreign lands. The fact that they use Islam for their justification in their "official" 12-point strategy does not make Paul's view invalid.
Also, Youssef Nada was never charged of any wrong doing. He was a victim of post 9/11 hatred of Muslims.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Terror_suspect_sues_Swiss_government.html?cid=5232394
Shame on you for misleading your readers on Ron Paul. You should look at the following stories to start and do some research to find out how wrong you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks (look at the sources)
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/did-blowback-cause-911/Content?oid=1111514
http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/official-stories-and-blowback
The official 9/11 Report also cites our activities in the Middle East as reasons.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Sep-11 07:14 AM
Joseph, I've made it a practice to never trust the public statements of terrorists. I've made that my practice because of a Muslim tenet called al-Taqqiya. It's a tactic that allows Muslims to lie without impunity (in their eyes) if it's done to mislead the infidels. In fact, it's foolish to think that a mass murderer who resorts to mass-scale violence when he doesn't get his way should be trusted.
The former leader of the bin Laden unit in the CIA was recently interviewed about the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993 had started planning that terrorist attack long before Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In other words, that terrorist attack wasn't predicated on U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia.
Further, why didn't bin Laden talk about U.S. troops being in Saudi Arabia as the reasons behind the Embassy bombings in 1998 or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? What was al-Qa'ida's motivation for those attacks?
As for the notion that Youssef Nada being a "victim of post-9/11 hatred of Muslims", that's utter nonsense. The U.S. government didn't take actions because they hated Muslims. They took action to prevent future terrrorist attacks, which is the first affirmative responsibility a commander-in-chief is assigned by the Constitution.
The 9/11 Commission's report talked about our siding with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as contributing to the global war on terrorism. That's the oldest argument on the books. It's been discredited because the Palestinians don't want Israel to exist.
Please don't be this naive. Just because Ron Paul is doesn't mean you should be naive, too.
Comment 4 by Joseph at 01-Sep-11 12:55 AM
Winston:
Nice name calling. Way to be an adult. I hope you will be keeping your informed views away from the voting booth.
Comment 5 by Joseph at 01-Sep-11 11:38 PM
If you don't believe what terrorists say, then by your own logic, you can't believe the 12 point strategy that was found. Hence you argument is not verifiable.
Bin Laden didn't single out troops in Saudi Arabia. He said "occupy our countries."
It would be nice if you linked to some verifiable sources that discredit the Israeli link.
I think the part about the Palestinians not wanting Israel to exist proves that our siding with Israel creates blowback in the region that fuels groups like al-Qa'ida.
You shouldn't be so naive to not understand the unintended consequences of America's actions.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Sep-11 01:00 AM
Joseph, your argument would be valid if you hadn't missed a subtle, important point. Here's what I said:
Joseph, I've made it a practice to never trust the public statements of terrorists.Notice that I didn't say I'd never trust their statements, just the ones made for public consumption. When I read documents meant only for internal planning, I tend to trust them because that's when terrorists want to speak clearly.
Second, the only countries where the US had troops stationed at the time of 9/11 was Saudi Arabia & Iraq.
Finally, siding with Israel is something that's always worthwhile. Always. When God made His covenant with Abraham, He said "Surely, I will bless those that bless you & I will curse those that curse you." Since that time, He's been faithful to that covenant.
In the years when the United States' support for Israel was unwavering, the United States didn't just prosper. It flourished. Since the time that the United States' support started wavering, things have been bumpy at best. In my opinion, that isn't coincidental.
Comment 6 by Ron J at 13-Sep-11 08:26 PM
Gary,
Why would supporting Israel make the US prosperous? It seems to me that the US supporting Israel and US economic success would be coincidental at best. I can see how US economic success would allow the US to support Israel, but I don't see it working the other way around.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-11 12:02 AM
Supporting Israel is right because of God's promise to Abraham. "Surely, I will bless those that bless you & I will curse those that curse you." I prefer staying on the right side of God's promises. That's the only consideration I need in the matter.
Comment 7 by Ron J at 14-Sep-11 08:10 PM
While faith is important, it is a poor reason to support a country. Especially since the US is not a homogeneous nation.
Comment 8 by Sri at 19-Sep-11 02:14 PM
Ron - Gary will never get it because he doesn't want to.
We all have disagreements with others including politicians; it is the degree of disagreement that matters when we decide to vote/not vote for that politician. I agree with majority of what Ron Paul says.
1. He is the only guy who WILL bring our troops back. That alone is sufficient for me to vote for him. If Gary had family fighting in Iraq, he will understand. I mention to one of my colleagues about how illegal, immoral and nonsensical the Iraq war is to which she responded. 'Are you saying we did the wrong thing by taking out Saddam? Isn't the U.S. right in spreading democracy in Iraq'. My response 'it is none of our business to go to war with another country without being attacked. Especially when we are broke and our people are suffering.' Also, I had to remind her about the original reasoning for the war - the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
2. Ron Paul's biggest mistake is treating all Americans as adults while trying to explain issues like 'blow-back'. Just imagine this, I come to your house and shoot your wife and kids saying that I 'believe' you have a weapon of mass destruction and may try to kill me. Now that your wife and kids are dead, why wouldn't you want to blow yourself up and kill me and my family?!
Comment 9 by Truth at 02-Sep-12 12:12 PM
Why US Army fight together with Jihad (Muslim Brotherhood's version of radical Islam) in Bosnia and Kosovo? Just for politic (M-O-N-E-Y) interests. Just don't talk about Verifiable Proof.
Greetings from Serbia.
We were bombed by US, we, ordinary people who didn't support Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic (some American politicians are very good friends with him).
90% Americans (are ill-informed idiots as YOU are) don't know nothing and don't want to know except how to make a M-O-N-E-Y!
Ron Paul R3ution!
That's the way to make a better world.
That's News to America
After reading Deepak Chopra's article in the SF Chronicle, you'd think that America's best days are ahead and that only President Obama can get us to that better place.
It's time for Mr. Chopra to put down the peace pipe and return to the land of reality. Here's part of his article:
Achievement: Life needs to be productive, with a sense of meaning and accomplishment. For decades American achievement was a given; we led the world in accomplishments on all fronts, and American exceptionalism was recognized globally. Now the trend is against us. The rise of China and India, the loss of manufacturing at home, a sudden drop into permanent unemployment for millions of minority and older workers - all these factors make the public feel that the country isn't moving in the right direction.
Obama has been fulfilling this need by rooting for the American spirit (as every President must, some with greater or lesser success), promising a better future, and offering economic stimulus and jobs programs. He constantly points to a new future of innovation, restored infrastructure, stronger research and development and renewable energy. He doesn't attack globalism but faces the fact that global competition means that change must come to America.
Mr. Chopra is right. President Obama talks alot about a better future, more jobs at greater incomes, etc. Unfortunately for America, it's all happy talk, no achievement. What's worse is that his policies are total failures.
He so wants renewable energy to succeed that he's delighted to see the EPA take oil and coal offline in many states. (See Jim Hoft's post for more on that.)
Before President Obama's inauguration, I wrote that this should be the scariest time in his life. I said that he'd no longer be rated just on his ability to turn a good speech. I said he'd be rated on his results. At this point, his results stinks.
Here's another delusional outtake from Chopra's column:
Unity and community: the third basic need is the feeling that you belong, that a greater society wants you and that you are not left behind. To fulfill this need, the President has talked about bipartisanship and the end of crippling divisiveness in politics. Although himself born into a minority, he stands as a potent symbol for overcoming ancient social prejudice. I realize that we are all sick of talking about divisiveness, and everyone recognizes the political contradiction at work around us: voters declare that they are sick of bitter partisanship while constantly sending the most partisan politicians to Washington.
Again, it's all been happy talk. For each time he's talked about bipartisanship, he's ignored the will of the people. Think Obamacare and the stimulus. The American people are tired of the happy talk and getting ignored.
President Obama is a rigid ideologue. The proof of that is how he governed when he had overwhelming majorities in Congress. He didn't put partisanship aside. His partisanship was so obnoxious that he told Eric Cantor that he'd ram his stimulus through if need be because "We won." Not a single Republican suggestion was included in the bill.
Had he included some Republican ideas in the bill, the economy would be better. Instead, he's taking all of the criticism for the predictably underperforming economy.
Chopra apparently lives in the same la-la land of non-reality that President Obama lives in. While we can't get rid of Chopra, the good news is that We The People will get rid of President Obama in the next election.
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 29-Aug-11 10:37 AM
"He doesn't attack globalism but faces the fact that global competition means that change must come to America."
Indeed it must. The change, however, must be predicated in keeping America exceptional instead of surrendering to globalism. Liberals have never understood this concept and it's why they are driving our nation into the ground.
I can prove President Obama is a bad president
Ed's post in response to Jonathan Alter's article about whether President Obama is a bad president is a fun exercise. My question for Ed is whether there's a word limit, minimum or maximum, for proving it. First, a little of Ed's commentary:
First, the basis of the question has it backwards. We're not required to 'prove' that Obama is a lousy President; he's required to make a case for another four years of the same approach to the voters. Alter starts from a presumption that Obama is somehow entitled to a second term unless we can prove to Alter that he doesn't. No politician is entitled to office except for the term they win from the voters.
But even arguing on the basis of Alter's challenge, it's not hard to answer. He questions whether any President who presides over 9% unemployment is objectively bad enough to fire after one term. Not necessarily; it depends on how one reacts to that level of economic damage and attempts to correct it. I'd argue that Obama deserves to get fired for taking that moment in economic crisis to pass not one but two wide-sweeping regulatory bills that made employment and investment so risky that job creators have their capital on the sidelines. ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank imposed broad and ambiguous authority to the federal government that has produced a 'Rule of Whim' mentality in the executive branch, especially ObamaCare, which HHS has enforced by granting waivers to certain insurers, especially to unions, that don't meet the spending-to-premium ratio that Congress pulled out of a hat.
There Ed goes again. He's using alot of the material I'd intended to use so I'll attempt to use a different set of arguments.
First, President Obama's economic plan is the most central planning-based set of policies I've ever seen. The EPA's mission appears to be to destroy America's energy production capacity. A president interested in creating jobs would've fired EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a year ago. It's telling that he hasn't fired her.
Next, a president who's interested in governing the entire county would put the NLRB on a much tighter leash. He'd overrule Craig Becker and give Boeing the approval to start making plans for building Boeing's Dreamliner planes. Again, it's telling that he's steered clear of that conversation.
Third, President Obama's foreign policy has been, with a few exceptions, a disaster. He's cozied up to America's enemies like Iran and Venezuela while stiffing traditional allies like the British and the Israelis. He wouldn't even fight for liberty when Iran's mock elections 2 years ago were protested in the streets of Teheran.
President Obama's energy policy has been a disaster, too. We're already paying a price for it. We'll pay a bigger price for it 5 years from now.
If that isn't enough to prove that President Obama doesn't deserve a second term, then we might as well agree that all presidents deserve 2 terms.
No thanks.
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011 12:12 PM
Comment 1 by Winston at 29-Aug-11 05:03 PM
Obozo is an awful president
Perry's surge continues
If there's anything that comes through loud and clear in this CNN poll , it's that Gov. Perry's surge is gaining strength. Let's look at the Perry surge data:
Aug. 24-25 (without Palin, Giuliani)
Perry 32%
Romney 18%
Aug. 5-7 (without Palin, Giuliani)
Perry 18%
Romney 23%
Mitt's in a difficult position. He can't ignore a well-funded Rick Perry lest he look like he isn't willing to fight for the principles he believes in. Also, if he doesn't question Gov. Perry, people will question whether he'll go soft on President Obama.
The other thing to take from this polling is that Gov. Perry has hurt Rep. Ron Paul. Paul went from 14% approval in the Aug. 5 poll to 6% in the Aug. 24-25 poll.
Next Monday, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann will square off in the 'Demint Debate' in South Carolina. Mitt's announced that he won't participate in the debate, which is being seen as a snub to South Carolina.
The Demint debate will be interesting in that it'll be a possible preview of future debates.
Posted Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:19 AM
No comments.
Rep. Hosch's higher ed hysteria
Rep. Larry Hosch, DFL-HD14B, has written an LTE criticizing the GOP legislature for MnSCU's failures:
The budget agreement Republicans insisted on during our government shutdown levied huge cuts on Minnesota students. Their plan hit MnSCU campuses with a historic cut, scaling back funding to 1999 levels. That means our colleges and universities are being asked to serve 40,000 more students with the same funding that they got in 1999.
What this really says is that there are alot more students in degree programs that shouldn't be part of any community college or state university. What this says is that alot of money could be saved by eliminating programs like the Social Responsibility Masters Degree program at St. Cloud State or the Ecotourism AAS degree offered at Central Lakes Community College in Brainerd.
Eliminating the Social Responsibility Masters Degree program would save St. Cloud State $1,218,000 in salaries alone.
That's before questioning whether there's a genuine need for multiple campuses at most of the community colleges or whether there's a need for the teaching staff and administrative staff. That's before questioning the justification of universities hiring lobbyists on the public's dime. Why should taxpayers pay for lobbyists so they can tell legislators that they need more of the taxpayers' money?
That's before answering the question of whether MnSCU serves a useful purpose anymore. The chancellor gets paid $360,000 in salary per year. James McCormick, the man who just retired as chancellor, received a $50,000 bonus...after he retired.
Still, Rep. Hosch would have us believe that Republicans are to blame for higher ed's problems. Republicans aren't to blame. MnSCU's decisionmaking has cost Minnesota's taxpayers millions of dollars.
For decades Minnesota has been an economic leader in part because our students received a great higher education. Our best and brightest used their Minnesota degrees to get Minnesota jobs that drove our economy. That is a big reason why Minnesota has more Fortune 500 companies per capita than any state in the country.
Rep. Hosch's comparison to the 60's and 70's doesn't fit. Back then, higher education money was spent mostly on things that trained students for careers in engineering, medical research, technology, architecture and other highly needed scientific disciplines.
Those programs still exist. Unfortunately, they've been supplemented with programs that don't prepare students for gainful employment in the private sector.
It's real simple. If you invest in sciences, math, history and other programs of rigor, the state is rewarded. If the money is spent on junk like Ecotourism and Social Responsibility, taxpayers will get ripped off.
This paragraph is especially irritating to taxpayers:
The good news is we can make better choices. Area legislators insisted on a budget that did not ask the very wealthiest special interests to contribute a penny to our budget solution. Instead they gave our students a bill. This is neither fair nor wise. We need a balanced path forward that recognizes higher education in an economic priority for Minnesota students, families and our future.
What's aggravating is that the DFL insists that higher education shouldn't be accountable for their foolish decisionmaking. The days of writing higher education checks, then letting them do whatever they want with that money are over. This winter, the DFL will have a choice to make. They can either fight for the status quo or they can resist Republicans' attempts to make universities more accountable.
The DFL better choose wisely. Minnesota is watching.
Posted Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:10 AM
Comment 1 by Alan at 30-Aug-11 09:35 AM
Ecotourism A.A.S. Degree
Career Description
Ecotourism is a wide-open profession that offers the opportunity to travel the globe and explore, while serving to preserve both the natural and cultural integrity of the planet.
Ecotourism is a career? Ahh . . . I thought this was called "retirement."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Aug-11 02:40 PM
Perhaps, it's a retirement career for retired environmental extremist professors?
Comment 2 by eric z at 03-Sep-11 07:23 PM
Do you put a utilitarian measure on having roundly educated people? Would you eliminate English lit majors, because of job prospects. Is there more to it than bean counting?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-11 12:13 AM
Since English lit is useful in giving a person a better understanding of the English language, which is the core of intelligent, accurate communication, I'd argue that lit classes would be important.
When America's economy exploded, lots of people got educations. Some went to trade schools, others to tech schools while others went to college. They took that step so they'd be prepared for what was then called "gainful employment." They didn't go there to get a degree that would make them a better government bureaucrat.
That's what I'm upset about more than anything else. We don't have an infinite amount of cash resources. We must prioritize wisely. Social Responsibility is a great way to accumulate student loan debt. It isn't helpful in much else. Ergo, Social Responsibility should be at the top of the list of programs to eliminate.
Comment 3 by Alan at 03-Sep-11 09:26 PM
Is Eric talking about roundly educated graduates who have no job prospects? Does the UK college degree program in Beckham studies provide for "roundly educated" people? I think there is a difference between an English literature degree and a social responsibility degree.
Comment 4 by Alan at 04-Sep-11 09:29 AM
There is a difference between degree programs like English literature vs. junk programs like Bechman Studies, Social Responsibility, surfing studies (in Australia, see link), and ecotourism. Some current degree programs like social responsibility originally came from traditional credible academic programs (in this case, criminal justice). Most likely, ecotourism came from a traditional geography program (cultural geography emphasis) in travel and tourism which prepares students for economic event planning careers in large hotel and convention centers. If you truly want to study social responsibility, truth, and justice, then you should major in criminal justice. Higher education needs to start working with communities and businesses to prioritize academic programs with limited available resources.
The DFL's Extremist Problem
The DFL has an extremist problem. It's highlighted in this LTE :
Congressman Cravaack tried to force radical measures into the debt-ceiling bill, like the balanced budget amendment, and then voted against the bill. Why?
Now it's radical to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money? When did it become radical to think that, when faced with a debt crisis, cutting spending is radical? When non-defense discretionary spending is increased by 84% in the 30 months since President Obama's inauguration, spending must be cut dramatically.
When each of the annual deficits under President Obama are the only deficits in excess of $1,000,000,000,000, dramatic steps must be taken. Token cuts won't cure the problem. Voting against the debt ceiling bill isn't extreme. It's a path that's perfectly respectable.
The DFL will have difficulty hanging the extremist moniker on Chip, especially if he keeps making statements like this :
'The uncertainty Minnesota working families and aviation employees experienced was completely avoidable. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Reid was more concerned about the airport located within his district than he was about an entire FAA shutdown impacting tens of thousands of FAA jobs and working families across the United States.
It's unfortunate that some are now pointing fingers, as this dilutes our number one priority of creating sustainable jobs for Minnesotans. I urge Senator Reid and Chairman Rockefeller to complete a long-term FAA bill that can be signed into law to help this troubled economy, instead of a temporary extension.'
Chip Cravaack is pushing for real solutions to real problems facing Minnesotans. I'd love hearing the DFL explain how that's extreme. Most thoughtful Minnesotans would agree that that's doing the responsible thing.
On a sidenote, Sen. Reid needs to stop sitting on his thumbs. He's been a total do-nothing ideologue who's done everything possible to thwart the Republicans' attempts to clean up the mess President Obama, Sen. Reid and then-Speaker Pelosi created.
Posted Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment 1 by Kurt Koehler at 31-Aug-11 05:01 PM
You are an idiot. So is Cravaak.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Aug-11 05:48 PM
Kurt, your insightful commentary is only surpassed by your irrefutable logic & verifiable information. I'm just kidding. Seriously, this is the type of stupidity that's a chief characteristic of the far left's rhetoric. If you strip the ad hominem attacks from the Democrats' arguments, there wouldn't be any arguments.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 01-Sep-11 10:30 AM
Hey, Kurt. It's "Cravaack", or to you, simply Mr. Congressman.
DOJ announces lawsuit to prevent AT&T/T-Mobile merger
This morning, the Obama/Holder Justice Department announced that it is filing a lawsuit to prevent the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. Setting aside considerations on whether the merger would be a step in the right or wrong direction, this lawsuit brings major complications for Democrats in 2012 and beyond. This statement from the Communication Workers of America union expresses in very certain terms what they think of the DOJ's lawsuit:
Washington, D.C. - The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to seek to block the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA is simply wrong.
In today's sinking economy, where millions of Americans are looking for work, the DOJ has filed suit to block a merger that will create as many as 96,000 quality jobs. In the U.S., where too many Americans, especially in rural areas, don't have access to the tools of Internet technology, the DOJ is looking to block a plan to build out high speed wireless access to 97 percent of the country.
In a nation where workers' rights are routinely violated, as occurs everyday at T-Mobile, the DOJ apparently believes that workers should be on their own instead of having a fair choice about union representation.
The DOJ's action would put good jobs and workers' rights at the bottom of the government's priorities. Just yesterday, AT&T announced that it would return a net 5,000 jobs to the U.S. on completion of the merger. That is the kind of corporate responsibility that more employers in the U.S. should demonstrate if we are ever to have an economic recovery.
Instead of acting to block this merger, our government should be looking to support companies that create, keep and return good jobs to the United States.
This is the last thing the Obama campaign can afford at this time. Unions have already signaled that their support of his campaign won't be as enthusiastic as it was in 2008 :
The growing rift between labor and their Democratic allies was on full display Thursday, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters that labor groups are planning to scale back their involvement with the Democratic Party in advance of the 2012 elections.
Going forward, Trumka said, the labor movement will build up its own political structures and organizations rather than contribute to and depend on the Democratic Party's political operation.
This lawsuit will be seen by the CWA as another finger in the eye from this administration. The merger would've increased the size of their union as T-Mobile isn't unionized. The merger would've forced T-Mobile's workers into the CWA. The merger would've made the Communication Workers union one of the most powerful unions in the nation.
With unions already disappointed with the Obama administration's lack of accomplishments on their issues (See Card Check), this lawsuit is just another strike against the Obama administration. It isn't likely that the unions will vote for the GOP presidential nominee. It's plenty likely that they'll be less than enthusiastic in contributing to President Obama's campaign.
That alone makes the DOJ's lawsuit to prevent this merger foolish, with the possibility of it being a career-ender for President Obama.
Check back tomorrow for another post on the potential ramifications of the DOJ's lawsuit on other elections.
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Sep-11 07:20 PM
Franken supports blocking the merger for market competition reasons. As a consumer protection measure. He is getting heat from the Communications Workers who see a merger getting a 100,000 or so boost in membership [dues paying members]. Who is right in this? What would a libertarian viewpoint be?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-11 12:04 AM
Eric, Markets are the consumer's best protection. If a company, whether they're selling mobile internet service or whether they're selling automobiles, starts charging too much, the people will complain.
If tons of people are complaining that prices are too high, that's telling an investor that there's a niche open for him/her to exploit. If there's a niche to exploit, exploit it they will. I'll guarantee that.
PS- That's both the conservative & the libertarian perspective on that.
