December 19-28, 2015
Dec 19 16:53 Gov. Dayton's irrational thinking Dec 23 07:44 Exposing the Times' anti-democracy bias Dec 23 09:59 NFL must suspend Odell Beckham Dec 23 13:30 Challenging Coach Coughlin Dec 24 23:59 Merry CHRISTmas Dec 28 01:33 Tarnishing Breitbart's legacy
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Gov. Dayton's irrational thinking
Apparently, Gov. Dayton thinks that legislatures can pass laws that override the U.S. Constitution. This AP article says that Gov. Dayton "is urging legislators to ban gun sales to people on terrorism watch lists." Notice that there's been a subtle shift from Hillary's speech about the nexus between terrorism and the national no-fly list.
The article continues, saying that Gov. Dayton "concluded he doesn't have the authority to restrict those sales on his own." He's right. He doesn't have that authority. Instead, he wants "the Legislature to pass such a law", adding that "people who aren't allowed to board airplanes shouldn't be able to purchase guns."
That law would never be enforced because the judiciary would halt enforcement in a New York minute. One of the people on the no-fly list was the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Dan Cotton, (R-AR), said that Sen. Kennedy "was on the list and couldn't get off for weeks, having his flights disrupted time after time ."
If Minnesota passed a law that prevented people on the no-fly list from buying guns, they'd pass legislation that violates a person's civil rights. That's unacceptable because it's unconstitutional.
Gov. Dayton swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Stripping a person of their constitutional rights without due process is a direct violation of that oath.
Posted Saturday, December 19, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Dec-15 08:27 AM
The constitution means nothing to politicians trying to advance their addenda, especially when it comes to progressives. How many times have we heard the current White House occupant say that the constitution is getting in his way? Progressives would rather pass a law banning this or that, then letting the courts decide if it is a constitutional law because they know the courts generally rule in their favor through "interpretation" of the constitution, i.e. Obamacare.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 21-Dec-15 06:48 PM
I can't help but wonder: what if the Legislature was safely DFL again, would he (she!?) really ask for this law? Or is he (she!?) just pandering, safe in the knowledge that the GOP House won't act on it.
Exposing the Times' anti-democracy bias
When I read this Our View editorial , my first reaction was that of disgust. The Times has tried to portray itself as object, as allies of 'the people'. That facade disappeared when they wrote about setting a revote on the Tech-Apollo bonding referendum for this spring.
When they wrote that "a huge turnout expected in presidential election years may not enhance the chances for a school referendum to pass", the Times essentially said that the right outcome was more important than giving the people the right to make informed decisions based on information gathered during meetings where the school board took questions and answered them on point. If the school board doesn't answer the people's questions directly, then citizens should continue to defeat the bonding referendum.
BTW, giving platitude-filled answers doesn't constitute answering the citizens' questions. That's deception, which isn't tolerated. The citizens have a right to know more of the specifics about the building that would be built with their money. When Barclay Carriar admitted that "80 percent of [the new Tech HS] isn't going to be designed until after the referendum", he essentially told voters that they should approve the bonds without knowing what they'd get.
Carriar is an "adviser with Ameriprise Financial and co-chair of Neighbors for School Excellence." Think of adviser Neighbors for School Excellence as the DFL's Vote Yes campaign organization for pushing the bonding referendum down voters' throats. It's important to remember that the bonding referendum was defeated in November because the School Board tried getting their referendum passed without answering voters' questions.
That time, with the bonding referendum being the only thing on the ballot, voters rejected the proposal by an 8,460 to 7,393 vote margin. That 53.4% of the people voted to reject the proposal is a major upset.
Supporters and district campaign materials first cited a 10-year maintenance tab of $140 million at Tech. However, as the Election Day neared, credible evidence arose to question it. Yet supporters and even district leaders remain tight-lipped to this day about its validity.
That was a major nail in the School Board's coffin. That wasn't the only thing, though, that people questioned. They also questioned whether the buildings both needed to have a capacity of 1,800 students, especially considering the fact that there are 2,700 students in Tech and Apollo right now.
The chances of ISD742 increasing enrollment by one-third over the next 20-50 years is approximately zero. The school board tried convincing their constituents that writing the school board a blank check based on a platitude-filled campaign.
That measure went down in flames.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:44 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 23-Dec-15 04:59 PM
Let's face it...the Times is not an ally to the people as we've repeatedly seen for quite some time now. I find it interesting and quite accurate that the chances of 742's enrollments going up by a third over the next 20-50 years as zero. I also find it interesting that SCSU's enrollment drop is pretty close to 1/3. A mere coincidence Gary or is St. Cloud having problems? Clearly, many of the leaders are either in denial or have their heads in the sand.
Comment 2 by Dave Steckling at 23-Dec-15 10:18 PM
More likely enrollment will continue to decline. Last year alone, 1,600 students left district 742 to surrounding schools. The student aide lost to 742 was nine million dollars! Minority
integration of refugees with third grade education into the same classrooms as urban American born students has had a deleterious affect on scholastic standardized tests scores. Any parent in their right mind would want their children's school experience to be without handicaps. Leaving the district will be ongoing and there will be NO NEED for a new high school!
NFL must suspend Odell Beckham
By now, everyone's seen this video of Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham spearing Carolina's Josh Norman:
Monday, the NFL suspended Beckham from Sunday night's game against the Minnesota Vikings. The NFLPA immediately appealed the suspension. That appeal is happening literally as I type this. James Thrash, a former NFL wide receiver hired by the NFL and the NFLPA, is conducting the hearing.
I'm betting that the NFLPA's chief argument will be that he should be fined, not suspended. If that's the NFLPA's chief argument, that should be immediately rejected. Beckham's actions a) were dangerous, b) were motivated by malice and c) could've resulted in a concussion that could've financially damaged Josh Norman.
Thus far, the comments have focused on how out-of-control Beckham was or how this isn't typical of a Tom Coughlin-coached team. Both statements are indisputable. What hasn't gotten talked about is the fact that Josh Norman will be a free agent this offseason. He's considered the best cornerback in the league, which means he should expect a 5-6 year contract worth $15,000,000 a year, including at least $50,000,000 in guaranteed money.
Beckham's hit could easily have given Norman a concussion. If he'd been concussed, all bets are off as to whether Norman would get the type of contract he's expecting to get. While it's likely that he'd still sign a lucrative contract, it's quite possible that Norman would've gotten less lucrative contracts, costing him as much as $25,000,000.
That's yet another reason why Odell Beckham must be suspended.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Dec-15 01:21 PM
Neck injury. Michael Irvin.
Eye injury. Detached retina. Unlikely. But possible.
Yet if Beckham plays against the Vikings, if they cannot compete with the best, they should (post season) watch the best. It's how things should be.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 25-Dec-15 06:51 PM
While I'm late to this comment, if the NFL had to suspend Odell (which they did and a judge upheld), they should have suspended Norman for his on field actions and they should fired the officiating crew for ever letting it get to the point where Odell speared Norman. Maybe the whole Panthers team should be suspended for bringing baseball bats onto the field (foreign objects on the field are against league policy) no matter if it was in support of an injured teammate or to intimidate Odell. The NFL has become a joke. Soon Vince McMahon will be running the league as it has become just like wrestling. At least now the Vikings have a chance to beat the Giants now that Odell is out.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-15 12:38 AM
First, I disagree that Norman should've been suspended because he just threw Beckham to the side and taunted him. What he did was unprofessional and disgusting but it wasn't dangerous. If you want to argue that his fine should've been bigger, I'm ok with that.
What Beckham did might've crippled Norman or at least greatly impaired Norman. With the number of suicides over the past 2-3 years related to concussions and other brain injuries, Beckham's actions crossed a line that can't be tolerated.
As for the officials, they were a disgrace. They shouldn't be allowed to officiate a playoff game this season. Period. They lost control of the game early & never got it back.
Challenging Coach Coughlin
Tom Coughlin, the long-time head coach of the New York Giants, is one of the most decent men in the NFL. When he speaks, I listen because he's earned that respect. I can't agree with him about what he said about the Giants-Carolina game .
I agree with Coach Coughlin when he said that Odell Beckham "has been singled out for his actions." I don't agree with him rationalizing his player's behavior. That's what he was doing when he said that there "were factors involved starting in pregame, which are well documented, which indicate there was an attempt to provoke him. He was provoked, he was out of control, he was wrong, no doubt about that but...there are two sides to this not just one."
Josh Norman got fined because he was the player that got hit by Beckham, who got a 10-yard running start before hitting Norman in the head at high speed. Norman's actions were a clear violation of the rules. Beckham's actions could've caused a number of different brain injuries to Norman. At no point did Norman try to spear Beckham.
That's why Beckham's suspension should be upheld.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2015 1:30 PM
No comments.
Merry CHRISTmas
Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christ, prophesied by the prophet Micah:
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.
O Little Town of Bethlehem:
The Christmas story -- Micah's prophesy fulfilled Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 4-16:
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
Away in a Manger:
Joseph takes Mary, Jesus, to Egypt -- Matthew 2:13-14
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, 'Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.' 14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 'Out of Egypt I called My Son.'
O Come All Ye Faithful:
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2015 11:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Dec-15 02:00 PM
Happy Chanukah, Gary.
Tarnishing Breitbart's legacy
My first and only contact with Andrew Breitbart came at the Minneapolis Marriott Hotel in 2011. I walked in the door and Breitbart was standing there maybe 10 feet away. I was surprised that Breitbart took 4-5 minutes to talk with me because, in the grand scheme of things, I'm a nobody. That evening, Breitbart delivered a stirring speech in which he talked about the need to get rid of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate because, in his words, "if you can't defend liberty and freedom, you suck." Here's the video of that keynote speech:
I wrote this article because I couldn't stand the thought of hearing John Nolte tell us that Donald Trump was "the great truth-teller of 2015." That's such total BS, it stinks from Philadelphia to San Francisco and from Minneapolis to Houston.
This morning, Diana West stinks up the place again with this article by saying that we should "rally around Donald Trump." Here's the heart of West's case for rallying to Trump:
The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the 'yuge' sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of 'political correctness' with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America - or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.
There's a major flaw with Trump as commander-in-chief. The Constitution only works if it governs moral people. Mr. Trump isn't a moral person. He's repeated said dishonest things, then insisted that he hadn't said the dishonest things that were videotaped. Think about his disgusting statement about Carly Fiorina's face. The first time he was challenged about it at a debate, Trump insisted that he hadn't disparaged Mrs. Fiorina.
Think about Mr. Trump's statement that Megyn Kelly had mistreated him and that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her -- wherever", then explaining that he wasn't suggesting that he'd been mistreated by Ms. Kelly because she was menstruating.
Anyone that will follow a person as morally deficient as Mr. Trump isn't trustworthy. Ms. West, however well-intentioned she is, has essentially said that we should follow a highly immoral person. That's something I won't do. I've voted for people that I didn't agree with. I won't vote for immoral people.
That's why I won't rally around Mr. Trump.
Posted Monday, December 28, 2015 1:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 30-Dec-15 06:46 AM
It is unclear how you are juxtaposing Breitbart and Trump.
I suppose it has something to do with the embedded video which my browser script blocker nixed.
As to Breitbart, while not a follower and in disagreement with the little I know of him, there is a YouTube "interview" by Martin Bashir online that is extremely offensive, not because of anything Breitbart said but by the rudeness of the interviewer. It is worth tracking down if you've not seen it. Very offensively handled by that network. If you invite someone onto a network to discuss anything, you handle it as Charley Rose does, rather than as a pitbull programmed into interruption/loudness mode. Otherwise, don't invite.
As to Trump, he is, after all, speaking to a big part of the Republican base. While that is something you and other Republican Inner Party folks wish to deny, it is who your people have courted to gain majorities going back to Lee Atwater and including Karl Rove. Pandering to base instincts and extreme stupidities within your base was not a new Trump invention.
It's a simple case of Trump reaping what the Bush family and their henchmen - and going back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" - have sown.
Ugly, yes. Non-Republican, sorry, you're wrong there.
