December 7-11, 2014
Dec 07 03:42 Smart energy, Mike Beard edition Dec 07 09:56 Onions & Orchids Dec 07 10:34 FOIA with teeth Dec 08 06:10 Thoughtful MnSCU reform, Part II Dec 08 12:24 SPJ: Agenda media at its worst Dec 09 03:55 Tony Oliva misses HoF by 1 vote Dec 09 08:17 Feinstein's, Democrats' dishonesty exposed Dec 10 01:28 SC Times' conflict of interest Dec 11 09:24 Feinstein's tortured rationalization
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Smart energy, Mike Beard edition
When he served in the legislature, Mike Beard was my go-to guy on energy and environmental issues. Two things impressed me about Mike. First, his understanding of energy and environmental issues is outstanding. The only thing more impressive than Mike's understanding of energy and environmental issues was the fact that Mike Beard's integrity was unassailable. This morning, Mike teamed with Roger Moe to write this op-ed on energy issues for the St. Cloud Times. Here's the chief point Beard and Moe drove home:
To help ensure we continue to have a reliable source of electricity in Minnesota and throughout our region, we recently signed on as the honorary co-chairs of the Coalition for a Secure Energy Future, an organization that advocates for preserving a balanced, all-of-the-above approach to electricity that includes traditional sources like coal-based power plants in both Minnesota and North Dakota.
Lignite is a grade of coal that might not sound familiar, but the electricity North Dakota lignite generates is regularly transmitted to us in Minnesota.
Lignite is different from the coal found in the Appalachian regions of the eastern United States, or other coals that must be shipped long distances by train. Because it is mined at the surface, rather than underground, lignite coal mining is safer than other heavy industries such as construction and manufacturing. It is also consumed at power plants adjacent to the mines, which virtually eliminates costly transportation charges and the need to burn diesel to transport coal.
The regional coal industry takes great pride in its ability to generate this low-cost source of electricity while simultaneously reducing emissions. In fact, North Dakota, with its eight coal plants and Minnesota, with its 11 coal plants, enjoy great marks from the American Lung Association. This prime ALA rating should serve as a reminder that electricity from coal can be economically beneficial and environmentally sound.
Mike's goal, whenever I spoke with him, was to educate people about Minnesota's energy needs within the context of keeping Minnesota's lakes, rivers, streams and air as clean as possible. That's what this paragraph is about:
But when looking to the future, we can't forget about the present. The diverse set of energy resources we use includes intermittent resources like wind and solar, as well as sources of always on, reliable power such as coal, nuclear, biomass and hydropower.
While it's important to keep Minnesota's air and water as clean as possible, it's imperative that we don't reach past the tipping point of clean air and affordable electric bills for families. This op-ed highlights how lignite coal gets good grades from the American Lung Association while providing reliable energy at a cheap price.
The first dirty little secret is that solar and wind power can't replace coal because you can't run factories on wind or solar power. The other dirty little secret is that the federal government wants to expand its regulatory reach beyond where the CWA is authorized to reach:
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers recently released a draft rule to significantly broaden the scope of their authority under the Clean Water Act by expanding the definition of 'waters of the United States.' The guidance would reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting limits on the federal government's authority to regulate waters without Congressional action.
The CWA is one of the most abused laws in the federal government. The Obama administration hopes to use it to increase its regulatory authority into areas currently governed by state and local jurisdictions. It's imperative that this overreach is stopped before it hurts the U.S. economy.
Posted Sunday, December 7, 2014 3:42 AM
No comments.
Onions & Orchids
This week's Onions & Orchids editorial contains a complaint that a well-educated fifth-grader would be ashamed to write:
Onions: I keep hearing the words, that the president poisoned the well. You can't poison a well if there is no water. The president has waited 515 days for the House Republicans to act and pass the bill. All this time people have been deported and families broken up. Their American children are costing millions to be put in foster care. I really wish they would grow up and act like mature members and do good and stop voting 'No' or not voting at all. They could trump the president and pass the immigration bill. That excuse of not trusting Obama, just does not wash. The President has put 30,000 agents on the border, but if there is a will they will find a way - nothing can be 100 percent. They can enter our country by planes, boats or through the wilderness area we share with Canada. They are not hurting the president. They are hurting real people and that is not how to govern.
First, it's pure fallacy to say that "people have been deported and families broken up" during the Obama administration. Most of the so-called deportations aren't deportations. Prior to the Obama administration, people apprehended while crossing the border were classified as people apprehended at the border. From the time that they took office, President Obama's DHS has classified people caught at the border as deportations.
Had the Bush administration counted people caught at the border as deportations, the Obama administration's deportations would be miniscule by comparison.
Second, I don't care if President Obama has waited 515 days for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate immigration bill or if he's waited 1,515 days, the Constitution doesn't give him the authority to write new law. And yes, President Obama wrote new law because, in addition to telling DHS not to deport illegal immigrants, he gave them temporary legal status. Only Congress can write that provision. President Obama's only responsibility in that setting is to sign the law that Congress passed.
Third, the reader says that not trusting President Obama isn't an excuse for not passing the bill. On November 4, the American people said the opposite. With a booming voice, they said that they wanted Congress to not pass an immigration bill until President Obama could be trusted.
Finally, this explosion of illegal aliens is hurting blue collar workers nationwide. With an overabundance of low-skill workers, companies don't have an incentive to hire legal immigrants and people born in the United States. They can pay cheap wages to illegal aliens. These companies get the additional 'bonus' of not paying for health insurance benefits.
President Obama is a lame duck president who wants to stay relevant. The nation is turning the page. It's time to start fixing the things President Obama broke.
Posted Sunday, December 7, 2014 9:56 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Dec-14 11:28 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget another point the fifth grader should make. The senate bill was a very bad bill and shouldn't be passed.
The fifth grader should be smart enough to know by not doing a bill right now the House is stopping that horrible bill from becoming law.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
FOIA with teeth
Sharyl Attkisson's latest post highlights a disturbing pattern of behavior within the federal government:
After the appeal, the F.B.I. told me that its original claim (that it had no information about me) was a mistake and the agency promised to reprocess it. More time passed, and the F.B.I. sent me a few pages of cryptic material that didn't include most of what I know exists (let alone the material of which I may not be aware).
I again told the F.B.I. that I was certain more information existed, including, for example, material from the F.B.I. background check conducted on me before I was granted a White House pass as a CBS News correspondent. Eventually, the F.B.I. notified me by letter that there was a lot of material it could send me, but I would have to agree, in advance, to pay for the costs of producing it and specify my preference between having it delivered via paper or on a CD. I answered yes, I would pay, and that I wanted the material on DVD.
I didn't hear back from them.
Ms. Attkisson isn't optimistic this will be resolved quickly:
It's one of countless examples in the past decade of federal agencies thumbing their noses at Freedom of Information requests, whether filed by member of the public or news media. After all, there are no repercussions for their unlawful behavior. The information requests often fall into a bottomless pit and remain unanswered for months, even years, past their legal deadline. If and when they are answered, the responses are often incomplete, containing so many unsupported redactions and withholdings as to make them pointless.
Here's a radical thought. Let's have Congress write legislation that imposes a harsh penalty on the head of the noncompliant, secretive agency. Unresponsive agency management personnel should pay with their employment.
An agency's failure to produce the information within 45 days should count as a first warning against that agency's CEO. If the FOIA request isn't filled in its entirety within 60 days, the agency chief should be notified that failure to comply will trigger an independent investigation into that agency by a special prosecutor. If the agency hasn't turned over all documents requested by the citizen within 75 days, the special prosecutor will impanel a federal grand jury with the right to prosecute that agency's chief for withholding that information.
The only charge available for that grand jury is obstruction, which would be a felony.
It's time to tell the federal government that being unresponsive is unacceptable. The only way that'll happen is if agency chiefs pay a price for their inaction.
Posted Sunday, December 7, 2014 10:34 AM
Comment 1 by Bubba at 12-Dec-14 06:41 PM
I haven't had that problem with an agency I am doing battle with, their PIO office has been responsive. I don't always agree with them but that is what makes a horse race. What is disturbing is the folks who provide the data lie through their stinking teeth and claim they don't have it or try to charge an arm and a leg for the data to discourage its release and their embarrassment.
Thoughtful MnSCU reform, Part II
Thanks to Darrell Downs' article , we finally have a platform from which we should talk about Chancellor Rosenstone's Charting the Future initiative. I hope that the first part of this series furthers that conversation. This paragraph from Downs' article is worthy of examination:
Students, faculty, staff and taxpayers deserve an honest and open conversation about change. This conversation could start by recognizing that even good ideas can come at an untenable price. No public funds have been appropriated for systemwide planning, so isn't it reasonable to know what is being sacrificed by pursuing new directions? When sacrifice gets down to the campus level, it could mean fewer programs, fewer majors and minor degree options and fewer options for students; ultimately it means less freedom to serve our students.
If that first sentence is the most important consideration in implementing a major change, and it should be, then Chancellor Rosenstone failed miserably. If we agree that everyone that's potentially affected by these changes should have meaningful input into the changes, which should be imperative, then Chancellor Rosenstone failed when he kept CtF's blueprint a secret and when he hid McKinsey's contract.
If CtF truly is innovative, what expertise could McKinsey bring to the equation? If CtF is groundbreaking in nature, then we're writing chapters in a totally new book. Personally, I'm skeptical that CtF is a groundbreaking reform initiative. That's because Chancellor Rosenstone isn't an outside-the-box thinker. He's worked too long in the public sector to have fresh insights into systemic problems that he's presided over.
Further, he's still trying to win the debate that his presidents are highly qualified. That ship sailed a year or more ago. The presidents at Moorhead and Metro were fired. The presidents at St. Cloud State and Mankato should've gotten fired. President Davenport should've gotten fired for his foolish decision to fire Coach Hoffner. President Potter should've gotten fired for signing a terrible lease with the J.A. Wedum Foundation that SCSU is losing an average of $1,300,000 per year on, for losing tens of millions of dollars on tuition revenues due to dramatically declining enrollments and for intimidating students.
Further, MnSCU is notorious for not seeking public input. They certainly didn't require public input into dropping SCSU's aviation program. That was shoved down the faculty's and the students' throats without meaningful public input. (Detecting a pattern here?)
Meaningful change also happens on campus. Campus faculty and staff are continually redirecting their scarce resources to meet the needs of students. Academic programs are changed and new courses are created and modified through careful and frequent deliberation. New partnerships are built with businesses, governments, and non-profits, and new directions for the universities are developed on a regular basis. Rosenstone is correct in saying that change is hard, but he is wrong to imply that it's not already happening.
MnSCU itself is an impediment to good governance. CtF will only make matters worse. During Chancellor Rosenstone's administration, MnSCU has fought for more centralized control of the system. The best reforms come when lots of experiments are being tried. Some inevitably fail but others succeed beautifully.
The 1990s are the perfect example of that. Half a dozen governors worked on welfare reform. The welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton signed was the byproduct of experimentation by Tommy Thompson, Bill Weld and Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.
If Rosenstone were truly wise, he'd start by listening to the faculty, students and businesses. Then he'd work with faculty and students in putting together a list of key principles that reform must accomplish. Finally, he'd bring in the best and the brightest reformers to implement the reforms.
Instead, Rosenstone put a blueprint together, then hired a consulting firm to implement his top-down plan. It isn't surprising faculty and students aren't buying into his initiative.
Posted Monday, December 8, 2014 6:10 AM
No comments.
SPJ: Agenda media at its worst
Stan Hubbard's response to the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists' denunciation of KSTP highlights Mr. Hubbard's substantive criticism of MNSPJ. First, here's the reason behind Mr. Hubbard's response:
On November 19, 2014, the Minnesota SPJ asked KSTP-TV to "disavow" its reporting, saying that our story was "fundamentally flawed and based on a faulty premise." This, because you decided the image in the report showed Mayor Hodges making what the Chapter called a "silly gesture." KSTP-TV reported that gesture as a known gang sign. We were informed of that fact by several law enforcement agencies. You even went so far as to suggest that we would try to mislead. To suggest that KSTP-TV would ever deliberately distort any fact in any story is totally out of line. We have never done so and we never will do so.
Thanks to Mr. Hubbard's response, the SPJ has exposed itself as a leading voice of the Agenda Media:
Perhaps most disappointing of all is the fact that most, if not all, serious news organizations that addressed our coverage, including the board of the Minnesota SPJ, simply "followed the herd" and tracked the trend on Twitter in their derision of our coverage. Rather than responsibly questioning law enforcement's motivation in bringing this story forward, and digging deep into whether it truly represented a public safety issue, they instead chose to simply ignore that which was reported, and go with the much easier and much more popular "silly gesture" angle.
Twittersphere journalism isn't journalism. It's shortcut journalism, which isn't real journalism. The question that SPJ hasn't answered is the question that SPJ won't answer. Why didn't SPJ's news organizations do the research that KSTP did? Why didn't SPJ member organizations check into law enforcement's claims that Mayor Hodges' actions presented a public safety issue?
Clearly it is disturbing to many that otherwise playful gestures presumably innocently made by a public official can have a totally unintended meaning in a different context. Nonetheless, that is exactly what our reporters were told by numerous law enforcement sources. Namely, that while a "gun" gesture may be funny and innocent in many contexts, it is neither funny nor innocent in a neighborhood plagued by gun violence and a "foothold of area gangs." The recent announcement by federal officials that the indictment of 11 high profile individuals from two warring gangs, allegedly involved in the North Minneapolis drug and weapon trade, underscores the seriousness of the current gang situation.
Why isn't SPJ interested in this? Is it because they aren't interested in the seriousness of the issue? Or is it that this information doesn't fit their script? Whatever the reason for their disdain, their willingness to ignore the seriousness of gun and gang violence is disturbing at minimum. This is something that's troubling, too:
Public records reflect that Mr. Gordon had been arrested for aggravated armed robbery on August 2, 2014, two months before the picture in question was taken.
That's disturbing on steroids. Why would Mayor Hodges campaign with a thug facing charges for aggravated armed robbery? Further, why is the DFL reaching out to criminals in their campaigns? Why aren't SPJ organizations interested in this story angle? Finally, why didn't SPJ admit that a mayor campaigning with a thug who's been arrested on aggravated armed robbery charges is a big deal?
Simply put, the SPJ's disinterest in these substantive angles verifies the fact that the SPJ isn't that interested in substantive reporting. It verifies that they're more interested in pushing the progressives' agenda.
Posted Monday, December 8, 2014 12:24 PM
Comment 1 by RexN at 08-Dec-14 08:43 PM
Until recently a "cone of silence" covered up, even denied the existence of a gang problem. Mayor Hodges, you're in the big leagues now. Elementary kids are getting expelled for such innocent gestures. Surely you can take this heat, unintended doesn't count.
Tony Oliva misses HoF by 1 vote
Yet again, the Golden Era Committee screwed up. Yesterday, they kept the most dominant hitter of the 1960s and early 1970s out of baseball's Hall of Fame. This year, Tony Oliva fell one vote short of election into Cooperstown.
Think of Tony's credentials. They're significantly better than any of the other candidates for the Hall of Fame. Tony Oliva is still the only player in baseball history to lead the league in hitting as a rookie and in his second season. As a rookie in 1964, Tony finished with a .323 batting average. In 672 at-bats, Tony struck out just 68 times or once every 2 1/2 games. Tony wasn't just a slap hitter, either. That year, Tony finished with 43 doubles, 9 triples, 32 home runs, 374 total bases and a .557 slugging percentage.
That's just the tip of the iceberg with Tony. Rod Carew won 8 batting titles during his Hall of Fame career. While they were teammates, Tony Oliva was Rod Carew's batting coach. The man who once hit .388 in a season has often spoken of Tony as the greatest hitting instructor he's ever known.
This would all be academic if Tony hadn't torn his knee in August of 1968, the so-called Year of the Pitcher. For more than half of his career, Tony played with a knee that was little more than bones. In 10 full seasons, Tony collected more than 1,800 hits. If not for that knee injury, Tony easily would've banged out close to 3,000 hits in his career. He probably would've won more than 3 batting titles.
Let's remember that Sandy Koufax, the man most baseball experts call the best southpaw in baseball history, only won 165 games in his 12 year career . This shows that Hall of Fame voters have made exceptions based on a player's impact on the game in a brief period of time. There's no reason not to apply that same exception to Tony.
The Golden Era Committee got this badly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves. During an interview on MLBNetwork, one of the voters said the problem was that this was a strong class and that each voter could only vote for 4 players. That's spin and then some.
The problem was that some committee members made a big mistake in not recognizing Tony's incredible accomplishments.
Posted Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:55 AM
No comments.
Feinstein's, Democrats' dishonesty exposed
Later today, the Senate Intelligence Committee will release a report on terrorist interrogations. It's already being called the "Torture Report." Retired CIA officer Jose Rodriguez wrote this op-ed to expose Dianne Feinstein's and Nancy Pelosi's dishonesty. Let's start with this:
According to news accounts of the report, Feinstein and her supporters will say that the CIA violated American principles and hid the ugly truth from Congress, the White House and the public. When the report comes out, I expect that few of the critics who will echo Feinstein's charges will have read it and far fewer will read or understand the minority response and the CIA's rebuttal.
The interrogation program was authorized by the highest levels of the U.S. government, judged legal by the Justice Department and proved effective by any reasonable standard. The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and of both parties in Congress were briefed on the program more than 40 times between 2002 and 2009. But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to deny that she was told in 2002 that detainees had been waterboarded. That is simply not true. I was among those who briefed her.
Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Pelosi should be tarred and feathered for their dishonesty. That Ms. Pelosi would say that she hadn't been briefed by Mr. Rodriguez is proof of Ms. Pelosi's utter dishonesty. She should be criticized mercilessly for being a liar. After that, Democrats should be tarred and feathered for deserting a program that saved American lives for purely partisan reasons.
Initially, Democrats insisted that the CIA do all that it could to prevent another terrorist attack:
In one ear they hear the public, the media and members of Congress raising alarms about the terrorist threat from the Islamic State: Do something! Do it now! Why didn't you do something sooner ?
The Democrats' dishonesty is easily explained. In the days after 9/11, Democrats put the needs of the nation first. By 2006, the Democrats noticed how animated the anti-war left had become. Seeking to capitalize on the anti-war left's enthusiasm, Democrats like Sen. Feinstein, Ms. Pelosi and candidates like Amy Klobuchar ran as anti-war lefties. The same anti-war lefties then powered Barack Obama's presidential election victory in 2008.
Members of Congress and the administration were nearly unanimous in their desire that the CIA do all that it could to debilitate and destroy al-Qaeda. The CIA got the necessary approvals to do so and kept Congress briefed throughout.
Democrats say that waterboarding violates American principles. That's BS. Since when does saving hundreds of American lives violate American principles? I'd love seeing a Democrat explain how saving American lives violates American principles, especially since the Constitution requires the president to protect and defend the United States.
This morning's op-ed isn't Mr. Rodriguez's first op-ed. Here's what he wrote in his April, 2014 op-ed :
On Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify and release hundreds of pages of its report on U.S. terrorist interrogation practices. Certain senators have proclaimed how devastating the findings are, saying the CIA's program was unproductive, badly managed and misleadingly sold. Unlike the committee's staff, I don't have to examine the program through a rearview mirror. I was responsible for administering it, and I know that it produced critical intelligence that helped decimate al-Qaeda and save American lives.
Here's Mr. Rodriguez's opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report:
The committee's staff members started with a conclusion in 2009 and have chased supportive evidence ever since. They never spoke to me or other top CIA leaders involved in the program, or let us see the report.
The thought that this report would be praised by Democrats as the definitive report on the CIA's interrogation techniques is insulting to thoughtful, honest people. The Feinstein Report is a political hatchet job. It isn't a serious review of the CIA's interrogation techniques.
If a CIA expert said that EITs "saved American lives", I'll trust him, not partisan Democrat hacks like Sen. Feinstein or Ms. Pelosi.
Posted Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:17 AM
No comments.
SC Times' conflict of interest
This Our View editorial in the Times isn't surprising considering their disgust with conviction politicians. It isn't surprising that the Times is running interference for St. Cloud State again.
Councilman Johnson's understanding of the airline industry has caused him to ask a number of pointed questions about daily flight service to Chicago. Being an expert on that issue isn't a liability, though the Times apparently think it's a liability. It's a strength. Councilman Johnson isn't afraid to ask tough questions while the Times and other politicians try sweeping things under the rug.
Further, it's beyond galling to see the Times write about conflicts of interest, especially with regards to St. Cloud State. The Times has played multiple roles in its relationship with St. Cloud State and President Potter. They've been SCSU's PR agency. They've been Potter's stenographer, too. Unfortunately, the thing they haven't been are unbiased reporters of fact.
If you weren't reading LFR, you likely don't know that SCSU has hidden, with the Times' help, the fact that administrators have erased students' participation in classes from the University's official transcripts. If you haven't read LFR, you certainly wouldn't know that St. Cloud State's tuition revenues have dropped dramatically thanks to a precipitous drop in enrollment. One Times article even said that enrollment for a semester was only down 1.3%, which is technically accurate if you're going by headcount enrollment.
Had the Times reported that FYE enrollment, which is the only enrollment that's predictive of tuition revenues, that semester was down close to 5%, they might've seen this year's $9,542,000 budget deficit. Unfortunately, they didn't report it, then were surprised when President Potter was forced to announce that SCSU's operating deficit for FY2015 will be at least $9,542,000. It's still possible, unfortunately, that it might reach higher.
If you haven't read LFR, you wouldn't know that President Potter's trust rating with the faculty was terrible. The best that the Times has done is admit that there's a problem and that both sides need to work together to solve the problem. The Times hasn't said anything critical of President Potter with respect to the Great Place to Work Institute's Trust Index Survey. When the Institute asked if the administration didn't play politics, only 17% of faculty agreed with that statement.
Not surprisingly, the Times didn't report that. Instead, they talked about the need for both sides to work together.
LFR is calling on the Times to abandon their SCSU cheerleader uniforms and to become a serious news organization. Their unwavering support for President Potter, frankly, is disgusting. If they won't stop being President Potter's off-campus PR firm, then people shouldn't take their Our View editorials seriously.
Posted Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:28 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 10-Dec-14 03:31 AM
My comment to the article (and I had not read LFR yet)
I encourage everyone to support MR Johnson
Greg Jarrett
MARY: He was unopposed. Cute reference as to one trick pony though. LORI: unfortunately, for the Times, this is EXACTLY the reason for this "opinion".PERCEPTION
The truth of the matter is that Mr. Johnson brings forth real challenging and tuff questions that are not getting answered...by anyone....period.
This City depends on SCSU in a big way. SCSU has lost and is continuing to lose huge numbers in enrollment and is losing MILLIONS (9 million deficit RIGHT NOW) under the current leadership. The aviation program WAS closed improperly. North Dakota is laughing at SCSU and put an aviation billboard on I-94 to throw in in their face and recruit students. Take a look at THEIR enrollment
SCSU has a nearly empty 40+ million building, empty student housing, rising crime on campus ... Those are simple FACTS
While that is NOT officially St Cloud "business" it DOES affect St Cloud.
IF perception IS reality, then the Times also "perceives" everything is fine, ITS NOT.
In the larger picture directly tied to SCSU is the MNSCU Chancellor who has received unanimous NO CONFIDENCE VOTE STATEWIDE, and he makes more money than ANYBODY in State Government AND the President of The United States. You're kidding me , right?
His leadership DIRECTLY affects SCSU.
I'm sorry but I think Mr. Johnson is a breath of fresh air.
PLEASE somebody tell me that SCSU is NOT important in the financial well being and stability of the City of St Cloud. Mr. Johnson has every right as a good Councilman to ask these questions. My question is why aren't the rest of them? Every person reading this, in some way is affected by SCSU and its enrollment.
The MAIN reason the Times wrote this "opinion" is just defense of the force feeding "happy talk" that many of us know differently, first hand. My AXE is that many in this town are asleep to the obvious huge cultural, economic and social tidal wave of changes that is supported by the leadership at SCSU and the Chancellor of MNSCU.
THAT is NOT perception. That is also a FACT.
SCSU will become a Mosque and Coborn's will become Goat markets before anyone wakes up!!!
BRAVO Mr. Johnson keep up the good work!!!
Reply - - about an hour ago
Comment 2 by Overseas student at 10-Dec-14 04:47 PM
I don't see what all the fuss is about councilman Johnson. He asked hard questions about St. Cloud's air service to Chicago including the fact that there needs to be more passengers, the unfair competition with federal subsidies, and he mentioned the critical airline pilot workforce problem.
Sometimes I wonder how serious St. Cloud is about keeping air service. He also mentioned that Coborn's Apartments lost almost 8 million bucks since it opened and how the taxpayers are paying for this, and if the city was going to approve the bonds at some later date.
I see that people from the public are also staying there, too. I am sure that will go over real well with the hotels and other landlords. The Times claims that he is doing this to get his job back at St. Cloud State. Yea right! The stuff he brings up is legitimate and anyone with half a brain knows it.
Feinstein's tortured rationalization
Dianne Feinstein's op-ed is a tortured attempt to rationalize the Democrats' last attempt to throw mud at President Bush. It's time to expose Sen. Feinstein's tortured logic.
In the wake of 9/11, we were desperate to bring those responsible for the brutal attacks to justice. But even that urgency did not justify torture. The United States must be held to a higher standard than our enemies, yet some of our actions did not clear that bar.
When people's lives are at stake, every tactic must be on the table. Protecting people's lives must always be a higher priority than living up to an imaginary international standard for polite societies. What Sen. Feinstein and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee just said is that protecting people is less important than living up to an imaginary international image.
Thank God the president's oath doesn't give him that luxury. His oath is to protect the United States. Period.
Thankfully, Ralph Peters' op-ed sets Sen. Feinstein and the Democrats serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee straight:
As for those supposedly horrendous actions taken by CIA personnel to convince blood-encrusted terrorists that cooperation might be the wisest course, they may have been harsh, but the times and our enemies were and are immeasurably harsher. But torture? What the Islamic State and its ilk do to their captives is torture. They shrink from nothing. We shrink from the thought of a terrorist gasping for breath.
Harsh interrogation techniques don't equal torture. Any nation that's squeamish about making life a living hell for terrorists won't live a peaceful existence. Democrats insist that 'we're better than that.' Here's a question for Sen. Feinstein and her fellow Democrats: What's better than protecting American lives?
Here's how Col. Peters took Sen. Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats to the woodshed:
Senator Feinstein and her supporters argue that the American people have a 'right to know,' but they don't know the American people. Living too long in a bubble with fellow members of the cultural elite, they have no sense of how the average American feels about terrorists who fly passenger aircraft into skyscrapers or who gleefully behead innocent captives in video clips.
Far from being mortified by water-boarding or sleep deprivation (for working Americans sleep deprivation is a normal state of affairs from holding down two jobs and multiple shifts to feed their families during the Reign of Obama), the folks I know back home in the Pennsylvania coal towns would skin terrorists alive then get out the salt shaker. My people weren't upset by water-boarding. They were upset - infuriated - by the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
The Pennsylvanians Col. Peters described in his op-ed are clear-thinking people living in the real world. These Pennsylvanians have their priorities straight. As I said earlier, protecting people's lives must always be America's highest priority. Sen. Feinstein and the other Democrats serving on the Intelligence Committee apparently think that we're living in a peaceful world. When barbarians with a seventh century mindset attacked the United States, they gave the United States permission to be more barbaric than the terrorists were. (Think fighting fire with fire or all's fair in love and war.)
It's time for the Democrats to recognize that the barbarians haven't stopped thinking barbaric thoughts. They've changed tactics but they're still just as barbaric as al-Qa'ida was. That's just the cold, hard truth.
Posted Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:24 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Dec-14 11:31 AM
Gary:
The part that I find amazing the 9-11 mastermind admitted that being given the agressive tatics made him think it was okay to talk. That's a useful piece of information that Diane F and her group apparently have decided to ignore.
Not to mention they claimed we learned nothing useful. We learned a lot from the 9-11 mastermind once we got him to start talking. Of course that only happened after we gave him that treatment to think he can talk.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
