February 21-28, 2014
Feb 21 02:14 Moscow on the Mississippi? Feb 25 23:57 SCSU rebranding fiasco Feb 27 02:21 Minnesota Unsure? Feb 27 13:37 DFL's anti-business leanings exposed Feb 27 15:59 IRS rule draws massive outcry Feb 27 16:58 Sen. Ortman's regrettable statements Feb 28 03:03 Obamacare "horror stories" are true
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Moscow on the Mississippi?
After reading this article , I'm wondering if I'm living the United States or in the former Soviet Union. Seriously, does anyone think that governments should be able to use eminent domain to take private property from a family to build biking hiking trails? That's what Dakota County is attempting to do:
The county is seeking a "quick-take" condemnation, effectively a compelled sale, of four parcels of land in the park reserve, offering a total of about $2 million.
County commissioners voted in November to take the land, saying the properties are a key part of a planned trail and other features.
What's more important: private property rights or giving government to take any piece of land to do with it whatever it wants to do? This is stealing. What's especially appalling is the taking of the land to build biking and hiking trails. What's worse is that Dakota County is attempting to steal this private property for a questionable project while offering the property owners settlements at far less than fair market value:
Aho said the county hasn't shown enough progress on other planned improvements besides the trail to demonstrate a need for condemnation.
She also said the county's offer for the land, $370,000, "drastically undervalued" assets like a marina and 1,000-plus feet of lakeshore.
After WWII, eminent domain was used to buy the land needed to build the interstate highway or other high priority pieces of infrastructure that led to great increases of wealth and prosperity to the masses. Since Kelo v. New London, eminent domain has been used to take property from private property owners and give it to government so it can create parks or bike trails.
What's upsetting to me is that Dakota County thinks that the perceived wishes of the many are more important than the rights of the individual. They aren't. First, the community's wish list shouldn't rate as a higher priority than a private property landowner's rights. The thought that the landowner's rights are getting set aside is disturbing enough. The thought that they're getting set aside for something as frivolous as a community park is especially upsetting.
Next, it's worth noting that special interest organizations are likely behind this taking. County commissioners don't just wake up one morning and say to themselves 'Hey, let's create a new park.' It isn't a stretch to think that they're approached by special interest organizations who have an agenda but who don't live near the proposed takings.
Finally, check out the government's arrogance:
'There's a great need for this,' commissioner Kathleen Gaylord said at the meeting. 'We do need to move forward. The board has come to the conclusion that it is time to move forward. This is a needed piece of property in order to complete our trail in the Spring Lake Park area and to provide the access to the park that our master plan has envisioned for decades. We're just coming to the head now. It's time to move forward.'
The board's conclusion. The commissioners' needs. The project's vision. What's appalling is that Kathy Gaylord and 5 other commissioners put the government's wish list ahead of the private property owner's rights. Apparently, Kathy Gaylord and the other slugs who voted to take this land don't care about these families' rights.
Anytime that government puts a higher priority on their projects than they put on individuals' rights, our nation moves closer to authoritarian rule. That isn't who we are as a nation.
We The People should reject this type of tyrannical government ASAP.
Posted Friday, February 21, 2014 2:14 AM
Comment 1 by wonderer at 21-Feb-14 10:03 AM
In response to an set of "eminent domain" claims by St Cloud that involved land acquired to build the Anderson Trucking headquarters, a state law was enacted to protect private citizens from twisted use of the principle. Wouldn't that apply here?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Feb-14 10:43 AM
I didn't hear about that legislation so I don't know if it'd apply here.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Feb-14 01:48 PM
Gary:
I wonder if those special interest groups are the same ones that in Nebraska have been trying (and apparently got a judge to sign off on it) to stop Nebraska from using eminent domain for the Keystone pipeline. I bet their lawyers because they care about land not being taken will rush to Minnesota to stop this disaster.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Sean at 21-Feb-14 05:01 PM
In 2006 (following the Kelo case in the Supreme Court), the Legislature passed reforms that tightened the criteria for which eminent domain could be used.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=214&year=2006&type=0
SCSU rebranding fiasco
Please, Say it Ain't So!
by Silence Dogood
A press release from October 11, 2011 highlights the new rebranding campaign: "Education for Life."
Just about every webpage at SCSU has the new tagline:
In the university's press release, according to Damien Navarro, Chief Visionary/Managing Partner for Earthbound Media Group (EMG), "The Education for Life tagline communicates partnership. It underscores the university's dedication to providing students with an education that goes well beyond the classroom."
The rebranding was necessary because as President Potter states: "Unfortunately, our reputation - our brand - is not as good as we truly are."
The United States Patent and Trademark Office maintains a website that is searchable online:
If you perform a Trademark Search for "Education for Life" it turns up fifty documents. Not all of them are relevant but two are of interest.
The first document of interest, from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTMO) shows that on November 30, 1995 Briarwood College (since 2010 is now Lincoln College of New England) filed a patent application in the supplemental register for the Word Mark "EDUCATION FOR LIFE". (the document appears at the end of this article)
The second document, which was filed on May 14, 2010, is a patent application in the principal register for "Standard Character Mark" for "EDUCATION FOR LIFE." (the document appears after the first document at the end of this article.)
I've been informed that the supplemental register is more for international protection and the primary register is for U.S. protection and requires additional information and filings. However, essentially both the words and form are covered by U.S. Trademark Protections.
The first image comes from the Standard Character Mark from the patent application:
The second image is SCSU's new branding tagline:
Microsoft's 'Word's' spelling and grammar checker indicates that the tagline 'Education for life' ending with a '.' is a fragment and should "consider revising."
The good news is that the use of poor grammar may, on a technicality, eliminate a trademark infringement concern because no one would confuse Lincoln Technical Institute's motto with SCSU's 'mistaken' grammar. If adding the period to make it poor grammar didn't solve the problem, perhaps raising the height of the first letter of each word and using a sans serif font might make it different enough to avoid trademark infringement? Or perhaps putting a box around the text would again make it different enough to avoid claims of trademark infringement.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Is anyone really going to argue that SCSU's new tagline doesn't share a lot of 'genetic material' from the patented phrase despite the poor grammar, font substitution, and surrounding text box? However, this is where lawyers get involved and usually a lot of money changes hands.
It's hard to believe that the Earthbound Media Group failed to do a trademark search before selling SCSU on the new tagline. So perhaps we have entered into a licensing agreement with the trademark owner for its use as SCSU new branding tagline? I just wonder how much that's going to cost? It certainly would be an embarrassment to SCSU if a claim of trademark infringement was filed and the embarrassment could become an expensive matter if the court granted injunctive relief to the trademark owner. In cases of trademark infringement, awards are based on each time there is an infringement which could be a lot of cases since each webpage downloaded and every email counts as a case.
Since I have not had any legal training whatsoever, I won't offer an opinion on the merits of a trademark infringement claim on SCSU's use of 'EDUCATION FOR LIFE.' Hopefully, the administration's legal counsel will issue a statement regarding the potential for infringement. At best, there is paperwork from EMG that provides the university the clear right to use "EDUCATION FOR LIFE" as our new "statement of intent." At worst, we are unwittingly using a trademarked phrase without permission. If the second case is indeed correct, it would directly support President Potter's earlier statement that "our reputation - our brand - is not as good as we truly are" because the university will have tarnished it's 'brand' by a careless and possibly ethical/legal lapse and another effort to create a new branding campaign will need to be launched.
Posted Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:57 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 26-Feb-14 06:37 AM
What's in a name? Especially in these days of "Affordable" Care Act? The real "education for life" comes after college, when you find out how worthless your degree really is. And how much it really costs to move out of the dorm. And how much you really now will pay in taxes.
Comment 2 by wondering at 26-Feb-14 09:56 AM
The traditional values of SCSU were captured in the older motto, Education and Opportunity. The cosmetic make-over to new slogans such as "Education for Life" and "Think. Do. Make a difference." have obviously not improved the university's ability to attract students and make it a satisfying place to work. Hundreds of thousands (?) of dollars spent on such a simple-minded approach to redefinition when the reality of what has been done is having negative outcomes: canceling successful programs, hostile/disrespectful treatment of faculty and staff, chaos in enrollment management, financial losses, family uncertainty about what programs and courses will actually be available to students, etc.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 26-Feb-14 12:10 PM
Don't forget that the very thing 'reorganization' was supposed to eliminate (silos) actually got worse with the apparent doubling of academic reporting Administrators. Silos, the Administration must have thought they were on a farm (no offense to the hard-working farmers).
Minnesota Unsure?
After reading this article about MNsure, I've got more questions than answers. Here's what I'm talking about:
With the new projections, the exchange now expects that Minnesotans will purchase about 500,000 months of coverage through the online marketplace this year, and more than 1.1 million months of coverage next year.
Thankfully, Rep. Greg Davids issued a statement that explains things nicely. Here's the text of Rep. Davids' statement:
'The numbers released today demonstrate that Governor Dayton dramatically overstated MNsure's enrollment projections,' said Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston). 'MNsure revised revenue projections from the insurance premium tax down 44 percent this year and 31 percent in 2015. As a result of the administration's wildly inaccurate financial assumptions, MNsure will likely run a significant deficit next year and into the foreseeable future.'
Here's what MNsure announced today:
The MNsure Board of Directors announced Wednesday that it dramatically reduced enrollment expectations for 2014. The board released a new projection showing that 50,518 households will enroll in individual market plans, and 1,313 will enroll in small group plans through the SHOP exchange. In March 2013, the Dayton Administration estimated that 164,000 would enroll in individual market coverage, and 13,125 would enroll through the SHOP exchange. In October 2013, the board projected individual market enrollment of 102,800, and SHOP enrollment of 13,125.
That's stunning. The Dayton administration estimated that 164,000 households that had purchased their insurance through the individual market would buy insurance through MNsure. Today, MNsure admitted that that estimate would only be 50,518 households. The Dayton administration's estimate was off by almost 70%.
The Dayton administration estimated that 13,125 households would purchase insurance through small group plans. MNsure verified today that only 1,313 households will enroll in small group plans via the SHOP exchange. That estimate is off by 90%.
Those e-tab e-tab revenue projections for the Vikings stadium were off by 95%. These projections are getting into that neighborhood. That's a frightening thought.
The best rule of thumb with this administration is that this administration doesn't deal with serious projections. Rather, they specialize in Statistical Wild Ass Guesses, aka SWAG.
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Feb-14 09:52 AM
Or is it Political Inspired Guesses-- PIG?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 27-Feb-14 01:38 PM
Gary:
Compared with some of Dayton's estimates being wrong (budget, etabs) the fact that he is only 70% is pretty close for him. One thing how many of these were renewals of current policies. I heard on Fox this is helping to inflate the numbers of people signing up.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL's anti-business leanings exposed
The DFL's hostility towards businesses has been frequently documented. Tax the Rich became their mantra in 2008. It's still part of their mantra today. Unfortunately for Minnesotans, Gov. Dayton and the DFL didn't just 'tax the rich.' They dropped a ton of taxes on the middle class and the working poor.
Speaker Thissen officially went on the record at a Minnesota Chamber of Commerce event that the DFL will raise the minimum wage and that it's likely to be closer to $9.50 per hour than $7.75 per hour:
Tuesday's Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Session Priorities event may have been full of literature, displays and speeches promoting business interests, but House Speaker Paul Thissen wasn't shy about telling business leaders that they won't be getting some of the biggest items on their wish list.
For starters, the highest income tax bracket is not going away, the DFLer from Minneapolis predicted. There will be a minimum wage hike, and that new minimum wage will be closer to the high end than the low end, he said.
'Quite frankly, I think this is the right direction for Minnesota to go. I know that's going to disappoint a lot of the people in the room, but I think it's where we should head,' Thissen said at the RiverCentre in St. Paul, where 1,650 tickets were sold to the annual event.
The short-term effect of raising the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour is that fewer teenagers will find jobs if the minimum wage is raised. In this sluggish economy, employers will have an additional excuse not to hire teenagers for summer jobs.
What's most disturbing is that Thissen thinks that Democrats think this is the right direction to head in. It indicates that the DFL doesn't understand what creates prosperity. One of Thissen's top lieutenants, Rep. Ryan Winkler, repeatedly says that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt hiring. He's both right and wrong. There's sufficient proof that raising the minimum wage during good times isn't tragic for businesses. It isn't helpful but it isn't catastrophic.
Likewise, there's sufficient proof that raising the minimum wage during a struggling economy hurts hiring, especially with young people looking for their first job.
Finally, it looks like the warehousing services sales tax and the farm equipment repair sales tax will be repealed. Two weekends ago, SEIU Local 26 President Javier Morillo-Alicea tried spinning the repeal of these taxes as DFL tax relief. That's the most deceitful spin I've heard in ages.
The DFL legislature passed a Tax Bill that raised too many taxes. After a lengthy public outcry, they've decided that it's in the Democrats' political self-interest to repeal their mistake before voters punish them this November. This isn't about the Democrats realizing that their tax increases will hurt businesses.
It's important to remember that these taxes were in Gov. Dayton's initial budget. They were stripped from the Democrats' Tax Bill thanks to an intense lobbying campaign by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. On the final weekend of last year's session, the DFL put the tax increases back into the final bill.
Simply put, Democrats thumbed their noses at the Chamber. The DFL only changed directions when they noticed how upset the Chamber was with these tax hikes. Thissen is especially worried because the Senate isn't up for re-election. That means all of the Chamber's anger will be directed at House DFL legislators.
That isn't automatically catastrophic with a statewide candidate, though it can't help. It's likely to have the biggest impact in House races where a well-funded challenger can defeat a vulnerable incumbent. That's why Thissen is rightfully worried.
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:37 PM
No comments.
IRS rule draws massive outcry
How unpopular is the IRS's proposed rule that would limit 501(c)(4)'s? I think that looking at a sampling of the organizations opposed to the rule would indicate the rule's foolishness. Let's start with this criticism from the League of Women Voters:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has proposed very significant changes in the regulations that govern what kind of political activity and how much of that activity a Section 501(c)(4) organization can carry out. This step is our best chance to rein in the secret 'dark money' that has been polluting our elections since the Supreme Court's terrible decision in Citizens United. At the same time, the current proposal would undermine the League's ability to conduct truly nonpartisan voter service activities across the country.
The LWV truly thinks it's nonpartisan even though their agenda definitely fits into the Democrats' agenda. That's why it doesn't hide its feelings by saying that they don't have a problem reining in "the secret 'dark money'" that's allegedly polluting elections since the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Leftists like LWV aren't the only organizations that despise the IRS's proposed rule. Americans for Tax Reform, aka ATR, opposes the proposed rule , too:
According to the IRS's own website, groups 'qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(4), [if] the organization's net earnings [are] devoted primarily to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.' This allows a myriad of citizen groups to educate their communities about issues which would affect them. Because of these activities, citizens can research laws and disseminate the information for free to those who might be impacted by the policies.
But with the proposed changes, organizations would lose their tax exempt status if they continued to spend sizable parts of their budget on the most basic civic activities. Among these activities are:
•Voter registration drives and 'get-out-the-vote' drives.
•Distribution of any material prepared by, or on behalf of, a candidate or, by a section 527 political organization (PAC).
•Preparation or distribution of voter guides that refer to candidates (or, in a general election, to political parties).
•Holding any event within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) at which any candidate appears as part of the program.
Under these criteria, any effort to educate the public about candidates, or the laws being passed by legislatures would be construed as 'political activity' and will be used to suppress the free speech of social welfare groups. Candidate debates, although they are useful to the general public, would be shut down in a Machiavellian attempt to prevent ideologically inconvenient groups from threatening the government's agenda.
This is McCain-Feingold in regulatory form. The BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United v. the FEC ruling. The Supreme Court ruled BCRA unconstitutional because it limited citizens' rights to participate in the electoral process, which the First Amendment prohibits.
Both ATR and the LWV recognize the fact that the IRS's rule would eliminate citizens groups from participating in the political process. That's why they're both opposing the IRS's proposed rule.
What's stunning is the volume of opposition to the IRS's proposed rule. According to the IRS's website, 122,135 comments had been left on the proposed rule. By comparison, there were 7,000 comments left for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Feb-14 04:04 PM
Gary:
I wonder how the "nonprofit" NFL will get treated by the IRS. After all they went into the political lobbying business big time these last six months. Oh wait a minute they did liberal causes so they will probably be ignored.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Sen. Ortman's regrettable statements
One thing that can't be tolerated is a Republican candidate who treads lightly on the issue of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Sen. Ortman's statement about Obamacare is disappointing:
Regarding the federal health care law, known as ObamaCare, she said: "There are some things about that that are good but I think that when you engage in a conversation in such a comprehensive way, you are going to see some things that people like and you are going see some things that people don't like. And I think, overall, the system doesn't work."
This simply won't cut it. Obamacare, aka the ACA, is a gigantic failure that should be scrapped and replaced with something that limits governmental 'participation'. Preferably, the replacement bill should permit families and their physicians to determine what coverages they need or don't need.
One of the significant flaws of the ACA is that the legislation created a one-size-fits-all plan across America. That's the last thing we need. Another thing that's counterproductive to getting rid of the plague of Obamacare is Republicans criticizing the attempted repeal of Obamacare:
"I'm not a full repeal person. I think the House of Representatives has voted 40 times to repeal it. The Senate is not going to repeal it. So if plan A is 'Let's do a repeal,' we better start talking about Plan B. Because plan A got nowhere," she said. Ortman said she would like to see Congress go "piece-by-piece through that new law and figure out what works and what doesn't."
As conservatives, the first thing we need is to admit that the ACA isn't fixable. If we think that it's fixable, then the only path forward is tinkering around the edges. That won't work. What's needed is a replacement plan that's patient-centered, a plan that lets families and the physicians they know and trust choose what's best for the families.
Anything that tinkers around the edges is defeatist thinking. I don't accept the premise that the ACA is fixable because it's exceptionally complex. For instance, if you think that government shouldn't be in the business of telling families what coverages their health insurance policies must include, then catastrophic policies must be offered. The problem with that fix is that that totally messes up Obamacare's funding mechanism.
That means Obamacare a) isn't sustainable financially and b) doesn't put families in charge of their health insurance. That isn't acceptable.
Here's Sen. Franken's (predictable) position on repealing the ACA:
But repealing the law would strip Americans of this new freedom and take us back to the days when big insurance companies had the power to decide what care residents of Minnesota could receive-allowing them to once again deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, and place limits on the amount of care people can get, even if they need it. What's more, without the law, insurance companies could overcharge for insurance just to boost their profits, or use fine print to deny medical treatments that are covered under people's policies.
Ask people who can't keep the policies they bought and liked because Washington, DC said they knew what's best for families if they like their new options. Across the nation, people are telling their horror stories. If Sen. Ortman agrees with Sen. Franken that repealing Obamacare isn't the right thing, then she's sending the wrong message to Minnesotans.
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:58 PM
Comment 1 by GOPNeighbor at 27-Feb-14 11:39 PM
Ortmann is consistent - she's a big govt Republican. They do exist - ever heard of John McCain? Ortmann liked the idea of Sheriff Stanek being able to spy on citizens without a warrant. And now she likes ObamaCare. Next she won't want to cut any govt budgets.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 28-Feb-14 11:45 AM
Sorry, Senator Ortmann, but you just lost my vote. "Absolutely nothing" is VASTLY superior to Obamacare, starting from the moment this unworkable monstrosity was crammed down our collective throats without a single Republican vote. What you have just told me is that you might not vote like EVERY other Republican on this issue, and that's simply not acceptable.
Even if there are "good things" in the PPACA-- the exchanges (properly structured and implemented) have been mentioned as a positive-- and even if there must be some "transition" for those few actually benefiting from it, the only proper starting point is full repeal of the whole idea that the federal government should control every individual's health care decisions.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 01-Mar-14 12:08 PM
Gary:
I think Ortmann and the other Senate candidates should be ready to point to Al Franken that right now the big insurance is the US Government since it says what coverage you have to have (at least before the act you had a choice)and that it is government that is making the decisions to deny care (ask that family in Phili whose daughter wasn't going to be allowed to have a lung transplant) and I can go on.
Apparently Senator Ortmann doesn't have the imagination to be a US Senator.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obamacare "horror stories" are true
Dr. Patricia McLaughlin has a dispute with Sen. Harry Reid. Sen. Reid's statement that the "horror stories" being shown nightly on TV are all untrue doesn't fit with Dr. McLaughlin's experience with the ACA:
Here's a partial transcript of her interview with Greta van Susteren:
GRETA: You have patients that have insurance and that go to you but now you've been knocked off one of the networks. Is that correct?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I've not been dismissed but I have not been offered participation status in some of the subsections from one of the insurance companies and that would be insurance that would be covering individuals taking out insurance through the Affordable Care Act or through small business plans outside of the Affordable Care Act. It also included them.
GRETA: Does that mean that some patients of your's can no longer go to you unless they pay for it out of their pocket?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's correct.
GRETA: Have any of your patients said anything to you? Are they distressed or are they just happy to move onto another doctor?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know, most patients are attached to their doctor. We've had longstanding relationships. We don't just take care of the illness. We take care of the human spirit as well. So we know things about their spouse, their children, their parents. We've been through their trials and tribulations. There's a relationship. Of course, they're distressed.
Let's be succinct about this. The horror stories that Sen. Reid lightly dismisses are real. I think Sen. Reid knows that. Further, I think Sen. Reid won't hesitate in lying about this to deflect attention away from the fact that the ACA is a failure that Sens. Pryor, Begich, Hagans, Udall, Landrieu, Franken and others voted for.
Sen. Reid knows that the AFP ads are devastating. Sen. Reid knows that AFP's ads are hitting his vulnerable incumbents frequently and hitting them hard. If those ads weren't working, Sen. Reid would lightly dismiss them or totally ignore them. It's painfully obvious that Sen. Reid is worried that he'll be Senate Minority Leader and his committee chairs will be ranking members within a year.
The bad news for the American people is that the Affordable Care Act is a trainwreck. The bad news for Democrats is that the American people might just take their frustration out of Senate Democrats this November.
Ronald Reagan once famously said that a recession is when your neighbor is unemployed, that a depression is when you're unemployed and that the recover starts when Jimmy Carter was unemployed. This year, that should be translated into the recovery starts when Sens. Begich, Franken, Hagans, Landrieu, Pryor, Shaheen and Udall are unemployed.
Posted Friday, February 28, 2014 3:03 AM
No comments.
