January 12-13, 2011
Jan 12 08:50 Rhee Isn't Waiting For Superman Jan 12 00:41 Where's Joe Friday When We Need Him? Jan 12 10:14 Tarryl's Hypocrisy Showing Jan 12 13:24 Exposing SEIU's Double Standards Jan 12 16:54 Selective Outrage Isn't Flattering Jan 13 00:39 Well-Written Speech, Hollow Words; This Wasn't Wellstone II Jan 13 10:13 What Will Aasen Say? Jan 13 10:50 Pray For Larry Haws
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Rhee Isn't Waiting For Superman
The teacher unions better beware because they're about to face the fiercest storm in their history. That storm's name is Michelle Rhee. Though she isn't fighting the NEA and other teachers' unions from an official, inside-the-district position, she's perhaps fighting them from a more powerful position :
Rhee, who has been featured on the covers of magazines, on Oprah, who famously called her a 'warrior woman,' and in David Guggenheim's recent documentary, "Waiting for 'Superman,'" resigned shortly thereafter.
Now Rhee is continuing her fight to improve the nation's classrooms through a new organization, Students First. This time, she's hoping to better tap into discontent with the state of public schools across the country.
Thus far, she's raised $1.4 million and attracted 140,000 members, she said. The goal: Raise $1 billion in a year and organize 1 million members.
Tuesday, she was featured during Gov. Chris Christie's State of the State Address . She was interviewed by FNC's Megyn Kelly, too.
The thing that kept coming to me is that she might be in better position to rally parents from the outside than from the inside. Her appeal is similar to Glenn Beck's We Outnumber Them campaign, mostly because parents and concerned citizens do outnumber those in the teachers' unions.
Most importantly, it's obvious that her message is catching fire with parents. Until now, they've felt pretty overwhelmed because the teachers unions are a force to be reckoned with. What's interesting is that Rhee isn't calling for the elimination of teachers unions. She's calling for parents to start pushing back against the teachers unions' agenda.
Parents outnumber members of teachers unions. That's a matter of fact. The NEA and EdMinn look out for its members. That's their mission and they do it well. Rhee's Students First organization primary mission is to advocate for the students. Their missions are quite different. In many instances, they're polar opposites, in fact.
StudentsFirst's mission is something everyone should support. Here's part of StudentsFirst's mission statement:
To succeed in our mission, we're working with parents, teachers, administrators, and citizens across the country to ensure great teachers, access to great schools, and effective use of public dollars. Together, we'll demand that legislators, courts, district administrators, and school boards create and enforce policies that put students first.
We'll make sure politicians and administrators recognize and reward excellent teachers, give novice teachers the training they need, and quickly improve or remove ineffective educators. We'll work to ensure that every family has a number of options for excellent schools to attend, so that getting into a great school becomes a matter of fact, not luck. And we'll make sure all Americans understand that our schools are not only an anchor for our communities, but an absolute gateway to our national prosperity and competitive standing in the world economy.
This is a mission that screams American exceptionalism. It's rooted in competition and excellence. We can't afford to not support this. Those that've been fighting this fight for years need to lead the fight. Those who haven't taken up the fight yet need to start fighting that fight ASAP.
Here's another important principle worth fighting for:
Once inside the school, a great teacher is the single most important factor in a child's education. While there are many factors that influence a student's ability to learn, a great teacher can help any student overcome those barriers and realize their full potential. For this reason, we're doing everything we can to make sure teachers are supported and all schools are able to hire and retain the best teachers possible.
Equipping teachers with the right curriculum and the right learning instruments is just part of the process. Nurturing good teachers so they become great teachers is important. Terminating underperforming teachers is vital, too. We can't afford underperforming teachers when too many schools are underperforming.
SIDENOTE: Most schools that get failing grades have teachers that give themselves passing grades. There's a disconnect in there somewhere, right?
I'd encourage everyone to read StudentsFirst's mission. It's time to be inspired.
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:50 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 04:17 PM
Gary, neither you nor Michelle Rhee no what you are talking about when it comes to education. That is really all there is to it. So, don't sit there on your ass and try to tell me how to reform education while I work my ass off trying to actually teach.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Jan-11 05:14 PM
neither you nor Michelle Rhee no what you are talking about when it comes to education.Nice spelling, Mr. Teacher.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that putting great teachers in each classroom will improve the educational product. Teachers aren't the only ones who understand education issues & what improves educational outcomes.
Isn't it teachers who always tell the citizenry that high quality teachers have a significant impact? Don't you mean that? Either that or it must suck telling someone that they don't know anything about education, then getting corrected by that someone who supposedly knows nothing about education.
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 05:37 PM
Yep, I misspelled a word and you STILL don't know anything about reforming education or what makes a great teacher.
Comment 3 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 05:41 PM
So what does improve educational outcomes? What type of lesson plans provide the optimal education? How about differentiated instruction? When teaching a class of varying ability what is the best practice in getting each of those students to learn the material. Keep in mind that you have children with an IEP as well as gifted and talented children in that classroom.
So, teach me oh educational expert. How should instruction be changed in order to improve education?
Comment 4 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 05:46 PM
Come on Gary, enlighten me. You really want to have an education debate on education policy then let's have one. Your only real solution is getting rid of the union and privatizing education.
Tell me how to best teach children!
Comment 5 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 05:56 PM
What is the best classroom management technique?
How should we go about building a curriculum?
What are the best methods of evaluation of students?
What is the best grading system?
How would you handle late work?
What are your thoughts on retention?
How much homework is appropriate?
Should we loop or not?
What is your solution to end bullying?
How do you propose we teach students who are more concerned about their next meal or whether they will be beaten tonight than they are about fractions and grammar?
How do I integrate technology in the classroom?
Comment 6 by Eric Austin at 12-Jan-11 06:07 PM
Also can you please define underperforming teacher for me? I mean, EXACTLY what criteria define an underperforming teacher!
What would the appropriate level of growth be? How will you measure that? How will you know that it isn't due to outside factors like home life or other personal problems?
Comment 7 by Eric Austin at 13-Jan-11 05:04 PM
Aren't you going to answer even one of my questions? I thought you wanted to have a discussion about education reform and how to better educate our children?
I guess it's just political games that you want to play. I should have known.
Where's Joe Friday When We Need Him?
The target of the most justified criticism this weekend is a tight contest between Paul Krugman and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. That said, it isn't a difficult choice as to who most deserves the criticism.
Paul Krugman once was a brilliant economist. He's now a political hack. In the grand scheme of things, he's a nothing because he hasn't contributed anything but noise to society in ages.
Sheriff Dupnik, however, has a serious job, that of being a chief law enforcement officer. This weekend, however, he forgot about those responsibilities to join Professor Krugman as a political hack.
When Tucson needed a Joe Friday-type investigator, Sheriff Dupnik turned in his investigator's badge for a microphone to compete with Krugman for being the most over-the-top, disgusting pundit in America.
The families of the victims of Jared Loughner's killing rampage needed Joe Friday. Remember Friday's line about 'Just the facts mam'? Instead of putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Sheriff Dupnik pontificated about potential political motivations.
He admitted early that he didn't have proof that there was any political motivation for Loughner's killing rampage, as did Professor Krugman. Still, days after his hurtful and irresponsible pontifications, Sheriff Dupnik continued pontificating.
People might forgive him for losing his cool for a moment. To continue pontificating this long after the event suggests that Sheriff Dupnik isn't a serious law enforcement officer anymore, that he's more interested in being a political activist.
Let's be clear about this. I don't doubt that Sheriff Dupnik once was a dedicated law enforcement officer. It's that I'm certain he isn't a top law enforcement officer anymore. Perhaps he's been in the job too long. Perhaps political causes interest him more these days.
If they do, that's fine. It just isn't fine to be a political activist while you're the chief law enforcement officer in Pima County. There's just too many responsibilities on law enforcement's shoulders, especially with Arizona being overrun with drug-smuggling Mexican cartels rampaging through Pima County.
It's time that Sheriff Dupnik turns in his badge. If he wants to become a local pundit after retiring, that's his business. It's just that he hasn't shown that he's responsible enough to his job as sheriff anymore.
It's best for all involved for Sheriff Dupnik to announce that he isn't seeking another term, that he's retiring and that it's time for a younger man to take his place.
Let's hope that that becomes reality.
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:41 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's Hypocrisy Showing
When it comes to chutzpah, Hillary Clinton's got nothing on Tarryl Clark. This morning, Roll Call Magazine is reporting that Tarryl recently sent out an e-letter to supporters decrying Michele Bachmann's use of heated rhetoric. I'm stunned by that news. NOT!!! Here's what Roll Call is reporting:
Former state Sen. Tarryl Clark said she hasn't decided what her next move will be after losing to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann in November, but the Minnesota Democrat is keeping her e-mail list alive.
In an e-mail titled 'Stopping the Hate,' Clark called for unifying rhetoric following the weekend shootings in Arizona.
'Instead of calling on us to be 'armed and dangerous' or to 'reload', and instead of name-calling and conspiracy theories, elected leaders ought to be bringing people together to solve the major challenges we face,' Clark wrote. 'They ought to bring out the best in all of us by inspiring us to see the world as it can be, not as it is today.'
Tarryl's race didn't turn out well for the Democrats. It was one of the districts targeted by the DCCC :
Representative Don Young AK-AL
Representative Dan Lungren CA-03
Representative Elton Gallegly CA-24
Representative Ken Calvert CA-44
Representative Brian Bilbray CA-50
Representative Bill Young FL-10
Representative Tom Rooney FL-16
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart FL-21
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart FL-25
Representative Tom Latham IA-04
Representative Donald Manzullo IL-16
Representative Brett Guthrie KY-02
Representative Joseph Cao LA-02
Representative John Fleming LA-04
Representative Bill Cassidy LA-06
Representative Roscoe Bartlett MD-06
Representative Thad McCotter MI-11
Representative Michele Bachmann MN-06
Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer MO-09
Representative Lee Terry NE-02
Representative Leonard Lance NJ-07
Representative Christopher Lee NY-26
Representative Henry Brown SC-01
Representative Pete Sessions TX-32
Representative Eric Cantor VA-07
Representative Dave Reichert WA-08
Representative James Sensenbrenner WI-05
Representative Shelley Moore-Capito WV-02
Bringing people together is something Tarryl Clark is good at. It's that she stinks at actually bringing people together. Her type of bringing people together is presenting the DFL's agenda, then telling Republicans to take it or leave it. There's a reason why Gov. Pawlenty's Taxpayer Protection Pen was so overworked.
When I talked with Tarryl at the first townhall after the 2007 election, she assured me that the DFL legislature would conduct oversight hearings on eliminating wasteful spending in the state budget. By that summer, she refused to talk with me after another townhall, this one held at the Whitney Senior Center.
In January, 2008, after Tarryl's special meeting on health care, I approached the dais to talk with the panelists, including Sen. John Marty. I identified myself, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that I'm an evil conservative blogger. We had a brief, light-hearted laugh and a cordial conversation that lasted 3-5 minutes.
When I finished that conversation, I went to talk with Tarryl, who was finishing a conversation with Eric Austin. When Tarryl saw me, she replied "There's Gary. He hates me." with a big grin on her face. As one of her constituents, I was appalled.
Let's state for the record that I don't think Tarryl believes I hate her. Still, I'm certain that she didn't like the fact that I challenged her policy initiatives and her spending habits. This was likely her way of saying "Back off."
If that's Tarryl's way of "bringing people together" for the common good, then she's more bluster than reality. Tarryl can pretend to stay relevant but the reality is that she's shown herself to be not ready for prime time.
Of the 3 DFL candidate to run against Michele, Tarryl got whipped by the biggest margin...by alot. Patty Wetterling lost by 50-41. El Tinklenberg lost 46-43. Tarryl lost by 52.5-40. Yes, it was a wave election but tendencies don't automatically turn into results.
Simply put, people rejected Tarryl's schtick for a politician they don't always agree with but who they think is authentic.
Let's face it. When given the choice, the American people will pick the authentic candidate over the phony every time.
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:14 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Jan-11 04:15 PM
Yeah Gary, but if the left truly removes hate from their speech they won't have anything to say.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Exposing SEIU's Double Standards
It isn't surprising that SEIU's standards for criticism are, shall we say, selective. In fact, it's quite predictable. This am, SEIU tweeted something that must be responded to:
"Government employees should not have to fear for their everyday safety":
http://wapo.st/eHdfXm
I don't disagree with that statement. I think it just needs to be expanded to protect street vendors in St. Louis and BofA executives , both of whom were attacked or threatened by SEIU thugs.
If SEIU is expecting a higher level of conduct, then SEIU should hold its members to a high standard of conduct, too, something that they aren't effective at.
It's time that the SEIU lived up to its demands of others. SEIU has proved that they're a bunch of thugs. Before SEIU whines about the need for elected officials to be safe, something I agree with, it's right for them to get their house in order first.
Attacking black conservatives like Kenneth Gladney and intimidating 9-year-old children isn't the way to build credibility with thinking people. Still, that's precisely what SEIU has done.
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:24 PM
Comment 1 by Lucy@Israel at 12-Jan-11 02:04 PM
The representatives of this organization behave like those having quite a lot of power. That's why they're so bold. They don't seem to understand that they need to develop respect in people they work with but not fear.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 12-Jan-11 04:12 PM
Gary:
It's more than just SEIU. Afscme council 5 has a thing on their website with a picture of Giffords promoting the same theme.
wow why is my union attacking me since apparently I'm a supporter of this so called hate speech.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Selective Outrage Isn't Flattering
I'm getting sick of dealing with progressives' posts about "the climate of hate" that's been circulating since Jared Laughner went on his violent rampage. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive about the subject but it's time we stopped the Sorosphere dead in its tracks.
The latest blogger to demagogue the issue is Andey Birkey. I don't expect great things from Birkey. Still, I'd wish he'd do better than string together this pile of drivel :
In March 2009 on WWTC , Bachmann said, 'I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people, We The People, are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.'
Oh Puhleeze. Will progressives cling to everything that Michele Bachmann has ever said until she retires? This is getting tiresome. The least they could do is put the statement into context. Wait. I'll take that back. The least they could do is what Mr. Birkey did.
Though it's been explained before, I'll explain it one last time in an attempt to put Michele's quote in context.
At the time of this statement, Michele was anticipating the House to start debating the Cap and Tax bill, also known as Waxman-Markey for its authors Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey, (D-MA). Michele knew that the vote would be tight, which it was.
The goal of Michele's statement was to inspire conservative activists to learn as much about the bill as possible so they could make compelling arguments against the bill. (Incidentally, Waxman-Markey, had it passed, would've been the biggest tax increase in U.S. history.)
Birkey then quotes Rep. Elllison:
'We've gotten so immune to it, and it doesn't really rank in terms of priority because it's just so ordinary, so regular,' Ellison said. 'But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.'
Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be 'armed and dangerous' in response to President Barack Obama's energy plans.
Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn't belong in the political discourse.
'The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,' Ellison said.
Noticeably missing from Birkey's post was Ellison's inference that 9/11 was an inside job and that 9/11 essentially allowed President Bush to take control of the country like the Reichstag fire helped Hitler take control of Nazi Germany :
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: 'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you.'
This is a perfected trick of the left, with Bill Clinton using it particularly effectively. They'll tiptoe right up to the line, then say that they aren't inferring anything.
Rep. Ellison isn't that effective with the technique, with the tipoff being his saying that "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you.' Clearly, he wanted to plant that thought in his aundience's mind without, "you know," being put "in the nut-ball box" where they "dismiss you."
What'd be hilarious if it wasn't so full of BS. (That's B as in B, S as in S.) Birkey then quotes timid soul Paul Krugman :
The point is that there's room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it's the saturation of our political discourse, and especially our airwaves, with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be 'armed and dangerous' without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I'm curious how Krugman defines "eliminationist rhetoric". Would he think that burning a sitting senator in effigy "eliminationist rhetoric"?
"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy."
That quote's author? Professor Paul Krugman. I guess, if we're taking advice from someone, that we're best off taking it from an expert. There's no denying that Krugman is the expert in "eliminationist rhetoric" or in over-the-top rhetoric.
Mr. Birkey would be well-advised to not be selectively outraged. It wouldn't hurt if his research wasn't this shoddy, either.
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment 1 by arlenearmy at 12-Jan-11 11:42 PM
i sure wish mark levin would hurry up & start suing. i heard that if another person (be it common blogger or news network) that using his name again in connection as blame for the AZ shootings, he will surely sue.
Well-Written Speech, Hollow Words; This Wasn't Wellstone II
Now that I'm able to read the transcript of President Obama's speech , I'm able to confirm what was my initial impression of the speech: that President Obama's delivery of the speech was wonderful and that the words are utterly hollow. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
The discourse didn't just suddenly become "sharply polarized." That happened thanks to the White House's tone from before the inauguration, like when Rahm Emanuel said that we shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste.
Things took a downward turn from there when they debated the stimulus package. Republicans had one meeting with President Obama, at which time Rep. Cantor tried bringing in some Republican ideas. At that time, President Obama curtly replied "We won."
President Obama had another big chance to heal our political system and make sure that "we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds" during the health care reform debate. Not only didn't he make sure that we talked with each other in a way that heals, he ignored the American people.
Now I'm supposed to think that he's sincere in his plea for civility? I'll think he's sincere if his actions match his words. If they don't, I'll consider them empty expressions at a high profile event.
UPDATE: Pat Dollard has posted 2 updates to his original post about tonight's memorial service. It's understatement to say that Pat's upset:
Step right up, ladies and gentleman, the tragedy campaign tour starts right here: Indians, poetry readings, visual aid gimmick made out of public letters, he's managed to turn a memorial service into a three-ring circus: a logo and slogan for a memorial service? Really? And 'Together We Thrive'? Just another coded political slogan for his upcoming political 'tragedy agenda', having nothing to do with mourning or a tribute to the victims, and worse, clearly, he's debuting his replacement slogan for 'Yes We Can'. Jonathan Alter recently advised Obama to treat this shooting like any other crisis that can be capitalized on for political gain. 'Never let a good crisis go to waste', reminded Alter. Well, I guess Obama took his advice.
Check this out:
QUESTION: When's the last time you heard of a memorial service with its own slogan AND t-shirt?
With all due respect, there's too much that doesn't add up. What was with all the applause during President Obama's speech? That didn't feel right at the time. After seeing the 'event t-shirt' and the professional looking logo, there's now a plausible, though certainly not verified, scenario that makes sense.
That scenario is that this was a little too orchestrated to just be a memorial service. Until I hear something plausible that's verified, I'm not dismissing this scenario.
At minimum, this is something that the White House can't ignore. It's suspicious that 14,000 t-shirts were created in 96 hrs. Those things don't just appear out of thin air. Who thought of getting the t-shirts created in time for the memorial service? Were they created by Team Obama long before the memorial event? At minimum, that's a possibility.
President Obama's progressive defenders are now trying to squelch any references to tonight's memorial service as Wellstone II. I agree. After the tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, a great memorial service was planned for Sen. Wellstone.
Unfortunately, Sen. Harkin got a little too revved up, started talking about the ugly green bus Wellstone campaigned from in 1990, then suggested that they should "all hop on the bus one last time."
From that point forward, it felt like a campaign rally. The momentum of that race shifted dramatically, as did the national momentum. The end result was that the President's party gained seats in the first midterm in ages.
This isn't Wellstone II because the original Wellstone rally just got out of hand. The Tucson event was orchestrated, down to the t-shirts and logos.
Instead of using tonight as an opportunity for real healing, it appears now as though President Obama's political advisors couldn't resist turning this into a low-profile campaign event.
President Obama had the opportunity to become America's leader. Instead, it appears as though he's become America's Opportunist-in-Chief. That's the saddest part of tonight.
UPDATE: Make sure you read Michelle Malkin's and Tammy Bruce's posts. They're must reading.
Posted Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:39 AM
No comments.
What Will Aasen Say?
Now that Paul Aasen has been appointed by Gov. Dayton to be the MPCA's next commissioner and now that Rep. Dan Fabian has proposed permitting reform, the state Senate will have new things to ask Mr. Aasen. Environmentalists are upset with the proposed changes in Rep. Fabian's bill:
Project proposers could prepare environmental impact statements themselves. Currently, those statements are conducted by state or federal agencies. Kwilas says this would not erode the authority of the responsible government agency.
"They're still going to have all the authority to modify, review, or reject the environmental impact statement. It's just an option for the project proposer to take," he said. "We think it saves cost and time on the front end of the environmental impact statement process."
Environmental groups are eyeing the legislation warily. Scott Strand of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy says the idea of letting businesses write their own environmental reviews reminds him of the causes of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It was clearly a mistake to exempt those deepwater platforms from environmental review," said Strand. "The environmental review process could have identified some of the concerns which led to the spill down there, and addressed those in the permits before those things got put into operation."
Who prepares the EIS isn't as important as the people reviewing it. The regulatory agency, whether it's the MPCA or DNR, still must approve the application. I think this is just talking points stuff, though.
The part that they aren't talking about, the streamlining of the court process, is of utmost importance to MCEA. Streamlining that process gives these parasites fewer opportunities to delay or stop job creating projects.
During the confirmation hearings, Mr. Aasen should be questioned on this to find out whether he's hostile to this streamlining and to find out whether he's serving Minnesotans or his special interest allies. I'd also suggest that the GOP needs to hit him hard on this from a variety of angles. Accepting his answer, then letting the subject drop, won't cut it.
The goal of Rep. Fabian's legislation is to cut down on the time it takes to start or expand a business. It isn't about whether common sense safeguards can be eliminated.
It's rather telling that the fringe left questions everything about private enterprise wanting a fair shake. Parasitic organizations like the MCEA don't play fair. They play to win. Whatever tactics are needed to win, that's what they'll use.
Proof of that was handed to us by Mr. Aasen in his Strib op-ed :
Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of
Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.
We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.
Even though they kept losing, MCEA and their allies kept suing until Obama was elected and they could threaten Ottertail County Power Inc. with the possibility of the passing of Cap and Tax. That isn't about protecting the environment. It's about killing jobs.
If Big Stone II had been built, there would've been significantly less need for green energy. That simply couldn't happen, considering how invested the left is in green energy.
We can't afford to have the commissioner of a powerful environmental agency standing in the way of creating private sector jobs without a good reason. It's time to find out if Mr. Aasen is serious about creating jobs or whether he's more serious about filing lawsuits that hurt Minnesota's economy.
There's no time like the present.
Posted Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:13 AM
No comments.
Pray For Larry Haws
The St. Cloud Times' Amy Bowen is reporting that retired State Rep. Larry Haws is recuperating at the St. Cloud Hospital after surgeons removed a tumor:
Retired state representative Larry Haws is recovering after brain surgery at St. Cloud Hospital.
Doctors on Tuesday removed a large tumor, said Haws' wife, Faith. Haws, who retired Jan. 1 after a long career in Stearns County and state government, is recovering in the intensive care unit, she said.
A biopsy of the tumor is expected back Friday, she said. Haws will need radiation regardless, she said.
It isn't a secret that I've disagreed with Larry more than once. It shouldn't be a surprise, though, that I wish Larry a speedy and full recovery or that I'll keep Larry, Faith and their family in my prayers until Larry's back to being his usual smiling self.
Posted Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:50 AM
No comments.
