January 13-15, 2018
Jan 13 10:26 Let's blacklist colleges like this Jan 13 11:34 Nancy Pelosi's "crumbs" insult Jan 13 12:43 The Metro DFL's priorities Jan 13 22:35 Tina Smith: Wall "is a dumb idea" Jan 14 09:47 Why were moderates missing? Jan 15 02:46 Diggs: Move over Gene Larkin
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Let's blacklist colleges like this
In Walter Williams' latest column , Prof. Williams wrote "Donna Riley, a professor at Purdue University's School of Engineering Education, published an article in the most recent issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Education, positing that academic rigor is a 'dirty deed' that upholds 'white male heterosexual privilege.' Riley added that 'scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.'"
Prof. Williams' question is the right question to ask. He asked "Would you hire an engineering education graduate who has little mastery of the rigor of engineering? What does Riley's vision, if actually practiced by her colleagues, do to the worth of degrees in engineering education from Purdue held by female and black students?"
Frankly, the value of an engineering degree from Purdue just dropped significantly, almost to the point of being worthless. If I was just graduating from high school and I was interested in getting a degree in engineering, a statement like Prof. Riley's would immediately eliminate Purdue from my list of universities to be considered.
Let's be clear about something. When I say let's blacklist universities, I'm talking about private citizens telling universities that they aren't being considered by their son or daughter, then tell them why they're no longer being considered. If this keeps happening, one of two things will happen. Either the university will get the hint or students will steer clear of universities that don't take academics seriously. (That's why competition is important. If it doesn't exist, quality drops.)
It's time for students and parents to start officially ranking the universities. Those that take academics seriously should be spotlighted. Those that preach victimology should be ridiculed. It's that simple.
Posted Saturday, January 13, 2018 10:26 AM
No comments.
Nancy Pelosi's "crumbs" insult
When it comes to saying foolish things, Nancy Pelosi ranks right up there. While the MSM can't stop talking about President Trump's s---hole comment, they haven't covered Ms. Pelosi's disgusting, elitist statement . Ms. Pelosi said "The bonus that corporate America received versus the crumbs that they are giving to workers to kind of put the schmooze on is so pathetic. It's so pathetic."
Paul Ryan's interview blew Ms. Pelosi away. He spoke about Walmart raising their starting pay from $9/hr. to $11/hr. He said that, for families living paycheck-to-paycheck, that isn't crumbs. He said that "You're seeing stories like that. You're seeing businesses expanding, businesses investing in capital, workers getting wage increases, workers getting bonuses, better benefits, better 401(k)s. All of those things are now being announced. And it's just been 20 days so I think the Democrats are gonna regret not having supported this."
Let's be blunt about something. The Democrats voting unanimously against these tax cuts is the dumbest thing, strategy-wise, that they've ever done. This fall, when the voters finally start tuning in, they'll be hit with a barrage of ads showing Democrat after Democrat voting against the tax cuts that they're benefitting from. They're benefitting from cheaper electric bills, bigger paychecks and fatter 401(k)s.
Here's the money question: How many families in battleground districts will agree with Ms. Pelosi saying that the bonuses and pay raises they've received are crumbs? If that's the most important issue to voters, the Democrats won't just not retake the majority in the House. They'll lose seats.
[Video no longer available]
If they compare Ms. Pelosi's elitist statements with Speaker Ryan's pro-blue collar statements, it won't turn out well for Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
What this comes down to is that Paul Ryan's statements at the end of his C-SPAN video sound thoughtful while Ms. Pelosi's statements sound like a progressive hardliner elitist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, politically speaking, thoughtful defeats elitist every time.
Posted Saturday, January 13, 2018 11:34 AM
Comment 1 by Lisa at 13-Jan-18 01:12 PM
What Nancy Pelosi calls crumbs is enough to pay for 3 round trip tickets to visit my daughter & grandchildren. Her lack of understanding of the middle class is disgusting. She has no right to make any assumptions about what I consider crumbs. Her elitist ideals have no place in lawmaking. Again, she is disgusting.
Comment 2 by Nick at 14-Jan-18 08:39 AM
I will be getting a $1000 bonus from American Airlines Group next week because of the tax cut bill that Trump signed (I work for Envoy Air). AAG is giving out bonuses to American Airlines employees and American Airlines' subsidiaries (Envoy Air, PSA Airlines, and Piedmont Airlines).
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jan-18 09:28 AM
Spend those "crumbs" wisely, Nick. $1,000 doesn't last as long as it used to. Seriously, that $1,000, will that pay a couple months rent? What will it buy for you?
Comment 3 by Nick at 14-Jan-18 12:21 PM
It will help me out with some bills: electric, cable, etc. If I am paying rent with the bonus, it will be 58.1% of one months rent (after taxes the bonus will be $673.50. $673.50/1160=0.581 or 58.1% of one months rent). I live around Chicago O'Hare International Airport where the cost of living is higher than the national average.
Comment 4 by eric z at 15-Jan-18 11:22 AM
Bless you all, have a nice year. And years to come.
The Metro DFL's priorities
There's no question whether the metro DFL is the dominant wing of the DFL. They've essentially told rural DFL legislators that they're valued as long as they keep their mouths shut and follow metro DFL's orders. The vast majority of DFL gubernatorial candidates are Metrocrats. Tim Walz is the only one that doesn't fit that description because he's from southern Minnesota. Unfortunately, he's had a recent change of heart and is sounding like an anti-mining, NRA-hating Metrocrat. But I digress.
The point of this article is to highlight what the Metrocrat DFL stands for. Scott Dibble's op-ed offers great insight into the Metro DFL's priorities. In the op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote "Folks might know that I come from the front lines of movement building - organizing and fighting for social justice and an economy that works for everyone. Those fundamental democratic values are under attack in our country, from President Trump's mass deportation and promotion of bigotry, to Congress's tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy, not to mention the Republican leadership back home pushing our state back into deficits after years of surplus. The daily onslaught can be overwhelming."
Let's be blunt. Sen. Dibble has made it clear that he thinks that the tax cuts that are helping middle class families are anti-American and betray "fundamental democratic values." Sen. Dibble mentioned being a social justice warrior. The Urban Dictionary's definition of social justice warrior is "a person who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority. The behaviors of Social justice warriors usually have a negative impact on the civil rights movement, turning away potential allies and fueling the resurgence of bigoted groups that scoop up people who have been burned or turned off by social justice warriors."
In his op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote glowingly about Jamie Long, who is apparently running for Paul Thissen's open House seat. Here's what Sen. Dibble wrote about Long:
As a young activist at Carleton College, Jamie founded a student environmental group. Among their achievements were pressuring the college to install a wind turbine and the creation of a Responsible Investment Committee so the college's wealth would not support injustice. He took his organizing to Washington, D.C., working on climate and clean water advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council while attending law school.
Jamie brought his organizing skill and his passion for justice back to Minnesota five years ago. He channeled that energy and ability into running Congressman Keith Ellison's Minnesota office , helping build community power to propel a comprehensive progressive legislative agenda.
If there's anyone who's more progressive than Mr. Long, it might take time to find, then identify, that person. Frankly, I'm not sure that person exists.
What I'm certain of, though, is that the Metrocrats' priorities aren't rural Minnesota's priorities. I'm certain that rural Minnesota didn't put a high priority on the "passage of the historic law granting the freedom to marry to all Minnesotans," aka gay marriage. That doesn't that rural Minnesota residents hate gays. It just means that issue wasn't high on their priorities list. With the Metrocrats, it was a high priority:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Saturday, January 13, 2018 12:43 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Jan-18 10:15 AM
Social justice = whatever group that I identify with is what I will fight for no matter what. In Dibble's case, he's gay and has vehemently fought for gay "rights" and special protections. I believe all the other stuff he "fights" for is only a cover to progress his agenda, just like all other politicians but especially liberals.
An economy that works for everyone? How about an economy where everyone works (able bodies that is). Just this week I heard that welfare rights groups are up in arms about the proposal to make people work to get welfare and Medicaid. What a joke. Liberals want handouts and illegal immigration to run this country right into the ground. Obama isn't president but liberals are trying to keep his promise of transforming this country into a shithole.
Tina Smith: Wall "is a dumb idea"
Ladies and gentlemen, Tina Smith gave us proof that she's a typical Metrocrat when she was interviewed by Almanac's Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer. During the interview, Cathy Wurzer asked Smith if she thought the Senate was close to a DACA deal. Sen. Smith replied that she thought there was a good chance of senators coming together on a deal on DACA. Then Eskola essentially asked why Democrats weren't willing to trade funding for President Trump's wall for protection of DACA-protected illegals.
That's when Sen. Smith said "Well, you know the wall is just a dumb idea. To try to pay for a big wall is just -- most people don't think it's a good idea. At the same time, we have to have really strong border security and so I hope that a compromise can be reached that makes sense so that we can have strong border security." Eskola jumped in, saying "That's a compromise -- wall- DACA". Sen. Smith then countered, saying "I don't think a wall is -- I think a wall is -- what? $18,000,000,000? I think we need to focus on border security and not the idea of tons and tons of cement, which doesn't really work."
There's reason to question Sen. Smith's commitment to border security. She recently participated in a DACA rally that featured her and Keith Ellison .
At the rally, Smith told the crowd of about 200 people "Minnesota Dreamers are American in every way except their immigration status. They work hard to improve our communities and to make our state better, not just for themselves and their families but for all of us. So the notion that we would turn our backs on Dreamers now : it's just disgraceful."
In other words, Sen. Smith thinks that there's no problem admitting lots of illegal immigrants into Minnesota. On Almanac, Smith talked repeatedly about needing to secure the border. At this rally, Smith talked about how DREAMers were "American in every way except their immigration status."
Which is it, Sen. Smith? If DREAMers are "American in every way except their immigration status", why do we need tight security at the border? If we need tight security on the border, how can DREAMers be "American in every way except their immigration status"? It's apparent that Sen. Smith is already adept at talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Smith's interview is the first segment of Friday night's show:
[Video no longer available]
It's understatement to say that it didn't help improve her trustworthy rating.
Posted Saturday, January 13, 2018 10:35 PM
No comments.
Why were moderates missing?
Salena Zito's column asks a brilliant question. First, she made the observation that "Few focused on who wasn't there and why they weren't. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Importantly, three people in states that went heavily for Trump in 2016, Indiana's Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia's Sen. Joe Manchin, and Missouri's Sen. Claire McCaskill, were all absent. Two less vulnerable incumbent Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Pennsylvania's Sen. Bob Casey were also not there."
Then she made a statement that said "They have made the bet to pick their donors in California and New York over their voters back home." Democrats don't have a message but they're well-financed. Republicans stumbled early but they've put together a solid list of accomplishments. Meanwhile, the RNC has been kicking the DNC's behind in fundraising ever since Ronna McDaniel took over.
None of these so-called 'moderate' Democrats voted for the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Then they weren't anywhere to be found to negotiate a DACA fix. That begs this question: what identifies them as moderates?
If anyone of those senators get caught near Trump, all of those donors would ditch them in a minute. They're basically asking McCaskill and Manchin and Donnelly to do an act of levitation. Win without doing the things your voters would like you to do.
The question is will the voters hold them accountable? They're gambling they won't be held accountable. They're gambling that Trump is so polarizing that there are no Trump voters available to them on a positive scale. They're thinking they're going to have to obliterate their opponent, tear their opponent to shreds.
Yet think about the margins here. Trump won Indiana and Missouri by more than 18 points. He won North Dakota and West Virginia by 30-some points. He won Ohio by 9 points. It's not like you only need a few Trump voters to stay home, they would need a lot of them, like a third of them, to stay home. And that is just not going to happen.
A quick look around the room speaks volumes:
[Video no longer available]
Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill and Brown better hope that voters didn't notice that they didn't support any part of President Trump's agenda. If they notice, that fivesome is history.
Michigan's Sen. Debbie Stabenow's statement about the tax cuts in Michigan is the perfect example of that risk. When tax reform passed late last year, Stabenow issued a statement that read:
"I've said from the beginning that we need tax reform that makes the tax system simpler, puts more money in your pocket, closes tax loopholes that send jobs overseas and supports small businesses and farms across Michigan. Unfortunately that isn't at all what this republican bill does."
Ten days later, Fiat Chrysler announced that they would invest more than $1 billion to modernize the company's Warren Truck Plant in Detroit, adding 2,500 jobs and moving production of its Ram trucks from Mexico. They also announced they would be giving $2,000 bonuses to their hourly U.S. workers. The company credited the moves to the new tax law.
The Democrats have been on the wrong side of the tax cuts from the start. As these bonuses, pay raises and other positive announcements get factored in, how will Democrats defend their unanimous vote against the Trump/GOP tax cuts?
The pundits talk about how the President's party usually does poorly in a new president's first term. I certainly cant dispute that that's the history. What's disputable, though, is that that pattern will apply this time. I see information that indicates it might not.
Posted Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Jan-18 11:18 AM
Dems do have Deutsche Bank, Single Payer, and MJ where some Republicans seem stumbling over their own feet to get on the popular side of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III's throwback to Reefer Madness days of yore.
It's Deutsche Bank that really rings my bell, but is there any Mike Pence tie-in there, which would be Super?
Diggs: Move over Gene Larkin
Sunday's game between the visiting New Orleans Saints and the hosting Minnesota Vikings is an instant classic. We don't need to wait for history to render its verdict. We don't need to analyze or overanalyze this clash between the Saints and Vikings. To Vikings' fans who've endured the Super Bowl losses and the heartbreaking finishes in 1998 and 2015, Sunday's game isn't just redemption. It's the game that The Curse was broken.
It's crazy to say this but the Vikings' offense, though it didn't play fantastic, outplayed the Vikings' defense Sunday. As a result, the Vikings will meet Philadelphia in next Sunday's NFC Championship Game to determine which team will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. If the Vikings win next Sunday, they'll become the first time to play in the Super Bowl played in their home stadium because the Super Bowl will be held in US Bank Stadium.
But I digress.
Case Keenum threw an ill-advised pass down the sidelines that was intercepted. That Saints turned that interception into their second touchdown. The momentum swing was felt throughout Vikings Nation. When the Saints finally took the lead with 3:01 left in the game, Vikings Nation was worried. They felt better when Keenum engineered a drive that put the Vikings up 23-21 but there was too much time left for Drew Brees to work his magic. When Will Lutz kicked the go-ahead field goal with 25 seconds left in the game, Vikings Nation again thought the worst. After a false start penalty, the Vikings got a timely catch by Stefon Diggs with 17 seconds left. Because he was tackled in the field of play, the Vikings had to use their final timeout. After 2 incomplete passes, this happened:
[Video no longer available]
The minute Stefon Diggs sprinted into the end zone, Vikings fans attending the Minnesota Timberwolves basketball game erupted with joy:
[Video no longer available]
Nobody brings it home like Paul Allen, the Vikings' radio play-by-play announcer:
[Video no longer available]
Needless to say, the moment left Diggs speechless:
[Video no longer available]
Everson Griffen, the captain of the Vikings' defense, was speechless, too:
[Video no longer available]
I've been a Minnesota sports fan since 1966, when I saw my first Twins game at Metropolitan Stadium. The only moments that surpass Diggs' touchdown were Kirby Puckett's walk off home run against the Braves' Charlie Liebrandt in the 11th inning of Game 6 of the 1991 World Series and Gene Larkin's pinch-hit single in the bottom of the 10th inning of Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.
Historical footnote: Jack Buck was the play-by-play announcer for those games. Sunday night, his son Joe Buck was the play-by-play announcer for the Vikings game. How cool is that? Vikings fans will remember where they were when Stefon Diggs broke the tackle, then raced to the end zone for the game-winning touchdown. Wow! What a game.
Posted Monday, January 15, 2018 2:46 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Jan-18 11:10 AM
Only as good as a cold day in Pnilly, then, possibly, New England in the Wilfare stadium - possibly.
Or, Jacksonville Jags v. Vikings would be Super.
Brady's taking on years.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 15-Jan-18 04:22 PM
Until they win the Super Bowl, the curse is still in play.
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Jan-18 08:23 AM
While not a Twitter fan or user, this link, Gary, is for you.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MatthiasBeekie/status/953121814087110656/photo/1
Sean Payton learns the meaning of Dire Straits' Windshield and Bug.
