January 2-10, 2015
Jan 02 02:20 Tuma's dishonesty disheartening Jan 02 03:05 SCTimes, Rosenstone & the IFO Jan 06 12:29 Understanding SCSU's Enrollment Decline Jan 07 03:37 MnSCU analysis failures Jan 08 02:10 Silence speaks Jan 09 10:26 Bakk, DFL vs. Daudt, small businesses, MNGOP Jan 09 15:43 Dayton lectures Chamber, legislature on reality Jan 10 00:14 Ken Martin, the DFL and ABM Jan 10 13:09 Farmers vs. unhinged environmentalists
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Tuma's dishonesty disheartening
As a progressive Republican lobbyist, John Tuma's statements are constantly worth scrutinizing. Several statements in this post are especially worthy of scrutiny. Let's start here:
Further compounding the pro-mining company image has been the pronouncement of the chair of the newly renamed committee, Rep. Tom Hackbarth (R-Cedar), that it is time to get the ball rolling on the new nonferrous mining. These pronouncements sound more like a Republican primary candidate in a West Texas safe Republican district than a Minnesota leader trying to impress voters in the Twin Cities suburbs or rural heartland swing districts.
Certainly the heartland of Minnesota was open to the Republicans' message on checking extremism to the left during this past election cycle. Nonetheless, over the long-term it would be my argument that it was never meant as a mandate to again blindly side with the mining companies. The voters in these swing districts know that multinational corporations do not have the taxpayer's interest foremost in their mind.
That's BS. Tuma knows that the Republicans' push for PolyMet is about creating hundreds of top-paying, middle class jobs.
Democrats love saying that we shouldn't have to pick between protecting the environment and creating mining jobs. Now it's time Republicans to remind organizations like Conservation Minnesota and lobbyists like Tuma that you can't be pro-employees and anti-employers. Further, it's important for Republicans to highlight the fact that they're the party of small business and that the DFL is the party of big corporations.
It's time Republicans like Tuma to admit that. It's time for Tuma to change this BS, too:
Further, the truth about this new nonferrous mining being proposed on the Iron Range is that it is extremely dangerous both to our natural resources and our taxpayers. Every single one of these nonferrous mining operations in other regions in recent history has lead to costly pollution of lakes and rivers. The cleanup cost is typically borne by taxpayers in the wake of bankrupt mining shell corporations.
Perhaps Tuma should read this post . If he did, he'd learn that "nonferrous mining operations in other regions in recent history" have paid for the restoration of their mines and that the EPA has certified that the restoration was completed without long-lasting environmental damage.
Posted Friday, January 2, 2015 2:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Jan-15 09:37 AM
And repeated studies and mandated EISs have long shown that this CAN, and WILL, be done without environmental damage. It's time to quit beating that dead horse to the contrary and use some common sense-- a largely untapped MN resource.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-15 10:51 AM
Jerry, common sense isn't that plentiful in Minnesota.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 03-Jan-15 10:32 AM
Gary:
There are a lot of people in Minnesota with common sense. Unfortunately there is a large brain dead democrat class which controls the media (who Tuma is trying to please) that tries to hide the common sense.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
SCTimes, Rosenstone & the IFO
The gist of this Our View editorial is that the faculty should ignore Chancellor Rosenstone's attempts to hide important things from the faculty and students in the name of the greater good.
At last count, faculty associations at six MnSCU universities issued no-confidence votes on Rosenstone, including St. Cloud State University. Others are faculty at Winona, Moorhead, Bemidji, Mankato and Marshall. The Inter-Faculty Organization also withdrew from Charting the Future, as did the two-year college faculty union. A couple of student government groups took similar steps.
Virtually all those groups say "Charting the Future" has not been transparent and is working toward predetermined outcomes.
Rosenstone's offer of mediation with the IFO was rebuffed, and other than that he has said implementing "Charting the Future" will proceed.
Chancellor Rosenstone hid the $2,000,000 contract he signed with McKinsey & Co. from students working on CtF and from the IFO. Rosenstone's statement that he won't let the faculty derail CtF highlights the fact that this isn't a collaboration. It highlights the fact that the IFO's participation is meant to be kept to a minimum.
Going it alone isn't proof of collaboration. It's proof that Rosenstone plans on going it alone if people don't do what he thinks they should do.
The plan's main goals are reducing the cost of attending MnSCU schools, speeding up the time it takes students to graduate, and making sure those graduates are prepared to succeed in the working world. The chancellor seeks to accomplish those largely through more systemwide collaboration, which he says will improve efficiencies and better control costs.
What proof does Chancellor Rosenstone have that CtF's initiatives "will improve efficiencies and better control costs"? Has he engaged faculty sufficiently to get their input on the subject? If Rosenstone hasn't, why hasn't he?
For now, the first step must be for Rosenstone and faculty and student groups to resume talking to each other.
The first step to getting faculty, administrators and students together is for Chancellor Rosenstone to apologize for hiding important information from the IFO, the administrators and students. If Chancellor Rosenstone isn't willing to first apologize, then restart the process, then it will be clear Chancellor Rosenstone isn't interested in collaboration or excellence.
Posted Friday, January 2, 2015 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Jan-15 03:54 PM
Gary:
Forgive me for asking a silly question. Um if I read your post right somebody by themselves (only one person) was able to sign a $2 million dollar contract. Um isn't that illegal? Or is this a sign that better oversight on spending money is needed?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Understanding SCSU's Enrollment Decline
Understanding The Enrollment Downturn?
by Silence Dogood
What can only be described as a final act of desperation, the SCSU administration distributed a PowerPoint presentation produced by the Education Advisory Board (EAB), which describes itself as "one of the largest providers of research, technology, and consulting services to colleges and universities nationwide." The presentation is entitled
It's a slick attempt to justify why SCSU's enrollment is declining. For those who have been listening, they know that it is simply another attempt by the SCSU administration to say: "We're down because everyone else is down." Unfortunately, for those who are actually aware of the data, it's just simply "hogwash!"
The following figure shows MnSCU data for FYE enrollments from FY2003 through FY2014 (the actual final numbers), plus each university's own predictions for enrollment for FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017.
Only two universities in the MnSCU system could be labeled as being "in decline" and they are Minnesota State University - Moorhead and SCSU. From FY10 to the prediction for FY17, Moorhead's decline of 1,072 FYE represents a decline of 15.9%. For the same time period, SCSU's decline of 3,871 FYE represents a decline of 25.3%! It is also interesting to note that Moorhead actually predicts an enrollment 'bottom' for FY16 followed in FY17 by an increase of 96 FYE. On the other hand, SCSU's prediction for FY17 continues the enrollment slide from FY16 losing an additional 195 FYE.
In looking more closely at the data, Minnesota State University - Mankato and Winona are predicting stable enrollment from FY16 to FY17. Bemidji, Metropolitan, MUSM - Moorhead, and Southwest all predict modest growth from FY16 to FY17. From MnSCU's data, only SCSU is projecting a continuing decline for FY17.
Unfortunately, rather than trying to actually solve their enrollment nightmare, SCSU has hired another consultant to tell us that it's not our fault that our enrollment is declining because "everyone's enrollment is declining." MnSCU's data and record enrollment at the University of Wisconsin - Stout clearly indicate that the decline at SCSU is of its own making. There is no other way to put it than to say SCSU has made a host of bad decisions that have led to a significant decline in its market share as compared to all of the other MnSCU universities.
The continuing decline in enrollment has led to a budget deficit for SCSU of $9,542,000 for FY15. It's really a shame that the SCSU administration continues to spend money on consultants to "Understand the Enrollment Downturn." Certainly, that money might have been better spent on strategies to actually increase enrollment, which is something that might actually help solve the ongoing budget crisis.
Posted Tuesday, January 6, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Jan-15 03:45 PM
Gary:
I assume those high price consultants didn't bother to figure out how much that drop is associated with the ending of the aviation program. Adding the aviation program back in might cause the decline to go away by itself.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Patrick-M at 06-Jan-15 04:03 PM
Walter I like how you think. I have been monitoring Mankato's numbers for Aviation classes and it appears they really haven't had much of a boost - one would think they should be at least 1.5 X for classes compared to other years. My guess is that Midwest students are going to ND, SD and Illinois.
Comment 3 by Me at 06-Jan-15 05:21 PM
SCSU didn't spend money on the EAB consultants. The MnSCU system office paid for the consultants and SCSU just shared some of the info the consultants shared with the system office.
I just thought it would be good to clarify this for you.
Comment 4 by Silence Dogood at 06-Jan-15 09:45 PM
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Someone paid for the consultants. If MnSCU distributed the money to each of the members, rather than paying for another consultant, it might have done more good.
Comment 5 by Reader3 at 21-Jan-15 09:40 AM
With some Board presentations from 2013 suggesting at adding more capacity in the Metro area, did anyone else notice the 1500 student increase at Metropolitan State? I'm inclined to think that with opening of the second campus there is some favoritism toward a larger Metro MNSCU university.
MnSCU analysis failures
Bad Data? Or Just Bad Data Analysis?
by Silence Dogood
One of the main points of the PowerPoint presentation "Understanding the Enrollment Downturn" by the Educational Advisory Board is that the enrollment at SCSU is down because the enrollment is down throughout the MnSCU system. One of the main ways that they chose to demonstrate this decline is by using one of MnSCU's own figures showing the total FYE enrollment in the MnSCU system.
This figure was prepared before the final FYE enrollment was known for FY2014. The actual FY2014 FYE enrollment was 144,524 so the decline in FYE enrollment from the peak in FY11 to FY14 was 13,379, which corresponds to a system-wide drop of 8.5%. Based on this figure, you might expect that all of the members of the MnSCU system are experiencing a decline in enrollment.
The following figure shows MnSCU data for FYE enrollments for the MnSCU universities from FY2003 through FY2014 (the actual final numbers), plus the total of each university's own predictions for enrollment for FY2015, FY2016 and FY2017.
Clearly, the figure shows that there was an enrollment peak in FY2011 followed by a steady decline. The decline in FYE enrollment from FY11 to FY14 was 3,817 FYE, which corresponds to a drop of 6.5%. As a result, since the MnSCU universities make up only about a third of the total MnSCU enrollment, if the total enrollment decline in the MnSCU system was 8.5%, the enrollment decline in the Community Colleges and Technical Colleges in the MnSCU system had to be on order of 9.5%. Thus from FY11 to FY14, the MnSCU universities were doing 'better' than the MnSCU Community Colleges and Technical Colleges as far as enrollment is concerned. As a result, a better comparison might have been to compare SCSU with the enrollment at the universities within the MnSCU system rather than the total MnSCU system enrollment.
Over the same time period that the FYE enrollment at the MnSCU universities dropped 6.5%, SCSU's FYE enrollment dropped 17.3%. As a result, SCSU's drop in enrollment greatly increased the percentage drop of the MnSCU universities. From FY11 to FY14, the MnSCU universities dropped 3,817 FYE. SCSU alone, during this same time period, dropped 2,595 FYE, which means that SCSU was responsible for 68.0% of the total drop within the MnSCU universities!
In FY14, SCSU generated 22.5% of the FYE enrollment for the MnSCU universities but was responsible for 68.0% of the FYE decline for the MnSCU universities from FY11 to FY14. As a result, SCSU was responsible for more than three times the enrollment decline than the comparable FYE enrollment percentage that it generated.
In other words, from FY11 to FY14, SCSU's enrollment decline was the largest source of decline of the MnSCU universities by a wide margin and SCSU declined more than the other six MnSCU universities combined! Occasionally, you will hear the statement "Go big or go home." In this case, if SCSU keeps going 'big' there won't be a home to go to.
Posted Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3:37 AM
No comments.
Silence speaks
Bad Data Redux
by Silence Dogood
In the PowerPoint presentation "Understanding the Enrollment Downturn" produced by the Educational Advisory Board, one of the implicit assumptions that the enrollment at SCSU is down as a result of a decline in the number of high school graduates and that this will continue going forward. To support this position, the following Figure was presented which shows that the number of high school graduates will decrease by 28,000 nationwide over the ten-year period from 2012 to 2022.
The plot breaks up the country into four regions and shows that the net change in high school graduates for the Midwest will decrease by 38,000 over this ten year period. If you live in the 'Midwest', other than for shock value, this plot is of little use. First, it does not explain what states it considers as part of each of the four regions. Secondly, it does not show how the numbers vary with each year over the ten-year period. For instance, it does not show if the numbers rise or fall between the starting and ending points. Lastly, the performance of each state within a region may be quite different and without more information is of little value. If this graph were part of a class assignment, it would probably receive a "D+"; a "C-" if I was being charitable.
Here is a plot from data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, which has a bit more information because it breaks up the enrollment trend by state rather than by 'region.'
This figure shows that Minnesota will actually have more high school graduates in 2022-23 than it did in 2009-10. If the Educational Advisory Board considered Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan as part of the Midwest, then perhaps you might be able to see a decline for the Midwest region. Clearly, because of its greater detail, the second plot might be more useful than the first.
If you live in Minnesota, if the second plot were to be used as the basis of making a decision, you might come to a different decision than if you used the first plot. It all goes to show that, in some cases, the conclusion you reach depends upon the data that you examine and the quality of that data.
Despite either the increase or decrease in the number of high school graduates (i.e., the dueling data in the first two plots), the National Center for Education Statistics annual report " The Condition of Education' began with this statement:
Clearly, despite any trend for the number of graduates from high school, enrollment in higher education is projected to increase over the next ten years. The following figure shows the actual and projected enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions by level of institution: Fall 1990-2023.
The U.S. Department of Education data shows the number of students enrolling in Higher Education is increasing from 2009-10 through 2022-23. The National Center for Education Statistics annual report "The Condition of Education' projects a growth of enrollment in 4-year postsecondary institutions from 10.6 million in 2012 to 12 million in 2023 and a growth of enrollment in 2-year postsecondary institutions from 7.2 million in 2012 to 8.4 million in 2023. Based on this data, one just might conclude that enrollment in higher educational institutions is not about to crash and burn over the next ten years but rather shows the potential for slow steady growth!
As a result, it's hard to see all of this as a doom and gloom scenario unless you are trying to find a way to explain why your enrollment is dropping at a rate that makes it an outlier amongst its peer institutions. Good luck to SCSU in trying to keep the "spin" going.
Posted Thursday, January 8, 2015 2:10 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 09-Jan-15 02:53 PM
A massive 25% FYE enrollment drop + a reduction in state allocation per lost students = big trouble in the form of layoffs.
Bakk, DFL vs. Daudt, small businesses, MNGOP
This MPR article highlights the distinct differences between the DFL's and the MNGOP's priorities. Check this out:
Minnesota Senate Democrats want free education at the state's two-year colleges, loan forgiveness for rural doctors and dentists and a program to link up career-minded students with employers in need of skilled workers. Their initial batch of bills would also fund early childhood education, child protection measures and disaster relief for counties hit by storms last summer.
Republicans contend that tax reductions for businesses are the best way to boost the economy and grow jobs. Toward that end, the first bill introduced by House Republicans calls for a series of business tax cuts.
Our 'friends' at the Alliance for a Better Minnesota are predictably criticizing Republicans' approach in this e-letter:
Gary,
The Republicans in the Minnesota House just released their priorities for the year. And I'll give you one guess what is included. Tax cuts for businesses. Sounds pretty familiar, right?
Republicans regained the majority this fall, giving them the chance to implement their priorities after being in the minority for two years. And this is what they chose.
Once again, Republicans chose big corporations over real commitments to working families, schools, roads, bridges, and colleges. This has been their main priority for years, and it looks like nothing has changed.
Actually, ABM is lying through their teeth on the tax cuts. It's indisputable that they're directed at businesses. It's totally disputable, though, that they're directed at "big corporations." Many of the Dayton/DFL tax increases were characterized as taxing the rich. The truth is, though, that most of the DFL's tax increases were on small businesses.
The reality is that lots of sole proprietorships and LLCs are the DFL's targets. The wealthy have their wealth protected and don't pay much in taxes. They're essentially protected from the DFL's tax increases.
This statement is pathetic:
Bakk also criticized the quickness of Republicans to pursue tax cuts. He said that approach has been tried, and failed. "I just do not believe that you can drive economic development by reducing a business's taxes," he said. "Because, one, you have no assurance that it's going to get passed on to build the business."
That's BS. When Gov. Dayton tried recruiting companies to relocate to Minnesota, he put together a package of tax cuts for them. Further, it's important that Sen. Bakk answer whether businesses expansion is possible without capital formation. The answer to that is it isn't.
ABM and the DFL have shown that they're anti-jobs. You can't be pro-employee and anti-employer. It's that simple.
Posted Friday, January 9, 2015 10:26 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 09-Jan-15 12:24 PM
Apparently, Bakk is only OK with tax cuts if there is an assurance that the profit will be rolled back into the business. How clueless. If profit just sits in the bank, it provides ten times that amount available for business, housing and consumer loans. Capital only gets unproductive when it is siphoned into the government sector.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Jan-15 01:36 PM
Spoken like a true capitalist that understands economic principles.
Dayton lectures Chamber, legislature on reality
When Mark Dayton attempts to lecture the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the legislature about dealing with reality, it's time for a reality check. That's what Gov. Dayton attempted to do during his speech to the Chamber:
Dayton pitched a skittish state Chamber of Commerce on transportation tax hikes that he said will generate the billions needed to deal with congestion, deteriorating infrastructure and planned expansions. The chamber has recommended non-tax alternatives - drawing money from the general treasury or squeezing the existing transportation budget - for covering the funding gap.
The Democratic governor addressed more than 1,000 people at the annual chamber dinner that coincides with the Legislature's start. He spent nearly the entire 15-minute speech framing the problem and explaining a not-yet finalized plan. Dayton reiterated his intent to seek a new tax on gasoline, higher vehicle licensing fees and metropolitan-area sales tax increases for transit. He said temporary patches won't do.
"There is no easy solution. There are only real solutions and phony solutions," Dayton said.
First, insisting that the legislature's solution isn't a real solution is laughable. The likely reason Gov. Dayton doesn't want to use general funds on transportation is because he wants to spend that money paying off the DFL's special interest allies. There isn't a law prohibiting the use of general fund money to fix potholes or strengthen bridges.
Raising taxes is a nonstarter with Minnesotans. In 2013, Minnesotans of all income brackets got hit with tax increases. At the time, the DFL didn't pass a gas tax to fund this 'priority', most likely because they knew that raising more taxes would lead to Gov. Dayton's defeat and to a GOP majority in the House.
Simply put, the DFL's appetite for raising taxes is insatiable. The only thing that'll limit the DFL's appetite for raising taxes is when they worry about raising them too much to get re-elected. That's the only Gov. Dayton and the DFL will put on raising taxes. For those that don't believe me, think back to 2013-14, when the DFL extended Minnesota's sales tax to farm equipment repairs, warehousing services and telecommunications equipment:
If the DFL honestly cared about transportation issues, they would've scrapped the Senate Office Building and spent that $77,000,000 on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. I'm especially skeptical of this information:
By various estimates, Minnesota is between $2 billion and $6 billion short for transportation over the next decade.
That's either a transportation lobbyist's wish list or it's outright BS. Estimates shouldn't have that wild of swings. If they'd said Minnesota is between $2,000,000,000 and $2,250,000,000 short for transportation over the next decade, that would indicate there's a prioritized list of projects that should be taken seriously. Saying that Minnesota is between $2 billion and $6 billion short for transportation over the next decade" is like getting blindfolded, then throwing a dart at a dart board.
It's time Gov. Dayton got a lesson in reality, starting with the reality that he's raised taxes too much already.
Posted Friday, January 9, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Jan-15 12:41 PM
Gary:
I have an easy solution and it might explain where all this spending the Democrats want to do comes from.
JUST DO NO MORE NEW MASS TRANSIT PROJECTS FOR LIKE FIVE YEARS AND SPEND ALL THE MONEY ON ROADS AND BRIDGES. THAT WILL BE MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Ken Martin, the DFL and ABM
There hasn't been much of a dispute as to whether the DFL is attached at the lip with the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM. After watching Almanac's opening interview tonight, the debate is over on that. Ken Martin and the DFL are definitely attached at the lip to ABM.
During the opening part of the interview between Keith Downey and Ken Martin, Martin said that "the Parties' priorities" were visible, that the DFL wanted to give free all-day Pre-K to 4-year-olds while the Republicans' first bill called for "tax cuts for the rich, the powerful and corporations." When I heard that, I immediately remembered this e-letter from ABM :
Once again, Republicans chose big corporations over real commitments to working families, schools, roads, bridges, and colleges.
ABM could sue Martin for plagiarism if he didn't still get his marching orders from them. While it's true that he's technically the DFL Party Chair, he's still working for ABM.
What's stunning is the DFL's intellectual dishonesty. I've read millions of articles about the DFL's proposed middle class tax cuts and the Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In all that time, I've yet to see the DFL's imaginary tax cuts described as anything but targeted at the middle class. (The fact that the DFL's proposed tax cuts never seem to materialize is seemingly irrelevant.) I've yet to hear the Republicans' proposed tax cuts as anything but helping "the rich, the powerful and corporations."
Let this post remind conservatives that the DFL a) isn't tethered to the truth, b) is the same entity as ABM and c) won't tell the truth about Republicans even if their lives depended on it. Ken Martin's interviews are consistently filled with, putting it gently, inaccuracies. Put a bit more directly, I wouldn't trust Ken Martin as far as I could throw him if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back and I was weak to begin with.
Posted Saturday, January 10, 2015 12:14 AM
No comments.
Farmers vs. unhinged environmentalists
This article is worth reading just based on this quote alone:
But opponents argued that the pipeline will worsen the problem of climate change by continuing reliance on fossil fuels, instead of developing renewable energy. "It's a not a matter of how safe that pipeline is, better than trains," said Dave Carroll. " We're looking at the survivability of all civilization ."
That's stunning! It's stunning in its ignorance. It's just more proof that environmentalists' predictions aren't tethered to the truth in any meaningful way.
In the grand scheme of the universe, humans are insignificant at best. Let's scale that to the grand scheme of this solar system. People are still pretty insignificant. But according to Mr. Carroll, we're capable of destroying Planet Earth with a 616-mile long pipeline from North Dakota through Minnesota to Wisconsin. That's utter nonsense.
According to this graph , there's already 1,566,495 miles worth of pipelines crossing the United States. Why should anyone think that another 616 miles of pipeline will suddenly make the environment toxic?
Thankfully, some voices of sanity testified at this week's hearing:
State Rep. Dale Lueck, R-Aitkin, said there's a "pressing need" to increase the amount of oil moved by pipeline instead of by rail, which he said is responsible for far more fatalities. "This is not about anything more simple than we need to put crude oil in pipelines in the interest of public safety," Lueck said.
Several union members testified in favor of the project, saying it would create much-needed well-paying jobs. Scott Erlander, a member of the Pipefitters Local Union 455 of St. Paul, said pipe workers care about safety and water quality too. "No one here wants to see our water contaminated including all the workers on this project : This is not trading water for oil," Erlander said.
Teresa Bohnen, president of the St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce, said the Sandpiper would provide "real benefit" to Minnesota, including the creation of about 1,500 construction jobs. Bohnen noted that the increased amount of oil rail traffic is interfering with the state's commerce and movement of goods, including agricultural products and coal for the Sherco plant in Becker.
It's time to shout this information from the rooftops: renewable energy won't replace fossil fuels in the next generation. Period. Their capability is limited at best. Meanwhile, fossil fuels have supplied a steady stream of relatively inexpensive energy that's helped make the United States the world's economic superpower of the last half-century.
Finally, environmentalists protesting the Sandpiper Pipeline project are hurting farmers. That includes the environmentalists appointed by Gov. Dayton to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, aka MPUC. Thanks to the environmental activists' protests, farmers are getting hurt because they aren't getting their crops to market in a timely fashion.
The pipeline battle is really a fight between Twin Cities-based environmental activists vs. outstate farmers, both of which are supposedly part of the DFL.
Posted Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:09 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 10-Jan-15 01:32 PM
In view of the level to which Dave Carroll is wrapped around the axel of a simple pipeline, I shutter to ponder his statements on global warming or copper mining.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 11-Jan-15 08:27 AM
Here are two Warmists that nonetheless have done their homework:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
The rest of the environmental movement lives in some sort of phantasmagorical nightmare of their own imagining. They're not "saving" the planet the rest of us live on.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 11-Jan-15 01:55 PM
Gary:
If that Waco had testified in front of a house committee I would've like a Republican to ask "Um isn't true that when volcano's erupt it gives out far more damage to the environment?"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
