July 10-16, 2013
Jul 10 04:07 Scooping the St. Cloud Times again Jul 11 14:54 Democrats, Senate RINOs, aren't serious about immigration Jul 14 02:36 Three down, three to go Jul 14 12:30 Replacing the experts Jul 15 01:54 Indicting the prosecutors? Jul 15 03:36 The education legislature? Jul 15 10:57 Our tax dollars at work? Jul 16 01:25 When will Minnesota's economy slow down? Jul 16 10:02 Unmasking the Left
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Scooping the St. Cloud Times again
When the FBI joined with the U.S. Dept. of Education in visiting the SCSU campus, the St. Cloud Times couldn't be bothered with dispatching one of their education beat reporters to the campus to cover the student transcript fiasco. Instead, they just ran an article written by Conrad Wilson of MPR. This morning, the St. Cloud Times is getting scooped in their own back yard again. MPR isn't breaking the story this time, though. I'm breaking it here .
It's pretty pathetic when a supposed newspaper gets scooped on a major story. It's worse when it's scooped on the story twice, once by MPR, the other time by a lowly blogger. The Times had the time to cover President Potter's announcement that he intends to reduce energy costs at SCSU by 20%. They apparently don't think students' grades disappearing off of the official SCSU transcript system is a high priority.
Here's a question for the Times' editors: when a student takes a class, does all the classwork, takes the mid-term and final exams, then gets an F, should that student then get to request that that grade be purged from his transcript? In fact, that's a pretty good question for President Potter and Provost Maholtra to answer.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Times or SCSU to answer that question.
If the Times won't hold SCSU accountable, others will. It's a shame that the Times hasn't held this administration accountable thus far. In fact, it's rather predictable.
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:07 AM
No comments.
Democrats, Senate RINOs, aren't serious about immigration
Rep. Tom Cotton's op-ed offers a scathing critique of the Senate immigration 'reform' bill. It's the type of op-ed that the useful idiots in the media have ignored. Here's part of Rep. Cotton's powerful argument:
In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a 'fine'? Yes, but it's less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors - or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day - even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.
Rep. Cotton stated earlier in the op-ed that America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. The Democrat-RINO bill is filled with loopholes to essentially turn America into a nation of immigrants sans the nation of laws part. While it's true there is a border surge mentioned in the bill, it's entirely slight of hand gimmickry:
Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it's not 'appropriate.'
That means Janet Napolitano, not Congress, has the final say on building the fence. Anyone that thinks she'll build the fence, hire the border patrol agents, then enforce all of the immigration statutes is kidding themselves.
The day that happens is the day I'll look for pigs flying in V-formation.
That isn't the only major flaw with the Senate legislation. Here's more:
Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.
Let's remember that the border fence provision is mostly illusion. Let's understand that the Democrats don't want the immigration bill passed unless it doesn't fix the problem:
After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today's 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we're doing is setting up the next amnesty.
In other words, the Senate Democrat-RINO bill is just Simpson-Mazoli Part II, with Simpson-Mazoli Part III anticipated in 2020.
If enforcement fails, what's more likely: that legalized persons won't become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required 'triggers'? If past is prologue, we know the answer.
Forget about questioning if enforcement fails. It's guaranteed to fail. Even if the fence gets built, we'll have 8,000,000 new illegal immigrants in the US within another decade. That isn't a solution. It's an opportunity for Democrats to return in 6-8 years and lie about how Republicans hate Hispanics.
The solution is simple. Build the double fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico, then enforce the laws that are already on the books. That's 80% of the solution. The rest are minor tweaks.
Posted Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:54 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 11-Jul-13 04:38 PM
Gary:
When it comes down to immigration it's simple now especially with the history Obama has shown for ignoring the law. The border must be secured first. Then we can talk about the other issues.
I mean if Obama won't deport them isn't that good enough legal status?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Three down, three to go
Yesterday, Prof. Larry Sabato was on Cavuto's show to talk about the midterm elections. He said at the time that Democrats had all but written off the seats currently held by South Dakota's Tim Johnson and West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller. Republicans need to pick up a net of 6 seats in 2014 to regain the majority in the Senate. According to this post , that possibility just got a little more likely:
Popular former Gov. Brian Schweitzer says he will not run for Montana's open U.S. Senate seat in 2014.The Democrat tells The Associated Press on Saturday he doesn't want to leave Montana and go to Washington, D.C.
Schweitzer says he felt compelled to consider the race because many in his party said they needed him to run. He was considered the best chance Democrats have to hold onto the seat being vacated by U.S. Sen. Max Baucus next year.
Schweitzer had led the GOP candidate in early polling. His decision essentially ends the Democrats' chances of holding Sen. Baucus's seat. Coupled with the Johnson and Rockefeller seats, the Republicans are half the way to retaking the Senate majority.
In a February poll from Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling, Schweitzer led Baucus in a potential primary match-up, and while Baucus trailed some of his potential GOP opponents, Schweitzer polled stronger.
Baucus had a difficult time the last time he ran for re-election. After writing a significant portion of the Senate version of the PPACA, Sen. Baucus's popularity had dropped significantly.
At this point, no other Democrat is positioned to win that statewide race. The only positive that comes out of this news is that the DSCC can focus more of its money and GOTV operations on the other tight races.
Tags: Max Baucus , Brian Schweizer , Montana , Tim Johnson , South Dakota , Jay Rockefeller , West Virginia , DSCC , Election 2014
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 2:36 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-Jul-13 12:47 PM
Hey Gary:
If you didn't hear today Harry Reid had the nerve to ask the Justice Department to do a civil rights investigation on George Zimmerman. I bet there are 20 plus democrat senators not to mention possible challengers who are cheering that move! That might tip a race or two.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Replacing the experts
Jim Hoft has a collection of the drivel being spouted by Hollywierd's usual suspects. While it's appalling, it's totally predictable. Here's a sample of what Hollywierd's biggest disgraces are saying:
Here's a look at the stars who shared their thoughts on Twitter:
Ellen Page: 'If u really believe racism isnt a massive problem, that the oppression of minorities is not a horrific and systemic issue. U R in denial.'
Mia Farrow: 'I don't understand this. At ALL'
Steve Harvey: 'A Child is Dead & The Man that Killed Him is Free & Again The Child is Black: My Country Tis of Thee?'
Richard Dreyfuss: 'It's 2013 and an American jury just acquitted a man who admitted to stalking and killing an unarmed child.'
Judy Blume: 'Not surprised. But distraught. Saw 'Fruitvale Station' tonight. How ironic to come home to this verdict.'
Kate Walsh: 'Zimmerman verdict sickens me.'
Kat Dennings: 'I can't handle this. All that really matters are Trayvon's parents, and making sure nothing like this ever happens again.'
Questlove: 'this might be in bad taste but in light of this verdict? i really INSIST you people see Fruitvale Station not now but RIGHT NOW'
Alec Baldwin, who recently quit Twitter (again), resurfaced post-verdict: 'Florida is a parallel universe. A (expletive) one.'
Richard Dreyfuss's statement is particularly disgusting. It's also intellectually dishonest. It's probably intentionally dishonest, too.
Saying that George Zimmerman admitted to stalking Trayvon Martin is incendiary and dishonest. That statement doesn't have anything to do with the truth. It isn't connected to the evidence presented during the trial. It's nothing more than incendiary race-baiting.
It's easy to write it off when Al Sharpton's saying this trash. It's getting easier to write it off when someone from Hollywierd says this garbage.
On a more serious, more argumentative note, these actors' attitude is appalling. The 6 women jurors sat through the trial. They heard every piece of evidence. They took copious amounts of notes. Friday afternoon, they asked the judge for the complete list of evidence presented at trial.
By all accounts, they diligently sought the truth. These sanctimonious jackasses didn't hear the testimony but they've accorded themselves expert status with their statements. Their 'We know better' attitude is disgusting. They have an opinion, which the First Amendment allows them to express, but they aren't experts. That status can only be given to the jurors, the judge and the lawyers.
Tags: Richard Dreyfuss , Alec Baldwin , Mia Farrow , Hollywierd , Jurors , Verdict , Trial , Trayvon Martin , George Zimmerman , Acquittal , Lawyers , Judge
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:30 PM
No comments.
Indicting the prosecutors?
Alan Dershowitz, the famed civil rights attorney and Harvard Law School professor, is upset with the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial :
Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.
Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.
'I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties - by the prosecutor,' said the criminal-law expert. 'The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence."
The evidence in this case was contradictory. That means the jury couldn't have honestly been certain of anything. That's reasonable doubt. The jury could've said that they found the evidence sufficient to convict. That's what race-baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and President Obama were counting on. They'd pinned their hopes on the jury voting on their emotions, not the evidence.
To their credit, the jury didn't take the bait from these race hustlers. They followed the law. They examined the evidence. They concluded that George Zimmerman acted in self defense. Either that or they concluded that the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proving their theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for 'disciplinary action.'
He criticized the state's probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.
'The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,' the Harvard professor told Newsmax. 'She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.
'That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,' he said.
It's quite stunning to hear of a special prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense team. The picture of George Zimmerman's bloody head alone should've eliminated the charges of second degree murder before the trial. It also should've put into question whether there was a case for manslaughter.
That's because the picture showed that it was reasonable for George Zimmerman to think his life was in danger. Regardless of who followed who, the reality is that George Zimmerman's worries were legitimate the minute Trayvon Martin started bashing George Zimmerman's head into the pavement.
The race-baiting industry won't stop because hatemongers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama need it to continue. That's the sad commentary on America.
Tags: Angela Corey , Special Prosecutor , Ethhics Sanctions , Civil Rights Violations , Prosecutors , Exculpatory Evidence , Alan Dershowitz , Harvard Law School , Trayvon Martin , George Zimmerman , Self Defense , Reasonable Doubt
Posted Monday, July 15, 2013 1:54 AM
No comments.
The education legislature?
Friday night on Almanac, former Rep. Karla Bigham said that this DFL legislature would be known as the education legislature. If she meant that the DFL legislature marched to the orders of Education Minnesota, she's certainly right. If she meant that this DFL legislature improved educational outcomes, Rep. Bigham couldn't be further from the truth.
Throwing more money into a broken system isn't an accomplishment. And, yes, it's a broken system. In 2011, the GOP legislature included a provision requiring teachers to pass a basic skills test to teach high school math and science in their education omnibus bill. A year later, teachers were given waivers because they couldn't pass the test. That meant teachers kept teaching even though they couldn't meet the most important requirement for a teacher to meet.
These inept teachers won't flunk the basic skills test thanks to the DFL legislature. It isn't because they suddenly became better teachers. That's because the DFL legislature repealed the law this year. They didn't fix the problem. Instead, they voted to hide the problem. Sort of.
When students graduate that aren't grade proficient, people will notice. Mostly, moms and minorities will notice. Then they'll get upset.
Education Minnesota insists on anti-accountability policies. Here's what their new president said:
Denise Specht, the new president, opposes Teach for America. Said Specht, "When you have somebody on your team that you're worried about whether they're prepared or whether they have the tools that are necessary to do well, that's a concern for everyone."
For the record, Specht opposes making it easier for schools to fire unqualified teachers. That's why they lobbied hard to repeal the basic skills test.
Predictably, the DFL legislature gave Education Minnesota exactly what they wanted.
That isn't the only thing the "Education Legislature" did this session. They gave us this gem of a policy:
Under the new laws, all Minnesota public school boards can collect up to $300 per student without a referendum.
Previously, most of the money districts wanted to collect in property taxes beyond its general tax levy had to be approved by voters.
In addition, the state is allowing districts outside the metro area with more than 2,000 students to collect an additional $212 without voter approval. St. Cloud would actually collect $585 per student in 2014, or about $6.8 million a year.
To continue to collect the full amount beyond 2014, when St. Cloud's existing levy expires, the district would have to ask voters to renew the $73 per-student difference. That $73 is worth about $750,000 a year to St. Cloud school district.
It changes the landscape in several ways for St. Cloud. First, it's easier to ask for renewal of $750,000 than $6.8 million. And second, if the vote fails, it is easier to sustain reductions of $750,000 than $6.8 million.
In other words, the legislature essentially gave school boards the authority to run levies on autopilot. Thanks to the DFL legislature, there's virtually no accountability for school board budgets.
To summarize, this year's DFL legislature voted to eliminate teacher accountability to the students and school district accountability to taxpayers.
If that's the DFL's definition of an "Education Legislature", then Minnesotans should give the DFL this title: The best legislature that special interests can buy.
Tags: Education Legislature , School Levies , Property Tax Increases , Education Minnesota , Basic Skills Test , Accountability , DFL
Posted Monday, July 15, 2013 3:36 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jul-13 08:48 AM
Seems to me that the "education legislature" is teaching all Minnesotans how dangerous it is to hand political power to the DFL. To quote one pundit, it's like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 15-Jul-13 10:04 AM
Well written article. It isn't truly public education...it's government education. It is sad that very few parents attend school board meetings unless something major happens like getting rid of spring break. The DFL doesn't want to disenfranchise a major ally which is Education Minnesota. Accountability? What accountability?
Our tax dollars at work?
I've written alot about the fiscal mismanagement happening at SCSU. A prime example of the mismanagement is the lease President Potter signed with the J.A. Wedum Foundation, which I wrote about here . According to SCSU's records, they've lost a fistful of money:
Coborn's Plaza apartments have been a well-kept secret since they opened in the fall of 2010. Even getting accurate occupancy numbers during the first two years was difficult and only given in whispers with those hearing the secrets being sworn to secrecy. Some of that secrecy ended November 13, 2012 when Len Sippel, Interim Vice President for Finance and Administration, released the list of approved funding for permanent investments that included $2,250,000 for the 'Coborn's Welcome Center.'
This eye-popping number actually covers the deficit for Coborn's Plaza for the last two years so the loss only averages $1,125,000 per year. The amount of the loss for the first year for Coborn's Plaza has never been shared with the Faculty Association or made public. As a result, one is left to imagine that it is even larger than the annual loss for the last two years. What has apparently been a tremendous deal for the Coborn's Corporation and the J. A. Wedum Foundation has, without a doubt, been and will continue to be a financial boondoggle for SCSU.
That's the headline waste of money by quite a bit. That said, this waste of money was brought to my attention by a faithful reader of this blog:
According to SCSU documents, Professor Tracey Ore is in charge of the SCSU Community Garden. Her salary is approximately $73,000 a year. Though I haven't confirmed it because SCSU's transparency is practically nonexistent, I've been told that 42% of Dr. Ore's comp time is for the community garden.
Based on the looks of things, the SCSU Community Garden is a great success...if success is judged by bumper crops of weeds. I'd love hearing President Potter justify spending $30,000 a year on that community garden. Frankly, it's a ripoff. The taxpayers, again, are getting stiffed by a president who isn't setting the right priorities and who isn't taking important issues seriously .
Tags: St. Cloud State , Tracey Ore , Community Garden , Earl Potter , J.A. Wedum Foundation , Fiscal Mismanagement , Transcripts
Originally posted Monday, July 15, 2013, revised 16-May 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by Huskypisser at 15-Jul-13 08:12 PM
How about an SCSU community and partnership that actually cares about students' success and their respective fields of study... Potter get off your pompous butt!
Comment 2 by Dan Michaels at 20-May-14 11:26 PM
I can't tell who wrote this blog post because ther is no name or address cited but I would like to recommend they check into the "42% of comp time" "so I've been told" before reporting it as a fact. Comp time is where you change your schedule to work the same amount of hours in a different manner. If you mean release time then I believe that is that portion of your time released from teaching duties but all other duties such as committee and department meetings , research and publication, student advising, community service, etc, are still in effect.
My main point in posting, however, is to object that the gardens are weed patches. While all the labor is volunteer, neither garden is overrun with weeds and are instead a shining and beautiful example of what organized cooperative gardens can look like. The writer has obviously never seen them. Not only does this supply food for people but it is also a valuable learning tool, gathering spot, and outlet for the students and benefits them in many ways.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 21-May-14 12:55 AM
The pictures tell the story of whether it's weed-infested. Hint: it is. As to your other point about comp or release time, that might have merit because I'm not up on contract terminology.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 21-May-14 06:42 AM
Dan Michaels
What does an "organized cooperative garden" have to do with the STEM mission of SCSU? Does the garden bring as many students to SCSU as did a nationally accredited, revenue generating academic program which DeGroote, Maholtra and Potter closed based on made-up 'data and facts'? That piece of land would better serve students, staff and faculty as a parking lot!
Comment 4 by Jethro at 21-May-14 07:43 AM
In the past, the community garden was weed infested. In the interest of transparency, it would be interesting to see if Professor Ore has kept a running log of the volunteers for the garden. After all, part of her salary covers her time to oversee the garden. Patrick M is right - how does the garden attract students to SCSU? In light of declining enrollments, paying someone to watch a garden for several months a year with taxpayer dollars is highly questionable.
Comment 5 by Jarrett at 22-Mar-15 04:51 AM
WHO CARES?????
This idiot( Potter) does WHAT he wants, WHEN he wants, HOW he wants, Its bad enough that enrollment is tanking, debt is increasing but he remains slippery with zero transparency
BAD DECISIONS and RHETORIC...ARE HIS STRONG SUIT !!!
When will Minnesota's economy slow down?
This article features a stunning quote from my representative, Zach Dorholt:
Rep. Zachary Dorholt, DFL-St. Cloud, says it's good that the extra funds will go toward repaying schools. He says the windfall is due to Minnesota businesses performing better than expected and has little to do with policy decisions.
'Anybody who tries to take full credit for improvements in the economy, that's simply politicizing,' Dorholt said. 'I'm kind of a firm believer that it's Minnesota's diversified economy that has allowed us to weather the storm better than the nation. That doesn't come from one side or another. That comes from people in Minnesota being leaders in science, technology and education.'
Much of the credit for the economic improvement is the result of Republicans' permitting reforms and their fiscal restraint. Another thing that Rep. Dorholt isn't talking about is the $463,000,000 surplus left by the GOP legislature. That's because he knows what fueled it. Here's what the Pioneer Press wrote :
Much of the extra revenue came from higher-than-expected individual income tax payments. Factors the department cites, in addition to economic growth, include a one-time gain attributed to moves by higher-income taxpayers to shift income from future years into 2012 in anticipation of tax hikes.
In other words, employers started tightening their belts in 2012 in anticipation of an economic slowdown. The tax hikes will slow down Minnesota's economy. These employers know that. That's why they paid their taxes in 2012, not 2013.
More than anything else, the DFL's hostility towards business will lead to slower economic growth. Their onslaught of new regulations will stifle businesses' ability to expand. Some businesses already said they'd expand outside the state if the DFL passed their income tax increase. That's before the DFL included a warehouse tax in this year's Tax Bill.
The slowdown is imminent. It's just a matter of when it hits and how hard it'll hit. That isn't a prediction of a recession. It's just a prediction of a slowdown.
Tags: Zach Dorholt , Warehouse Tax , Tax Increases , Economy , DFL , Fiscal Restraint , Reforms , Surplus , MNGOP
Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:25 AM
No comments.
Unmasking the Left
This video says everything about the Left's agenda:
This lawyer essentially admitted that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime. She definitely admitted that this prosecution wouldn't have happened based on the merits. Ms. Rand essentially espoused mob rule because millions of ill-informed people didn't agree with the verdict.
Since when was justice delivered when ill-informed people tell the people who weighed the evidence and applied the specifics of the law that the law isn't good enough? What Ms. Rand is saying is that convicting people without evidence is ok. She's saying that it's ok to ignore the law if it fits with her worldviewe.
That isn't justice. That's vigilantism, which is essentially evil with a different name. Here's the definition of justice:
judgment of persons or causes by judicial process .
Justice necessarily means not playing by rules you make up as you go along. In this interview, Ms. Rand essentially advocated for convicting George Zimmerman because a tragedy happened. The prosecution didn't provide the jury with evidence that Mr. Zimmerman broke a specific law. That isn't to say Mr. Zimmerman acted wisely. He didn't. He should've stayed in his car.
That said, he had the right to defend himself when Martin attacked him. Let's remember that one of the jurors said they were convinced by the evidence, specifically because of eyewitness testimony by John Good, that Martin threw the first punch .
Finally, this video is proof that people shouldn't argue with Greta. In less than a minute of talking time, she sliced Ms. Rand into tiny little liberal ribbons.
Tags: Trayvon Martin , Jasmine Rand , Vigilantism , Street Justice , Mob Rule , Liberalism , Greta van Susteren , Civil Rights , Jury Trials , Justice
Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:15 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Jul-13 05:26 PM
Gary:
You should put up the AFSCME Council 5 website. They are calling for the federal government to go after George Zimmerman for civil rights violations. Oh really this is the same group that doesn't care about the rights for a private own business to stay out of an union they don't want to be members of.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
