July 28-31, 2015
Jul 28 07:48 Sauk Rapids goes fascist Jul 28 15:57 Tom Brady's suspension upheld Jul 30 07:31 Mark Jaede, SCSU and political activism Jul 31 06:35 Mark Jaede's political dilemma
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sauk Rapids goes fascist
This St. Cloud Times article is proof that overly meddlesome government isn't just found within the confines of the federal government. This time, it's found in Sauk Rapids. Last night, the Sauk Rapids voted unanimously to fine people who violate Sauk Rapids' so-called nuisance ordinance. According to the article, the 'fine for a first violation will be $100, the fine for a second notice of the violation will be $300 and the fine for the third notice will be $600. The fine for repeat offenders within a two-year period will also be $600.'
By now, you're likely wondering what constitutes a nuisance ordinance violation. According to the Times' article, homeowners can be fined for letting garbage accumulate. Homeowners can't 'allow peeling or blistering paint on more than 15 percent of a home,' either. The only part of the ordinance that's justifiable is 'keeping windows in working condition and walkways in good condition.' I'd consider the keeping of windows in working condition and maintaining sidewalks public safety issues.
Here's where Sauk Rapids' ordinance goes way too far:
The ordinance also prohibits vehicles including boats, four-wheelers, trailers or other defined vehicles from being parked in a residential yard unless parked in the driveway, licensed and road-worthy. They can be parked in a rear or side yard if they are licensed and operable.
If a homeowner wants to park their boat or RV in their back yard, the city should keep its nose out of that homeowner's business. There's a reason why it's called private property. These busybodies seem to think that it's called public-private property. They're mistaken on that.
Governments at all levels think that they can dictate what people can do with the people's private property. Whether it's the EPA telling citizens that they can't build their dream home on private property because there's a single low spot that the federal government considers a wetland or whether it's the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water or Department of Natural Resources telling farmers what they can and can't do in raising crops or whether it's a city council telling private property owners what things are permissible on the property owner's property, government apparently thinks that they're co-owners of the property.
If they want to be co-owners, then let them make half of the mortgage payment and pay half of the property taxes. If they won't do that, then they should butt out and devote their time to running the city efficiently while keeping their collective noses out of their citizens' private property.
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Jul-15 09:22 AM
Next thing they will be taking away guns and fireworks and limiting where you can smoke.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Jul-15 03:28 PM
It's one thing to pass ordinances that apply to public safety. It's another to pass ordinances that tell people what they can't do on their property that doesn't affect other people.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 28-Jul-15 05:39 PM
The phrase that pays is "Housing Stock" - a term you'll see in many local government ordinances and publications. What it clearly implies is that all the homes belong to them, not you. The justification is to maintain property values, which is to say, keep taxes flowing to City Hall.
But I'd argue that the cure could be worse than the disease. I scratched off two Twin Cities suburbs when we last bought a house based on harassment we and relatives saw even 25 years ago.
I'd also ask: wouldn't fixing the public schools go much further to improve property values? No, that's off the table.
Comment 4 by MtkaMoose at 29-Jul-15 06:22 PM
Rex - let me guess... St. Louis Park and New Hope. They are still as bad as ever - as close to Minneapolis-style bureaucracy as you can get.
Tom Brady's suspension upheld
I've been critical of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his handling of disciplining Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice and Greg Hardy. His disciplinary actions violated the NFL-NFLPA rules of the shop in terms of how long Commissioner Goodell could suspend players for. For instance, when Adrian struck his son with a wooden switch, the maximum suspension for such an offense was 2 games. Ditto with Ray Rice.
After the public outcry over the Rice suspension reached deafening levels after a video was found from inside the casino hotel showing Ray Rice hitting his then-fiance, Commissioner Goodell instituted a new set of rules. In both the Rice and Peterson cases, federal judges ruled that the violations happened before the new rules went into effect. In those instances, the judges ruled that Commissioner Goodell hadn't applied the existing "rules of the shop" in disciplining Rice and Peterson.
I fully support Commissioner Goodell's ruling against Tom Brady for a multiple reasons, which I'll get into shortly. First, though, it's important to highlight what went into the NFL's decision :
On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.
Because the appeal that the NFLPA will file in federal court within the next 2 weeks will be about the process that the NFL used, they won't be re-litigating Troy Vincent's or Roger Goodell's findings of facts. That's why it's certain that the federal appellate courts will uphold Brady's suspension. That's also why the judiciary won't grant an injunction that would put Brady's suspension on hold until the appeal can be heard.
Injunctions and TROs aren't granted unless the court thinks that the plaintiff has a chance of winning on the merits of the case. That gets into the procedural part of this suspension.
Most importantly, the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA stipulates that the NFL commissioner has the right to hear the appeals for violations of league rules regarding the games itself. There's a different procedure in place for what the NFL and NFLPA call personal conduct policies. Peterson's and Rice's violations violated the NFL's personal conduct policies. Tom Brady's violation had to do with the game itself.
Since the collective bargaining agreement gives Commissioner Goodell the right to hear Brady's appeal, it's difficult to see how a court could rule against the NFL in this case. Further, the fact that the NFL highlighted the fact that Brady destroyed his cell phone knowing that the NFL investigator wanted to look at the text messages between Brady and the Patriots' locker room guys is a major red flag. There isn't an honest investigator alive who wouldn't think of this as a major infraction.
That's like telling the IRS agent that you get rid of your tax returns every 2 years right before they audit you. Of course, that isn't going to fly.
I don't know when the NFLPA's lawsuit will be heard or in which court it'll be filed. What's certain, though, is that it'll end with Tom Brady serving a 4-game suspension.
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jul-15 07:06 PM
Well, you could most certainly be right, but I think the NFL is wrong. They have no evidence, to my knowledge. I keep hearing that "Patriot balls were deflated but Colt balls were not, therefore somebody deflated the Patriot balls." But AFAIK the Colt balls were NOT all tested, and it was later concluded that the pressure difference could have been due to temperature alone. I'm sure that the ball boys had been told or were at least aware to inflate to the bottom of the tolerance band, perfectly legal, but we have no evidence whatsoever that anybody asked or did anything to violate the rules. It's all circumstantial and wouldn't likely hold up in court. Now the kangaroo court of the NFL...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jul-15 06:20 AM
Jerry, let's stipulate that there isn't documentary proof or an affidavit from Mr. Jastremski that said "I deflated the footballs because Tom Brady told me to deflate them after the officials inspected them." I'd consider that smoking gun evidence. In the vast majority of criminal cases, convictions are obtained without smoking gun testimony. Does that make the convictions of the criminals who got convicted by connecting the dots through circumstantial evidence flimsy? Of course it doesn't.
Further, several of the Patriots' footballs weren't just a little under pressure. One was almost 2psi less than acceptable. It's impossible to convince me that that's because it was cold out. Further, we know from multiple QBs, both past and present, that there's no way those equipment guys did anything other than what their team's starting QB told them to do. That includes statements from HoF QBs like Troy Aikman and Steve Young to former Jaguars starting QB Mark Brunell to former players like Brian Dawkins, Jerome Bettis and Ryan Clark.
As for your asinine statement that the ruling "wouldn't likely hold up in court", it's about to be upheld in court.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Jul-15 08:50 AM
I suspect you are correct that the ruling WILL be upheld in court because of the contract he was a party to. I don't think it would hold up in a criminal or even civil court based simply on the lack of evidence. Again, as far as I know, the Colts footballs may have been under-inflated also but were not tested. And an expert has testified that cold weather COULD make the difference found. As for the court of public opinion, I think Brady has lost that one, too. It's a crying shame how the media can set out to destroy someone-- particularly a "hero" or a Republican of any kind-- based on almost nothing, and succeed.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 29-Jul-15 06:45 PM
J:
The NFL thought there were text messages (and I believe they have seen at least one from an equipment guy to Brady). Showing the phone and the messages would've confirmed everything. Brady is trying the Hillary defense which isn't working well.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 30-Jul-15 07:37 AM
It may be the Hillary defense, but it's being played completely differently. Hillary is only being penalized in the sense of public opinion, and the major media AND her "employer," the Democrat Party faithful, are covering for her. Brady is being pilloried and pursued by the press AND his employer, and is suffering real financial and career harm as a direct result. One might like such penalties to be levied on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Mark Jaede, SCSU and political activism
This morning, I got a copy of an email that Mark Jaede, a faculty member at St. Cloud State, published on SCSU's Announce listserv. Here's what Prof. Jaede published:
According to Jane Conrad's email, Ron Branstner's presentation was cancelled. According to Prof. Jaede's second email, Bob Enos stepped in and made a speech. Here's Prof. Jaede's email about the Enos speech:
In both of Prof. Jaede's emails, he referred to Jane Conrad. For those who aren't familiar with her, here's more information about Ms. Conrad:
This isn't insignificant because Prof. Jaede is using a taxpayer-funded resource (SCSU's email system) to highlight a political rally organized by Jane Conrad, a self-described AFL-CIO staffer, at the St. Cloud VFW.
Greg Jarrett is a private citizen who is interested in the State Department's refugee resettlement program. Mssrs. Branstner and Enos have dealt with and researched this program. Here's part of what Jarrett wrote when contacted by LFR:
The time has come for the Mayor and associated City Staff, President of SCSU, MNSCU Chancellor, St Cloud City Council and State Representatives to STOP an escalating and explosive situation that is in itself going to embarrass SCSU and the City of St Cloud again.
Here we have an AFL-CIO union-affiliated representative, Ms. Jane Conrad working in concert with a SCSU professor who was on the University time clock and is on SCSU's payroll using internal taxpayer-funded email communications for purposes not associated with SCSU, not on SCSU property, NON SCSU Business for the purpose of agitation and SELF labeling of a public event for the second time. They have turned this into a "racial event".
There is nothing "racial" about the economic impact of out of control Refugee Resettlement. Allowing these 2 radical militants to spin the topic and manipulate the Constitutional rights of others for personal beliefs and reasons is beyond insulting, irrational and borderline criminal in its direct purpose and intent.
Ms Jane Conrad and Professor Mark Jaede have taken upon themselves to self label and describe speaker Mr. Ron Branstner as "racist" and target the event for the sole purpose of starting an uprising of outrage. The St Cloud Police Department has also been made a pawn in this matter by Ms Conrad and Mr. Jaede by the now known threats prior to Mr. Branstner's scheduled engagement. Ms Conrad was successful in her misguided mission to strong arm the Police Department and the VFW management to cancel the event.
Using taxpayer-funded resources to advance a political agenda is wrong, to say the least. Another thing that's at stake here is SCSU's reputation. If President Potter doesn't immediately act to prevent Prof. Jaede's improper use of SCSU's email system, then he's sending the signal that he's ok with SCSU's employees using SCSU's taxpayer-funded email system for political use.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm still 100% certain that's improper, if not illegal.
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2015 7:31 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 30-Jul-15 09:06 AM
Jarrett is right on! I also heard a caller on KNSI say that SCSU's public TAXPAYER FUNDED email system has been used for promoting the vagina monologues and breast casting but at least these events are university sanctioned events. I am sure Jaede will rush out and defend this as free speech. And there has been credible allegations of Potter yelling and bulling black people, women and even students. Wasn't Jaede president of the faculty union? Where is his outrage? Where is his call for a welcoming inclusive environment at SCSU? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 31-Jul-15 07:50 AM
The other thing missed here is that the VFW RENTS space to all kinds of local groups and is "not responsible for the views expressed" etc. Some of the press releases said that the VFW was supporting racism, and that's just plain false. Not that truth matters much to these leftist goons.
Comment 3 by Dave Steckling at 31-Jul-15 10:12 PM
Mr. Jarrett has hit the bullseye again. Mr. Jaede should be censored or fired for instigating
discord with our city!
Mark Jaede's political dilemma
It's indisputable that Mark Jaede, a professor at St. Cloud State and a long-time DFL activist, used government property to help plan a political rally that was organized by Jane Conrad, a staffer at the Minnesota AFL-CIO. Apparently, Prof. Jaede doesn't think that the rules apply to him.
Specifically, he must think this rule doesn't apply to him:
Subpart D. Use of state property. All system property is also state property. With limited exceptions, state property is not to be used for personal or private use except as specifically authorized, such as limited personal use of computers as provided in System Procedure 5.22.1 and incidental use of system cell phones, as provided in System Procedure 5.22.1.
Earlier this week, Prof. Jaede posted this political announcement on St. Cloud State's listserv system:
This message is from Jane Conrad, who can be reached at 320-267-0899:
A rally was planned to counter racist speaker Ron Branstner who was speaking at the VFW at 9 18th Ave N in St Cloud. Two hours after I let the police know about our action and after the police talked with management at the VFW the speaker was canceled. So I canceled the rally. However, I did find out that the VFW did allow the event to go forward with a racist speaker from Willmar, Bob Enos. To counter this we are planning a rally this Saturday at 1:00 in front of the VFW. Please join us a peaceful collective community action. We are all in this together.
When Prof. Jaede used his SCSU email address to highlight an AFL-CIO political rally, he used state property "for personal or private use." He wasn't conducting University business when he posted this event information. He seems to admit that in signing off:
Mark (writing as an individual faculty member who is concerned about having a community that welcomes all)
Considering the fact that Jaede's been a DFL activist for years and considering the fact that he was using state resources to highlight an AFL-CIO political rally, does anyone take Prof. Jaede seriously when he insists that he's doing this "as an individual faculty member who is concerned about having a community that welcomes all" and not as a DFL activist?
Posted Friday, July 31, 2015 6:35 AM
Comment 1 by Paul brandmire at 31-Jul-15 08:47 AM
His closing statement was to give himself cover with the university, i.e. to state that his comments were not sanctioned or authorized by SCSU. In other words, he knew SCSU would not approve what he was saying or of using their equipment to say it had he asked.
Comment 2 by Patrick at 31-Jul-15 02:42 PM
by their very actions and words they show contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with them. I would offer that Jaede is being hypocritical for saying...'[as one who] is concerned about having a community that welcomes all". Time to tell the liberals to put away their name calling and get on with life.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 31-Jul-15 03:29 PM
Patrick, I'd modify Prof. Jaede's statement to read "as one who is concerned about having a community that welcomes all people who think like me and other hardline progressives."
Today's progressive movement has a strong fascist streak to it.
Comment 4 by Patrick at 31-Jul-15 03:58 PM
Gary, agreed
Comment 5 by Crimson Trace at 31-Jul-15 06:40 PM
Let's not forget that Jaede is a former president of the Faculty Association at SCSU. Is he going to plead ignorance of the rules?
Comment 6 by Dave Steckling at 31-Jul-15 10:02 PM
I believe Mr. Jaede is a professor of history? If so, he did poorly in Constitutional Ammrndents
101. First amendment freedom of speech and assembly! Why does he wish to silence the
people of St. Cloud from discussing issues that impact the entire city. Let the truth be known
and reasonable dialogue follow.
