May 14-16, 2014
May 14 01:05 GPTW post-mortem May 14 02:10 Which lie will Franken stick with? May 14 09:08 DFL ignores pothole crisis May 14 10:00 Indicting the DFL's priorities May 15 01:37 President Potter's puzzling metaphors May 15 08:52 Rep. Loon's compelling case against Met Council May 15 13:44 Will the DFL cave on bonding bill? May 15 16:03 Progressive fascists at the door May 16 03:57 Progressive fascists at the door, Part II
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GPTW post-mortem
The Great Place to Work Postmortem?
by Silence Dogood
There are numerous ways to evaluate the data from the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) Trust Index survey. The survey consisted of fifty-seven core "Trust Index statements" plus ten client-specific statements. Each of the standard questions was compared with results from the "100 Best Companies 2013" as rated by the GPTWI.
Considering the amount of information, it is possible to consider a thorough analysis of this data to be equivalent of that done for a Ph.D. thesis. Short of that kind of scholarly analysis, it is possible to see via a simple and straight-forward analysis the results of the GPTWI survey comparing the SCSU results to the results from the "100 Best Companies 2013." The figure below shows the derived value from subtracting the "100 Best Companies 2013" average results for the Organization Data items from the GPTWI survey results of SCSU from for those same items. In this analysis, a value that is positive means that SCSU is better than the average of the "100 Best Companies 2013" on that item. Similarly, a negative value means that SCSU is worse than the average of the "100 Best Companies 2013" on that item. The number indicates the magnitude of how much better or how much worse.
Figure 1. The difference between the value for SCSU on the Trust Index survey for the core value statements subtracted from those for the "100 Best Companies 2013."
Clearly, there is a whole lot of red, which means negative values, in the Figure! There is not one single item in which SCSU's value is the same or larger than that for the "100 Best Companies 2013." In fact, the closest SCSU is to the value of the "100 Best Companies 2013" is a value of -19 for statement 53!
The fifty-seven statements from the GPTWI survey are listed below:
Table 1. The fifty-seven Trust Index statements from the GPTWI survey.
According to the GPTWI:
"Any workplace can be measured through five dimensions: credibility, respect and fairness (which are attributes of trust), as well as pride and camaraderie."
The GPTWI sorts each of the statements into one of these five groups. The following figure shows the average of each group from the SCSU data for the Organization compared with the "100 Best Companies 2013."
Figure 2. The difference between the SCSU value of the Trust Index survey for the core value statements subtracted from those for the "100 Best Companies 2013" as determined for each of the five dimensions.
Reducing the number from fifty-seven to five makes it a bit easier to visualize the data. Not surprisingly, there is still a lot of red indicating SCSU's performance is well below that of the "100 Best Companies 2013."
The last statement on the survey is perhaps the most telling as to whether or not SCSU is a Great Place to Work:
"Taking everything into account, I would say this is a great place to work."
Not surprisingly, the difference between SCSU and the "100 Best Companies 2013" was -55!
Hopefully the question as to whether or not SCSU is a Great Place to Work can be put to rest for a while! That's unless someone argues that the results are not valid because the GPTWI is only for companies and nonprofits. Remember, though, it was President Potter who chose the GPTWI so it couldn't have been a mistake! One person has even announced that a 40% response rate is not a representative sample.
In order to have access to this information used in this article you must have a StarID and then login to the SCSU Sharepoint website. Since many people may not be able to do this, the summary sheet for the Organization Data is reproduced below just in case someone thinks the data used was fabricated.
Table 2. The summary data page from the organization data from the GPTWI Trust Index survey.
At Meet and Confer in October, the Faculty Association asked to see copies of the contract between SCSU and the GPTWI. As today, the contract(s) have not been shared. This is just another example of a lack of transparency and the unwillingness of the administration to share information.
As for the $49,900.00 the university spent on conducting the GPTWI Survey (this is what they told us - we haven't seen the contract yet), we know that SCSU is clearly not a "Great Place to Work." Quite a few people would have been able to tell you the same thing for a lot less!
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:05 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 14-May-14 06:41 AM
Where is Chancellor Rosenstone and what is he going to do about this mess?
Comment 2 by Overseas student at 15-May-14 10:53 PM
So a negative value means SCSU did worse than the 100 best companies? OK. Out of the 57 core trust index statements, SCSU was all negative. Not even one positive value. That is like getting zero points on a 100 point test.
Which lie will Franken stick with?
I wrote this post to highlight Al Franken's BS. Here's the biggest BS about the Koch brothers he put in his fundraising email:
It's not like these guys don't have the cash. Remember, in 2012, they spent $400 million on elections.
Based on the things he's put in his fundraising appeals, it isn't a stretch to think that Franken views the Koch brothers as the biggest threat to democracy in the 21st Century. That certainly says everything we need to know about Franken's perspective on the First Amendment. This fundraising letter from Sen. Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), on Franken's behalf, says everything we need to know about Franken's dishonesty:
'Dark money' refers to funds spent on elections and provided by people who remain anonymous thanks to a loophole in the tax code. In the 2012 cycle, we saw $265 million in 'dark money' -- and thanks to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove, we're likely to see much more than that this time around.
Apparently, Sen. Brown and Sen. Franken think it's dangerous to let rich people participate in the political process. It's equally apparent that they can't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. Franken said that the Koch brothers spent $400 million during the 2012 election cycle. Meanwhile, Sen. Brown insists that the Koch brothers and Karl Rove 'controlled' $265 million in campaign spending during the 2012 cycle.
The question is whether Franken will stick with his lie that the Koch brothers (legally) spent $400 million during the 2012 election cycle or whether he'll adopt Sen. Brown's statement that the Koch brothers and Karl Rove 'controlled' $265 million in election spending during the 2012 cycle.
BTW, it's really a phony argument if I'm right in thinking that Brown and Franken are really referring to money spent by Americans for Prosperity. AFP undoubtedly gets contributions from wealthy conservatives like the Koch brothers but it also gets lots of contributions from middle class conservatives.
What's disgusting is that, in Franken's and Brown's minds, they think that AFP is a monolith. To them, apparently, they think only rich people contribute to AFP. That's an intentional misrepresentation of the facts intended to characterize conservatives as evil rich people out of touch with Main Street.
The opposite is the truth. I wrote this post to prove that the Koch brothers aren't evil rich people:
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs - even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
The horror of it all. Franken and Brown have engaged in criticizing people that've lobbied against corporate welfare and cronyism.
Sen. Franken's list of accomplishments are unimpressive. One 'accomplishment' (Obamacare) is counterproductive. The last thing Sen. Franken wants to do is talk about how his votes have strengthened the economy, created lots of high-paying jobs, made America less reliant on Middle East oil or created tens of thousands of high-paying union jobs while building the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Sen. Franken's fundraising appeals shows that he's worried he'll be exposed as the failure he's been the last 5 years. There isn't a single thing that says he'll ever have a major accomplishment. The truth is that he'd be hard pressed to sponsor a bill that'll create a healthy, vibrant economy.
No amount of lying about productive industrialists will change Sen. Franken's sorry excuse for a record.
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:10 AM
No comments.
DFL ignores pothole crisis
Things aren't going the DFL's way when MinnPost is harshly criticizing Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature :
The Legislature this year instead appropriated just $11.4 million to fix potholes in 87 counties and another $3.6 million for cities, for a total of $15 million. "That's about $100,000 per county," says Margaret Donahoe, executive director of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, a prominent member of MoveMN. Considering that each pothole costs about $1,000 to repair, "It's a nice gesture, but it doesn't do the job," she adds.
That's the gentlest of MinnPost's criticisms. This is quite a bit harsher:
What's more, the DFL holds all the reins of power, and the party platform [PDF] calls for "well-designed and maintained roads and bridges throughout the state" and "increased investment in Minnesota's transportation and infrastructure, on a regional and statewide basis, including public transportation, mass transit, commuter rail corridor, light rail, buses, pedestrians and bicycles." The state also found itself with a $1.23 billion budget surplus, an amount that would encourage legislators, one would think, to get a little bit spendy on transportation infrastructure.
MinnPost is right. The DFL heldd all the reins of power in St. Paul the last 2 years. They're the party that didn't deal with this crisis. The DFL's platform talks about "well-designed and maintained roads and bridges throughout the state." The DFL's failure to live up to that part of their platform is almost on a par with their estimate of e-tabs revenue.
It'd take a Herculean effort to fall that far short of the e-tabs revenue. The DFL tried to top that with their feeble effort with the transportation but couldn't quite pull off that size of disaster.
There were all manner of excuses from legislators. It is not a "budget year." It is a short session. It's an election year. "They raised the gas tax in 2008, and that was an election year," says Donahoe, sounding a bit frustrated. Nonetheless, the DFL leadership did not want legislators to have to vote on new taxes before running again, says Erkel. Another negative: lack of support from the state's Chamber of Commerce, which hadn't recovered from the sting of tax increases passed last year.
The DFL showed its true colors on the pothole crisis. They offered excuses. They didn't offer solutions to this crisis. What's worse is that they didn't hesitate in spending $90,000,000 on a building that'll house senators and their staffs 3 months each year.
That's quite the contrast. The DFL spent 6 times as much money on a palace for politicians as they're willing to spend on the pothole crisis. During the campaign, the DFL will attempt to tell people that they're fighting for working families.
Their legislation proves that that's BS. They spent more money on themselves than they spent on an urgent need that's part of their affirmative responsibility.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL didn't fulfill their obligations. They don't deserve another term in office. It's that simple.
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:08 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-May-14 11:32 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget the state has lots of money to spend on roads, but when they throw billion(s) away on mass transit projects for a couple of people the money to make a nice invest in the roads is gone.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 14-May-14 02:12 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget since you mentioned the gas tax increase bill that the Democrats who controlled the state house and senate by overwhelming numbers ignored the Republican alternative to do bonds and focus on roads. Then they twisted a couple of Republican arms in order to override Tim's veto. Here they don't need a single vote to pass another tax increase and claim they are doing it for the roads again.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 14-May-14 03:53 PM
Walter, the money spent on transit doesn't have anything to do with gas tax revenues.
Indicting the DFL's priorities
I just published this post to highlight the DFL's failure to put the highest priorities on the most important things. In that post, it was mostly about what I'm calling the Pothole Crisis. According to the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, the DFL legislature only appropriated $15,000,000 for pothole repairs on Minnesota's trunk highways and county roads.
As frightening as it is to think that the DFL didn't put a high priority on this crisis, that isn't the only thing where the DFL didn't put a high priority on an important matter. Rep. Matt Dean explains in this post :
Dean said there are some major differences between what the House and Senate bonding committees propose. The biggest one, he said, is a southwest Minnesota water project.
'Lewis and Clark is a big deal,' Dean said. 'We think that should be the first project in and not the last project in.'
The project should receive the nearly $70 million it needs to move water to residents in the Luverne and Worthington areas, Dean said. Dean, like other Republicans, said that museums, theaters and other arts projects should get less money so Lewis and Clark can be fully funded.
The DFL wrote the bonding bills. They put in a few projects that the Republican legislators want in their attempt to pick off a few votes to pass the bill. What they didn't do is prioritize their spending.
The fact that the DFL's bill shortchanges an important infrastructure project but puts in tons of money for frivolous projects highlights the Democrats' inability to say no to silliness and their inability to say yes to important infrastructure projects.
Minnesota's taxpayers can't afford more of the DFL's foolish priorities. They shouldn't have to deal with a political party that isn't putting the highest priorities on the most important projects. Spending $90,000,000 on the 'Part-Time Politicians' Palace', aka the Senate Office building but only spending $15,000,000 on Minnesota's Pothole Crisis isn't just foolishness. It's outright stupidity.
The DFL's decision to spend money on theater renovations and other entertainment projects instead of fully funding an important infrastructure project is proof positive that their priorities aren't Minnesota's priorities.
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:00 AM
No comments.
President Potter's puzzling metaphors
A Python Swallowing A Pig?
by Silence Dogood
In a SC Times article that appeared on Sunday, April 27, 2014, Dave Unze quotes President Potter:
"Potter likens the enrollment dip in 2011 to a pig going through a python, meaning that the dramatic dip will be reflected in enrollment numbers until that class leaves."
Unfortunately, before the pig, the python ate a rabbit. Then after eating the pig, dined on a German shepherd followed by a goat. The python is now eying a basset hound, a lamb and wild turkey. Does this python have an appetite or what!
Without a doubt, the 6.92% percent drop in enrollment will take time to work itself through the system. But to hear President Potter say it sounds like ho, hum, business as usual. Remember, according to President Potter, "We're right sizing."
After enrollment peaked in FY10 at 15,096 FYE, enrollment has dropped for four consecutive years. It started with a small drop in FY11 (0.80%). The big drop in enrollment occurred in FY12. However, for FY13 and FY14 the enrollment continued to drop. Compared to the "dramatic dip" in FY12, the drops are smaller but drops of 6.35% and 4.96% are nothing to dismiss. The FYE enrollment from FY10 through FY14 is shown in the following Figure. All data is taken from the MnSCU website.
Figure 1. FYE Enrollment at SCSU by Fiscal Year from FY10 through FY14.
So continuing with President Potter's analogy, the python clearly hasn't stopped eating! And calling the enrollment drop in FY12 a "dramatic dip" seems to imply that things returned to 'normal' in FY13 but clearly they didn't. Enrollment continued to slide rather substantially. In fact in both FY13 and FY14, the declines in FYE were larger than the declines at all of the other seven MnSCU universities combined! Clearly, calling it a "dip" is a poor word choice. It might be more appropriately described as a slow motion "train wreck."
When you turn the FYE enrollment declines at SCSU into percent, you get the following Figure
Figure 2. Percentage Decline in FYE at SCSU by Fiscal year from FY10 through FY14.
From the Figure it looks like the rate of decline is slowing. However, it is important to note that the declines for FY15, FY16 and FY17 are only estimates. In February 2013, the Data Analytics' enrollment projection for FY14 was for a 2.4% decline. The actual decline was 4.96%. The enrollment declines projected by the Data Analytics group this March for FY15 is for a 3.2% decline, for FY16 a 2.3% decline and for FY17 a 1.3% decline. Based on their prior results, I wouldn't bet the house on the accuracy of their projections!
However, if one wants to live in a fantasy world and assume that the enrollment will follow the projections of the Data Analytics group exactly, the FYE enrollment for SCSU would be that shown in the following Figure.
Figure 3. FYE Enrollment at SCSU by Fiscal Year from FY10 through FY17 including projections for FY15, FY16 and FY17.
From the Figure it is clear that the FYE enrollment at SCSU will be substantially smaller that it was in FY10. From FY10 to FY17, the data shows a combined drop in FYE enrollment of 23.3%! Clearly, finding a parking space near campus won't be as difficult as it has been in the past. So perhaps there is a silver lining to a smaller SCSU! Unfortunately, along with fewer students, there will be fewer classes and fewer faculty and staff around as well.
Also with fewer students on campus, next year SCSU has reported that it is mothballing Holes Hall, which a dormitory with a capacity for 400 students. It's also not hard to imagine that with declining enrollments there will be empty apartments around town where students once took up residence.
If the enrollment follows the path predicted for FY15, FY16 and FY17, a total of 3,517 FYE will have been lost since FY10. It is interesting to note that in FY14, the total FYE enrollment at Southwest State University was 3,678, which means that SCSU will have lost the equivalent of 95.6% of the entire FYE enrollment at Southwest State University. And that is assuming the Data Analytics projections are correct and the python is no longer hungry! In fact, it certainly would not be unreasonable to see SCSU's enrollment decline exceed the total enrollment at Southwest State University.
With an enrollment of 12,405 for FY14, SCSU's enrollment is smaller than it has been since 1999. The FYE enrollment for SCSU by fiscal year is shown in the following Figure. All data is taken from the MnSCU website.
Figure 4. FYE Enrollment at SCSU by Fiscal Year from FY99 through FY14.
Unfortunately, FYE data is not available online before 1999 so it is not possible to say how far back you need to go to find when SCSU had an FYE enrollment of 11,579. From SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Research, one can find the Fall Headcount Enrollment from 1980 to 2012, which is shown in the following Figure.
Figure 5. SCSU Fall Headcount Enrollment from Fall'80 through Fall'12.
Headcount enrollments count the total number of people enrolled on and off campus so a person taking one class a year or a person taking 10 classes a year both count the same. It also should be remembered that the mix of on and off campus enrollments has changed dramatically since the 80's. Off campus concurrent enrollment of high school students, extensive online course offerings, and expanded off campus graduate programing did not exist in the 80's. Taking these three phenomena into account it is clear that the number of students coming to campus on a daily basis has dropped more than simple headcount will show.
As already mentioned, SCSU's FYE enrollment for FY14 (12,405) is smaller than the FYE enrollment was in FY99 (12,576). FYE enrollment takes the total number of credits and divides by 30 for undergraduate students and 20 for graduate students. The number of 30 for undergraduates comes from the number of credits necessary for a student to take in one year to graduate in four years. As a result, FYE enrollment is always smaller that headcount enrollment.
If the enrollment continues to decline, as projected by the Data Analytics group, it is not hard to imagine that SCSU's projected FYE enrollment in FY17 (11,579) will not have been that small since 1982 or 1983 and the number of students living on and off campus in the St. Cloud area might not be larger than in the late 1970's! I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting to see an Enrollment Management Plan that stabilizes the enrollment levels at SCSU from the early 80's. And finally, if I owned rental property space designed to serve SCSU students, I better hope for more mothballing of university dorms!
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:37 AM
No comments.
Rep. Loon's compelling case against Met Council
This video shows Rep. Jenifer Loon's compelling case against the Met Council's dictatorial authority:
If Rep. Loon is right that the Met Council has the authority to override elected officials' votes on things like the Southwest Light Rail project, then that runs contrary to the principles that this nation was founded on.
This nation was built on the premise that decisions be made at the most local level of government. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't write the Constitution to have unelected official who were weren't accountable to anyone to be the final decisionmakers.
The truth is that this is pretty straightforward. People who've been elected by the people in their communities should make the decisions. People appointed by Minnesota's governor, whether the governor is a Republican or a Democrat, shouldn't make the final decision.
In fact, gubernatorial appointees shouldn't have the authority to overrule elected officials in making financial transactions. A compelling argument can be made that the Met Council shouldn't exist in its current form. That isn't the same as saying there aren't important decisions that they make.
Actually, that's the problem. If a group of cities wants to establish a joint governing council on things like light rail projects, that should be encouraged with the provision that the people sitting on that joint council are elected by the citizens they represent.
The Met Council is government at its worst. It's unaccountable. It has the authority to override the decisions of elected officials. It can raise taxes without the consent of the governed. The appointees to the Council aren't even subject to confirmation hearings and votes.
Those things make it the definition of being anti-American.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:52 AM
Comment 1 by J. Johnson at 16-May-14 09:57 AM
This is hysterical nonsense. Far from being anti-American, the Met Council was created by the State Legislature in the 1960s to direct growth and development in the 7 county Metro area. In fact, the Council has rarely used their "dictatorial powers" to stomp on local communities and has tried very hard to be inclusive and gain consensus wherever possible. But, everybody can't always have exactly what they want. There is a bigger picture here. Bottom line, if you don't like how the Council functions, use your voice and pen to influence your state legislators to change the Council's charter. The Council's power flows directly, and legally, from State government and its charter can be changed with a majority of legislative votes and the Governor's signature.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-May-14 12:10 PM
I've talked with a number of people from the south Metro who've talked about instances where the Met Council overruled city council votes. I get my facts straight. It'd be nice if you'd do the same.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 16-May-14 04:12 PM
J Johnson, the Met Council is on par with MnSCU when it comes to being dysfunctional.
Will the DFL cave on bonding bill?
This article hints that it's possible the DFL won't get a bonding bill passed this session. I'm highly skeptical of that happening.
Construction borrowing bills need a 60 percent threshold to pass, but House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt said his caucus is not yet willing to put up the eight GOP votes needed until Democrats put more money into the Lewis and Clark water pipeline in the southwestern part of the state, among other projects. House and Senate Democrats reached a final agreement on a list of bonding projects Wednesday.
'Apparently the House and Senate DFL went in some back room and cut a deal between themselves but did not include us in that process,' Daudt said. 'Obviously we want to pass a bonding bill that everybody can agree to, but at this point we are not there yet.'
Here's why they "aren't there yet":
The final bonding bill provides $22 million for the water pipeline project, which is stalled after federal funding dried up. Republicans say nearly $70 million is needed to finish the critical infrastructure project.
'There are a lot of things in the bill that, frankly, we think are of a lot lower priority than things like Lewis and Clark,' Daudt said, 'Snow-making equipment and theaters and these sorts of things.'
In my estimation, it's a matter of when, not if, the DFL caves in this negotiation. If the DFL doesn't pass a big bonding bill, the construction unions will be upset with them. The DFL can't afford that going into the fall election campaign for multiple reasons.
First, they'd make an important part of their coalition just prior to the election. That's plain foolish. Construction unions know how to play hardball. That's something the DFL is frightened of.
Second, not passing a bonding bill right after Gov. Dayton called for a $1.2 billion bonding bill in his State of the State Address would make Gov. Dayton and the DFL look incompetent. Their competence is already getting questioned in the aftermath of the MNsure debacle and the Vikings stadium funding disaster.
Third, not funding the Lewis and Clark project will piss off tons of people in southwest Minnesota. Granted, that isn't a big part of the DFL's election coalition. Still, not passing that project will help them underperform in that region, which might hurt them in a tight election.
The DFL is already worrying about a possible civil war with the Iron Range Democrats. If that happens, that has the potential of hurting Gov. Dayton, Sen. Franken, Rick Nolan and Rebecca Otto. Underperforming in southwestern Minnesota and the Iron Range might spell disaster for the DFL.
Connect these dots and they tell the message that the DFL will cave on the bonding bill. It's just a matter of when.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:44 PM
No comments.
Progressive fascists at the door
Kirsten Powers is one of my favorite liberals. It isn't that I agree with her all the time, though I suspect I'd find common ground with her more frequently than the mob would like. What I like most about her is that she's an old-fashioned liberal that delights in the vigorous exchange of ideas. The thing that I like about Ms. Powers' latest column is that she used the column to take on the anti-free speech fascists:
Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.
How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.
I applaud Ms. Powers for fighting this fight. It's a fight that can't be avoided. Here's why:
As the mob gleefully destroys people's lives, its members haven't stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that's how these things usually end.
The left's thought police have a dictatorial mindset. Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, aka FIRE, wrote this op-ed about this year's "disinvitation season." Like Kirsten Powers, Lukianoff is a liberal. Here's what he wrote in his op-ed:
It's the time of year when efforts heat up by students and faculty to get speakers they dislike disinvited from campus. Every spring, the campus 'disinvitation' movement seems to get more intense, and this year its participants have claimed some high-profile scalps.
On Tuesday, former University of California Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau announced he would withdraw from his address at Haverford College in the face of student protests. Dr. Birgeneau, who seemed to most like a safe choice, was apparently unwelcome because of his alleged mishandling of Occupy Wall Street protests on his campus.
It's pretty pathetic when a liberal like Chancellor Birgeneau is disinvited because he didn't give OWS protestors the kid glove treatment. This article highlights Dr. Birgeneau's 'sin':
Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 or else they would protest his graduation speech.
It didn't matter to these fascists that Dr. Birgeneau was a 'good liberal'. It just mattered that he didn't apologize because the campus police didn't give the OWS criminals the kid glove treatment.
Thanks to liberals like Kirsten Powers and Greg Lukianoff, the fascist tide is turning. They're calling out the fascists for their censorship. Protesting is acceptable. Censorship isn't. It's time more leftists stood with Ms. Powers, Mr. Lukianoff and Dr. Birgeneau in standing against the fascist left's censorship movement.
It's time to put an end to this anti-American movement.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:03 PM
No comments.
Progressive fascists at the door, Part II
I didn't anticipate the anxiety I would cause at SCSU with this post . From what I gather, I must've touched a nerve with the post. One professor on the professors' listserv showed their true colors when they added this comment to the 'discussion':
Words have meanings & I have the perfect right to choose not to waste time reading a piece of obnoxious nonsense. I would hope that no one in higher education subjects their students to mendacious propaganda that distorts the meaning of words!!
Though I don't know what this professor is objecting to, I'm betting that the professor is upset with the use of the phrase progressive fascism. In the interest of being precise, here's Dictionary.com's definition of fascism :
the political movement, doctrine, system...which encouraged militarism and nationalism, organizing the country along hierarchical authoritarian lines
In other words, fascism is the practice of establishing one's perceived superiority through dictatorial fiat. Proving one's worth through thoughtful, fact-based arguments isn't required in this arena. All that's required, at least in these fascists' minds, to win the argument is to declare one's opponent as someone using "mendacious propaganda." Here's Dictionary.com's definition of mendacious propaganda:
propaganda- information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
mendacious- telling lies, especially habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthful: a mendacious person.
The ferocity with which I was criticized by this professor is stunning. It isn't that this professor's words sting. They don't. It's that the professor didn't feel the need to know what I'd written before criticizing me.
What's stunning is that professors who criticized my post without reading it dramatically outnumbered the professors who voiced thoughtful, substantive disagreements with me. If that isn't the exemplification of fascism, then fascism can't be defined or exemplified.
Another thing that I think is interesting is that this professor attacked me as being obnoxious and unworthy of serious intellectual consideration. My supposed crime? I agreed with a pair of liberals who criticized the speech police for not tolerating differing points of view. My 'crime' was criticizing progressives who didn't tolerate differing opinions.
My 'crime' was criticizing progressive fascists (yes, they exist) for protesting speakers into being disinvited. That's an act of intellectual cowardice. What are these fascists afraid of? Are they that afraid of opposing opinions?
Posted Friday, May 16, 2014 3:57 AM
No comments.
