Archive for the ‘Academia’ Category

Rules for Retrogrades
a book by Timothy and David Gordon
Review By John W. Palmer, Ph.D.

Michael Voris of Church Militant, a Catholic media organization, in his June 8th Vortex commentary highlights what Black Lives Matter stands for. He also calls attention to a victim of intolerance. In his article, Voris wrote “Popular Catholic commentator Tim Gordon was on social media last week talking about these very facts when BLM supporters struck and began doxxing him on social media platforms, calling for him to lose his job at the Catholic high school where he taught. We say taught, past tense, because within hours after the BLM campaign against him began, the diocese of Fresno, under the leadership of Bishop. Joseph Brennan dumped Gordon on the spot and told him not to come back. Anyone that thinks they are going to remain safe as the great Marxist steamroller plows through society still does not realize the reality. If you don’t stand and ?ght now, even in the face of persecution, what comes after this is going to be far worse.”

I share this information as an introduction to an important book for people who wish to defend what is right and true. Tim Gordon and his brother David have recently launched a Youtube channel, named after their book Rules for Retrogrades: Forty Tactics to Defeat the Radical Left. The Gordons have penned a worthy response to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

What is a retrograde? (from the promo page at Tim’s website) A retrograde calculates, night and day, how to return the world to:

  1. the Old Order of moral and sexual decency,
  2. classical masculinity,
  3. national sovereignty and national borders,
  4. faith, hope and charity,
  5. goodness, beauty and truth,
  6. Christian civic liberty,
  7. and most importantly, the social kingship of Christ.

In the words of Shakespeare, a retrograde is one of God’s spies. The retrograde has the unique capacity for understanding the stark chasm between the degenerate, socialist-in?ltrated world of decay on one side and the well-meaning, good-hearted, but clueless Christian world on the other. In a time of such profound decay, being one of God’s spies is a last resort and a pure necessity: it involves not “deep cover,”—i.e., acting like the enemy—but rather “half cover”: acting as a “contra” in the secular arena, a crypto-Christian counterinsurgent willing to ?ght like a Navy Seal and to think like a counterintelligence of?cer. Retrogrades . . . to the streets: our aim is to reverse the deliberate, deuced machinations of “radicals” like Saul Alinsky who, by penning the rulebook of radicalism, threw down a challenge that has, until now, gone unanswered.

Rules for Retrogrades is the handbook men of good will need to win the culture war! Patrick Cof?n, a well respected Catholic commentator, writes this about Rules for Retrogrades: “If you take your prose pugnacious, your meat red, and your politics incorrect, then you might be ready for Rules for Retrogrades. This isn’t a book so much as a crowbar. The Brothers Gordon have marshaled 40 tactics that are guaranteed to provoke not only pony-tailed boomers but also cautious mod-cons, dour trans, and unsuspecting boomers.”

Rule 11 has special meaning to me since my experience with a variety of media hit attacks directed at me when I spoke out with the truth regarding the refugee resettlement program. Rule 11 Never Trust a Man Who is Unwilling to Have Enemies. Here are a few more examples of rules for retrogrades. Rule 6 Never Compromise with Radicals on their Initiatives resonates with recent events impacting our nation. Rule 5 Risus bellum est (translation at the end) supporting narrative begins with this sentence: The only possible response by a sane man to an insane claim is laughter and ridicule. Rule 26 The memory of the Western public is exceedingly short, pathetically undisciplined, and never to be feared. Rule 33 Stop heralding unwelcome news of progressive victories by wishfully proclaiming that radicals have “awaked a sleeping giant.”

Each of the 40 rules are accompanied by explanatory narratives which help the reader understand the rule and the need for the rule. At 160 pages, about 4 pages for each rule, you will ?nd this book an easy but insightful read. Rules for Retrogrades is a book you will want to keep close at hand after your ?rst reading as you engage in the culture war between the progressives and radicals and the conservatives and retrogrades. As we have seen the events unfold over the past weeks and days we do not need our imagination to see what losing the struggle with radicalism means. Our country is on the brink of a dark abyss and we retrogrades need to be both informed and supported with sound tactics and steely resolve. I do hope you will take time to explore Rules for Retrogrades and visit Tim Gordon’s website, your time will be well spent. ———— Rule 5 (English) Laughter is war.

Each year, it’s easier to make the case that the Democrat Party is aligned with hate-filled organization. What’s worst is that the most hate-filled people are academics at elite universities. I wish it was surprising to know that Ivy League schools hate diversity of opinions. Unfortunately, it isn’t surprising whatsoever.

Jonathan Turley’s post highlights how disgusting the censorship movement has come. Though he didn’t say it in his post, it must break a constitutional law professor’s heart to see this type of censorship happening on college campuses.

At one point, Prof. Turley highlighted the fact that “What is most striking for me is the inclusion of Professors Mark H. Jackson and Cortelyou Kenney, who teach in the Cornell First Amendment Clinic. They are in fact the Director and Associate Director of the First Amendment Clinic, which is presumably committed to the value of free speech even at private institutions. So these professors teach free speech and just signed a letter that people who question the BLM movement or denounce the looting are per se or at least presumptive racists.”

I’ve written here multiple times that the First Amendment still protects hate speech. The First Amendment isn’t needed to protect popular or noncontroversial speech. The First Amendment is essential if you want controversial speech protected. While I don’t like hate speech or the burning of the American flag, I’ll defend to the death the right of people to say controversial or hate-filled things.

Congratulations to Professor Jacobson for eloquently defending himself in this interview:

Democrats only like free speech when the people speaking are saying things that they agree with. That isn’t free speech. That’s approved speech, which means someone is approving what’s getting said. That’s what happens in fascist countries. It isn’t what happens in the United States.

What are We Learning in a Pandemic?
By Ramblin’ Rose

Public school teachers are patting themselves on the back, at least on social media, for having met the challenge to deliver distance learning to some 56 million students. On April 15, 2020 in an opinion piece in the St. Cloud Times, Aaron Sinclair, the superintendent of the Sauk Rapids-Rice school district, lauded the efforts of all to quickly transition from the classroom to virtual learning. He acknowledged a few difficulties and then proceeded to thank all who made the rapid change and continued the learning. That was “happy talk.” That does not match the reality of the fiasco.

Admittedly, within a couple of weeks, teachers did have materials available online for students. But how many 20-minute videos can elementary students view every day? How many worksheets can be completed after each video? Children cannot just sit all day. They need to move. They have been forced to become passive receptors of the talking heads on screens. What if they have questions? Parents may have the answers but many won’t. Very few will have the content information that the teachers do.

One assumes that middle school and high school students are also assigned similar scenarios. Even good students become mesmerized and bored on a chair in front of a screen EVERY day.

Does the pre-recorded, hollow statement “Good job, class” really motivate learners to stay on task and try to do even more?

What about the parents? Were they prepared to supervise their children’s lessons? Did they want the job? How can they handle the job if they are also working from home? Parents who try to help only one child reportedly cry at the end of the day—and some during the day—out of frustration with trying to understand the required work so that they might help their child. Now imagine a parent with more than one learner at home. And how many families have opted out completely?

Parents have been forced into homeschooling and must teach lessons that have been imposed on them and their children. The results for the children and families do not reflect those listed by Mr. Sinclair.

  1. How many schools have changed many of the classes to “optional?”
  2. How many districts have already suspended the rest of the academic year—even distance learning?
  3. How many learners have abandoned their work—even the gifted ones?
  4. If the talented learners have given up, how long ago did the challenged learners quit trying?

Could not the districts empower the families to embrace learning and provide some more practical activities? Could not some of the assignments be “optional” or “supplementary” resources from which the students and parents could choose when they want some guidance from the professionals?

Why not have younger children read to their parents and parents to their children? Reading is fun and instructional. The books are chosen by children based on interest. If they have questions, the parents likely are prepared to answer them. And it’s snuggle time. During this pandemic, the bonding with family and the security found in the togetherness are essential.

Why not teach math following recipes in the kitchen or a carpentry project in the garage? Both options involve measuring, fractions, addition, subtraction, etc. in a real-world context. Again, parents and children are working together in a mutually selected activity. It’s fun; it’s less stressful than assignments that, at times, challenge even the most devoted parents. What happens when the child and parent do not agree with the answer given by the teacher? (I saw that happen. The child shrugs her shoulders; the parent shakes her head.) What was the lesson learned? Who owns the confusion?

Those younger learners could still have Zoom time—see their classmates and friends, sharing stories of the fun things they learned in the last week. Teachers could guide the conversations and relate their learning to more academic themes, if appropriate. During the week, the teacher could chat with each student alone, even quizzing them on math problems or spelling words, as well as being there to support and encourage them with real words of praise, as appropriate. The child could read to the teacher to validate continuing academic progress. The teacher would still be a person and not just a bobbing head on a screen.

For older students, could they not become Socrates, pose a question of personal interest related to the course, research it and do a virtual conference with the teacher and explain what they learned and submit a short summary about the project—the reason for it, the process followed to complete it, and share the final answer to the Socratic question? It would still involve screen time, but the control would be with the learner. Undoubtedly, more learning would occur on a self-directed project than on another video lesson followed by more worksheets. The teacher would be a mentor throughout the project and would provide academic feedback upon completion of the assignment.

During the first week of distance learning, there was an abundance of jokes about distraught parents locking their kids outside for a fire drill or in the basement for a tornado drill while they sang the praises of the public school teachers. Those jokes are almost non-existent currently; they are not humorous. They accurately reveal the frustrations that many families are experiencing with “homeschooling.”

Some public educators also expressed concern about “homeschooling” but for very different reasons. Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet and other educators expressed their fear about having parents in charge of teaching their own children. In their words, it is “important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.” Bartholet called parents too authoritarian. She also challenged their preparedness to teach their own children.

Parents want what is best for their children…and hopefully, the majority of public school teachers do too. Due to the pandemic, parents have restructured their professional lives in order to teach their children as mandated by state governments. And, sadly, there is an entire cult, like Bartholet, that believes that government should have control “from the womb to the tomb.”

What will PreK-12 education look like next fall? Will schools reopen? Will distance learning continue? Will more parents opt to homeschool with a curriculum that they select and truly become their children’s teacher? Will they happily return their children to classroom teachers? Do public schools fear a loss of students to homeschoolers?

And another question, right before the start of the pandemic, did not the experts plead with parents to reduce the amount of time that young children, especially, spend with devices? With the advent of whole scale distance learning, those experts are mute.

On to higher education…

On April 18th, the results of a Axios and College Reactions poll reported “… 77 percent of college students say that “distance learning is worse or much worse than in-person classes,” while 13 percent say “they would take time off from college if distance learning continues next year.”

That contradicts the push of many university administrators for classes and even entire programs to be delivered electronically. Many faculty and students have objected to those initiatives but gone unheard. Let’s hope that this poll has reached the administrators.

While the pandemic has forced the closure of schools and campuses, institutions of higher learning had already suffered great declines in enrollment numbers. How much could be related to the delivery programs, as well as the debt levels that have resulted from degrees that did not and do not lead to gainful employment?

While there is nothing wrong with “self-fulfillment/self-realization,” should not an education allow one to earn a living? For example, one student asked taxpayers to pay off her college debt–$226,000 for a degree in Greek mythology. Did she really expect to earn a living with that particular degree? For many, that interest falls more into the category of a hobby than a career.

Well, maybe that student is not alone in considering a special interest legitimate. Castleton University in Vermont, with electronically mediated instruction as the norm, is offering credit for learning to play a computer game–Dungeons and Dragons. The justification for the course is the need for people to build community. Seriously? College credit?

The Strada Education Network poll has found that 28 million students plan to abandon their postsecondary education due to the Wuhan virus. The majority of those who indicated an intention to pursue training within the next six months will not be pursuing a degree program.

The American Council on Education projects a 15% decline in postsecondary enrollment in the fall and a $45 billion decline in revenue. Numerous administrators find those projections too rosy.

Precipitous declines are also on the horizon for the Minnesota State universities this fall. For those institutions, here’s their anticipated enrollment declines by university for this fall:

  1. Bemidji – 949 FYE
  2. Mankato – 2,870 FYE
  3. Metro – 747 FYE
  4. Moorhead – 1,335 FYE
  5. Southwest– 628 FYE
  6. SCSU – 1,496 FYE
  7. Winona – 2,350 FYE

FYE is the concept of a full-year equivalent, not the number of bodies on campus rolls. This concept is used in budgeting and reflects only courses that award credits or satisfy requirements in an academic or vocational program. The FYE is determined by dividing the total student credit hours by the credit hours of a full load (30 credit hours for undergraduate and professional courses and 20 for graduate courses).

As a point of comparison, ten years ago, SCSU touted 15,096 FYE. That’s a precipitous decline. But the decline has been occurring throughout the decade. The academic year just concluded had already fallen to 9016 FYE. The projected numbers for Fall 2020 are horrific.

Who will be enrolling in the fall? Will students return if there are only online classes? Will parents opt for cheaper public institutions rather than the costly private ones? Will the lack of athletic programs discourage certain students to attend? Since students were not able to take the ACT and SAT entrance exams and schools have waived those scores, will the entering students be academically prepared for the expected rigors of higher education?

The pandemic has caused many types of losses. Will the American educational system be another victim? Or, could an enhanced model that focuses on the students be on the horizon?

Why the Concern for Death Now But Not When Death Rates began to Increase?
By John W. Palmer

A month ago I expressed concern regarding the extra-ordinary treatment the nuevo corona virus, that reportedly came from Wuhan China was receiving by writing an essay tittle “Ordinary Death v. Extra Ordinary Death”. In concluding that essay I made a plea for a change in reporting death. Here are the concluding sentences from the essay:

Hopefully, a positive side effect of COVID-19 can be renewed interest in primary prevention of the leading causes of death. We can’t eliminate death but we can take actions to delay its appearance. Perhaps, if in addition to the daily posting of COVID-19 cases and death, everyone will start to post the ongoing count for the ordinary deaths.

My plea went unheeded. Now there is widespread reporting of the negative impact of the mitigations being demand by government of?cials. That negative impact came close to home late last week when I received a prayer request for a friend. Here is that request:

Dear Recites and Prayer Warriors, I am having an emergency ablation for uncontrollable a?b of my heart tomorrow morning @ 7:00 a.m. @ the VA in Minneapolis. I am praying for success because of Coronus 19. The procedure was to have been done earlier but got set back and now has gotten out of hand.

Fortunately my friend survived and is now recuperating. Unfortunately, not everyone has been so fortunate. The Daily Beast reported that “Amid social distancing, authorities nationwide are reporting a surge in fatal opioid overdoses. Addiction and recovery advocates say the U.S. is now battling two epidemics at once. In Franklin County, Ohio, for example, the coroner is warning residents of a continued spike in drug deaths, including six on April 24. One week before, the coroner announced that ?ve people died in a span of 12 hours. In February, overdoses were so prevalent the coroner said she might need a temporary morgue to handle the deluge. Montgomery County, Ohio— which is home to Dayton and was considered the country’s overdose capital in 2017 – is reporting a 50 percent jump in overdoses over last year. Indeed, authorities in counties across Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York are also reporting rises in overdoses during the COVID-19 crisis.”

Then, in this recent Wall Street Journal article, this was reported:

Mental-health crisis hotlines are reporting spikes in calls. According to Express Scripts, anti-anxiety prescriptions increased by a third between mid-February and mid-March. Many in despair will probably turn to alcohol or narcotics. CVS executives warned this week that delayed care could lead to a surge of non-coronavirus related health problems.

Next is this from Fox News:

Things have gotten so bad that the American Heart Association joined seven other medical groups to remind people to call 911 and go to the hospital if they fear they’ve had a heart attack or stroke. Interruptions of medical care are taking their toll on patients. Some doctors have postponed surgeries aimed at addressing early-stage cancer. The longer these “elective” surgeries are postponed, the more people suffer. Patients in need of treatment aren’t the only ones at risk. The COVID-19 lockdown could lead to 22 million canceled or delayed tests for ?ve common cancers by June, according to a new report by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. This reduction in testing could lead to 80,000 missed cancer diagnoses.

The same report found that colonoscopies dropped 90 percent between February and April; mammograms dropped 87 percent. New visits for cancer patients declined nearly 40 percent over the same period, while cancellations and no-shows nearly doubled.

In her opinion column, Liz Peek in her opinion column cited information documenting statistics on the lock down’s impact on mental health:

Deaths by suicide and because of alcoholism or drug abuse sparked by the isolation measures are no longer matters of speculation; in March and April EMT calls for drug overdoses and suicides in Milwaukee, for instance, rose 54 percent and 80 percent, respectively, compared with the year before.

Finally, Reed Abelson writing in the New York Times on May 5, 2020 in an article titled “Doctors Without Patients: ‘Our Waiting Rooms Are Like Ghost Towns’ another view on the lockdowns impact:

Some doctors estimate that the closure of hospitals to non-coronavirus cases and the reluctance of patients to burden 911 have increased mortality as much as the virus. The global depression will devastate life expectancies in the less-developed world. Overdose deaths and suicides brought on by joblessness and loss of hope will rise, as more and more businesses fold permanently.

With no change in how death is being reported, with the myopic focus on that new virus and with the emerging concerns that the treatment might be worse than the disease I decided to examine historic death rates and annual deaths in Minnesota. At this writing about 663 COVID-19 related deaths have been recorded in Minnesota. That means with a little over a month left in the reporting year COVID-19 related deaths look like they may move into the top ten causes of death in Minnesota. The 10th leading cause of death in Minnesota is suicide. In the most recent year for which data are available (2018) suicides accounted for 737 deaths.

In order to examine COVID-19 related death in the big picture of death in Minnesota the following data from the Minnesota Department of Health’s “Summary of Death 2018”. Table 1 reports the total number of deaths and the death rate per 1000 persons by year from 2005-2018 and for 1950-2004 deaths and death rate per 1000 are reported every ?ve years. No death rate per 1000 was reported for 1985.

The total number of deaths per year have increased from 1950 to 2018. The rate of increase in the total number of deaths has been accelerating since 2006 reaching the highest recorded number on record (44,730) in 2018. From 1950-2018, the lowest number of deaths in a year occurred in 1950 (27,897)( see Table 1 and the graph titled Deaths by Year).

From 1950 to 2018, the total number of deaths in Minnesota increased by 60%. However, using simple counts for examining changes in an event over time can be very deceiving. It is clear that the number of deaths in a year is related to the population at risk to die in that year needs to be accounted for. To control for variation in the population at risk, a comparison of death rate per 1000 persons is preferred over simple counts since rates can be compared in an apples to apples approach.

The scatterplot titled Death Rate by Year illustrates the trend in death rate in Minnesota from 1950 to 2018. The highest (9.4) death rate per 1000 Minnesotans occurred in 1950. Death rates declined consistently from 1950 to 2007 when the lowest (7.1 per 1000) death rate was recorded. The 57 year decline is a 24% reduction in the death rate. That meant the chance of dying in a given year was 24% lower in 2007 than in 1950.

The downward trend ended in 2008 when the death rate per 1000 went from 7.1 to 7.4. Annual death rates have consistently increased from the low of 7.1 recorded in 2007 to the contemporary high of 8.0. This was a 12.6% in eleven years. If that rate of increase continues the death rate per 1000 Minnesota’s could reach 8.2 per 1000 this year. Independent of the Covid-19 outbreak the rate of death has been increasing.

With all the interest in preventing death the COVID-19 outbreak is generating why has the accelerating and troubling trend toward higher and higher death rates been ignored? Clearly the trend has nothing to do with the COVID virus since the rate increase predates COVID-19 by over a decade. Perhaps it’s a case of ordinary events not being news?

With it becoming increasingly obvious that death related to the virus is not going to signi?cantly increase death in Minnesota and probably the death rate this year in Minnesota and the state and nation opening for business one good outcome from the outbreak might be a new found concern for increasing death rates in Minnesota and the USA.

For the good outcome to be realized people are going to need to be presented with the facts concerning why deaths and the death rate are increasing. Then they need to be given direction on speci?c behaviors with high potential to prevent deaths. If attention shifts away from death and reporting on death returns to relying on obituaries not linked to the cause of death nothing will change and the death rate will continue to climb higher and more and more deaths will occur each year in Minnesota.

You have heard it said: Don’t let a crisis be wasted. No matter the cause or true magnitude of the most recent viral outbreak let’s hope we all wake up to the need to manage risks and engage in behaviors that reduce the probability of death. Ignoring the upward trend in both the number of deaths and the death rate until the next epidemic caused by some novel disease wastes an opportunity to enhance life for many Minnesotans. It is past time to include consideration of ordinary death whenever the new cause of death is discussed. Improving people’s behavior with regard to the leading causes of death in Minnesota probably has a greater chance of reducing both the number and rate of death in Minnesota.

With over 18,000 deaths per year caused by cancer and heart disease a 5% reduction in these two causes of death will save more lives than all of the cover death this year. With the ten leading causes of death in Minnesota accounting for over 30,000 deaths per year it would only take a 3% reduction in these causes to save as many lives as lost to COVID this year.

Finally, if behavior changes cut the number of COVID-related deaths along with a new focus on the other contributors to death in Minnesota many more people’s lives will be save than continuing a myopic view of death in Minnesota. I hope Minnesotans will make the behavior changes needed to reduce death from all causes and stop focusing almost exclusively on the new kid on the block.

Author’s note: As this essay was nearly complete this important commentary was published by the Wall Street Journal: Medical Lockdown Will Cause a Disease Surge Patients who are sick with conditions other than Covid-19 aren’t seeking screening and treatment. By Jeff LeBenger and Mike Meyer May 11, 2020 6:12 pm ET.

John W. Palmer, Ph.D. is a retired professor of health and safety. He can be reached via email at palmertss@cloudnet.com

Dr. Irwin Redlener “directs the National Center for Disaster Preparedness and is a pediatrician, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and president emeritus of Children’s Health Fund. He is a member of the Biden Campaign’s Public Health Advisory Committee.” In this CNN op-ed, Dr. Redlener wrote “even if we assume that sometime this summer, maybe June, perhaps as late as August, the first wave of Covid-19 will have tapered down, the world will likely see a second wave of the deadly virus in the fall or winter, perhaps extending into the early months of 2021.”

That’s fearmongering of the worst kind. I don’t care what alphabet he has behind his name. I wouldn’t trust this jackass if my life depended on it. First, COVID-19 is deadly if you’re in difficult health or living in a nursing home. Here in Minnesota, that’s literally where 90% of Minnesota’s deaths have come from. Healthy people 60-years-old and younger have had little difficulty with COVID-19. Calling COVID-19 deadly is technically accurate but it’s a little misleading.

Next, we know from Dr. Fauci’s briefings that we’ll be in much better shape if a second wave hits. Here’s what Dr. Fauci said about a week ago on this subject:

Third, waiting until August to start reopening the US economy is stupid. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has announced that he’ll start reopening Ohio’s economy on May 1. Dr. Redlener didn’t pay attention to the fact that some states are already in far better shape than the hotspot states. Treating Nebraska the same way you treat NYC is downright foolish. That’s like treating nuclear waste the same way as you treat recyclables.

We may well see a significant drop in hospitalizations and fatalities by sometime in May or June. But we cannot let up on the only effective tools we have to fight Covid-19: First, we must continue to shut down the venues where we used to gather, including schools, nonessential workplaces, sporting events, theaters and business meetings. And second, we must remain sheltered in our homes, using social distancing and face masks when we do venture out to buy groceries or essential medications.

According to the plan put together by Drs. Fauci, Birx, Adams and Redfield, everything is conditions- and data-driven. Saying that “we must remain sheltered in our homes” is an absolute order. There are tons of activities that people can safely engage in. While it’s foolish to think that we can start baseball season to packed stadiums, it isn’t foolish to think that it’s possible to start with televised games without fans. While it’s foolish to open stores without practicing good mitigation practices, it’s perfectly fine to open lots of businesses where contact with other humans is infrequent.

Finally, if we wait until the virus has disappeared, there won’t be an economy to return to. Let doctors deal with the medical issues. Let economists consult with doctors in putting together a plan for reopening the economy safely.

Whatever happened to Gov. Tim Walz’s One Minnesota that he campaigned on? Apparently, Gov. Walz is under the illusion that we’re united behind his mitigation plan for the COVID-19 virus. That’s the only conclusion I could reach from this tweet:


Minnesota small businesses aren’t united behind Gov. Walz’s mitigation plan. House and Senate Republicans definitely aren’t united behind Gov. Walz. Kevin Roche has written a blistering attack against Gov. Walz. In that article, Roche wrote this:

What the modelers did do that is very useful, is to run various mitigation strategy scenarios. That is exactly the approach that should be taken. How else do you know what the relative benefits and harms will be of whatever set of mitigation of spread tactics you adopt. And please, look at the PowerPoint slides and note that you get basically the exact same number of deaths regardless of the mitigation strategy. My favored approach, use basic mitigation for the bulk of the population, but isolate the at-risk groups, has the same outcome as making everyone stay at home.

This was posted to show Gov. Walz’s table for determining which stores should be shut which can stay open:

This shows the IHME prediction for Minnesota:

The IHME model is predicting approximately 450 COVID-related deaths. The U of M model predicts 22,000 COVID-19-related deaths in Minnesota. Why is a tax preparing shop in Anoka considered safe but a 1-station beauty salon right next door is shut down? Why is a Walmart store considered safe but a Piggly Wiggly considered unsafe?

Gov. Walz has driven Minnesota’s economy into the dirt with his foolish decisions. He’s never paid a price for his terrible decisions. That’s what happens when you hold a government job. What’s required for Minnesota to prosper is someone with private sector experience. That’s something that Tim Walz doesn’t have. Let’s change that the next time he’s up for re-election.

Ever since Impeachment Committee Chairman Adam Schiff impeached President Trump without citing a crime, we’ve known that it was just a matter of time until some lame-brained leftist Democrat would redeploy the Schiff Standard. That day arrived. The sad part is that it didn’t take long to arrive:

Professor Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government at American University, has penned an opinion column calling for President Trump to resign or be impeachment for his handling of the coronavirus crisis. It is just the latest in a long line of such impeachment theories that reflect a fundamental misconception of the function and standard for the removal of an American President.

Since Chairman Schiff has essentially instituted a whatever-a-majority-of-Congress-says-is-impeachable impeachment standard, it isn’t surprising that people are making up new impeachment charges. As Democrats become more desperate, we should expect these types of frivolous charges to come more often against Republicans. Democrats have shown that they’re a vindictive lot of sore losers. This treachery will become the new normal for Democrats.

If this becomes the Democrats’ new normal, then I pray that voters punish Democrats for being sore losers. Shame on them for not accepting the outcome of legitimate elections. You lost in 2016. A 4-year hissy fit just proves that you’re whiny little children. Whiny little children aren’t fit to govern. That privilege is reserved for adults.

Schiff’s problem isn’t that he’s a whiny little child. Schiff’s problem, along with every other Democrat that voted to impeach or convict President Trump, is that he’s a dishonest SOB. Trusting him is as stupid as trusting this professor. Then again, trusting any Democrat that voted to impeach or convict President Trump on the basis of hearsay testimony is stupid.

Schiff is an annoying SOB. He’s proven that by this:

President Trump said he is seriously considering a pardon for former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. “So now it is reported that, after destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn. How convenient. I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!” Trump tweeted on Sunday.


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff quickly tweeted that Trump should keep his “focus on the current crisis” surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak, adding that “the delay in testing and your failure to lead are already costing us dearly.” “Your attacks on the independence of the justice system and rewarding of cronies who lied for you can wait,” the California Democrat said. “Incompetence kills.”

My message to Professor Edelson is the same as my message to Chairman Schiff. Shut up and go away. Your warped thinking is hurting civilized society. Please stop wasting my time with your stupidity.

Larry Jacobs thinks that Amy Klobuchar has reached her prove it point in the race. After a strong debate performance in New Hampshire, she translated that into a mini-fundraising windfall. Then she finished a strong third place there.

I wrote here that Klomentum has disappeared. She had a disappointing debate performance Wednesday. The RCP average of polls shows her in sixth place for the Democrat presidential nomination. There’s no momentum and she’s campaigning in Colorado 2 days before the Nevada Caucuses. Those aren’t the signs of a confident candidate.

At this point, St. Amy’s campaign is just about finished. Prof. Jacobs, political science professor and department head at the University of Minnesota, notes “This is a state where the DFL, the base of the DFL, are probably more progressive than Amy Klobuchar. So I think there’s a real risk that she’ll lose Minnesota. Amy Klobuchar cannot be everywhere at the same time.” About Super Tuesday, Jacobs said “She’s going to need a good showing. We’re getting very close to the ‘prove it’ point.”

I question whether Sen. Klobuchar will still be in the race by Super Tuesday. She’s in 6th place in Nevada the day before that state’s caucuses:

She’s in 6th place in South Carolina, too:

After that campaigning gets expensive in California, Texas, North Carolina, etc. People are hinting that, at this point, she’s really running for VP but I question that. How appealing is she to Bernie or Bloomberg, the 2 likely ‘finalists’ for the Democrat presidential nomination?

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart, the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it’s time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It’s another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Hint: YES! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let’s play a clip of her from this morning’s press conference:

Next, let’s play a short game of Alan Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let’s swap out Roger Stone’s name and swap in Peter Strzok’s name. Next, let’s swap out President Trump’s name and swap in President Obama’s name. I’m betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I’m not basing this entirely on theory. I’m basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama’s statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here’s what he said:

For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr’s resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn’t quit, they should’ve been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino’s program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden’s cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That’s a fair question. It’s equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi’s cracker. In my estimation, she’s starting to lose it.

Of all the decisions that St. Cloud State has made in the past decade, closing the Aviation program is the worst. While St. Cloud State suffers through another year of enrollment decline, United Airlines bought a flight training academy to build a pipeline for the 10,000 new pilots they’ll need.

According to the Chicago Tribune article, “United Airlines is buying an Arizona flight training academy to help train the more than 10,000 pilots the airline expects to hire within a decade. The academy, currently operating as Westwind School of Aeronautics in Phoenix, will be part of a recruiting program United announced last year, called Aviate, that lets pilots join a pipeline to United with a conditional job offer early in their careers rather than waiting until they rise through the ranks at regional carriers or complete military service.”

Had St. Cloud State kept its Aviation program open, it likely would’ve gotten approached by Delta or some other airline to supply pilots to the airline. It’s fairly common for these airlines to offer bonuses to graduates from these flight academies if they stay with the company 2-3 years. It’s even more common for these airlines to fast-track these pilots through the regional airlines to the major airlines.

That’s before talking about expanding the Aviation program to train people in aerial firefighting for the western states. That’s before expanding the program to train students on drone operations. I’d guarantee that each of these program expansions would increase SCSU enrollment dramatically. That means a new energy for the University. That means a reinvigoration of SCSU, which is essential to the school’s survival.

What’s required is leadership from our local politicians, starting with Dan Wolgamott. Rep. Wolgamott is a member of the House Higher Education Finance and Policy Division. Wolgamott and Sen. Relph are working together on extending NorthStar to St. Cloud, which might create a dozen jobs while costing the state millions of dollars in operational subsidies over the next decade. (Yes, I’m being slightly sarcastic about the jobs number. I’m not sarcastic about the subsidies.) Why can’t they work on something that revitalizes St. Cloud’s economy?

Building a world-class aviation training center in St. Cloud as part of a new and improved SCSU Aviation program would reinvigorate the University and the city of St. Cloud. After losing major employers like Electrolux and Herbergers, St. Cloud needs an industrial-strength shot in the arm economically.

Without legislative leadership, this vision won’t happen. It won’t happen if left up to Gov. Walz. I’m being polite in say that his economic growth vision for Minnesota is lackluster. Thus far, the jury is still out on the St. Cloud legislative delegation. As for our mayor, he’s had the opportunities to reinvigorate the city and failed. Companies are leaving town or going out of business. The University has shrunk during his time in office.

Professor Emeritus John Palmer noted this:

United said last year it expects nearly half of its 12,500 pilots to retire within a decade. Over the next 20 years, Boeing estimates that airlines will need to recruit about 131,000 commercial pilots in North America and 514,000 more throughout the rest of the world.

It is not just United that will need pilots in the next 20 years. After subtracting the 10,000, a 1,000 a year on average, 55,000 new pilots will be needed for the rest of domestic airlines. Worldwide, 240,000 will be needed. Why would SCSU not want to explore how it could re-enter the aviation training market?

Even if it could only attract .25% of the annual market for new pilots that would be over 130 new entering freshman a year and in four years would result in an increase of 500 FTE each year. When the aviation program closed during the Great Recession 100 entering freshman intended to major in aviation and over 180 were admitted to an aviation major. With the strong recovery in the aviation industry, SCSU could serve a societal need and help address it’s enrollment decline by re-entering the aviation training market.

This is from later in the article:

United said the academy, which will be renamed United Aviate Academy in September, will initially produce about 300 graduates each year, but it hopes to expand that to 500. Graduates would be able to work as instructors at flight schools United has partnered with to rack up hours of flying time required to qualify for entry-level jobs with regional carriers, such as ExpressJet, Air Wisconsin or Mesa Airlines. Pilots in the Aviate program hired by the regional carriers would be then eligible for jobs with United.

With industrial demands like this, why isn’t SCSU interested in supplying these needs while rebuilding the University? Better yet, why aren’t our legislators (Relph, Theis and especially Wolgamott) pushing this blueprint?