Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Academia category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Academia’ Category

If Democrats aren’t hesitating in calling Republicans heartless bastards, then we might as well wear that lie like a badge of honor. Republicans are trying their best to stop illegal alien children from spending their nights in difficult conditions. Despite those efforts, Republicans are getting called one despicable name after another.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday called into question the nation’s immigration laws, asking ‘What is the point?’ of tracking down fugitives ordered out of the country?” To be fair, here’s what the entire quote says:

“It’s so appalling, it’s outside the circle of human behavior, kicking down doors, splitting up families. In terms of interior enforcement, what is the purpose? What is the point?”

Splitting up ‘families’ is the worst mortal sin a Republican can commit but obeying the laws that Congress passes and the president signs is immoral? What type of tortured logic does Speaker Pelosi employ?

By Ms. Pelosi’s definition, I’m a heartless bastard. By normal people’s standards, I’m a well-adjusted, thoughtful individual. I’d rather be defined by what people outside the beltway think than by people living inside the Beltway.

I actually think that politicians should know history. For instance, when idiots like AOC or Ilhan Omar think that detention centers are the same as Nazi concentration camps, I’m heartless enough to say that stupidity like that should be punished. Better yet, when Rep. Omar lied to the IRS while filing false joint tax returns, people like me think that Rep. Omar should be held accountable.

According to the Beltway intelligentsia, that makes me either a xenophobe or Islamophobe or both. I’d prefer being called a heartless bastard instead. As a Christian, I’m taught that a) everyone is created in God’s own image, b) we should treat others as we’d like to be treated and c) we should love our neighbors unconditionally. Talk about defining a heartless bastard!

Let’s get serious for a minute. I won’t let a bunch of left-wing reprobates lecture me about American values. Speaker Pelosi knows as little about American values as Rep. Omar, which is virtually nothing. I refuse to accept a lecturing from Speaker Pelosi on American values. I didn’t accept President Obama’s lectures about who we were or what American priorities were. I won’t accept lecturing from other hardline progressives who hate America or constantly apologize for America.

If you’ve voted Democrat your entire adult life but you’re starting to question Democrats, it’s time for you to join the #WalkawayCampaign or #TheHeartlessBastardsClub. Better yet, join both. If you’re wondering why you should ditch the Democrats, this heartfelt video should explain things perfectly:

The point is that conservatives aren’t heartless bastards. We just believe in living an orderly life that doesn’t trample on other people’s rights. We just ask that people around us respect our rights too. That isn’t too much to ask, is it?

The first thing I thought when I read this article was that this nutjob must’ve finally gone insane. Then I realized that he’s just a typical socialist and that he’s been making proposals this stupid for decades.

Crazy Bernie is the first Democrat to propose wiping out all student loan debt immediately. This morning, Crazy Bernie will introduce legislation “that would eliminate all $1.6 trillion of American student debt.” That isn’t all. Crazy Bernie will be joined by another crazy socialist in sponsoring the legislation. People shouldn’t be surprised that the legislator that’s carrying the legislation in the House is Rep. Ilhan Omar, (DFL-MN).

Omar’s strong suit isn’t math. Rumor has it that Omar’s specialty is immigration fraud and appealing for leniency for would-be ISIS terrorists. But I digress.

Crazy Bernie plans on paying for this giveaway “with a tax on Wall Street, which his campaign says will generate more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The tax would focus on financial transactions, the report said, such as a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds.” The only question I have is whether Crazy Bernie plans on using those new taxes on other socialist giveaways, too.

According to the article, “The proposal package also includes making public universities, community colleges and trade schools tuition-free.” In other words, Crazy Bernie’s initiative wouldn’t require universities, community colleges and trade schools to get their acts together. The Democrats’ plan wouldn’t require universities to stop hiring excessive numbers of administrators while shorting students of professors in classrooms.

What’s worse is that the Democrats’ plan wouldn’t require universities to drop junk degrees that don’t give students the likelihood of getting a high-paying job when they graduate. Simply put, this is the Democrats simply throwing money at a problem without fixing that problem. Most likely, the Democrats’ proposal will make things worse.

Glenn Reynolds has literally written the book on the higher education bubble. He talks about that in this interview:

As usual, the politicians are 5 years late and wrong besides. That means that Democrats are using this proposal to buy young people’s votes. This won’t fix the problem. It might make it worse. What’s worst is that this proposal incentivizes universities to keep doing what they’re doing wrong already.

The good news is that parents and students have figured out a better way of making higher education a better investment. Reformers like former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels are making that possible:

Waiting for Mitch Daniels to pick up a call to his office in West Lafayette, Indiana, you hear a recording of Purdue’s marching band followed by a hard-to-believe statement: “Purdue has frozen tuition at 2012 levels through 2019 for all undergraduate students.”

Daniels, the president of Indiana’s flagship public university, then gets on the phone and says something even more startling: In inflation-adjusted dollars, Purdue costs $4,000 less per year for out-of-state students than it did when he took the job in 2013. In-staters pay nearly $3,000 less, at just under $23,000 this academic year for tuition, room, board and expenses.

While politicians like Crazy Bernie propose programs that don’t fix things, reformers like Mitch Daniels are showing leadership in fixing the problems that politicians created, proving that irony can be pretty ironic.

This NY Times article has a loose affiliation with the truth. Saying that it’s slanted is understatement. Like much of its political ‘reporting’, the article has an obvious agenda. That agenda is intended to vilify President Trump and his supporters. (Shocking, I know, but it’s pretty obvious.)

Having known Dr. Palmer for almost 15 years, I won’t hide my contempt for the NY Times hit piece. Yes, it’s safe to say that that last sentence meant that the gloves just came off. The NY Times’ article pretends to be an authority on John Palmer. That’s laughable. Becoming an authority on Dr. Palmer takes more than the afternoon that the NY Times spent on the interview.

It’s pretty obvious that the NY Times’ article was intended to be a hit piece. Why else would they send a reporter and a photographer to St. Cloud, MN? This wasn’t meant to provide their readers with information. This was meant to slant opinions against Trump supporters. That’s apparent because of what the Times reporter quoted and what he didn’t quote.

For instance, the ‘reporter’ wrote “Mr. Palmer said at a recent meeting he viewed them as innately less intelligent than the ‘typical’ American citizen, as well as a threat.” The NY Times’ reporter interprets Dr. Palmer as saying that Somalis as being “less intelligent” than white Americans.

The fact that the NY Times didn’t quote Dr. Palmer directly is proof that they cut corners. They have the transcript or something close to it. How else would they be able to quote Dr. Palmer saying someone is “less intelligent”?

“The very word ‘Islamophobia’ is a false narrative,” Mr. Palmer, 70, said. “A phobia is an irrational fear.” Raising his voice, he added, “An irrational fear! There are many reasons we are not being irrational.”

In this predominantly white region of central Minnesota, the influx of Somalis, most of whom are Muslim, has spurred the sort of demographic and cultural shifts that President Trump and right-wing conservatives have stoked fears about for years. The resettlement has divided many politically active residents of St. Cloud, with some saying they welcome the migrants.

Newt Gingrich famously said that the United States isn’t a multi-cultural nation, that it’s multi-ethnic. He’s right. As a St. Cloud citizen, I haven’t seen much proof that suggests that the Somali refugees are interested in adopting the principles of the US Constitution. I’ve seen plenty of proof that says Somali refugees receive preferential treatment from St. Cloud law enforcement and other parts of the government.

Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud and a longtime Republican who now identifies as an independent, has voiced support for the resettlement program, but he has also drawn criticism for not forcefully denouncing groups like C-Cubed, which he refused to discuss in an interview.

It isn’t surprising that Kleis identifies as an independent. The reality is that he’s closer to a Libertarian than anything else. Kleis hasn’t shown leadership on the resettlement issue because he isn’t a leader. He’s argued, incorrectly, that refugee resettlement is a federal issue.

That’s partially true. It’s indisputable that the federal government sets naturalization policy. What’s equally indisputable is the fact that the Refugee Act of 1980 gives city government a role in the process, too:

The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

(B)The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

Kleis insists that this part of US Statutes doesn’t exist. Isn’t it interesting that the people who insist on the government enforce existing laws are getting called Islamophobic while those that ignore the law are considered enlightened? One of those enlightened souls is St. Cloud State President Robbyn Wacker:


Listen to the loaded language in the NY Times’ article:

Two years ago in St. Cloud, Jeff Johnson, a city councilman, introduced a resolution that would temporarily halt refugee resettlement until a study of its economic impact was completed. The idea arose, Mr. Johnson said, after he spoke by phone with officials from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, an anti-immigration firm that has gained influence in the Trump era. The resolution was defeated, but its introduction caused significant uproar in St. Cloud, and pushed some residents to form or join opposing community groups.

What a crock of BS. CIS isn’t anti-immigration. It’s anti-illegal immigration. Notice how the NY Times conflates the 2 things as though they were the same thing? These aren’t idiots. They’re intentionally trying to put people like Dr. Palmer and Trump supporters on the defensive. Good luck with that.

The NY Times will undoubtedly use this hit piece to influence voters in their blatant attempt to defeat President Trump. The truth is that there’s a rational basis for distrusting the refugee resettlement program. Part of that rational basis is financial. Another part of that rational basis is religious. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen in St. Cloud, the biggest rational basis for opposing this program is because it’s establishing a 2-tiered system of laws.

I’m not talking about imposing Sharia. I’m talking about health inspections of Somali restaurants getting bypassed. I’m talking about citizens near Lake George calling in neighborhood violence, only to have the police show up 45 minutes later. (For those not familiar with St. Cloud, the SCPD station house is less than 2 miles away from Lake George. There’s no way it should take law enforcement 45 minutes to show up.)

I’ll finish by asking this simple question: does this sound like equal application of the law?

Each budget year, the DFL insists on ‘investing’ more on ‘education’. Each year, the DFL ignores the massive amounts of money essentially thrown into a dumpster by education bureaucrats.

Harold Hamilton’s commentary (If you haven’t subscribed, you should) highlights that waste, citing a St. Paul Pioneer Press article:

A recent article in the Pioneer Press explains that capital improvement projects in the district are experiencing massive cost overruns, even by government standards. There are 18 such projects that are running a collective $180 million over the projected budget of just two years ago.

In what could have been the quote of the week, a former school district official observed, “Every contractor wants to come work for St. Paul Public Schools because it’s frickin’ open checkbook.”

As is so typical in government, it appears that oversight and expertise were woefully lacking in this case.

Then Hamilton cites an example:

Perhaps the most egregious example of the waste is at Humboldt High School, where a $14.4 million project estimate now sits at $48 million, just two years later.

And what are taxpayers getting for their considerable investment in these schools and the district?

  1. At Humboldt, 28% of their students don’t graduate.
  2. Only 19% are proficient in reading.
  3. Only 10% are proficient in math.
  4. A dismal 6.5% are proficient in science.

The legislature should refuse to subsidize this failure and demand strict accountability for both spending and results in the classroom.

That’s theft. The people ‘teaching’ these students are stealing these students’ futures. When 1 out of 20 students are proficient in science, that’s theft. When 9 of 10 students fail at math, that’s theft. That must end ASAP.

Further, Education Minnesota must be made to pay for this theft. Ditto with the administrators who apparently don’t care whether students learn or not. Ditto with the DFL, who keep feeding the broken beast. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this crisis hasn’t been turned around.

The DFL is owned by Education Minnesota. Education Minnesota is anti-competition. That means it’s anti-accountability, too. As long as there’s a DFL governor or a DFL majority in the Minnesota House or Senate, they’ll fight to maintain the status quo even if taxpayers are getting screwed. Education Minnesota’s primary mission is helping raise teachers’ salaries. It isn’t about helping students.

What type of system allows a $14,400,000 project to turn into a $48,000,000 project? You’d have to essentially be comatose to miss that. Whoever missed it should’ve been fired instantly, then ordered to spend time in prison for defrauding taxpayers. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the subcontractors are friends of the person who didn’t detect the massive overruns. It’s difficult to believe that anyone’s that incompetent. It isn’t difficult to think that someone associated with a school district is that corrupt.

The DFL won’t hold these thieves accountable. That’s how the DFL buys votes. The only way to hold the DFL accountable is to restore the Republican majority in the House and maintain the GOP majority in the Senate, then force reforms that would eliminate this type of corruption. That means putting stiff criminal penalties on people who commit this type of graft.

The Democrats have a subtle but major problem on their hands. It isn’t getting covered by the MSM, aka Agenda Media, because covering it might require work, intelligence and thoughtfulness. The MSM is just missing 3 of those qualities.

The Democrats’ subtle but major problem is that Democrats apparently think that some people should be presumed innocent, usually partisan Democrats like Hillary, while others (think Bill Barr or President Trump) shouldn’t be presumed innocent.

Democrats and Robert Mueller think that it’s a prosecutor’s job to state whether a prospective defendant has been “exonerated.” That’s false. Prospective defendants walk into court with the presumption of innocence. That’s a principle that Democrats like Sen. Mazie Hirono, (D-HI), can’t quite grasp. In an interview with MSNBC, Sen. Hirono said that “we aren’t in a court of law. We’re in a court of credibility at this point.” What the hell does that mean?

What’s at stake is the principles of fairness and evidence. Sen. Hirono and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did their best to railroad Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. They didn’t want him on the Supreme Court. The Democrats were perfectly willing to lie about Justice Kavanaugh’s history. That’s the definition of the opposite of fair play. Here’s Sen. Hirono doubling down against the principle of the presumption of innocence:

This article lays things out beautifully:

As Attorney General William Barr testified on May 1, the job of the Justice Department, and thus the job of the special counsel, is not to “exonerate.” The job of the Justice Department is to determine whether there is “sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction” and that this “determines whether or not there was a crime.”

Mueller’s job was to make this determination. He declined to make it. But having claimed that they could not make a determination, they did not stop at laying out the facts.

I suspect that Mueller was hoping that he wouldn’t have to testify to Congress. I suspect that’s a pipe dream at this point. I can’t blame Mueller for not wanting to testify. That’d mean having to answer non-softball questions from people like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Representatives like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows.

That’s the last thing I’d want to spend a day doing.

This is a problem for Democrats because it tells the nation that they aren’t interested in principled liberalism nor are they interested in fundamental fairness. That’s wrong. Watch how Mike Huckabee and Alan Dershowitz debated:

If the United States can’t return to that debating style ASAP, then we deserve the terrible government we’d get. I can’t put it plainer than that.

Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley both wrote excoriating opinion pieces for The Hill Magazine. Turley’s article is, in my opinion, the harsher of the two. That isn’t to say that Dershowitz’s article pulled any punches.

The hardest hit in Professor Turley’s article came when he said “Last week, I wrote that it has become sacrilegious to question the motives or performance of Mueller. His press conference was the greatest test of such blind faith. Mueller announced that “the report is my testimony” and that he would not answer questions from Congress either, beyond what is already in his final report. From anyone else, such a statement would be denounced as arrogant, evasive, or both. However, many members of Congress and the media accepted it as the gospel according to Mueller.”

I would’ve tried pulling the same stunt if I’d been in Mueller’s position. That being said, I wouldn’t have put myself in that position because I respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. Apparently, so does Prof. Dershowitz:

Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

Here’s Prof. Dershowitz’s interview with Shannon Bream, herself an attorney:

I’m not an attorney or a constitutional scholar. It doesn’t require one to notice that Mueller went too far with his ‘press conference’ (at which he took no questions). The presumption of innocence applies to everyone. Chairman Nadler, Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats repeatedly say that “President Trump isn’t above the law.” That’s true but, just like other Americans, he’s presumed innocent until the prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Professor Dershowitz and Professor Turley are both Democrats. Both voted for Hillary Clinton. That being said, both put a higher priority on protecting civil rights than they put on political victories. I can’t say that about partisan Democrats like Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, etc. That last bunch are just political hacks.

Just when you thought that the loony left couldn’t get loonier, up pops articles like this one. Transylvania University’s Young Americans for Freedom were approached by “Transylvania University Vice President for Enrollment and Student Life Holly Sheilley and Dean of Students Michael Covert” because they set up a table “to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilley approached them and told them to leave.”

Transylvania University isn’t in the business of treating each individual the same:

As heard in the audio recordings, Drury alleges that although he, Jacob Burnam, and Lucas Reed were shut down within minutes, the Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter tabled in the same area the day before for more than an hour.

“I emailed the first time I tabled and I was like, ‘hey do I need to fill out any forms or anything’ and they’re like, ‘no, just grab a table and set up,” one of the YDSA students who tabled Wednesday told Drury, according to an audio recording obtained by Campus Reform. “And then this time, I didn’t even email anyone. I just found a table and set up.”

This is what intellectual midgets sound like:

On Thursday, as Drury, Burnam, and Reed were there tabling, trying to get students to sign a petition in support of the university adopting the Chicago Statement, upheld as the golden standard by many free speech activists, Sheilly approached them and told them to leave.

“I really need y’all to pick up your stuff and go through the process,” Sheilly told the students, according to the audio recording.

When the three men asked Sheilly what the punishment would be for not leaving the area, the vice president for enrollment and student life said, “I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not the dean of students.” Drury, Burnam, and Reed then asked Sheilly about why the YDSA students were allowed to table there the day before for over an hour without anyone asking them to leave.

“I don’t know. I wasn’t here yesterday. I didn’t pass by here, I don’t guess. I mean, I’m telling you the truth. I didn’t see them. [Dean of Students] Covert says he didn’t see them,” Sheilly said.

This administrator should be fired immediately. She clearly doesn’t believe in the principle of equal justice under the law. It’s apparent that she’s ok with censorship, though. What a sad day in academia.

James Freeman’s WSJ article has a wonderful tongue-in-cheek quality to it.

Freeman’s article starts by saying “What would we do without experts? As U.S. workers continue to enjoy a vibrant job market, they should spare a thought for laborers in one category of professional services who remain mired in a multi-year slump. Established manufacturers of Keynesian economic forecasts have entered a prolonged period of secular stagnation. Some may even wonder if they can ever break out of a ‘new normal’ of declining prestige.”

Freeman’s article continues, saying “At the New York Times recently, economist Paul Krugman valiantly attempted to overcome his history of underrating American potential by making another call on tax policy and the macroeconomy. On April 8, Mr. Krugman wrote about one of President Trump’s signature policy achievements: ‘…his one major legislative success, the 2017 tax cut — which he predicted would be ‘rocket fuel’ for the economy, has turned out to be a big fizzle, economically and, especially, politically. It’s true that U.S. economic growth got a bump for two quarters last year, and Trumpists are still pretending to believe that we’ll have great growth for a decade. But at this point last year’s growth is looking like a brief and rapidly fading sugar high.”

On the old show Hee-Haw, one of their famous skits showed 4 men singing:

The famous line was “If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.” I’d say that’s pretty fitting for the ‘slump’ that Mr. Krugman is in. He once was a world-renowned economist. These days, he’s just a partisan hack for the NYTimes. It isn’t limited to Krugman, though:

A former Clinton and Obama economic adviser, Mr. Summers wrote in May of 2017 in the Washington Post:
Details of President Trump’s first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences of what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.

Apparently, the budget forecasts that U.S. economic growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the administration’s policies, largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies. Fair enough if you believe in tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.

These days, Summers and Krugman are nothing more than elitist economic snobs sneering down their noses at the notion that supply-side economics is the stuff that only tooth fairies peddled. Forgive me if I ignore their snobbishness.

Finally, there’s this:

Harriet Torry reports in the Journal on the optimism among corporate executives, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon:

“People are going back to the workforce. Companies have plenty of capital,” he said, adding that “business confidence and consumer confidence are both rather high…it could go on for years. There’s no law that says it has to stop,” he said.

At some point, it will stop. It’s just that there’s no guarantee it’ll be anytime soon.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is nuttier than any other Democrat running for president with the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Recently, Sen. Warren proposed a “$1.25 trillion education proposal.”

The article starts by saying “On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren released an ambitious $1.25 trillion education proposal that would address rising college costs and the student debt crisis. ‘Higher education opened a million doors for me,’ the senator wrote in a Medium post introducing the plan. “It’s how the daughter of a janitor in a small town in Oklahoma got to become a teacher, a law school professor, a U.S. Senator, and eventually, a candidate for President of the United States. Today, it’s virtually impossible for a young person to find that kind of opportunity.”

Universities used to be required for people to ‘get ahead’. That isn’t as true anymore. I won’t say that universities don’t serve a purpose but they don’t serve as much of a purpose as they did 25 years ago. Trade schools, apprenticeships and other types of training might be more helpful than a 4-year degree. Also, these alternatives often lead to solid middle class jobs without the student getting hit with a pile of debt.

Finally, many of the degrees that universities hand out like candy won’t produce a job that’ll pay off the student’s loans. Students are starting to figure things out. Unfortunately, politicians haven’t. Then again, I’m not surprised even slightly.

What a dipshit! She wants to punish people who’ve been productive while letting the freeloaders, aka endowments and administrators, get off without punishment. Talk about sending the wrong signal.

Is It Important For Chancellor Devinder Malhotra To Have Followers On Twitter?
by Silence Dogood

Last December, SCSU President Robbyn R. Wacker posted her support to “unleashfollowers” to encourage faculty and staff to follow Chancellor Devinder Malhotra on Twitter. This was posted to SCSU Announce by Jeffrey C. Wood in University Communications:

I don’t care about following anyone on Twitter especially when the you consider the best ‘worst example’ of Twitter use comes from the current U.S. President. However, the idea that the Chancellor will “love us if we help push him over the 1,000 mark” is just plain silly. Hopefully, the Chancellor is not that much of a ‘diva.’ But, today who knows?

The idea that counting the numbers of Twitter followers as some measure of importance is probably one of dumbest things I have ever heard. If it were true, then one of Chancellor Malhotra’s faculty members in the Minnesota State University System at Mankato with 17,400 followers must be truly brilliant and deserving of a pay raise! And it didn’t take a plug from a university president or PR staffer for Dr. Sprankle to get his followers.

SCSU is facing serious problems from declining enrollment. It’s truly sad that a university president and PR subordinate think it’s worth their time to pitch increasing the number of the Chancellor’s Twitter followers. Unless, of course, the object is to distract people from important issues.

P.S. It worked! Chancellor Devinder Malhotra has blasted past 1,000 Twitter followers!

At this rate it will only take 136 years to catch Professor Sprankle.