Archive for March, 2016
Thus far, politicians endorsing Donald Trump haven’t paid a price. It isn’t a stretch to think it might hurt them in the future. Sen. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), is a rising star in the Republican Party. He’s a freshman who isn’t afraid to criticize Mr. Trump or other politicians.
This weekend, Sen. Sasse criticized Trump, saying “This is sad and everyone who has a sister or wife or daughter or mom should reconsider supporting this tiny little man.” Then Sen. Sasse finished the criticism of Trump, saying “@RealDonaldTrump loves bullying women on Twitter. But he’d never have the guts to talk like this abt a guy’s wife to his face. #fakeToughGuy”
Trump’s disgusting statements about women (think Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina) and his denying his campaign team’s physical mishandling of women (think Michelle Fields) are creating a problem that there isn’t a solution to.
Trump can’t call women ugly or accuse them of mistreating him because they’re menstruating or have his campaign manager physically manhandle a reporter without creating a general election problem that he can’t dig himself out from.
Some of the things Trump’s said are fixable. Frequently insulting women isn’t fixable. Just because Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham support Mr. Trump doesn’t mean women will support him in the general election. They won’t. Polls consistently show Trump with a 25-30 point favorability gap with women. That can’t be swept aside by saying that you “cherish women.”
Here are Sen. Sasse’s tweets:
Thanks to conservatives with character, Republicans that endorse Donald Trump will have some explaining to do in the years to come. They’ll have to explain why they supported a man “devoid of honor, integrity or manliness.” When Trump loses, whether at the convention or in the general election, people will get criticized for supporting him without questioning Trump’s lack of integrity.
When that day of reckoning comes, it won’t be a good day for Fox News, Breitbart hacks or Sean Hannity.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Corey Lewandowski, Make America Awesome PAC, Liz Mair, Michelle Fields, Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, Accountability, Sean Hannity, John Nolte, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Election 2016
Jim Tankersley’s article doesn’t pull its punches. According to an economic model prepared by Moody’s Analytics shows that a Trump trade war would hurt China and Mexico but that “4 million American workers would lose their jobs. Another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.”
First, I won’t tell people that the trade deals that the U.S. has negotiated recently are good deals. I won’t hesitate, though, in telling people that the difference between negotiating great trade deals and negotiating mediocre trade deals isn’t as important as fixing the economic mess that the Obama administration has created.
Fixing the Obama administration’s mess requires eliminating most of the administration’s nastiest regulations, starting with Obamacare. It’s also important that the administration’s war on fossil fuels be stopped ASAP. Most manufacturing jobs require cheap energy. That eliminates the energy that comes from solar panels and wind farms.
To rebuild our national manufacturing economy, we need a capital gains tax cut. In 1980, the federal government “approved nearly $1.5 billion in loan guarantees.” Ford, Chevy and Chrysler were hurting. People were talking about their best days being behind them. Then Reagan took over. He started with implementing a major capital gains tax cut, which helped modernize Ford, Chevy and Chrysler. Talk about Japan replacing the United States as car manufacturing superpower quickly disappeared.
Obamacare and Obama’s tax increase on small businesses drove businesses out of the United States. Trump might be a good negotiator but he definitely isn’t smart at policymaking. His policy prescriptions won’t make America great again. They might make America ok again but they won’t make it great.
When KSTP’s Tom Hauser interviewed Sen. Klobuchar, (DFL-MN), Sunday morning, they discussed President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Like an actress reading from a script, Sen. Klobuchar said that Judge Garland is a moderate. That term is interesting because it’s empty. Being the inquisitive type, I sent Sen. Klobuchar a message for clarification. It read “Sen. Klobuchar, you told Tom Hauser that Judge Garland is a moderate. I understand what a political moderate is but I don’t know what a judicial moderate is. I’d appreciate it if you’d explain what your definition of a judicial moderate is. Further, if Judge Garland is a moderate, does that mean Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan are radicals or ideologues? I’d appreciate a quick, substantive reply.”
Sen. Klobuchar’s auto-response said “Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. This is a confirmation that we have received your message. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business on behalf of the people of our state. Please continue to visit my website at http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov to follow what I am working on, both in Washington and Minnesota. It is frequently updated with current news and events regarding my work in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, many constituents ask about tracking the progress of legislation. One useful tool is to regularly check my website. Another resource I recommend is the Library of Congress legislative information website, http://thomas.loc.gov. I hope you find this information helpful. - Amy”
Since Sen. Klobuchar hasn’t explained what a judicial moderate is yet, I’ll rely on something that Dennis Prager wrote about Judge Garland:
In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”
What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”
Apparently, a judicial moderate sides with Big Labor 100% of the time. Forgive me if I don’t agree that that’s the definition of a moderate. Forgive me if I think that sounds more like a hardline leftist ideologue. Then there’s this:
Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”
Again, that sounds more like the definition of a leftist ideologue. It doesn’t sound like a centrist/moderate. This is worth checking out, too:
Technorati: Merrick Garland, SCOTUS, Barack Obama, Amy Klobuchar, Democrats
When it comes to mining, the Mesabi Daily News doesn’t pull its punches. Their editor, Bill Hanna, hasn’t hesitated in calling Democrats or Republicans out if they’ve stepped out of line with the mining industry. In this editorial, the Mesabi Daily News didn’t pull its punches with Gov. Dayton, starting with them saying “Gov. Mark Dayton reached out to the Iron Range in an editorial page guest column last week and tried to defend the indefensible — his decision to not allow the Department of Natural Resources to enter into any Access Agreements for mining operations on state lands.”
Follow this link to read Gov. Dayton’s op-ed. Rather than siding with mining, Gov. Dayton’s defense hit the Range with another gut punch. The Mesabi Daily News wrote “The governor gets another F-minus in his explanation and attempted justification of that decision, which also graded out as an F-minus when it was announced on March 7.”
While they didn’t quote Gov. Dayton’s op-ed, I’m fairly certain that MDN is upset with Gov. Dayton’s statement that “I believe the best approach is to respect the invisible, but very real, boundary that was established almost 40 years ago, which permits mining activities within the existing industrial footprints on the Iron Range, and prevents them within or adjacent to the Boundary Waters. People who can accept that division will be able to at least co-exist, if not actually cooperate.”
Here’s what MDN thought of Gov. Dayton’s statement:
Here’s what the governor’s declaration by fiat basically said:
- NO to Twin Metals Minnesota, we don’t want you. But we do thank you for the $400 million you’ve invested already in our state. The greenbacks are appreciated.
- NO to mineral exploration on state lands, even through the state Executive Council approved the leases.
- NO, I don’t trust my own Department of Natural Resources to thoroughly do its job of due diligence and review of Twin Metals’ proposals.
- NO to scientific-based environmental review process of copper/nickel/precious metals mining. That would make too much common sense.
- NO to citizen participation. The extremist preservationist groups and their supporters, many of them from the Twin Cities area or out of state, know what’s best. They are my kitchen cabinet on this issue.
Rather than calling these environmental extremist groups part of Gov. Dayton’s “kitchen cabinet,” I think it’s more accurate to call them part of his Board of Oligarchs. Here’s the definition for the word oligarchy:
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
He’s represented the environmental activists who fund the DFL’s campaigns. It’s indisputable that a significant portion of the DFL wants mining shut down regardless of what the facts say. I’ve written about Conservation Minnesota’s Mining Truth website more times than I’d prefer to. I’ve repeatedly highlighted the distortions published by CM through MT. Those organizations should be part of Minnesota’s Hall of Shame in terms of disinformation.
I’ll close with MDN’s closing paragraph because they’ve stated it perfectly:
On second thought, we grade it F-minus-minus.
Technorati: Mark Dayton, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, PolyMet, Twin Metals, Executive Council, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Mining Truth, Conservation Minnesota, Iron Range, DFL
According to this article, Sen. Bakk has put together reform legislation that eliminates legislators as official final decision makers on IRRRB appropriations. If Sen. Bakk’s legislation passes (it isn’t submitted yet), it ” will return the board to an advisory role to the governor and remedy concerns raised in the Legislative Auditor’s report.” That would eliminate the OLA’s constitutional concerns.
It wouldn’t eliminate the Iron Range delegation as ‘advisors’ to the IRRRB, which is the IRRRB’s biggest problem.
Sen. Bakk is spinning things by saying that “the language change will address that issue because the board will then be advisory, which would mean board members/legislators would not have the final say in decisions.” From a constitutional standpoint, that’s fine but it doesn’t address the overarching problem.
The Iron Range delegation are the overarching problem. Over the past 20 years, the Iron Range delegation voted for legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tom Rukavina, that “allowed the board to bypass the governor.” Rep. Rukavina retired in 2012. The IRRRB should be mothballed ASAP, too.
It’s indisputable that some of the projects that the IRRRB funded have produced positive results. Still, that isn’t saying that they’ve done a good job. The IRRRB hasn’t. I wrote here about how the Iron Range doesn’t really have a middle class. According to the IRRRB’s website, the “IRRRB’s mission is to promote and invest in business, community and workforce development for the betterment of northeastern Minnesota.” Based on their own website, they’ve failed miserably.
Fixing the IRRRB’s constitutional issues is the least of the IRRRB’s problems. With 20.6% of the people in Hibbing and 26.5% of the people in Virginia living below the Federal Poverty Level, aka FPL, it’s difficult to argue that the IRRRB has worked “for the betterment of northeast Minnesota.” In fact, I’d argue that it isn’t difficult to argue that the IRRRB hasn’t come close to strengthening northeastern Minnesota’s economy.
Einstein’s definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. It’s foolish to think that the Iron Range delegation will do something constructive as ‘advisors’ when they didn’t do anything constructive when they had final say on spending.
Easter is a time of celebration for Christians. Christ has risen after His crucifixion. Sometimes, important lessons are learned through simple stories. Jeremy’s Egg is one of those stories. Here’s the abridged version of the story:
Jeremy was born with a twisted body and a slow mind. At the age of 12, he was still in second grade, seemingly unable to learn. His teacher, Doris Miller, often became exasperated with him. He would squirm in his seat, drool and make grunting noises.
Spring came and the children talked excitedly about the coming of Easter. Doris told them the story of Jesus, then to emphasize the idea of new life springing forth, she gave each of the children a large plastic egg. “Now,” she said to them “I want you to take this home & bring it back tomorrow with something inside that shows new life. Do you understand?” “Yes, Miss Miller,” the children responded enthusiastically all except Jeremy.
n the first egg, Doris found a flower. “Oh yes, a flower is certainly a sign of new life.” She said. “When plants peek through the ground, we know that spring is here.” A small girl is the first to raise her hand. “That’s my egg, Miss Miller” she called out. The next egg contained a plastic butterfly, which looked very real. Doris held it up. “We all know that a caterpillar changes and grows into a beautiful butterfly. Yes, that’s new life too.”
Little Judy smiled proudly and said “Miss Miller, that one is mine.” Next Doris found a rock with moss on it. She explained that moss showed life. Billy spoke up from the back of the classroom, “My daddy helped me” he beamed.
When Doris opened the fourth egg, she gasped. The egg was empty. Surely, it must be Jeremy’s, she thought. Of course, he didn’t understand her instructions. If only she hadn’t forgotten to phone his parents. Because she didn’t want to embarrass him, she quietly set the egg aside, reached for another.
Suddenly Jeremy spoke up. “Miss Miller, aren’t you going to talk about my egg?” Flustered, Doris replied, “But Jeremy, your egg is empty.” He looked into her eyes and said softly, “Yes, but Jesus’ tomb was empty, too.” Time stopped.
When she could speak again, Doris asked him, “Do you know why the tomb was empty?” “Oh yes,’ Jeremy said, “Jesus was killed and put in there. Then His Father raised Him up.” The recess bell rang.
Three months later, Jeremy died. Those who paid their respects at the mortuary were surprised to see nineteen eggs on top of his casket, each of them empty.
It’s stunning that a mentally-challenged 12-year-old understood the story of Christ’s empty tomb while it’s incomprehensible to highly educated people.
From I Corinthians 1:20:
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Friday night, Mary Lahammer’s article for Almanac, which starts 17 minutes into this video. She should be ashamed for airing such a dishonest article. The opening shot in the article shows a group of people singing “I’m gonna let it shine” while holding placards that say “FOR-PROFIT PRISONS ARE IMMORAL. BAN PRIVATE PRISONS. #StopCCA”
Rev. Brian Herron was captured on film saying “Why aren’t we here talking about resolving the disparities? Why aren’t we here talking about prison reform? Why aren’t we here talking about how we uplift people and uplift communities? Why are we here to do more damage? It ain’t right.”
Later, Joe Broge, a corrections officer at Stillwater State Prison said “I’ve talked to a number of inmates who spent time there and it is, without exception, a horrible facility and when they come to Stillwater Prison and say that they’re glad they’re there, that tells you something.”
First, the thought that Officer Broge thinks it’s wise to set public policy based on the input of criminals is frightening. Why would we want prisons designed that meet the prisoners’ approval? (I suspect that Officer Broge is just doing his best to vilify the CCA facility in Appleton. I don’t think it has anything to do with serious policymaking.)
As bad as those things are, though, they pale in comparison with what Tom Roy, Gov. Dayton’s Commissioner for the Department of Corrections, said during his testimony. Commissioner Roy said “The notion that we incarcerate people for profit, for corporate profit, is, I think, the antithesis of America.”
That’s an intellectually dishonest statement. When I wrote this article, I included this legislative language from HF3223:
(j) The commissioner, in order to address bed capacity shortfalls, shall enter into a contract to lease and operate an existing prison facility with a capacity of at least 1,500 beds located in Appleton, Minnesota.
Commissioner Roy knows that CCA would lease the facility to Minnesota’s Department of Corrections and that the Department of Corrections would staff the facility. Further, Commissioner Roy knows that CCA wouldn’t have anything to do with the operation of the facility.
Here’s the questions I have for Commissioner Roy:
- Is leasing a private building to hold prisoners “the antithesis of America”?
- How is leasing a building owned by a private company the antithesis but spending $100,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money morally justifiable?
Here’s my question for Mary Lahammer: How could you stand behind an article that’s more DFL spin than facts? Ms. Lahammer should be ashamed of herself for not questioning the propaganda contained in this article. It’s a pathetic excuse for journalism.
When I wrote this post about the so-called privatization of the CCA prison in Appleton, MN, I highlighted the legislative language of HF3223. The last paragraph of the bill states “(j) The commissioner, in order to address bed capacity shortfalls, shall enter into a contract to lease and operate an existing prison facility with a capacity of at least 1,500 beds located in Appleton, Minnesota.”
That language made the DFL activists howl with indignation. Minneapolis NAACP head Nekima Levy-Pounds said “Who we do business with is just as important as the business we do. Doing business with the CCA is like doing business with the devil, because their practices are diabolical.” Darnella Wade shouted “You cannot put my kids, my grandkids, in jail to save 350 Caucasian jobs in Appleton. This is abuse.” Imagine the screams Ms. Levy-Pounds and Ms. Wade will cut loose with when they read this article. Just the title alone (Dayton opens door to buying private Minnesota prison, someday) will cause these activists’ blood to boil.
The Democratic governor said the only way he would consider using the Appleton prison “would be to buy it.” He said he understands Correction Corporation of America would be willing to sell the 1,600-bed facility for $100 million. However, he said, the prison would need rehabilitation. “That is a hugely expensive proposition.”
On Twitter and in the article, people argued that leasing CCA’s empty prison was “building an economy on the backs of black and brown lives.” It might’ve been the most terrible thing imaginable. One person tweeted that leasing the building might (gasp!) help CCA profit from the relationship.
Thoughtful people appreciated Strib columnist Katherine Kersten’s article titled “Mollycoddle no more.” As usual, Ms. Kersten’s article was impeccably researched and well written. Most importantly, it made sense. That’s why it posed a threat to the St. Paul Public Schools, aka SPPS. That’s why Annie Mogush-Mason and Jillian Peterson wrote this op-ed. The opening paragraph of Ms. Kersten’s article states “A St. Paul Central High School teacher is choked and body-slammed by a student and hospitalized with a traumatic brain injury. A teacher caught between two fighting fifth-grade girls is knocked to the ground with a concussion. Police are compelled to use a chemical irritant to break up a riot at Como Park High School.”
It’s obvious that this is a system in crisis. Common sense dictates that crises are dealt with first before dealing with root causes and understanding why these violent students engaged in violent behavior. What firefighter tries to determine what catalyst was used to ignite a fire before he puts the fire out? Answer: They don’t because they can’t find the accelerant until after they’ve put out the fire. Prior to that, it’s just speculation. Here are the opening paragraphs of the op-ed written by Ms. Mogush-Mason and Ms. Peterson:
As Katherine Kersten pointed out (‘Mollycoddle no more,’ March 20), circumstances in some of our schools are indeed disturbing. Nobody should feel scared at school. However, addressing violent behavior in a vacuum is shortsighted.
Children do not become violent simply because a consequence at school was not strong enough. We have to consider the circumstances that lead to violent behavior, and the many ways in which society and its institutions are implicated. By taking this approach, the St. Paul Public Schools have chosen a long-range perspective toward school discipline that positions us for a safer and healthier future for all.
When children act out at school, they are communicating something about their conditions. Communicating about our basic needs is an incredible human capability. We understand this in infants, and we learn to interpret their cries so we can give them what they need. Older children still need deep relationships with adults who can interpret their more subtle cries. So, when children go to drastic lengths to show their discontent, we have to look carefully at their conditions, while we find humane ways for them to learn from their mistakes.
Taking “a long-range perspective toward school discipline” doesn’t position teachers and students “for a safer and healthier future for all.” It just lets absent-minded administrators stick their head in the sand while ignoring the teachers’ safety.
Further, administrators that think that students that choke and body-slam teachers shouldn’t be judged “in a vacuum” are putting teachers in harms way. Here’s more from Ms. Kersten’s article:
For years, St. Paul school leaders have assumed, as equity ideology dictates, that differences in discipline rates are the result, not of higher rates of misconduct by black students, but of the racism of teachers and administrators, who are believed to unfairly target black students.
The root causes movement, which Ms. Mogush-Mason and Ms. Peterson are members of, can’t offer proof that teachers and administrators are generally racist. They can only offer theories that their ideology directs them to. Further, what proof do they have that “taking a long-range perspective toward school discipline” is making schools safer for students, teachers and administrators? Better, do they have proof that “taking a long-range perspective toward school discipline” is making schools safer for students, teachers and administrators?
If they don’t, they should be ignored. Imposing theory-based policies that haven’t proven they work on students and teachers is counterproductive. Why shouldn’t people simply ignore untested theories that aren’t based on common sense and time-tested methods?
Though they’ll deny it, there’s indisputable proof that ABM, aka the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, hates the Iron Range. The indisputable proof is found in their opposition to mining on the Range. Joe Davis, ABM’s Executive Director, issued this statement on the House passing an unemployment extension bill for laid-off Iron Range workers. It said “Families on the Range could have gotten help weeks or months ago, but Speaker Daudt said they could wait while Republicans dragged their feet trying to get a tax cut for businesses in exchange. This political gamesmanship is representative of the Republican agenda that puts big businesses and the wealthy first, instead of working Minnesotans.”
Sen. Bakk isn’t a stranger to playing political games. In 2013, Sen. Bakk put funding for a new Senate Office Building in the Taxes bill that had to pass. What’s worse is that it happened near the end of session and without the public getting the opportunity to testify against Sen. Bakk’s initiative. Further, the fight between Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk that Speaker Daudt had to referee last year is proof that Sen. Bakk couldn’t be trusted. Sen. Bakk promised to do unemployment insurance reform after the House passed the unemployment insurance extension. There’s no reason Speaker Daudt should’ve trusted Sen. Bakk. Gov. Dayton didn’t trust Sen. Bakk last year:
For Dayton, it is not about cronyism, it is about trust. He said that he trusts House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, more than he does fellow Democrat Bakk, although he also said he and Daudt often do not agree politically.
Trust isn’t about whether you agree with another person. It’s about whether you think the other person is being straight with you. Here’s the official definition of the word trust:
reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
Here’s the official definition of agree:
to have the same views, emotions
There’s little reason to trust Gov. Dayton or Sen. Bakk. There’s little reason to trust ABM either. Their lobbying efforts have consistently undermined (pun intended) the Iron Range’s way of life.
