New air service out of St. Cloud, Twin Cities

Conrad Wilson of MPR reports:An unnamed airline plans to announce this week that it will expand air service out of the St. Cloud Regional Airport. According to a release from the Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation, the airline and destination will be revealed Tuesday morning. The release notes the service is to a leisure destination. Currently, Allegiant Air is the only commercial service to fly out of St. Cloud with two flights per week to Mesa, Arizona.”  I’m guessing its not British Airways to Dubai.

Related … Paul Walsh and John Ewoldt of the Strib tell us: “Bargain-basement Spirit Airlines is expanding its presence at MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport by announcing new service to several additional cities, all them offering warmer weather for Minnesotans starting in November. The new destinations are: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Orlando and Tampa. Service starts Nov. 7, with online booking available now. … Spirit also improves its bottom line by packing more people onto its planes, offering less leg room than other airlines.” But if your knees do accompany you on your flight, you will be charged per appendage …

Monticello is trying to reach settlement with bondholders for its broadband project. Wilson of MPR (again) says: “The city of Monticello could soon own its broadband network free of debt. In June, the city made a formal offer to bond holders, paying back $5.75 million of the $26 million borrowed to finance the construction of the network in 2008, before aggressive competition from private companies put the publicly owned company in a financially precarious position. Since it began providing service in 2010, the city of Monticello’s broadband network hasn’t been able to compete with the prices for Internet, phone and television service offered by private companies. That’s in part because the city had debt payments it had to make to its bond holders.”

But the productivity numbers look great … Annie Baxter of MPR says: “Minnesota’s factories are churning out lots of products like airplane parts and medical devices these days, but they’re not exactly going on hiring sprees. Earlier in the recovery, Minnesota manufacturing’s job growth outpaced the rest of the state’s economy. But that growth has slowed. Indeed, non-seasonally adjusted manufacturing employment in Minnesota fell to 308,128 in July, down 0.8 percent from the same month last year. Meanwhile, every other industry in the state’s economy is adding jobs.”

At the Duluth News Tribune, John Myers reports: “Enbridge’s proposed Sandpiper pipeline, one of several oil pipeline projects planned for the region, may follow an entirely new route from Clearbrook in northwestern Minnesota to Superior, Wis. Much of that corridor would be along other utility lines, such as electric lines. But part of it is not. ‘We’re still in the early stages with Sandpiper, said Lorraine Little, an Enbridge spokeswoman in Duluth-Superior. ‘We’re looking at two options at this point, and the southerly option is along a new corridor for us.’ … Enbridge plans to spend about $11 billion in the next few years greatly expanding its capacity to move oil through the U.S. — some $4 billion of that in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota alone, with Superior as the hub.”

Back to the drawing board … The AP says: “The Department of Administration said Monday that it was canceling a previous selection process for picking a team to build [a Minnesota legislative office building]. The company was supposed to be chosen by now. Instead, the goal is to issue new guidelines and pick a builder by late September. The $90 million building is supposed to go up behind the state Capitol and be done by 2015. Officials are under time pressure because the ongoing Capitol renovations will make much of that building a construction zone. Once completed, the new 154,000-square-foot facility will have offices for state senators and their staff.”

The GleanDerrick Knutson of the East Central Post-Review covered GOP Rep. Bob Barrett on the topic of … pot: “Barrett touched on what will likely be a hot-button piece of legislation next session: House File 1818. ‘That is the issue of medical marijuana,’ he said. ‘It will be coming up for a vote next spring. Right now, Gov. Dayton has said he will not support it unless he can get public safety to buy into it.’ Barrett said the bill is a tough sell to the public safety community. ‘A lot of folks in public safety do not want it because it blurs the line between the illegal use of marijuana and medicinal marijuana.’ Barrett said he realizes people with severe illnesses can and do use marijuana for pain and nausea management, but he’s not in favor of the proposed legislation, which has more than 30 cosponsors. ‘Marijuana is the second most addictive drug in the country behind alcohol — about 4.2 million people are addicted,’ he said.” Where exactly did “about 4.2 million” … pot addicts come from? “Reefer Madness”?

In somewhat the same vein … . Aaron Rupar at City Pages was sent a copy of GOP politico Andy Parrish’s 2004 college op-ed. It’s good stuff: “[A] source sent along an op-ed Andy Parrish apparently wrote for the University of Wisconsin-River Falls student newspaper back in February 2004. The op-ed, entitled ‘Women should carry guns, is predictably lunatic. In it, Parrish accuses ‘the left’s extreme arrogance’ of indirectly causing ‘hundreds of thousands of women to be raped every year’ and pulls statistics out of his [bleep] indicating that ‘548 women per day [don’t] get raped because they protected themselves with a handgun.’ … [Says Parrish], ‘Where are all the feminists at? Don’t those silly women over at N.O.W. understand that this is a great way for women to defend themselves and stop being constant victims of men? You would think N.O.W. and other women’s rights organizations wouldn’t want men to be raping women but they must want these types of attacks since they don’t want women to carry guns. As usual these leftists groups never bring logic into anything they do. So why would they start now?’ ”

Who knew it got so rough … in the ladies’ room at Perkins? Richard Chin of the PiPress reports: “The 24-year-old victim needed to use the restroom at the restaurant at 1544 University Ave. W. at 3 a.m. Saturday, when she encountered several other women and ended up in a fight, according to police. After she was punched and kicked, the woman ‘heard one of the suspects say, “You’re going to burn,” ‘ according to St. Paul police spokesman Sgt. Paul Paulos. The woman then felt extreme pain in her back and smelled coffee, Paulos said. A police report said ‘very hot coffee’ was poured on the woman’s upper back and upper buttocks causing second- and third-degree burns … .” There would, of course, be no problem if they had attacked with lemon meringue pie.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Jay Willemssen on 08/19/2013 - 03:40 pm.

    Mr. Parrish’s numbers = Gary Kleck’s numbers

    “In it, Parrish accuses ‘the left’s extreme arrogance’ of indirectly causing ‘hundreds of thousands of women to be raped every year’ and pulls statistics out of his [bleep] indicating that ‘548 women per day [don’t] get raped because they protected themselves with a handgun.’”

    548 * 365.25 = 200,157

    In 2004, the total number of attempted rapes against women (reported and unreported) in the US was 55,000. So his subset (gun-toting female rape preventers) is nearly 4x larger than the size of the whole set (ie, all female victims of attempted rape).

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

    Mr. Parrish is using numbers from Gary Kleck

    http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm (Tables 2 and 3)

    Mr. Kleck’s own data, funded with your tax dollars, has a survey of 733 victims of rape or attempted rape, and only 1 of them used a gun to threaten their attacker. So Mr. Parrish’s number is not even in the same universe as the real number, given a 1/733 ratio, puts it at 75 (55,000/733), not 200,000.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

Leave a Reply