Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - peter_speckhard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1086
1
Your Turn / Re: Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:50:48 AM »
A long but interesting read on the topic of academia.

https://arcdigital.media/yearning-for-academia-8823fc7f992a

2
Your Turn / Re: Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:33:19 AM »
I get it in the "family and friends" email, but I guess I would have expected to alumni email to at least throw a bone to the word "Lutheran" or "Christian" instead of saying he is widely respected nationally as having superior business acumen and as a man of faith.


3
Your Turn / Re: Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:19:29 AM »
Dear Valparaiso University Alumni:

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday and that you and your families are safe. I am reaching out today with exciting news for our University. As you know, we have been searching for the next President of Valpo for some time. Today, we are happy to announce that José D. Padilla will become the University’s next President. A dynamic innovator, thinker and natural leader, José brings many skills, experiences and accomplishments in higher education which are ideally suited to the University’s needs today and in the future.

José joins Valpo as the culmination of a long and successful career in higher education. Most recently, he served as Vice President, University Counsel and Secretary of the University of Colorado System. Previously he served 15 years in senior leadership roles at DePaul University in Chicago, the most recent as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary.

José is widely respected nationally in the higher education field as having superior business acumen and as a man of faith. His broad experiences range from undergraduate student, to graduate student, alumnus, donor, lecturer, administrator, member of the president’s cabinet, and board member. His leadership experiences provide the background to lead the University as it moves forward with the strong desire to increase enrollment and attract a more diverse student body.

We selected José in partnership with a highly reputable search firm, with over 100 candidates considered from a wide variety of backgrounds. José, with his legal experiences as a senior executive both at DePaul and the University of Colorado System, along with his varied background, has the broad leadership skills to lead the University in the 2020s.

José will become President Elect on Jan. 1, 2021. He will work closely with current Interim President Colette Irwin-Knott and become President on or before March 1, 2021.

This is an extremely exciting time for our University, and we’re looking forward to the future. Please join me in welcoming José in his leadership role in our University.

Blessings,

4
Your Turn / Re: Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:10:53 AM »
Dear Family and Friends of Valparaiso University:

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday and that you and your families are safe. I am reaching out today with exciting news for our University. As you know, we have been searching for the next President of Valpo for some time. Today, we are happy to announce that José D. Padilla will become the University’s next President. A dynamic innovator, thinker and natural leader, José brings many skills, experiences and accomplishments in higher education which are ideally suited to the University’s needs today and in the future.

José joins Valpo as the culmination of a long and successful career in higher education. Most recently, he served as Vice President, University Counsel and Secretary of the University of Colorado System. Previously he served 15 years in senior leadership roles at DePaul University in Chicago, the most recent as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary.

José is widely respected nationally in the higher education field as having superior business acumen and as a man of faith. His broad experiences range from undergraduate student, to graduate student, alumnus, donor, lecturer, administrator, member of the president’s cabinet, and board member. His leadership experiences provide the background to lead the University as it moves forward with the strong desire to increase enrollment and attract a more diverse student body.

We selected José in partnership with a highly reputable search firm, with over 100 candidates considered from a wide variety of backgrounds. José, with his legal experiences as a senior executive both at DePaul and the University of Colorado System, along with his varied background, has the broad leadership skills to lead the University in the 2020s.

José will become President Elect on Jan. 1, 2021. He will work closely with current Interim President Colette Irwin-Knott and become President on or before March 1, 2021.

This is an extremely exciting time for our University, and we’re looking forward to the future. Please join me in welcoming José in his leadership role in our University.

5
Your Turn / Re: Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:07:17 AM »
This from a Chicago business profile:

As general counsel for DePaul, the nation’s largest Catholic university, Jose Padilla handles a range of legal issues, from canon law to athletics. His office of nine leads the policy review process at the university. As secretary of the university, Padilla leads a team that manages the business of the university’s board of trustees. Before joining DePaul in 2005, Padilla was an attorney and federal lobbyist at the Illinois Institute of Technology. He also spent 16 years working on federal issues in Washington, D.C. From 1990 to 1993, he was a legislative assistant to the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas. He served on Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s transition team, leading a committee of lawyers reviewing the Federal Civil Rights Litigation division of the city’s Law Department.

6
Your Turn / Valpo names new president
« on: Today at 10:04:38 AM »
Jose D. Padilla has been named the new president of Valpo. He has been a VP at DePaul. More info to follow.

7
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 06:46:35 PM »
Peter, I have to believe that now you’re simply trolling, and I’m not at all hungry for the bait.
It’s over. The election is valid. There was no fraud. That is proven by any standard of proof that counts.
Meanwhile, the crazed rantings from the White House and his warped attorneys like Giuliani and Powell go on. Why?
From the warped and crazed former mayor of NYC: “With all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation. We have gathered ample evidence of illegal voting in at least six states, which they have not examined. We have many witnesses swearing under oath they saw crimes being committed in connection with voter fraud. As far as we know, not a single one has been interviewed by the DOJ. The Justice Department also hasn’t audited any voting machines or used their subpoena powers to determine the truth," said Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. "Nonetheless, we will continue our pursuit of the truth through the judicial system and state legislatures, and continue toward the Constitution’s mandate and ensuring that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is not. Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.”

Why would he say that? Who knows? Maybe it is true. Maybe not. Maybe the people involved think they have something they don't have. But in any case, there can't have been any fraud because we know for a fact that there was no fraud and that alone is reason enough to believe there couldn't have been any fraud, and anyone who says otherwise is loony. 

8
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 06:28:24 PM »
We are going around in circles here. I believe that allegations of fraud need to have proof. Without proof the allegations are simply allegations, perhaps even insane pipe dreams. You contend that the allegations are so obvious that they must be true
I ask again, why did no one conduct any investigations that came up with any proof?
I guess those trying to prove fraud are really stupid and don’t know how or where to look.
Do signed affidavits from people who claim to have witnessed fraud count as clear proof? Of course not. They are allegations. They have some evidence to support them. They can't have proof until that evidence is investigated and weighed. You don't begin with proof, you begin with an allegation, then gather evidence. At this point my only contention is that there is enough prima facie evidence of fraud to take the allegation seriously. Maybe a bunch of incredibly unlikely things happened, like Biden running well behind Clinton in every urban area besides Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta, but way ahead of her in just those four places. Or Trump winning all the proven bellwether counties nationwide but losing the election. Or a series of data dumps somehow netting 570,000 votes for Biden and 3,200 for Trump. Or postal workers under oath testifying that they were directed to back date ballot envelopes all perjuring themselves. All of that could have happened. But I'm sceptical and made more sceptical by the reactions to my scepticism. A serious reaction would be to come up with alternate, more plausible explanations than fraud, and at least treating whatever small number of incontrovertible instances of fraud, such as people voting in two states, as serious offenses. Instead, we get, "You're an idiot for even suspecting that, and even if there was a bit of it, who really cares?"

It could very well be that there is no proof strong enough to convince a court. And maybe O.J. really was innocent. But the reason nobody thinks O.J. was innocent is because he won in terms of the demand for absolute proof that he had to have done it, but he lost the p.r. battle in terms of explaining what the heck actually happened if he didn't do it. Biden may be sworn in, but as long as he and his supporters refuse to give a plausible explanation to the questions being raised,   

9
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 05:39:24 PM »
Peter, I read the link you provided to the spectator. Talk about something being “unsourced.” It was a puff piece on the Giuliani antics in Pennsylvania. There are holes in that story you could drive a truck through. And if any of it, repeat any of it, were true why did it not make its way into any of the nearly 40 court cases filed? And the “Spectator”? Really?
You take what you see to be anomalies in voting, and construe from there widespread fraud and conspiracy. That is just not sane thinking.
And isn’t it interesting when the United States Attorney General is caught red-handed telling the truth?  ;)
Remember that Barr would readily warp the constitution in order to support Trump. He suggested it numerous times.  And today he claims that the election was valid and uncompromised. Does that say anything to you?
Again, pure ad hominem. The Spectator? Really? That is all you, and generally all you have. What is your explanation? You don’t have one. If someone can say the Spectator’s numbers are wrong and show what the real numbers are, fine. That would be engaging the substance, which you never do. To believe that there was no fraud at all requires believing a lot of really bizarre anomalies and statistical outliers all happened. If you’re concerned about people’s faith in elections, why not a) welcome examination of those outliers and b) welcome any and all efforts at election reform that work toward greater security, like voter ID laws and signature matches?

10
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 05:12:20 PM »
Assuming you discount any account of fraud or miscounting as hogwash, I guess you could say in a mere tautological sense that all such hogwash is hogwash. That such ballots are in dispute is not hogwash, though, it is the simple fact; someone is disputing them. As to whether their claims have merit, I'm not sure how you personally would know either way. But you seem awfully opposed to settling the dispute through normal legal channels.

Some suspicious things at least call for some plausible explanation. For example, the ballots drops in Pennsylvania that went well over 99% for Biden and provided several times the margin of victory. How does that happen? What demographic of people voted 99.6% for Biden? Early voters? African-Americans? When 570,000 votes come in for Biden with just over 3,000 for Trump in the same drops, the prima facie explanation is fraud unless someone explains how such numbers can possibly make sense. There is no demographic of voter, not even taking into account several layers of intersectionality, that voted in such numbers in such a lopsided way. There may be some explanation, but I've yet to hear it, and it is insulting to be told that any questioning of such ballot drops is conspiracy theory hogwash. I'm sure if they did a recount and suddenly they found a cache of ballots that hadn't been counted before, and those ballots went 85,000 to 500 in favor in Trump, giving him the state, you'd think, "Wait a minute. How can that be? I'd like to look into that."

Or maybe your source of information is faulty. Sites I looked at said that 99% of the votes in Philadelphia had been counted; not that 99% were for Biden. Can you post where you got your statistics?

Please respond to what Peter said, not what you think he said.  He never stated that 99% of votes in Philadelphia were for Biden.  He said that certain "ballot drops" in Pennsylvania were well over 99% for Biden.  A "ballot drop" is a batch of ballots, in this case in the state of Pennsylvania, not all of the ballots for the city of Pennsylvania.


I know what he said. I looked for evidence of it online. I didn't find it. I reported what I did find. I asked for his sources. I still have seen them. It wouldn't be the first time that someone, not likely Peter here, misread some statistic, and reported as fact the misreading (I've been guilty of that,) and the misreading gets spread as the facts.
I posted a link to  one of my sources, among many that have examined the same data, in this forum. You obviously didn’t read it. Then you claimed it wasn’t posted.

11
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 04:45:26 PM »
"Clinton" nowhere appears in the Jochen Bittner piece about Dolchstossegende.  You have fabricated the reference.
This is the sort of attitude I’m talking about. Are you sure he fabricated the reference?

12
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 04:25:56 PM »
Then why, Peter, were the court cases brought by Trump supporters all thrown out? Were the  lawyers just too inept to draw attention to something like that? And you do know that the Pennsylvania secretary of state has debunked what was presented by the folks at the hearing called only by Rudy Giuliani, The former New York mayor has gone further off the rails than the president. So it appears that there may be some “other explanation” for those votes. But in any case, none of what was alleged at that so-called hearing was ever proven or verified.
I simply do not understand the refusal to admit but the election was not compromise in any way. There is no doubt that there were mis-cast or missed counted or even some votes cast illegally. But there is no evidence of any significant result changing voter fraud.
The only reason people keep talking about it is to set the public up for the lies and sleazy tactics yet to come.
Republicans! Come home. Come back and take control of your party. Don’t let this guy and the members of his cult  possess it any longer.
What is it proof of? As long as Dems resist voter ID laws, as long as they approve mailing out ballots unsolicited to everyone on an outdated voter registration list, as long as they refuse even to allow signature match (which even Obama claimed was the only way mail in ballots could be accepted) there is no way to prove fraud. The data dump that went 99.4% to Biden isn’t in and of itself proof of anything other than you will believe anything. In Philly, they destroyed all the envelopes before a request for signature matches could be made. Then they said there was no proof the signature didn’t match. In Atlanta they said a water main break required them to stop counting and sent everyone home. Then they finished counting without observers, and there is no evidence anywhere of any water main break having happened. Is that proof? No. But it is awfully fishy. The implausible turnout in Milwaukee, etc. If you or anyone would actually explain those things in a way that was even kind of plausible it would go a long way toward making a potential Biden presidency valid in many people’s eyes. But you don’t. You just say, “There is no proof,” as though that puts the matter of extreme fishiness to rest.

Again, if you can explain things in a way that makes sense, great. That’s what happened with the one claim of vote tampering in Michigan. Someone looked at the claim seriously and showed the problem with it. And that was fine. I accept that. But if I smell something and say, “What’s that smell?” I don’t accept assurances that there is no smell as an explanation for why I’m smelling. Frankly, I think you smell it too, which is why you’re so desperate to have everyone drop the subject.

13
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 03:07:34 PM »
If this “information” has any validity, one wonders how it is that you and the spectator seem to be interested in it but none of the Trump lawyers brought it forth in any of their court cases. Or if they did there were still reasons why nearly 40 of those cases have been now dismissed and laughed at.
And just now, Bill Barr, who would twist the constitution into a pretzel to back up  Trump, And who, Trump suggested, could have taken  extraordinary measures that would’ve mis-used the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate alleged fraud, admits that there is no evidence of any voter fraud on any level that would change the results of the election.
I suspect that by tomorrow morning he will have been fired.
Actually, lots of people are talking about it. You have no explanation. Frankly, an ELCA or LCMS convention couldn’t get a 99.4% vote affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. You seem to think that because the NYT isn’t treating it as a problem, therefore it isn’t a problem. And maybe there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for how there managed to be some pile of hundreds of thousands of votes that went 99.4% for Biden. But you haven’t given me one. So just going by the science, as they say, I’m saying fraud is the Occam’s Razor best explanation.

14
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 01:09:27 PM »
Peter:
Currently enough ballots are disputed in enough states to have swayed the election.

Me:
I say hogwash, and I would ask you to name them and count them, but that would be being obsessed with certain things. No one anywhere, any place, in any situation, has found any evidence of fraud or of miscounting that would change the result. That is an objective fact.
(But then, so is an earth of multi-billion years birth and a humanity shaped by evolution.)

Assuming you discount any account of fraud or miscounting as hogwash, I guess you could say in a mere tautological sense that all such hogwash is hogwash. That such ballots are in dispute is not hogwash, though, it is the simple fact; someone is disputing them. As to whether their claims have merit, I'm not sure how you personally would know either way. But you seem awfully opposed to settling the dispute through normal legal channels.

Some suspicious things at least call for some plausible explanation. For example, the ballots drops in Pennsylvania that went well over 99% for Biden and provided several times the margin of victory. How does that happen? What demographic of people voted 99.6% for Biden? Early voters? African-Americans? When 570,000 votes come in for Biden with just over 3,000 for Trump in the same drops, the prima facie explanation is fraud unless someone explains how such numbers can possibly make sense. There is no demographic of voter, not even taking into account several layers of intersectionality, that voted in such numbers in such a lopsided way. There may be some explanation, but I've yet to hear it, and it is insulting to be told that any questioning of such ballot drops is conspiracy theory hogwash. I'm sure if they did a recount and suddenly they found a cache of ballots that hadn't been counted before, and those ballots went 85,000 to 500 in favor in Trump, giving him the state, you'd think, "Wait a minute. How can that be? I'd like to look into that."


Or maybe your source of information is faulty. Sites I looked at said that 99% of the votes in Philadelphia had been counted; not that 99% were for Biden. Can you post where you got your statistics?

This article is a few days old, and is only one of the places the same story appears. I was mistaken that the data dumps in question were 99.4% for Biden, not 99.6% as I said upstream. Perils of going from memory. Still, the point remains-- until there is some plausible explanation for how any set of validly cast ballots, no matter what the demographic, could be that lopsided, fraud remains the most reasonable explanation. I could see (maybe) some precinct of 200 people going 199-1 in favor of one candidate. That would be extremely hard to believe but not completely unbelievable. But I can't see how that same ratio could possibly play out over hundreds of thousands of voters. There simply is no county, no racial demographic, no combination of early-voting, suburban, African-American women vting bloc that has those kinds of numbers with those kinds of percentages. So the question becomes, where was that data coming from? How did they isolate that many validly cast ballots for one candidate into one or two data dumps? Even if there are matching paper ballots with signatures and everything, how did they get them into batches of 99.4% for Biden? I'm willing to concede there could be an explanation that makes more sense than fraud, but nobody is sharing it.

 https://spectator.org/pennsylvania-bombshell-biden-99-4-vs-trump-0-6/

15
Your Turn / Re: December Forum Letter
« on: Yesterday at 11:53:10 AM »
I don't think anyone doubts that racism exists in our country. The question is whether race provides a suitable interpretive lens through which to view our country.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1086