Filing Day Fallout: A Few Familiar Faces Return

     And you thought Lapeer's long national nightmare was over.

     But apparently it's going to take more than criminal charges to rid Lapeer politics of Todd Courser.

     Disregarding the imminent possibility of jail time or getting disbarred, Courser filed to run for Lapeer County Prosecutor on the day of the filing deadline, where he'll be facing incumbent Tim Turkelson and Mike Sharkey in the Republican primary, and Phillip Fulks as the lone Democrat in the general on the off chance he makes it that far.

     It doesn't take a lot to see why Courser would do this, slim chance though he may have to win: Courser was rather upset, to say the least, that Turkelson refused to charge Joe Gamrat with a crime after being revealed to be the "blackmailer" in the wake of Courser's adultery cover-up scandal. And Turkelson's popularity has no doubt taken a hit after "Donut-gate" and the Byron Konschuh trial. But while Turkelson is about as vulnerable as any incumbent in that position could be, would voters ever even consider supporting Todd Courser again?

     Well, perhaps in an alternate universe where pigs fly, hell has frozen over, and the Lions win the Super Bowl every year...

     ...Nope. Still can't see it.

     In other news, the sheriff's race is, for all intents and purposes, over.

     Late yesterday, Ron Kalanquin decided to run again for the position he has long held, and had intended to vacate after this election, much like he planned to vacate it after the last one. In his supposed absence, three new candidates threw their hats into the ring: Harry Lutze, Scott McKenna, and Dave Eady, who also filed to run for his current county commissioner spot again and faces some tough competition there. Despite the competition for this office, it would be rather surprising to see Kalanquin lose the position, especially with the aforementioned turmoil at the county courthouse; the idea of having continued stability in at least one county office will no doubt appeal to many.

     And in a race that's back to being something of an afterthought, nobody on the Republican side is challenging Gary Howell for the state representative position; the one other Republican candidate that filed, Jake Davison, withdrew in December and instead appears to have set his sights on the high-stakes race for Mayfield Township Treasurer. On the Democratic side, Margaret Guererro DeLuca is running a third time for the position, with no competition in the field. Granted, between the incredible disappearing Eric Johnson and R.D. "Freeway To The Moon" Bohm last time, and Todd Courser's twin brother Ike Eickholdt in the 2014 race, DeLuca has never faced any serious competition from within her own party. But with all due respect to DeLuca, who has fought about as hard as one could reasonably expect and would have made a damn fine representative in Lansing, it's hard to picture her beating Howell, especially having lost to him once already this year.

     The best shot the Democrats had to win the office was against Todd Courser the first time around, though straight-ticket voting eventually did them in; they might have had a chance last time, but the party failed to capitalize early on Todd's scandal when it first broke and let the Republican challengers get out ahead. Now that Gary Howell is firmly entrenched in the position, it's going to be rather difficult to unseat him, especially considering that so far he's been true to his campaign promises, sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation to roll back the pension tax, remove the FOIA exemption from the governor and legislature, and stop human trafficking. Barring a rather large public gaffe, the seat is still his come November.

     More in the days to come on some of the other races up for grabs this fall, as there's a House seat that's about to be vacant...

Better Know A State Senator: Patrick Colbeck v. Education

     Sometimes you wonder just how much education the legislators in Lansing really have.

     And then you can't help but wonder why in the hell we let them have any say in the education of anyone else.

     Case in point: State Senator Patrick Colbeck of Northville. It started last week, with a series of posts on his campaign's Facebook page criticizing Northville Schools for including Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," a book that won the Nobel Prize for Literature, in its AP English course, referring to it as a "pornographic work." The book, which has been part of the curriculum at Northville since the early 90's, features depictions of sexual assault, rape, and incest, which clearly aren't meant to be glorified or intended to be erotic. The books in question aren't meant to tittilate. They're meant to evoke an emotional response, not of sexual stimulation, but of disgust and horror that a person could do those sorts of things to another human being. You'd think any reasonable adult or even high schooler would realize this. But, not Sen. Colbeck.

     That said: were he simply questioning whether or not these books are appropriate for students, that'd be one thing. It'd be far easier to have a reasonable discussion over it, and I probably wouldn't be writing this now. But unfortunately, Colbeck followed up his criticism by taking the particularly explicit passages of Morrison's books, putting them next to the Ten Commandments, and asking "which book is more offensive?" A clear attempt to make his oft-repeated point that the Bible should be taught in schools and that religious indoctrination is somehow the role of the public school system.

     Of course, if Colbeck were being truly interested in being fair here, he'd place those passages of Morrison's alongside some of the more explicit ones in the Bible, that bring up things such as adultery, prostitution, date rape, incest, and fathers pimping out their own daughters, none of which are exactly condemned in the Old Testament. If you're really interested in an honest comparison, Sen. Colbeck, why not put any of the explicit parts of Ms. Morrison's novels along side the stories of Judah and the harlot, or Lot and his daughters, or hell, Sodom and Gomorrah?

     Then, after that crusade, Colbeck came back with a list of changes he'd like to see to the state's proposed social studies curriculum. The list starts out pretty straightforward, with the gripe that "it's not a democracy, it's a 'constitutional republic'" that Tea Party folk are rather hung up on. Then, things take a... somewhat authoritarian turn, as Colbeck criticizes the emphasis on citizen involvement, or as he calls it, "political activism." He then calls for limiting citizen involvement lessons to "the importance of understanding the law and abiding be the law." Apparently, Sen. Colbeck believes you don't need to learn how you can change the system, but only how to mindlessly obey it. And people want to accuse liberals of "brainwashing" students?

     From there, he goes on about the limited powers of federal government and an emphasis on "states' rights"; again, typical Tea Party talking point, nothing new. Then we get into his personal crusade against the Southern Poverty Law Center; Colbeck is infuriated that the SPLC has condemned the Family Research Council as a "hate group" for it's stance on same-sex marriage, among other things, then further assails them for "undermining our system of government." Of course, he can't cite a single example, other than their use of terms like "justice" and "the common good," which is the same thing as socialism in his eyes.

     Next, Colbeck turns his outrage to a supposed "Islamic bias," because as he claims, there is an entire section in the world history curriculum devoted to Islam, but not one devoted to Christianity. Of course, the section he references is in direct reference to the part of the Arab world in which Islamic-based governments came to be; Christianity is mentioned in that very section as well; and the Roman Catholic Church is given its own section on the next page in relation to Western Europe pre-1500. Keeping in mind we're talking about a section covering world history before the year 1500, he also demands inclusion of the Great Awakening of the mid 1800's, and the role of religion in founding America. It can't possibly be that hard to see why that makes no sense whatsoever.

     It only gets better from here. In a section I have yet to find in the original copy of the proposed curriculum, Colbeck objects to any reference to the LGBT community, and suggests it be replaced with his long-winded treatise about how Everson v. Board of Education, the 1947 Supreme Court ruling that the "establishment of religion clause" applied to state governments as well as federal, somehow suppressed "religious liberty." Or, prevented the government from imposing or promoting religion by law; in Colbeck's mind, the two concepts are one and the same. He further went on to claim the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as "legal action against people of faith that assert their right to conscience protected under the First Amendment." The delusion of this man knows no bounds.

     The next few sections are in relation to the Declaration of Independence and public education; nothing noteworthy save for the last sentence of the public education section: "If one would truly like to get to the origin of public education in America, you should start with the Old Deluder Satan Act of 1642 which points to the need for public education so that students could read the Bible and understand when they were being deceived by false precepts." Par for the course, really; literally anywhere he can try and sneak in some sort of religious propaganda, Colbeck does.

     Perhaps it shouldn't come as much surprise that Colbeck's next target is the Progressive Era of the late 1800's and early 1900's, and Progressive support of political and social reform. Naturally, he can't help himself but to remind everybody that the KKK was founded as an anti-Republican group, and that it was Republicans that were pro-civil rights. From there, he attempts to whitewash over climate change, claiming that even mentioning it promotes an "alarmist atmosphere" in the classroom. Next, it's time to tear apart the New Deal, as Colbeck cries bias again because "significant focus is applied to policies of a single president." Of course that tends to happen when one is referring to sweeping political change enacted by the only man to ever be elected to four terms as president, but our man has an answer to that as well, calling to add discussion of how FDR's policies lead to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment (which instituted the two-term limit), because that's clearly not politically biased at all.

      Finally, in a section about "domestic conflicts and tensions," Colbeck calls for the aforementioned Everson case and a few other "religious liberty" cases to be included in a section on controversial Supreme Court rulings with, among others, Hazelwood v. United States, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona. Because clearly the right to a fair trial, the right to an attorney, and the right to not face employment discrimination are the same thing as the right to have schools and governments promote religion. And last but not least, he insists on putting the Clinton trial alongside Watergate in the lesson plan. Because again, breaking, entering, and bugging the offices of your political opponents and covering it up is as bad as lying about oral sex.

     It'd be somewhat tempting to give him the benefit of the doubt on some of this, if this weren't the same man who regularly prattles on about how "Faith is on trial in America," and citing schlock like the "God's Not Dead" films in his defense. Or if he didn't regularly cherry-pick any and every quote from the Founding Fathers that can be twisted to support religion in the public square. Or if he didn't cite discredited Wallbuilders proprietor and noted historical fraud David Barton as an expert on the same.

     Clearly Sen. Colbeck has an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with the best interest of the education of Michigan students.

     And if the man had his way, he'd be pushing back education in this state a good hundred years or more.

Red Wings Extend The Streak, Despite Holland's Mismanagement

     Sad as it is to say, Ken Holland's best days are probably long behind him.

     To think, such a statement even a few years ago would have been considered heresy to the Hockeytown faithful.

     But indeed, it's safe to say that the long-time Red Wings GM doesn't look quite as infallible as he did during the pre-cap era, and the goodwill he managed to buy for himself with the 2008 Stanley Cup victory, Detroit's only championship since the salary cap was instituted over a decade ago, is finally starting to run dry.

     Such is what happens when your team hasn't advanced beyond the second round in the playoffs since 2009, and has been knocked out in the first round the last two.

     Despite their best efforts, the Red Wings managed to extend their playoff streak to 25 years, though not through much effort of their own, playing .500 hockey for the last month of the season and, faced with a scenario in which they controlled their destiny by simply winning two of their last three games, the Wings kept their hopes alive by shutting out the Flyers on Wednesday, then followed that with an embarrassing showing against the Boston Bruins on Thursday. Finally, against a New York Rangers team that would have benefited from a loss on Saturday, the Wings simply couldn't capitalize, despite being on the power play for the final 1:13 of the game and even having a 6-on-3 advantage in the final 20 seconds. Fortunately for them, the Bruins put up an even more pathetic display on their home ice, getting blown out 6-1 by an Ottawa team whose own playoff hopes were dashed weeks prior.

     As a result, the Wings get a break in more ways than one, qualifying for the playoffs despite themselves and facing a banged-up Tampa Bay Lightning that will be missing Steve Stamkos, Anton Stralman, Tyler Johnson, and potentially Victor Hedman and Ryan Callahan as well. Despite the mounting injuries for Tampa Bay, it's hard to see any conclusion to the season other than yet another first round knockout, especially with the news that Anthony Mantha has been sent down to Grand Rapids in favor of Joakim Andersson, because in the mind of Holland, clearly the 22nd ranked offense in the league doesn't need a guy who's got 2 power play goals in ten games nearly as much as they need a guy who has one goal in 28 games.

     And to make things worse, Holland had this to say to the Detroit News: "Mantha was a spare part in the Calder Cup playoffs a year ago. Why does anyone think he's going to be the answer in Detroit?" This is the second time in as many seasons that the front office has felt the need to bash Mantha to the press; last year it was Jimmy Devellano calling him "very disappointing." This is a guy you're counting on to be the future of the franchise; why the need to continuously do this, and to put Mantha on the shelf in favor of less talented players, especially when your offense is in shambles as it is?

     And you thought "kids aren't the answer" went out the door with Mike Babcock.

     Certainly it's tempting to put quite a bit of blame on Jeff Blashill here; after all; during his short stint in Detroit, Mantha spent most of his time on the fourth line before being exiled to "healthy scratch" territory in favor of the aforementioned Andersson. But you almost get the sense that there was pressure on Blashill from above to play it safe and protect the streak at all costs; after all, this is the same coach that started Dylan Larkin on opening night, and gave significant minutes to Andreas Athanasiou during his first cup of coffee with the team. Those moves don't exactly signify the second coming of Babcock. And Blashill's apparent mid-season change of heart regarding the kids seems to suggest the continuation of an organizational philosophy that hasn't gained the Wings much in the way of postseason success.

     Consider this as well: it's been widely reported that this is Pavel Datsyuk's last season with Detroit, with the superstar wishing to return home to Russia to finish his professional career with the KHL. If this proves to be the case, that will leave Detroit with a $7.5 million cap hit that can only be lifted off the books by trading it away. This raises two concerns with Holland's management of this team. For starters, it's been known for at least the last few years that Datsyuk has wanted to finish his career in his home country, and the current CBA states that any team that signs a player over 35 to a multi-year deal is stuck with the cap hit in the event of that player's retirement. (The Ilya Kovalchuk rule, if you will.) Knowing this very thing was always a possibility, why was Datsyuk not being signed on a year-to-year basis?

     But since that's all but settled, let's move on to the second issue with all of this. With a $7.5 million albatross hanging around Detroit's payroll, how can Holland reasonably expect to make this team a legitimate contender last year? (Other than by trading the cap hit away, which he apparently does not plan to do, per Sunday's article in the Freep.) Obviously there's no room for Stamkos at that point, and more realistically, this could hinder the team's ability to re-sign Darren Helm, who's performed pretty well down the stretch this season. Sure, you have the dead weight of Kyle Quincey coming off the books, but you still have restricted free agents in Alexey Marchenko, Petr Mrazek, Riley Sheahan, Danny DeKeyser, and Teemu Pulkkinen to contend with. Where does the money come from to pay them and supplement the roster from there?

     And if they decide to go the route of bringing up the best Grand Rapids has to offer... then why are those guys not getting valuable playoff experience now? Mantha's been sent down, and Athanasiou, Pulkkinen, and Jurco will likely see relatively few minutes in this series. You're playing with house money in a year where everyone was bracing for the streak to be broken altogether up until the final day of the Wings' season, and are still underdogs against a banged-up Tampa team. There's little reason not to turn the young guns loose, see what they can do, and get them a bit of experience now instead of going into next season (and presumably next year's playoffs) with as many question marks. What is there to lose? A second-round exit, as opposed to a first-round knockout? Is there really any guarantee that this team couldn't get to that same point with Mantha, Pullkinen and Athanasiou getting significant ice time over the veterans?

     But that just lines up with Holland's philosophy over the last several years. The kids aren't the answer. They're just "spare parts." And in years past, when you could lure any free agent to Detroit with a massive payday, that might have worked. But those days are over. And now that the salary cap doesn't allow for that to happen, Holland has been content instead to hand out bloated deals to role players that don't fill their roles particularly well. (See: Ericcson, Jonathan; Quincey, Kyle.)

     Meanwhile in Chicago, the Bowman regime has produced three Stanley Cups in six years, and hasn't missed the playoffs since 2008, despite having had to rebuild the team three times in that span to remain under the cap. Steve Yzerman's new team in Tampa Bay has made the Stanley Cup finals more recently than Detroit. Even the Dallas Stars are looking promising under Jim Nill, the man responsible for much of the great drafting of this organization's past.

     Looking back, it's becoming increasingly evident that Detroit let the wrong front-office guys walk away. And as such, the Red Wings find themselves in a rather challenging situation this off-season.

     Is Ken Holland the man to get them through it?

     Given that he's the main reason they're in this spot in the first place, it's hard to be optimistic about that.

     But given that he's undoubtedly going to be allowed to make the attempt, one can only hope that he doesn't put this team in a worse situation down the road by staying the present course.