Wednesday, June 17, 2009

THAT"S the problem!

If you want to understand exactly how much the public employee unions are running things around here, read this story from Willamette Week.

The OEA used the State Department of Education's lawyer to draft its bill to kill virtual charter schools - even though several of the provisions of the bill the ODE lawyer drafted for the teachers union are directly contrary to the State Board's own position on virtual charters.

And the State Board of Education chairman, Duncan Wyse, sees no problem with this!

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, IS THE PROBEM!

So OEA, a private interest group, gets to use public resources to draft legislation that is directly contrary to the public interest as expressed by the State Board chair, and that chair says "no problem!"

No sweat. I always want my employees helping outside entities that are trying to subvert my policies. Especially if I am the government. And especially if that outside entity is the Teachers Union, because, well, they really are the boss around here anyway.

Stay tuned - this story is far from over. SB 767 passed out of the House Revenue Committee on Monday, with some amendments that were so hurriedly drafted that they seem to now want to change the bill again.

On Thursday, the ORCA waiver request is once again on the agenda of the State Board of Education monthly meeting. The subject of the Willamette Week article, Cindy Hunt, has been "advising" the State Board through nine months of inaction on ORCA's waiver, despite the fact that the Board's own rules put in place a 90 day deadline for acting on such requests.

Now, after delaying month after month, if SB767 passes as written by Cindy Hunt, the State Board's authority to grant ORCA a waiver from the 50% provision would be taken away, and if the Board happened to grant ORCA the waiver on Thursday, the bill would revoke it.

No, there is no problem at all here. Things are apparently working just as they are supposed to be.


OregonGuy said...


Maybe you can answer this question: when did "citizen" get replaced with "stakeholder"?

When we were kids, each of us had the same standing before the law. Now, as a result of thirty years of equivocation, we aren't equal before the law. We don't have the same standing as those who are stakeholders.

In the public/private partnership, isn't it true that the OEA is a stakeholder and that you and I are mere citizens?

If this is the case, then everything you're reporting about the state board makes sense: the OEA is a stakeholder and in the spirit of public/private partnership we must represent the views of our stakeholders.

Anonymous said...

What a load of crap. The ODE and the OEA are conspiring behind closed doors to kill virtual schools in Oregon, and they got caught.

Duncan Wyse isn't bothered by the fact that his legal advisor is doing the bidding of the OEA?

I guess that just says it all, now doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Nigel at the WW everyone has names of the sick minded creeps who are kicking children in the knee caps to protect their lies and power.

MAX Redline said...

The term, "stakeholder" refers to those who hold the stake over your heart while politicians and bureaucrats swing the sledge-hammer.

Anonymous said...

Let's see....
The OEA is calling the shots in the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate.

The OEA's former chief lobbyist Chip Terhune is the Governor's top aide. The former OEA President is the Governor's education advisor.

And now the OEA is calling the shots at the Oregon Department of Education.

Sounds like they pretty much have this state locked down.

Roadrunner said...


Is there any evidence that the OEA received special treatment?

According to Carla Axtman, she also asked for assistance from the ODE for help in research, and she received that help. Perhaps they would help you, too, if you asked.

Me said...

Carla Rove got most of her "research" from the OEA.

She's a smear merchant trying help hack up vitrual charter schools.

Roadrunner said...

Me, I thought your side loved Carl Rove.

And it seems that Carla actually did a fair amount of primary research. You're just a doofus.

Me said...


Nice presumption.

I presume Carla got all of her "research" from the OEA.

Roadrunner said...

Like I wrote before, Me, you're just a doofus.

You presume that Carla got her research from the OEA because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Because it doesn't agree with your worldview, you assume it can't be correct.

And, despite the saying, when you assume you mostly make an ass out of yourself.

Conscience of a Moonbat said...

Jeez, RR. Can't you conduct this from your own blog? I read somewhere that is still available. Let us know so we can come find you.

Roadrunner said...

What's the matter, CoaM, can't you take a little dissent?

Anonymous said...

And Sam Adams is in the clear... the investigation just ended...

Roadrunner said...


I repeat my question: Is there any evidence that the OEA received special, improper treatment?

Not that they got help from the ODE, but that it was improper for them to get that help, and they wouldn't give it to other groups.

Rob Kremer said...

RR: I guess there is no reason why you would all of a sudden start actually understanding the point, so I will explain:

The question is not whether the OEA got favorable treatment, the question is whether the State Board of Education's legal advisor had a conflict of interest.

It is unethical for a lawyer to provide legal assistance to ANYONE when the subject of that assistance is on an issue facing her client. Cindy Hunt provided legal help to the OEA in a way that was directly opposed to the expressed policies of her client.

Get it now?

Roadrunner said...


Is conflict of interest something that parties can waive objection to? If so, if the Board or the Chair (not sure which) don't object to the conflict, does that eliminate the conflict?

Anonymous said...

You fool! Parties can waive all they want but that cannot eliminate an existing conflict of interest.

Don't you know the first thing about politics? It's called back-room, insider dealing. "Unseen" stakeholders aren't allowed in the room, so these "parties" cannot be part of the agreement. They are the ones who get screwed.

MAX Redline said...

IP - currently dba "RoadRunner":

As Rob noted - I guess there is no reason why you would all of a sudden start actually understanding the point,

Basically, all you seem to do is run around and crap on the carpets. I've yet to see you ever contribute in any meaningful way to a discussion thread. That's the keyword, RR: meaningful.

Somebody further up suggested that you start your own blog, but I disagree. You just need to move out of your mom's basement.

Roadrunner said...


I see, you like to go around to various blogs and attack a person who has pointed out the unethical behavior of bloggers with whom you happen to agree.

Again, I would have posted it on Patrick's blog, but he's a coward who bans people like me who happen to disagree with him.

Anonymous said...

Poor little bird...

MAX Redline said...

Yawn. RR, I visit blogs like Rob's because he usually has some solid, thought-provoking commentary. Unlike you.

You just run from blog to blog, trying to distract. All you do attack some blogger with whom you have some sort of beef. You contribute nothing to the blogs that you've subsequently chosen to invade.

In so doing, you simply demonstrate your immaturity - and your general idiocy.

Go start your own blog, devoted to the perceived injustices that you puke up on other parts of the blogosphere.

Ah, but the only way you can get anybody to read your spew is by trying to hijack other people's blogs, isn't it?

Nobody gives a rat's heinie about your issues with one particular blogger, and you obviously have no salient contribution to make to the ongoing discussions in the blogs that you keep trotting into.

As nobody is interested in your personal issues, and as you have nothing to contribute to the topics at hand, your comments are a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

You can do your part to Save The Planet.

You can do that by resolving not to waste energy by trotting from place to place, bitching about some blogger who upset your delicate sensibilities.

On the other hand, your continued postings do serve to illustrate just what the term, "pathetic", actually means. Dictionaries only take you so far, after all.

Anonymous said...


Roadrunner said...

I visit blogs like Rob's because he usually has some solid, thought-provoking commentary.

Like the phony car dealer scandal story that he posted? And refused to own up to, even when presented contrary evidence (as opposed to the evidence-free accusation that he posted).

Yes, I go from blog to blog because those on the right seem to commonly pass on falsehood as if it's truth. I guess they figure, it's worked for Rush, O'Reilly, and Lars, so it will work for me.

The trouble is, people have figured out that the right doesn't care about the country, they only care about getting their way, and will stoop to anything to get it.

Anonymous said...

This guy is kind of like Rip Van Winkle, a communist who fell asleep in around 1952 and woke up after Reagan ousted Carter in 1980. Dude, it's 2009. The Left is The Man now.

MAX Redline said...

Yes, I go from blog to blog because those on the right seem to commonly pass on falsehood as if it's truth. I guess they figure, it's worked for Rush, O'Reilly, and Lars, so it will work for me.

The trouble is, people have figured out that the right doesn't care about the country, they only care about getting their way, and will stoop to anything to get it.

Point #1: This illustrates my earlier observation that the only way you can garner any attention is by running around and trying to hijack other blogs. You're free to start one of your own, but have evidently correctly surmised that nobody would visit to read your drivel.

Point #2: As you talk about being interested only in getting "their way, and will stoop to anything to get it", it occurs to me that you must not own a mirror.

Trolls generally don't.


Roadrunner said...


If I were trying to get attention I would use my real name. I'm trying to keep you guys honest. It's an uphill battle, as you well demonstrate.

You'll notice that when I've posted about the dishonesty on righty blogs, I've posted actual evidence, complete with links where appropriate, as to why it's dishonest.

You, on the other hand, respond to this by attacking the messenger, without addressing the points raised.

Anonymous said...

Your mechanics are all messed up. Hawking leftwing sources in the conservative blogosphere is one of the #1 classic idiot moves on the internet. Duh. Everyone knows that.

You fancy youself some kind of Honesty Cop. But you continually prove yourself to be dishonest.

But all that's OK, because you are providing Republicans the teaching moment needed to figure out the true character of the Left. Keep it up. Folks are catching on.

Roadrunner said...

Hawking leftwing sources

Okay, this is just ridiculous.

Patrick Joubert Conlon, aka "Born Again Redneck" posted something, supposedly from a lefty blogger, that looked fishy to me, so I did a google search on the first phrase. The only hits that came up were his post and others linking to it.

When I posted that fact on a couple of blogs, he took the post down with no comment.

Rob posted allegations about misconduct in the Obama administration. When asked to supply real evidence, Rob was unable to, then denied that what he had posted was an accusation.

So, pointing out the fakery of the right is "hawking leftwing sources."

No wonder you guys are going down the toilet.

Anonymous said...

There's something obvious that blog trolls must not recognize. They must be missing a gene or something, it is so painfully obvious to the rest of us: Nobody believes anything a troll puts out. Thus, "Please don't feed the trolls.

MAX Redline said...

It must be admitted, however, that trolls serve a purpose of sorts, Anon 3:34. They post ridiculous stuff, then claim that any responses generated are ridiculous. They lack the ability to generate a blog following on their own, and they know that.

What this all illustrates is that they are painfully weak inDuhviduals, and it's important the newbies see, and come to recognize, exactly what blogtrolls are all about.

Folks like RR do everyone a service by continually harping upon their allegations, unfounded though they may be. RR and the ilk parade their particular brand of lunacy on the blogs maintained by other folks, and that simply reinforces the fact that they are parasitic in nature.

Personally, I subscribe to the concept of giving folks as much rope as they need. RR probably has enough. He stated Patrick's a liar,.

That should about do it, should the blogger in question choose to pursue legal remedy. RR thinks that by not using a real name, it's all ok. If I were trying to get attention I would use my real name. How silly!

RR's IP address is I can easily track that back to the service provider, and from there, to the actual system which RR uses for trolling.

The trolls provide, in my view, a learning experience for non-lefties. And given enough line, they eventually reel themselves in.

RoadRunner has done just that.

When you call someone a liar, you open the door to legal action. You can't hide behind a name like RR, because you can be tracked to the source. People like RoadRunner don't seem to grasp this basic fact.

It's an interesting shortcoming.

Roadrunner said...


What, Patrick is going to sue me for pointing out that he posted something that appears to be fraudulent, and posting the reason why it appears to be fraudulent?

I thought you righties are against frivolous lawsuits.

Again, if Patrick would have provided a link to the original post, the problem would have been solved. Instead, he removed the questionable post without comment, which just adds to the suspicion.

Can you provide a source? Or do you prefer to threaten legal action instead?

Roadrunner said...

Max, your threat of legal action is just laughable.

1. The truth is an absolute defense against libel. I have only posted true statements.

2. No ISP is going to divulge my identity based on the facts of this case.

3. Patrick has had ample opportunity to defend himself. He has chosen not to. Instead, he's had a surrogate go around and attack me, even though I have only posted true statements regarding his actions.

4. Good luck finding a lawyer to take this case.

5. Any lawsuit would be met with a counter suit. Given that I have only posted true statements, the counter would win.

MAX Redline said...

Little Runner,

Try reading for comprehension. It may be difficult for you, but I feel confident that you can manage it.

I did not, at any time, threaten in any way, shape, or form.

I merely noted facts: fact 1: you have labeled an individual as a liar in public and reproducible comments.

fact 2: should that individual choose to pursue legal recourse, he has a substantial body of prior case law upon which to draw.

fact 3: Your posting address is public record, and you can be easily identified by tracking that record. I have provided this service to others in the past, and I don't need the permission of an ISP to identify the machine. Your address is not dynamic, and if you believe that you can hide behind an anonymous identity when posting, you should adjust your expectations. It really doesn't work that way.

fact 4: At no time have you been "threatened", nor have you been "attacked". Quite the contrary. All that has happened is that the observation has been made that you have opened a door to legal action against you, should the individuals that you have named choose to pursue such action. It has further been noted that, although you have made the statements while hiding behind a username, it's rather a trivial matter to track back to the source.

fact 5: Patrick has had ample opportunity to defend himself. He has chosen not to. Instead, he's had a surrogate go around and attack me,

As you have been told before, you may start your own blog at any time. You have never been attacked, although you have been chided for attempting to hijack other blogs in an effort to divert attention to your pet cause.

That, little Runner, is the sole focus of my attention.

I don't appreciate your distracting efforts.

Should my tracking skills be requested be requested by an aggrieved party, I will provide them.

That is not a threat, it is a fact.

I suggest that you immediately cease the activities in which you have engaged; i.e.: stop attempting to hijack other blogs in order to pursue your agenda.

Roadrunner said...


Look again at my #1--truth is an absolute defense in a libel case.

I have not opened the door to legal action against me--unlike Patrick, I have only posted truthful statements.

I didn't label Patrick a liar, I present the evidence that shows that he's a liar.

If he doesn't want to be labeled a liar, he shouldn't lie. It's that simple.

I have the screen shot of his deleted post, plus of the google searches. The google search that shows no hits except his post.

Roadrunner said...

The pathetic part of this is that Patrick's post was an attempt to smear lefty bloggers as rude and elitist.

But the effect has been to demonstrate that righty bloggers care nothing about the truth, and will attack those who point it out.

It's amazing, Max, that not once have you addressed the issues I've raised about Patrick's post.

Anonymous said...

The truly pathetic part of this is how Roadtroll continually demonstrates how to be a rude, elitist, lefty troll.

When he starts his own blog, I hope he lets us know the address.

MAX Redline said...

Little Runner, try to think coherently for a moment. I understand that you may have difficulty in this regard, but if you really concentrate, I'm sure you can pull it off. We're all rooting for you!

I didn't label Patrick a liar, I present the evidence that shows that he's a liar.

Really, little Runner?


Not on my word. I provided the evidence of his deception.

You've chosen to ignore that. Patrick's a liar, and you're an enabler. Lovely.

9:48 PM

So, little Runner, let me see if I fully understand your point:

You called a blogger a liar before you didn't call him a liar. Does that about sum up your position? Sort of like John (I was for the war before I was against it) Kerry?

You can't really have it both ways, little Runner.

Both of the above posts emanated from you, and quite obviously, they can't both be true. This is a common problem on the Left.

And also typical of the Left is that when such discrepancies are noted, they fall back on the old "victim of attack" canard - as, of course, you so frequently do.

Interestingly, the only reason for your appearance on this and other blogs is to carry out an attack upon another blogger, somewhere else.

Most normal people view blogs as sort of an extension of the blogger's living room. One enters, treats others with respect, and engages in thoughtful discussion.

By contrast, you run in and proceed to crap on the carpet, then demand that people follow your lead.

It's amazing, Max, that not once have you addressed the issues I've raised about Patrick's post.

True - I haven't. That's because you have tried to hijack other blogs with your spew. Therefore, I have presented you with opportunities to express your innate behavior - much as I would do if I were designing an enclosure for monkeys, bats, or lions. And you have responded with illustration after illustration of what, innately, you and your ilk are all about.

You cannot help it, because when you are presented with challenges that are specifically geared to your level, you are wired to respond - as you have repeatedly demonstrated.

Far from "attacking" you, little Runner, I've simply played for a bit; allowing you more opportunities to display exactly what you are. It has been exactly as expected; therefore, it's become boring.

This, therefore, is our farewell. You have performed well, but have simply become repetitive.

Your vendetta has become boring, - and we're no longer interested in your banality.

Bye for now, little one.

Roadrunner said...


Not once have you addressed the issue I raised. Not once.

You are perfectly happy that one of your compadres made a fraudulent post, then removed it as quietly as possible when he was outed.

You are a sad little man.

It's not a vendetta. I'm just pointing out the truth of Patrick Joubert Conlon's behavior. He posted something that all evidence suggests was fraudulent. You've chosen to attack me, rather than hold Patrick accountable.

You are a slimeball. How do you sleep at night?

Anonymous said...

Roadbarf: FYI, it takes one to know one. Always has. That makes you both a liar AND a slimeball. Are you trying to establish yourself as a sought-after Democrat political consultant? Congratulations. Otherwise, your presence here makes little sense.

Roadrunner said...

Note to Anon 10:34:

Despite what you think you've learned listening to Rush and Bill and Lars, name-calling is not a way to win friends and influence people. It just shows that you haven't grown up.

Unfortunately, it seems that a huge portion of right-wing bloggers have chosen to follow their heroes, rather than act like adults.

Anonymous said...

Roadrunner, you are totally 100% busted, dude. 'Liar' and 'Slimeball' are YOUR OWN words. Folks just need to look up a few comments. Now own it. And - better yet - why don't you start your own blog, as has been suggested, and take leave of Rob's readers? You've more than earned the long time out.

Anonymous said...

Hey Roadtroll, did you see this?

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.