Developments in the OEA attack on virtual charters

I think every Oregon citizen should have, as part of his civic education, the experience of closely following a controversial piece of legislation through the legislative process. If more people knew how public policy was actually made, they would be far more able to call bull**** on our publicly elected officials when they try to defend their positions.

As I have chronicled here, the virtual charter school movement in Oregon is doing very well, despite the best efforts of the education establishment to tamp it down. More than 4000 students in Oregon are school VIA one or another on-line charter school organization. The students are doing well compared to the rest of the student population, and the schools cost the taxpayer just about half of what it costs to educate a student in the regular public schools.

Which of course makes them a huge threat to the education establishment - all those alphabet soup groups who believe that the purpose of the public education system is to serve their members.

Seeing the rapid growth and success of this innovative type of schooling, the education bureaucracy and its interest groups want only to kill it. And if they can't kill it, they want to freeze it in its tracks. And while it is frozen, they want to kill it.

At issue currently is SB767, which in its original form was a full frontal assault on virtual charter schools in Oregon. Without going into the gory details, among other things the bill would have simply made it illegal to school elementary aged children on-line, and in doing so would have closed down the largest public elementary school in the state of Oregon.

Yes, Oregon's teacher unions, administrator's association, and the classified employee union had as their express intent closing down the largest public elementary school in the state. It's all about the kids, don't you see.

When they realized their overreach (although they did have a slew of Democrat sponsors for the bill, people such as the senate majority leader Richard Devlin, who apparently will do the bidding of the OEA even if it means shutting the doors on 1500 or so elementary schoolkids all over the state) they backed off a bit, and offered up amendments to their bill.

The amendments passed out of the Senate Education Committee yesterday. The amended bill freezes every virtual charter school in the state at its current enrollment levels, and appoints a committee to consider all sorts of policy issues surrounding virtuals, which will then make a recommendation to the next special session of the legislature.

Of course we have seen these committees before. Who does the amended bill say gets to appoint the committee members? The Democrats. Whose voice do you think might be prevalent on this committee?

So this Democrat appointed committee will supposedly meet over the next few months and figure out some administrative superstructure to oversee virtual schooling in the state of Oregon, and then the special session will take up the issue again.

Meanwhile, every virtual charter school in the state of Oregon operates with a gullotine blade over its neck, because the drop dead date for figuring this stuff out is 6-30-2010. That is the date when every vitual school will be required to comply with the so-called 50% provision, which was enacted by the first OEA attempt to stop virtual schooling, back in 2005.

This bill is a long way from being law, because it looks like it will now go over to another committee, the Rules Committee, for further consideration. It had to get out of the Education Committee because the deadline for bills moving was yesterday. So now it will be in Rules, where guess who is the chair? Senator Dick Devlin.

Here are some questions I wish that legislators who are doing the bidding of the OEA would have to ask: How do you justify freezing enrollment in a legitmate type of public school? How many parents and children are you comfortable turning away from the public school of their choice? Given today's fiscal crisis, why wouldn't you be looking to EXPAND rather than freeze enrollment in lower-cost alternatives to brick and mortar public schools?

These types of questions are never asked. Our legislators never have to justify their actions as part of the public process. They take testimony, sure, but at most they have to sit through some uncomfortable moments as their duplicity is perhaps pointed out. Never do they have to defend their position.

So, hiding behind the gavel, armed with posturing statements on the record that go unchallenged, they quietly do the bidding of those who put them there. If children are hurt? Well, that is just the collateral damage of advancing their political career.

The legislative process is now and always was about who has the most power. Nothing new here, of course. The unions fund Democrat campaigns, and they call the shots when the Democrats are in the majority.

Fine. I get that. But let's not ever let them tell us that they are doing stuff like this for any reason other than that they are told to do it by their masters.

The rotten Appell

I just HAVE to respond to the stuff David Appell wrote in the comment section of one of my posts, because it is just so typical of how the extreme left argues.

I'll do the "my comments in red" thing to his post, below:

David Appell said...
Kremer wrote:
In other words, the problem is, left to pursuing the way we want to live, we don't choose to live the way he envisions. So he wants us to change our culture. A "cultural revolution, you might say.


What an incredibly arrogant statement.

These writers want to change the world no less than you do. And yet you make fun of them and think that your way is the only possible way for humans to live. Straw man argument. I said nothing about "my way being the only possible way for humans to live." In fact, that is what the people I am criticizing are saying!

It is not. Life is very complex and there are many ways of living it. in 500 years our attitudes about many things will look as foolish as do those who lived circa 1500 AD do today, if not more so. This statement is appropos to nothing.

Today's society has good things about it, and things not so good. To boisterously pretend that today's American lifestyle is the only way for people to possibly live is arrogant, ignorant, short-sighted, and lacking in vision. And insecure. Straw man argument again. I never said anything about the American lifestyle being the only way to live.

There are many things good about today's world, to be sure. There are also many things wrong about it, especially in the realm of sustainability and justice.

To pretend otherwise is a form of hubris befitting an ideologue or talk show host, but no one who really things about things in depth. Straw man argument AGAIN! I never "pretended otherwise" about there not being anything wrong about today's world.

There is not nearly sufficient room here to debate this topic, just to criticize the idea that this way is the only way and all other visions are to be denigrated and laughed at. Straw man YET AGAIN!

Which also indicates a very poor understanding of history. And now the phony lecture starts. You see, he is so much better educated than I am, that when I write stuff I reveal my lack of understanding of the world. Of course his education apparently didn't include training in the definition of logical fallacies. Such as non sequitir. Even if I DID claim that the American way of living (whatever that is) is the only way to live, how does that indicate a poor understanding of history? It doesn't follow.

Perhaps Zerzan is not completely right. Perhaps?! This loon actually said that everyone should live in small, agrarian communities, and Appell says maybe he's not "completely right?" Maybe he's only partially right, or just has one or two good ideas. But I also doubt that Kremer is completely right either. Sorry, David, I am completely right that forcing everyone to live the way Zerzan wants is completely wrong.

Kremer's reaction, in fact, seems mostly to be defensive, as if the world could not possibly be any different than it is today. Wow! He managed to actually combine the logical fallacies of straw man and non sequitir in a single sentence! But science clearly shows that we're on a nonsustainable path, and deep down almost every one us knows now that the 21st century will be one of correcting the previous two centuries and putting the world on a green, clean path. Science "clearly shows" no such thing. What exactly is unsustainable? The left loves to talk about sustainability, but it is never defined. Bottom line, it means: live the way we want you to live." David can you enlighten me about exactly what is unsustainable on the path we are on? Please be specific.

Kremer -- as a blogger or as a talk-show host -- has shown little understanding of the complexities of today's life If I were as intellectual as David, maybe I would be able to comprehend complex stuff. But then maybe I too would be unemployed. and seems mostly interested in honing to an extreme path that gets him the most viewers/readers. This is, sadly, a loss for the entire world.


Later, David had to chime in with this little nugget:

David Appell said...
Rob Kremer wrote: Tort law, for one. However, I support government regulations in the case of negative externalities.... This is a far, far cry from "redesigning our social and economic life." That is totalitarian, pure and simple.


Only a very spoiled, well-fed American could equate today's attempts at regulation with "totalitarianism." Here we go again. Straw man. I didn't equate 'today's attempts at regulation with totalitarianism. I said Beebe's notion that we should "redesign our social and economic life" was totalitarian. And it is.

Even trying to do so indicates a very weak understanding of history. OK now for his history lecture. I wonder if he is aware that "redesigning social and economic life" is PRECISELY what Mao did in the cultural revolution, what Lenin/Stalin did in Russia, and what every single socialist/communist regime had to do to impose the system on their people.

Rob, you might try reading anything Solzhenitsyn, victim of Stalin redesign efforts especially "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" or even "Cancer Ward," or some of Wiesel's victim of Hitler's redesign most famous works. Or simply rent "The Killing Fields" victims of Pol Pot's redesign efforts if reading is too much effort for you. Love the condescension, David. Odd that he is making my argument, isn't it? Then you might see what real totalitarianism is like.
You hideously insult such true survivors by comparing your situation to theirs. Comparing my situation to theirs? What is he talking about? I said nothing about "my situation." I am making the argument that when people want to use government to "redesign society" as Beebe and Zerzan want to do, it is inherently totalitarian. And each of those people he lists were victims of exactly what I am referring to. Can he possibly actually miss that point, and think that I was saying that I am a victim right now of totalitarianism? Does he have a reading comprehension problem?

You should, frankly, be ashamed. Actually I am a bit ashamed.


The funny thing about David is he continues to make stuff up that in his mind he somehow thinks I wrote, and then proceeds to debate it. It's not like it's just one time - he does it again and again. Over and over he argues straw men.

It's like he has these demons he debates in his mind, and he comes on the blog and imagines that I wrote all those things his demons said to him, and he argues it out on the blog!

It is really quite funny.

Defazio on Cap & Trade

There are a lot of things I like about Congressman Peter DeFazio. For one, when he speaks you have little doubt about what he means and thinks. I appreciate that in a politician, because it is very rare.

On the issue of Cap & Trade, he sees clearly (and criticizes) what others either fail to see, or what they actually see as a benefit.

He spoke to Willamette Week recently, and said this:

"It [Cap & Trade] is just infinitely game-able," he said, relating how Europe is now trading in "carbon futures" that give industries additional emission permits now in exchange for, say, trees that may or may not be planted in the future.

"These financial people, I mean, they are very smart people and they can figure out a way to monetize anything and it would just be nuts to go down that path."

The congressman is absolutely right about the games that would be played with a carbon credit trading system. The rent-seekers would be out in full force, and there would be plenty of opportunity for all of them.

Starting with the original baseline emissions measures, which would form the cap level. You think there might be some shenanigans by all the regulated entities when their reported emissions from some baseline year is used to determine how many carbon credits they receive, some of which will be granted to them rather than auctioned?

You think there might be some games played with the offset market? We ALREADY have ludicrous examples of phony offset schemes, the effect of which are never measured or monitored.

Guess who was the biggest proponent of Cap & Trade back in the 1990's when the Kyoto Protocols were first debated and agreed upon at the UN Climate Conferences?

Enron.

They KNEW there would be billions to be made by making a market in these credits. They lobbied Clinton hard, spent millions in DC trying to get the treaty signed and a C&T system in place.

Defazio says if we want to reduce CO2, just limit it like we do other pollutants. I disagree with him that it is desireable to limit CO2 in the first place, but he is absolutely correct that establishing a Cap & Trade scheme to reduce CO2 is really just paying off the moneyed interests that have sucked off of government regulatory schemes forever.

Earth Day brings out the loons

Today is that great pagan holiday, Earth Day.

It's a day when the state's newspapers are obligated to pretend that extreme environmental looneys are mainstream, and so we get treated with articles and op-ed contributions that reveal some of their more breathtaking nihilism.

For instance, check out this front-page story in the Oregonian that explains how great our deep recession is for the environment. Landfill garbage is down 16% and air pollution is down too. Turns out if we just produce less and less, there will be less waste product! Why didn't we think of that before?

Answer: the enviro-loons HAD thought of this before. In fact, for some, that is their end game!

From the article:

"The less industrial production, the better for the natural world -- that's quite obvious," says John Zerzan, a Eugene-based writer and activist. "Do we want a big recession? No, we don't. But the whole model is a loser -- a no-win thing to me." Zerzan says it's time for a full retreat from global society to small communities based on an agrarian way of life.

Pick a century - say, the 12th. Is that about the lifestyle you have in mind for us all, Mr. Zerzan? Has he himself "fully retreated" from global society? Or did the Oregonian perhaps talk to him on his cell phone?

Meanwhile, over on the editorial page, we get a fuller explanation of the enviro-designers aims. Some guy named Spencer Beebe, who runs an outfit called "Eco-trust," tells us that the challenge of Earth Day is to "define the operating rules of a new era."

I don't know about you, but my skin crawls when I hear environmentalists say things like this. Scratch a greenie and he bleeds totalitarian. What does he mean?

Luckily, he is more than happy to explain:

"The goal must be to participate -- to innovate, invest and inspire -- in the wholesale redesign of our social and economic life to create resilient regional economies that can compete successfully worldwide."

Wholesale redesign of our social and economic life? Thank you, Mr. Beebe, but I will take a pass on letting you decide how to redesign our society. Apparently the thought never crossed his mind how frightening it would be if ANY entity, government or otherwise, had the power to "redesign" our social and economic life.

He goes on to blather about the usual greenie wish list: a $100 per barrell floor on oil, renewable energy, mass transit, compact cities, etc. Nothing new there.

He concludes with a clarion call that is standard fare for enviroloons. The problem, he says, isn't that we don't know how to achieve his "wholesale redesign." "The challenges are not principally money and technology, but culture."

In other words, the problem is, left to pursuing the way we want to live, we don't choose to live the way he envisions. So he wants us to change our culture. A "cultural revolution, you might say.

How did that work out for Mao?

Soccer/baseball stadium house of cards revealed

There is a terrific piece of journalism in the Oregonian today spelling out the details of the Paulson family "guarantee" for the soccer/baseball stadium deals.

The reporter is Helen Jung. I dealt with Helen a couple summers ago when I was involved with the Blazer deal, and I found her to be an absolute professional who took pains to get the story right and explain it in a way that was easily understood.

The bottom line: the supposed guarantee the Paulsons have given Portland are sufficient to cover about one-sixth of the bonded indebtedness the city will have to take on for this deal. In addition, the pro-forma financials for the baseball and soccer operations were put together by Ms. Rosy Scenario herself, and the consultant the city paid $39,000 to analyze the deal had rudimentary math errors that materially changed the result.

In other words - a typical Portland deal.

The only think non-typical about the whole thing is that the Oregonian now has a real reporter covering the story, and she has laid bare the elements of this financial farce in a way that I would think could not be ignored.

OK, I admit I was chuckling when I wrote that last part. OF COURSE they will ignore it!

An incredible exchange over at BlueOregon

BlueOregon had a post about the death penalty today. I posted something off-topic in the comments section. I have been curious lately what BlueOregon types think of shutting down Oregon's virtual charter schools. So I posted the following:

"This question is about a death penalty of a different sort...

I am interested in the opinion of BlueOregon folks on the attempt by the OEA and the rest of the education establishment to shut down Oregon's virtual charter schools.

The bill is SB 767, sponsored by OEA, COSA, AFT, OSEA and a slew of Democratic legislators. I was hoping at some point BlueOregon would address this issue. There are 4000 students in these public schools right now. I know this is off topic, but do "progressives" support shutting down public schools like these?"

I thought that was pretty darn respectful. I knew it was off topic, so might be deleted. But what I didn't expect was the type of response I got from one of the regular commenters there, who goes by the screen name LT.

LT apparently read something other that what I posted. I'll post some excerpts from his response, along with my comments in red:

"And Rob Kremer, not only are you off topic, but did you really mean to imply that OEA makes decisions for COSA which stands for Confederation of School Administrators?" No, LT, I don't see where you can possibly conclude that from what I wrote. The fact is, OEA and COSA are both sponsors (technically, both requested) the bill. That is what they call a fact. I didn't imply anything about OEA making decisions for COSA. They jointly support lots of bills in the legislature.

"Is COSA allowed to express their concerns or is anyone on the opposite side from you in a debate a dupe of the big bad teachers union?" Again, who said anything about COSA being a dupe? Where did he get this?

"What is it you do for a living these days?" Not sure why this is relevant or what it is intended to imply. "Why should we take your side in a debate if we didn't vote for you when you ran for office? Because you say so?" I never said anyone should take my side in a debate. I simply said I am interested in the opinion of BlueOregon folks! But to answer the question ... why should someone side with me in this debate? Maybe because he agrees with me? Wouldn't that be a good reason? Even if that person voted against me in 2002? Or does LT think that if you voted against someone at some point in time, you are therefore prohibited from ever agreeing with him on anything?

"To say that anyone who supports or even wants an open discussion of SB 767 is doing the bidding of the OEA when COSA is also a sponsor of the bill would strike some people as the same level of intellectual dishonesty as "A truly prolife person believes in the death penalty as well as being an abortion opponent". This is remarkably incoherent. I don't even really know where to start with it. It begins with a premise that I never said, and then lurches into an analogy that makes no sense. Read it again - you have to marvel at the type of mind that could write something like this!

"What we need is an atmosphere (on this issue, Kremer's issue, or any other issue) where people can ask questions and look at facts without being called names." The irony here of course is that I very respectfully did what he suggests - I asked a question! Then LT writes that scathingly incoherent response, followed by a lecture on keeping a respectful atmosphere!

I don't know who this person LT is, but I am guessing that he doesn't like me very much.

Typical mainstream media reporting

So there were Tea Party protests all over the state yesterday. Big ones at the Capitol at noon, and at Pioneer Courthouse Square in the evening.

I was unable to make either one because of a luncheon commitment for Congressman Greg Walden and a baseball game in the eve. But congrats to my good friends KPAM talk show host Victoria Taft, who got thousands to turn up for the Portland event, and Russ Walker of FreedomWorks, who spearheaded the Salem event.

In The Funny Paper story today, the reporting was more than typical. It was almost a caricature of what we have all come to expect from the paper.

Right off the bat, we were told that the rally wasn't real. Fifth or sixth paragraph, the editorializing began:

"The tea parties were hailed as a grass-roots uprising by their organizers, which included FreedomWorks, a Washington D.C.-based group headed by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Democrats, however, dismissed the grass-roots nature of the rally as AstroTurf."

No, the Tea Parties weren't ACTUAL "grass-roots uprisings," they were just "hailed" by their "organizers" which were "DC-based" organizations led by "Dick Armey."

Hard to imagine more code words packed into a single sentence. Nice job with the neutral reportage, Jeanne Har. Sheesh!

The Funny Paper INSISTS on characterizing the Oregon Chapter of FreedomWorks as a DC-based organization. Is FreedomWorks headquartered in DC? Yes. Does it have an active Oregon chapter, with tens of thousands of members? Obviously.

Is it an "astroturf" organization? This is the term they use anytime they want to deligitimize the authenticity of opposition. An "astroturf" organization is a fake grass roots effort that doesn't really have broad-based support.

In a city the size of Portland, anytime more than a thousand or so people attend a rally or political event, that cannot possibly be an "astroturf" organization BY DEFINITION. So when The Funny Paper takes such pains to point out that "critics" are using the dismissive epithet "astroturf," you can rest assured that you are reading the official position of the newspaper, and not authentic reporting.

To put a finer point on it: I can think of another "DC-based" organization with tens of thousands of Oregon members, but I can't recall ever once The Funny Paper referring to it as an AstroTurf organization: The National Education Association.

The local affiliate, the OEA, is constantly involved in organizing protests and rallies for such things as raising taxes and increasing school funding. Have you ever once read in a single article anything resembling the statement that the OEA is an "astroturf" organization because its national affiliate is in DC?

Me neither.

Eradicating opportunity

Unemployment has doubled in six months. We sit at 12.1%, and the political class in Oregon has no clue. No clue at all that its policies are the CAUSE of Oregon's #1 national rank in the one statistic no one wants to lead.

It's not as if this is the first time. Oregon was tops in unemployment in the last recession, and was the last state to recover. For aalmost 20 years, from the early 1980s to 2000, the Intel-led boom in Oregon's silicon forest papered over the fact that Oregon government policies have made us uncompetitive.

We destroyed tens of thousands of jobs in natural resource industry. We drove up the cost of energy, one of Oregon's few competitive advantages. We turned a functioning transportation system into a congested nightmare. We taxed business success at the highest rate in the nation. We put in place a land use planning system that put the private sector at the mercy of planning bureaucrats. We grew the least efficient public education system in the country. And we burdened the taxpayer with an unsustainable public pension system that allows 52 year old gym teachers to retire with guaranteed $75,000 a year payments.

And now our economy is in meltdown. Color me shocked.

The government's response? Create the "next big industry" through government-directed subsidies and taxes on energy. Oppose new sources of energy such as LNG. Spend billions on 19th century rail transportation systems. Allow the education establishment to attack the most innovative, efficient new approach to schooling yet devised. Raise taxes on health insurance and hospitals to grow the government-directed health plan. Demand a gross-receipts tax on business that would tax the private sector whether it was profitable or not.

You know what pisses me off more than anything about all this? They have DESTROYED this great state, and my children are not going to have opportunity here. When they are both graduated from college in four years, living here will simply not be an option.

The government class has eradicated opportunity.

Thanks for nothing.

They really believe they shouldn't have to compete

The Corbett School District is a little 700 student enclave in East County, wedged between much larger school districts such as Reynolds, David Douglass, and Sandy.

Corbett just happens to be doing quite well. They've developed some innovative programs over the years, and lots of people want to send their kids there - even if they don't live in the Corbett School District.

In Oregon, if you want to send you kid to a school in a district other than the one you live in, you have to go on bended knee to your local school district bureaucrat, who gets to decide on the educational future of your child. They can deny your request for any reason at all. If they say "yes," then the money that would otherwise be allocated to your resident district (about $6,000) goes instead to the district your want you kid to attend.

Corbett School District, according to a story in today's Oregonian, has about 100 students attending on this "inter-district transfer" arrangement.

But in today's difficult fiscal situation, many of the districts who have previously approved these students attending Corbett schools are now saying they will no longer do so. So the parents face the prospect of being forced to move their kids back to their resident school district schools (they do have the option of paying tuition to send their kids to Corbett.)

But Corbett School District pulled a fast one. It realized that if its schools were changed into charter schools, then their students could attend them without needing permission from their local bureaucrats. So that's what they did.

Which has their neighboring school districts pissed off. They don't want to have to compete - they want to be able to trap kids in their schools. And here is Corbett, using a legal loophole to allow them to continue attacting their students! Competing against them!

How unfair is that?

From the story:

"I don't think that was the intent of the charter district law, to circumvent the interdistrict transfer procedure," said Reynolds Superintendent Robert Fisher "I'm really puzzled by it."

Actually, Sup't Fisher, that is the PRECISE reason the charter school law was passed - to put some competition into the public school system. The problem for most school district administrators is that they don't want to compete, and deep down they know their schools CAN'T compete.

As the article pointed out, when the Oregon Trail (Sandy) School District decided last year to stop allowing inter-district transfers, the board chairman at the time said:

"We have a fiduciary duty here. If we let everyone go hither and yon, we're not going to have much of a school district left."

In other words, "So many people think our schools are inferior compared to neighboring schools, that if we allow them all to leave, we'd be out of business. So we HAVE to trap them. It's our duty to the people employed by our district."

This, at its core, is the bottom line argument against school choice of all forms. There's a huge debate right now about virtual charter schools. Those looking to limit the growth of virtuals, or kill them altogether, are essentially making the same argument:

"Please deny kids the education option of their choice, because our interests are threatened by the choices they would make."

For Nick Adenhart

This was written by a man I know who runs the most influential amateur baseball scouting organization in the country. I post it here because I know he would want me to.

I just can't quite wrap my mind around the fact this young man died last night in a car wreck, murdered, apparently, by a drunk hit-and-run driver. I speak regularly with his step-dad, and we share developments about our sons. For several years I have heard first hand of Nick's progress through Tommy John Elbow surgery, rehab, and rise through the minors and sitting at the cusp of MLB.

Last year they hoped he would stay on the Angels MLB roster. But he was called up early in the year for three starts, then sent back down. And he had a horrrible year at the AAA level last summer.

But they knew he was a top prospect. He had a great spring training this year, and the Angels not only kept him on the opening day roster, but they put him in the starting rotation.

And so his first start was last night. He went six scoreless innings. Hours later, he was dead. Horrible. I cannot imagine what Janet and Duane are going through, and I hope I never learn.



Nick Adenhart, By Jerry Ford

Nick Adenhart was born August 24th, 1986. He left us this morning April 9th, 2009.

The brightest of futures cut short by a reckless driver. One of the best young men we have ever met, a great example for young kids taken from this world at the age of 22.

We loved Nick Adenhart! Our prayers go out to his entire family and the many others who were part of Nick Adenhart’s life.

Looking Back In 2003 we saw a young high school pitcher from Maryland throw in Jupiter, Fla. at the PG WWBA Championship. There had to be more than 100 scouts watching the game which was played on the furthest field in the complex. Nick was pitching for the All Star Baseball Academy against Eric Hurley that day. Two of the top pitching prospects in the country going head to head. Both were in the 2003 Aflac Game for the East team. We went on to rank Nick our #1 prospect in the 2004 class.

Then in the spring high school season of 2004, Nick suffered a serious arm injury shortly before the draft and underwent Tommy John surgery. A sure first round pick before the injury, he ended up going in the 14th round where the Angels selected him. Nick still ended up signing as the Angels paid him according to his skill even though he would have to rehab for the first year. Hurley ended up being drafted by the Royals in the first round.

Nick Adenhart was 94 mph that day in Jupiter and showed three plus pitches with great command. Hurley also threw well topping out at 93 mph. Later Nick played across the street from Perfect Game headquarters with the Cedar Rapids Kernels (Angels A League team). He was on the fast track to the Big Leagues. His dad would stop and visit with us every time he came to town. Nick was a great example of just how talent, persistence and class can be combined in one person.

Of course Nick did end up pitching in the Major Leagues for the Angels. In fact, he pitched his very last game last night. He threw 6 shutout innings against the Oakland A’s. One of the few hits Nick gave up was to Ryan Sweeney who grew up right here at Perfect Game. We were expecting greatness for Nick Adenhart because he was so talented and such a great example for baseball.

Then came the gut wrenching news that Nick Adenhart is no longer with us. He died in a car accident last night. Hit and run broadside! Once again, a stark reminder that there are many more important things than baseball.

It is impossible to type this with dry eyes. It’s a very sad day! Opening night at the ballpark tonight. I’m supposed to throw out the first pitch. The ballpark is now named Perfect Game Field.

Supposed to be a happy occasion. Not now! There are things that are so much more important. Sure there will be a moment of silence. That just doesn’t seem like anywhere near enough. Who cares about baseball at a time like this? Yesterday we lost our battle to try to keep the University of Northern Iowa baseball program from being dropped. That doesn’t seem to be as important today.

Please pray for Nick Adenhart and his family.

A really horrible tragedy

If you follow baseball, you may have seen the news. A terrific young ballplayer who just this season broke into the starting rotation for the Los Angeles Angels, died last night in a car accident just hours after his first start of the season.

His name is Nick Adenhart. I know his mom and dad. Last summer I sat with his mom in PGE park as he pitched a game against the Beavers.

I am so sad about this. Nick was a terrific young man. He was on the cusp of the majors for two years, had three starts for the Angels last season when one of their pitchers was on the DL. He had a great spring training and made the opening day roster, pitching his first start last night where he went 6 full innings with no earned runs.

Hours later he was dead, victim of a hit and run driver who ran a red light.

I can only imagine what his parents, Jan and Duane are going through. They are really wonderful people. They live in the Chicago area. Jan's brother is a HS football coach in the Seattle area.

I am honestly close to tears as I write this.

Unimaginable Stupidty

Only in Oregon. Things look different here. We love dreamers.

We especially love government bureaucrats and government programs that flush millions of public funds down the toilet.

Here's the deal, as detailed in today's Portland Tribune article. The Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit program gives tax credits to businesses that invest in various energy saving projects, everything from hybrid vehicles to replacing windows.

Now, this in itself is a waste of money, because if these investments actually paid for themselves in terms of the energy they saved, there wouldn't be a need for a tax incentive to do it. But let's leave that aside for a moment.

The REAL waste of money comes because the program also gives a tax credit to government agencies that make these types of investments. What's that you say? Why would a government agency need a tax credit? They pay no taxes!

Exactly! So what do the agencies do with the credits? They sell them to businesses and individuals who have a tax liability, for a pretty darn steep discount. Tens of millions of dollars in these discounts happen every year as government agencies sell the tax credits granted to them by the same government.

How idiotic! To illustrate, let me use some numbers, hypothetical, but it will illustrate how stupid this is:

• Gov't agency buys 25 hybrid vehicles for its fleet, total cost $1 million.
• Dep't of Energy gives gov't agency $500K in "tax credits."
• Gov't agency sells the credits to US Bank for $350K.
• Loss to state in tax receipts: $150K

Now, if the state of Oregon wants to give incentives for its agencies to make these kind of investments (which are wrongheaded anyway, since they don't save as much money as they cost) it should just give the "credit" of $500K from the general fund straight to the agency's budget.

Then all the state would lose would be the dollars on the bad investment.

As it stands, we don't just spend this money inefficiently by giving these incentives, but we also get a "haircut" on the tax credits that amounts, cumulatively, to tens of millions of dollars in foregone tax receipts.

This could be changed OVERNIGHT by simply replacing the tax credit granted government agencies with a "budget credit" from the general fund. You would think, with all the caterwauling about the budget crisis, that they might want to make this simple change.

So who benefits? It is a giveaway to whoever buys the credits - mostly financial institutions, but the credits can be used by individuals as well. The rate of return on buying these credits at the discount and applying them to your tax liability is in the neighborhood of 20%!

Good job to the Portland Tribune for bringing this up.

Bio-fools

Willamette Week's cover story this week chronciles the rapid failure of the big Columbia County biofuels plant, Cascade Grain. Nigel Jaquiss does a great job detailing the events and market conditions that led to the failure of this $200 million project just seven months after it opened.

Guess who ends up holding a large part of the bag? You and me. The state of Oregon lent the company $20 million, and it got all sorts of tax credits ($13 million) as well as about $30 million in infrastructure improvements around the facility.

Poof!

Our elected representatives were so sure that biofuels was the next big thing, and Oregon had to take the lead. Sen. Jackie Dingfelder led the charge in the 2007 session to require 10% ethanol in Oregon gasoline, and giving all sorts of incentives for production.

And it took only seven months for the states largest investment ever in ethanol production to completely disappear. Great job.

Has anyone learned a lesson? HA! Remember: this is Oregon, where nothing succeeds like failure. So says the Governor's "expert" on energy:

Dave Van’t Hof, Kulongoski’s point man on energy and environment issues, says the governor believes the subsidies for Cascade and the ethanol mandate were good decisions and he would do nothing differently.

“We’re staying the course,” Van’t Hof says. “We’re not going to win on every investment, but on average we’re going to get a positive return.”

This is what happens when people who have zero understanding of markets and business decide that they are smarter than the markets. We get to pay for their colosssal mistakes. And they declare victory.

Again, Nigel Jaquiss writes the story that the Oregonian failed to write. They must be getting used to it.

The OEA to kids: "Don't go to public school!"

A couple weeks ago I quoted an education establishment official who argued that bringing kids into the public school system was bad, because it caused slices of the K-12 funding pie to be thinner.

In a hearing this week on SB767, which is the education establishment's attempt to kill virtual schools in Oregon, Laurie Wimmer, the lobbyist for the Oregon Education Association (Oregon's teachers union) made the same argument.

She said:

"And, in the case of the state school fund, those funds are allocated by Ways and Means based on an assumption about how many students are coming to the brick and mortar public schools and the state school fund is distributed accordingly and what happens when homeschoolers enroll in one of these programs (and most if not all of them are in fact homeschoolers, some of them come out of public programs,) in effect they are taking money that was allocated to a district for one set of students and re-routing that money for other kids and so that’s what I mean by advantaging some at the expense of the many."

First, she is wrong to say "most if not all of them [virtual charter school students] are homeschoolers." At Connections Academy, fewer than half the enrolled students were previously home schooled.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Is it the OEA's position that parents who currently homeschool their children should NOT have the option to put their kids in a public school? I can't read this statement any other way.

This statement was made in testimony to the Senate Education Committee, so it wasn't just a casual conversation. It represents the OEA's argument for a bill that they requested. Therefore the statement reflects the teachers union's official position.

If not, the OEA is free to correct Ms. Wimmer by repudiating her testimony. Until such time, we can spread the word that the OEA wants to deny tens of thousands of Oregon taxpaying families the option of sending their kids to public schools.

I think we need a new slogan for the OEA. From time to time they run TV ads and buy billboards trying to convince the public that they care about kids. Their tag line is:

"Working wonders for public education."

Any thoughts on what might be a more accurate slogan for them? I'll get the contest started. How about:

"Making sure public education works .... for us."

Your submissions are invited!

Easiest question ever!

I had to laugh at the headline of the article on the front page of the the Oregonian today.

So where do YOU want MAX to stop?

Gee, I have an idea. How about we stop right now? We've already wasted about $10 billion.

These people teach our children!

The teachers union struck back today with a letter-to-the-editor responding to Elizabeth Hovde's column Sunday which criticized the OEA for trying to kill the Oregon Connections Academy.

There is so much in the letter that is just idiotic and inane, I thought the best thing to do was to deconstruct it a bit, and point out the fallacies, non-sequitirs and demagoguery. As you read it, keep in mind that these people represent our TEACHERS. They spend every day with Oregon's kids. Is this an example of the quality of their thinking?

As you enjoy each example of flawed logic and deception, it is obvious that truth means nothing to these folks. It is simply about their own power and control.

My inserted commets will be in RED, just for ease of reading.

Vitual schools oversight
On Sunday, conservative columnist Elizabeth Hovde chided the Oregon Education Association for fighting for accountability, taxpayers and students [Here it begins... The OEA's attempt to shut down the largest elementary school in the state of Oregon is their idea of fighting for students! And fighting for accountability? Are you kidding me? The union stridently oppose ANY attempt to hold teachers accountable for student learning!];

...as opposed to siding with out-of-state corporations who profit off of Oregon's virtual charter schools. [You knew they couldn't wait for the second paragraph to roll out the "for profit out of state" scare card. First, ORCA is not "for profit." It is an Oregon non-profit corporation. Second, I suppose all curriculum companies that sell textbooks to our public schools are in-state non-profits? How about computer equipment companies? Or how about the union dues that get sent to NEA headquarters? Does that money stay in state?] ("Why should successful online public school bow to union?")

Her position lessens public accountability and is not supported by research. [I love it - "not supported by research..." And then she proceeds to discuss exactly zero research! Nor does she explain anything about how ORCA lessens accountability. For the union, accountability means "control by the union."]

Due to the ongoing economic crisis, Oregon public schools are faced with the painful choice of cutting instructional days, laying off teachers or eliminating quality education opportunities. [Interesting, isn't it, that ORCA isn't cutting days or eliminating its programs during this financial crisis. It is far more efficient than the union-run schools. ORCA spends, on average just about half the dollars per-student that the regular public schools spend. One would think if they were really interested in getting the most bang out of the educational dollar in Oregon that they would embrace virtual schooling. But then when did the teachers union ever want bang for the buck?]

The last thing we need is to spend limited taxpayer dollars on virtual programs that do not provide equal access to all students, [Is there any school in the state that provides "equal access" to all students? I am not sure what this means. If anything, virtual schools allow access to a public school option for lots of kids who had no access before. To claim virtuals reduce educational equity is ridiculous.]

...lack accountability for student achievement [ORCA is far, far more accountable for student achievement than any traditional district operated school. And guess what? Its students are succeeding. Latest test scores have ORCA students beating the state averagy by 9 points on reading. And remember - it is doing this with about half the per-student dollars!]

and go unregulated. [Another bald faced lie. Unregulated! This school has more oversight than any public school in the state. An annual audit, an annual third party evaluation, an annual third party parent survey (which shows about 95% satisfaction) and ODE regulators breathing down their backs at every turn. The OEA just says this stuff knowing it is false, but they think it sounds good. Truth is rarely their companion.]

To prevent this, the Oregon Education Association is part of a coalition supporting common-sense regulations [Here is the centerpiece of their "common sense regulation:" Their bill, SB767, would SHUT DOWN the K-6 grades of ORCA, eliminating the largest public elementary school in the state of Oregon. ]

...of for-profit corporations that operate publicly-funded online charter schools in Oregon. [Another lie. There are no for-profit corporations operating online charter schools in Oregon. ORCA is a non-profit corporation. All the teachers and staff are employees of the non-profit. It contracts with the for-profit service provider for curriculum, the learning system, etc. Just like other public schools buy all sorts of stuff from evil for-profit (out of state, even!) textbook publishers. The OEA knows this, but they would rather demagogue and lie to taint ORCA with what they think is the unpopular private sector association.]

The nation has seen what happens when corporations go unregulated. [More demagoguery. ORCA is highly regulated, and is not a for-profit corporation.]

Oregon taxpayers can't afford to be paying bonuses to out-of-state CEOs at the expense of our public schools. [Yet more ridiculous demagoguery, intended of course to impugn ORCA somehow with the bonuses paid to AIG. What bonuses is ORCA paying to out-of-state CEO's? None, of course. I do seem to remember a lot of payouts to various public school district "CEO's" when they get fired. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!]

We believe that charter schools can facilitate new and creative ways of teaching and learning. [Which of course is why they have tried to kill charters every single legislative session since the original bill - which they opposed - passed!]

We do not believe, however, that Oregon should sacrifice equity, accountability and transparency in the process. [In other words, we believe that union dominated traditional public schools, the same for everyone, with no consequences for providing a lackluster product, is the best thing for ... our members.]

The Oregon Legislature should approve Senate Bills 767 and 881 to ensure the educational quality of Oregon's virtual schools [By killing them.]

and to provide the necessary oversight of out-of-state corporations looking to do business. [Can we get the word "corporation" in here one more time?]

Oregon students deserve equal access to [union-controlled] public education and Oregon taxpayers deserve to know that their tax dollars are invested in the [union-controlled] classroom -- virtual or not.

GAIL RASMUSSEN Vice President, Oregon Education Association [The Teachers Union] Southwest Portland

The fault line they just won't cross

We had a very interesting meeting yesterday. It was also very revealing.

The meeting was between representatives of The Oregon Connections Academy (ORCA) and a sub-committee of the State Board of Education. The meeting was supposed to be a "negotiation" over the terms and conditions of a possible waiver that ORCA has requested from the State Board.

The waiver being sought is from a provision of the charter law that was intended to kill on-line charter schools, called the 50% provision. The Oregonian's new columnist explained the issue this Sunday in her column, and last week the Willamette Week made the teachers union the Rogue of the Week because of their part in trying to kill virtual charter schools.

I put the word "negotiation" in scare quotes because what transpired was not anything that resembled the give and take of a true negotiation. Our side laid out our proposal for the conditions we would accept for the waiver. (We would accept a cap on total enrollment, and we would allow the resident school district of the child to be able to deny the child's enrollment, as long as there were specific criteria for any denial, and as long as there was a route to appeal that denial at the State level.)

The State Board sub-committee listened to our proposal (which they had already had for weeks in writing) and then told us what they would and would not accept, which we are then free to take or leave.

Some negotiation. No give and take at all. No requirement that the State justify its position with any rational reason, or any chance for us to challenge the reasons they did give. Just "thank you for your proposal, we find most of it untenable, so if you want the waiver on our terms, then fine."

And the best part, where the fault line was exposed, was in the State's refusal to allow parents to choose the school for their children. The subcommittee said the school districts must be able to deny a child's enrollment in ORCA, and THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL ALLOWED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

For three years we have heard from the State Board of Education how important school choice is, how they support virtual schools, etc. But when push comes to shove, they WILL NOT empower the parents over the district bureaucrats. They still want a bureaucrat's judgment to overrule the parent's judgment.

Sure, they think virtual schooling and charter schools are great. But they want the school district hegemony to remain intact. If thousands of students are denied access to the schools their parents want for them, well, that is just too bad. We have to protect the education establishment.

Very sad.

Spring break is over

My wife and I spent the week in Phoenix to watch my son play baseball games with his high school team on their annual spring break trip. Here are some thoughts that occurred to me on the trip, disconnected as they may be:

Phoenix is a town that seems to function reasonably well, despite the fact that it is ground zero for the mortgage/real estate bubble. Our games took us to every corner of the metro region, so I was able to get a good look at the local situation.

There were LOTS of new subdivisions with apparently vacant homes. We played a game in Goodyear, AZ, a town that looks as though it was created from scratch about three weeks ago. A great big school complex, with a baseball field next to a brand new subdivision. It was a night game, and when the sun went down, lots of the houses were dark. A telltale sign.

I was sitting next to a friend, another father on our team, who runs a large Portland based construction company. He said that Goodyear was "ground zero" of the mortgage collapse. He pointed to the subdivision, and said "Look at that - all those houses - sub-prime mortgages. No one could afford those houses but they got the loans anyway."

A strip mall nearby had a big banner flapping in the wind: "Free Rent!"

I like the city of Phoenix, because it represents everything that the Portland planning culture detests. It is car oriented, and they are serious about trying to get people moved where they want to go in the transportation method of choice: the automobile.

The prevailing attitude of the political class seems to be: "Hmmm, people will want to drive here, so let's build the road capacity to make it possible." This as opposed to Metro's attitude, which is: "How do WE, the planners, want people to get around? Let's make it uncomfortable to do it any other way."

Spring break in Phoenix means spring training baseball. We saw the Mariners play the Dodgers in the new Dodgers/White Sox facility, Camelback Ranch Stadium. Great place to watch a game. We saw Manny Ramirez hit a bomb. Spring training games are more fun to watch than regular season games, because the environment is so much more intimate and relaxed. Less hassle getting in and out, and much easier to be close to the ball field.

I also got a chance to play golf. My good buddy former Blazer Terry Porter recently joined the ranks of the "unemployed," and he treated me to a round at his club, the Arizona Country Club. Terrific golf course. Terry's golf game has come a long way since the days I played with him in the mid 1990's when he lived here. Give a world class athlete the time to develop an athletic skill like golf, especially a guy like Terry, who is methodical and serious in his approach - and he's going to get good.

Terry is now about a 6 or 7 handicap. He shot a 78 on this pretty darn tough course. I shot, well, higher. It was my first round of the year, in my defense. I did have more birdies than him, though!

So spring break is over, and that means:
1) the legislative session will be in full bloom. About halfway over, and so things that are going to move will start moving. I'll be fighting the OEA's plans to shut down virtual charter schooling in Oregon, and that battle is just getting heated up. Hearings start on April Fools Day.

2) The high school baseball regular season starts this week. It is my boy's last time through. I can hardly believe he is a senior. So he has already had his "last first game of the year," and now comes his "last first league game of the year," and then his "last first playoff game of the year."

In just a few short weeks he will play his last last baseball game of his high school career. I am in absolutely no hurry to watch that game.

And then he will move on. And move out. Summer baseball this summer, and then off to Duke to play baseball in the ACC, the nation's toughest baseball conference. (Sorry PAC-10, it is true. Look at the data.)

This will be his last summer at home. In Division 1 college baseball, the players are assigned a summer baseball team to play for, in a woodbat league somewhere in the country. It is not going to be easy not getting to see him play every game.

But, that is life. Spring break is over!

Oregon School Administrators: keep kids out of public schools!

The Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) is one of the "big three" education establishment groups in Oregon. Its membership consists of, as its name would suggest, public school principals and superintendents. They, along with the teachers union (OEA) and the school boards association (OSBA) are very influential in Salem when the legislature takes up matters of school policy.

In a recent article in the Woodburn Independent, a COSA official actually argued that it is a bad thing to bring more kids into Oregon public schools! What a great advocate for public schools COSA is!

Here is the context: COSA has sponsored a bill to shut down the Oregon Connections Academy(ORCA) which is the largest public school in the state, serving 2650 students through an on-line curriculum. The bill is SB767, and it would make it illegal for an elementary aged student to attend ORCA, and would also allow school districts to deny any other child the right to attend the school.

The bill is a full frontal assault on this very successful charter school, brought to your by Oregon's education establishment, who always are on the march for educational excellence.

In the article in the Woodburn newspaper, Craig Hawkins of COSA explained why they want to shut down the school:

"Online schools add students, such as homeschool students, to the overall (public school) student population in Oregon, resulting in thinner per-student slices of the already-not-big-enough school funding pie."

In other words, it's a bad thing bring more kids into the public schools. I wonder if Hawkins would take the next logical step and advocate for REMOVING kids from the public school system in order to bring about "fatter per-student slices" for the remaining kids?

Hawkins also blatantly lied about the per-student funding situation for ORCA, and the newspaper not only caught the lie but pointed it out!

"Craig Hawkins of the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, one of the organizations backing SB 767, said the per-student funding for virtual and brick-and-mortar schools is "essentially the same."

The reporter knew this was wrong, and correctly pointed out that ORCA spends $4,000 less per student than the statewide average of "brick & mortar" schools. Basically, Hawkins lie was let sit there all alone for everyone to see.

If only we could get this kind of actual reporting out of The Funny Paper once in awhile!

I hope this bill, backed as it is by COSA, the OEA, the other school employee union the OSEA, and a slew of Democrat legislators will once and for all expose the lie that these people and groups have as their top priority the education of our state's kids.

Do they care about education? Sure, but it definitely isn't their top priority. Their top priority is making sure the school system works for the ADULTS. Anything that threatens them, the kids get sold down the river, and fast.

Krauthammer on Obama's stem cell order

Charles Krauthammer is, in my view, one of the most astute commentators in the country. He is deeply thoughtful and reasoned, and constantly makes points and looks at things from an angle that I learn from.

He wrote a typically insightful column on Obama's stem cell executive order.
In case you think that this is just another right winger hyperventilating on the pro-life issue, think again. Krauthammer is pro-choice, and he is also in favor of allowing embryonic stem cell research on spare fertility clinic embryos.

But the point Krauthammer makes is that in Obama's speech about his executive order, he revealed a lack of seriousness, indeed an utter hypocrisy, about the exercise of drawing moral lines around scientific research. While Obama said he has disconnected science from ideology, he went on to say that he would never allow human cloning.

Isn't that an ethical judgment?

Krauthammer also had interesting things to say about the seriousness of the Bush speech when he banned embryonic stem cell research, compared to the arrogance of Obama's speech overturning it.

It is well worth the read, no matter where you fall on this issue.

Another HUGE economic engine!

The Funny Paper is so amazing. They must think our memories have a half life of a .

Their lead editorial today insists that the legislature fund the new education building at South Waterfront. You remember South Waterfront ... that huge opportunity to attract 10,000 biotech jobs that was hyped and cheerled by the paper as we blew a couple hundred million dollars on what is now a largely vacant condo tower jungle.

So now TFP says we should spend $160 million putting up the next "linchpin." Reading the piece, I kept having to check the date on the paper. I thought somehow I was reading 2003 copy from the archives. Take a look:

"It would be the cornerstone of a powerful new economic engine and educational dynamo for all of Oregon....

It would provide facilities for health-profession training, undergraduate and graduate education in the life sciences and bioengineering, biomedical research and private industry partnerships.

Translation: Hundreds of new jobs with immeasurable educational and health-system value.

From every angle, this project looks exactly like the kind of capital project legislators should be funding in today's economic crisis. If they fail to, there's a good possibility the partnership will fall apart and the state will lose out on an opportunity of staggering proportion."

The same old rhetoric. Why on earth would they think The Funny Paper has any credibility whatsoever?

More on the bullying bill

I was going to respond in the comments section to some of the questions and criticisms of my post on the bullying bill, but decided to do it in another post, since it will be a little long for a comment.

First - what specific language in the bill do I find troubling, and why? The problem I have with this bill is that it would subject normal child and adolescent behavior to formal school discipline proceedings, and possibly even legal proceedings.

Here's how and why: The bill requires districts to put in place policies and disciplinary procedures for bullying, harassment and cyberbullying. It defines these terms as anything that, among other things, has the effect of

"Creating a hostile educational environment, including interfering with the psychological well-being of a student."

So here's the problem. Many commenters feigned shock and dismay that I was using such "sexist" terms when I suggested they just issue the boys pink panties. I did that for a reason.

That is EXACTLY the type of remark that would get a kid in school rung up on harassment charges under this bill. Suppose one boy says to another, "Hey you sissy, show me your pink panties." It is easy to imagine some school counselor considering that "interfering with the psychological well being" of the kid.

Perhaps you think that a boy saying something like this to another kid SHOULD be cause for disciplinary action. If so, I feel sorry for you. You apparently want us to be a nation of victims.

For almost two decades, in an effort to rid the schools of "gender bias," the public school establishment has been defining typical boy behavior as cause for discipline. A great book on the subject by well known feminist Christina Hoff Summers, called The War Against Boys examined all the different ways the feminist movement have made schools hostile to boys.

This is just another example.

Really, isn't it better to let kids figure out a few things by themselves? Sure, there is a time and place in which adult intervention is prudent and necessary when someone behaves badly toward another student in a school. But this bill would result in hair trigger disciplinary proceedings - and perhaps even criminal proceedings - for behavior that is at most, slightly untoward.

Insanity everywhere

Things are getting crazy everywhere. In the news just in the last couple days:

Anti-bullying legislation, HB2599, will be heard next week. The bill will require school districts to have policies defining harrasment, intimidation, bullying and cyberbullying, and procedures and staff in place for investigating complaints and disciplining the offenders.

What is wrong with that? Plenty. Why don't we just issue all the boys pink panties in kindergarten and make them wear them for 12 years?

Kill Connections Academy legislation, SB767 is sponsored by Senator Devlin and Rep. Buckley, at the request of the Oregon Education Association. It would remove the State Board of Education's authority to waive the "50% provision" that requires virtual charter schools to get half their kids from inside the sponsoring district. It wouin ld absolutely, positively result in shutting the doors on the state's largest public school because the teachers union doesn't like the school. THANKS, TEACHERS!

The greenest building ever built is being planned with your tax dollars. This thing will be so green it will manufacture all its own power, and reprocess all its own water. The only problem is it is very, very, very, very expensive. So what? Sam Adams wants Portland to be the green center of the universe, and what better way to show the world our commitment to being green when we will spend, say $1 million to save $10,000 worth of sewage fees. This thing they guess will cost between 12% and 52% more than the highest LEED certification building. What do they care? It's YOUR money!

The Beaverton Round goes round and round again. This is a black hole for money. A disaster from the get go. Response? Expand the project! Widen the urban renewal district around the failure so they can capture a bigger tax increment from the already developed properties, and use the dough to throw into the black hole after the millions already wasted. So typical!

Meanwhile, the stock market was down another 4% today, as anyone with remaining wealth runs and hides from our new president's most recent scheme.

A defining moment for President Obama

So far, President Obama has governed like a radical lefty. He used the Pelosi-deisgned "stimulus" bill to fund every pent-up lefty wish list item in the cupboard, and his breathtaking budget is itself an expression of a far reaching leftist ideology.

Not what he sold us, is it?

But soon we will get an indication of whether there is a scintilla of independence about the man. Will he stand up for poor minority children in Washington DC, a move sure to anger the left/union base of his party? Or will he toss these kids under the school bus? We will soon know.

As pointed out in the WSJ yesterday, the spending bill the Senate will vote on this week has language in it that will pull the curtain on the Washington DC voucher program, which is used by 2500 children from poor families to escape DC's shameful public school system.

Two kids use these vouchers to attend Sidwell, the school that Obama's own children attend.

Will President Obama lift a finger to save the DC voucher program? No way the Senate Democrats would take him on if he called them out on this. Or will Obama join most every other Democrat politician of the last 50 years and stand blocking the schoolhouse door to prevent low income minority children from entering (while Obama's own kids sit inside.)

If he lets the language stay in the bill, President Obama is revealed as just another hack, willing to sell human souls down the river for advantage with political interest groups.

Any predictions?

Why do we even participate in the United Nations?

The United Nations is proposing a binding declaration on "religous blasphemy."

They want member nations to make it illegal to criticize or negatively portray the religous beliefs of others. Any guesses as which religion they have in mind?

Take a look at this Lou Dobbs segment.

Why we don't just tell the UN to find another host nation, I don't know.

Clackamas County Sheriff's Office

I had the pleasure yesterday to spend the afternoon in the training center of the Clackamas Country Sheriff, learning about officer-involved shooting procedures and getting a look at some of the "shoot/no-shoot" training programs they put officers through.

First, I have to say that I was incredibly impressed with the quality of the people in the office. We were given training and presentations by a number of people, and to a person they were incredibly knowledgable, professional and just generally high quality people.

Sheriff Roberts, whom I have known for a year or so, has one of the most impressive track records of any executive in the state. In a state where executive and bureaucratic incompetence has become the rule, Sheriff Roberts' operation stands out as the most efficiently organized governmental operations I have seen.

I could go into some detail about the things Roberts and his chief deputy Charlie Bowen have done to make the ClackCo Sheriff's operation a dynamic organization that constantly delivers more bang for the taxpayer dollar. But that isn't the point of this post.

The point is that anybody who has ever criticised the police after a citizen gets hurt or killed in an officer-involved-shooting ought to take a look at some of the training officers are put through.

The "shoot/no-shoot" simulations are amazing. Put the gun in your hand and make that fatal split second decision of whether to use lethal force. Do you reasonably perceive an imminent threat to self or others when an agitated person fishes through his glove box, pulls out a black object and points it at you?

It is impossible to look at this training and not emerge with a greater appreciation of the fact that the shoot/no shoot decision is incredibly complex, and must be made almost instantaneously. Officers are trained to look at and anticipate things that simply don't occur to you unless you have had the training. In the heat of the moment you would be surprised at how much you fail to observe.

In the simulation I did, I didn't even see the perp's gun tucked in the back of his jeans. By the time he pulled it out, and got a shot off, my partner was down and the gun was pointed at me. I killed him, but even then I didn't realize I was shooting with my partner and an uninvolved citizen right in the background, where a through-and-though bullet or a miss could have killed one or both of them.

Next time I hear someone scream about the "injustice" of an officer-involved shooting, I will have a little deeper perspective.

This love affair is getting a bit sloppy

Hey - you two! Get a room, will you?

It's one thing when the love affair between the national newspaper press and President Obama glosses over his lack of experience and accomplishments enough to get the guy elected. But it's quite another when they resort to the most obvious lipstick-on-the-pig front-page propagandizing to keep his savior status up-to-date.

President Obama had a big week. He got his spending bill through - the biggest single spending bill in the history of the world. His young administration has been a flurry of activity, figuring out how to deal with all sorts of big problems: the banking mess, mortgage holder bailout, etc.

The markets want nothing to do with it. Every Obama success has been met with another big drop in the indexes. We are at a 12 year low.

Yesterday, Obama turned his focus to .... Deficit Reduction! And the markets plunged again.

So what is the headline and story on the front page of The Funny Paper today? (Story written by the NYT.)

"The markets look to DC and no news is bad news."

Excuse me? THAT's the problem? Not enough news out of DC?

The article tries to tell us that the markets are plunging because Obama doesn't yet have his plan in place to bail out the banks: "Analysts say that the draining cycle of losses, rebounds and more losses would probably continue until the government offered a detailed plan to bail out the banks or the economy showed some signs of stabilization."

In other words: the markets are waiting for the saviour to save us. Poppycock. It couldn't be that the markets are reacting negatively to what Obama has done so far. No, that wouldn't validate the saviour narrative. It has to be that the markets are waiting with baited breath for the saviour to save us.

And I love the whole "analysts say" device. Right, an analyst probably said that. And another analyst probably said:

"The markets are reacting to the growing evidence that the Obama administration is making things up as they go along, with no clear idea of how to deal with the banking crisis. The plunge yesterday was brought on by the abrupt contradiction of calling for a move toward a balanced budget just days after a trillion dollar stimulus bill. Analysts say such a confusing and contradictory shift in rhetoric suggests a lack of a clear organizing principle behind the administration's efforts."

But THAT analyst obviously doesn't buy into the "Obama-as-savior" narrative, so he went unquoted.

This is going to be very interesting

With the revenue forecast yesterday, the game has changed even more than expected. This will be an interesting study in special interest politics to see which group protects itself the most from the shrinking budget.

You see, Oregon's government doesn't know how to shrink. Over the last 25 or so years, despite all the times we read about the budget "crisis," the problem was always that the money didn't grow fast enough to cover the planned growth of the budget.

But the current situation is quite different. They have to make actual cuts - not slow the growth, but actually cut. And it has to start right away.

Here are some numbers. At the end of the 2007 legislative session, the forecast was that the 2007-09 budget general fund resources would be $14.1 billion. The budgets were based on that amount, even though a lot of legislators warned that the economy was headed toward recession and therefore it was likely that actual revenues wouldn't be that high.

Senator Larry George was chief among those warning that the budget adopted in 2007 was going to create a crisis when revenues fell short. He's looking pretty prophetic now, as the estimate for the current biennium which (ends in June) has dropped from $14.1 billion to $13.1 billion.

Which means, in order to balance the current biennium's budget, they have to somehow find a billion dollars in cuts from the current spending trajectory, and do it in the last four months of the biennium.

(I'm getting these numbers from page 101 of the actual economic forecast report released yesterday. They are a bit different than what I remember the general fund forecast numbers that were bandied about at the time, but the point remains the same.)

Cutting a billion out of the last 1/6th of the biennium is not going to be pretty. It would be one thing if they had to spread the billion out over the full two years. But look at it this way: Of the 14 billion they planned to spend, the state would spend about $2.3 billion in the last four months. So they have to figure out how to cut that by a billion - by almost half.

There are reserves they can tap into, but it is still a big problem.

And then there's the problem of the NEXT biennium. When the government plans its budgets, it takes the current budget and "rolls it up," - it assumes this baseline, adds inflation and other factors for things such as increased caseloads for social programs, population increases, etc, and that's what it assumes it needs for the next biennium.

Rolling up a baseline budget of $14.1 resulted in a "current service level" budget for 2009-11 if about $16 billion. That is what the government says it needs to keep things the same. But the forecast says now that 2009-11 revenues are going to actually drop a bit from the new revised 2007-09 level of $13.1 billion. So instead of the $16 billion they say they need, they anticipate having $13.05 in 2009-11.

Yeah, that is a problem. They don't know how to cut. The whole system is built on an assumption of increased budgets. The cost structure of government locks in a need for more money every biennium.

So what happens when the money isn't there? Well, we will see. But you can sure make a few predictions:

1) Screams for tax hikes. Democrats ALWAYS want tax increases. It actually doesn't matter whether baseline revenues are growing or not, one thing has remained the same. Every single biennium since I have paid attention, the Democrat party has wanted some kind of tax hike. Even in the fat times of the 1990's, when biennial budgets grew at a 20% pace, there wasn't enough to go around and they looked for ways to squeeze more out of the economy. So they will surely do it again this time around, and they have the supermajorities to make it happen.

2) Different government constituent groups will turn on each other. Teachers unions, environmental groups, social service advocates, health care advocates - they will get increasingly shrill as they all vie for a bigger share of a shrinking pie, in order to keep their constituents relatively whole. This is the part that will be somewhat fun to watch, in a macabre sort of way.

None of this is good for Oregon. I have read several times recently criticism of conservative opposition to tax hikes. It goes something like this: "Conservatives say that a recession is a bad time to increase taxes. But they also say we don't need a tax increase when times are good. So just WHEN do they think it IS a good time to increase taxes???"

Well, to put it in a word: Almost NEVER!

Why should the government EVER get a larger share of the economy? When the economy is growing, the government revenues will automatically grow along with it (although never as much as the liberals spending wishes.) When the economy is shrinking, the one thing you can do to make sure it shrinks faster is to raise taxes.

The upshot is we really should almost never raise taxes. It is short sighted and self defeating. This is the path Oregon has gone down for two decades, and look at our economy. It is in a shambles. And it is not going to get better.

To some extent the Obama spending bill will alleviate some of the problem for the current crisis. But that only delays the day of reckoning. It just artificially props up government spending in one cycle through a windfall of outside dollars, making the problem worse next time.

And the liberals always accuse business of planning short term!

I don't have any "solution" to Oregon's budget woes. Nobody does, in reality. But I think it behooves everyone to have a grasp of the underlying numbers, which is why I wrote all this down.

Jack Bogdanski at his best

Check out this highly entertaining and scathingly funny satire of how the new "Major League" soccer PGE Park remodel is going to unfold, over at Bojack.org.

This is Jack at his best. He is very talented. He and I have tangled over a few things, not the least of which is his inexplicable obsession with the Sarah Palin conspiracy theory. But this is worth the read.

One of the best things I have read in months! I would post a congratulations on his site but I am banned!

Another couple of sad ironies

Did you see that Geert Wilders, the Dutch guy who made the short film "Fitna," which showed the violence of the words of the Koran and the deeds of the Islamic fundamentalists - was barred from entering the UK to give a speech at the House of Lords.

Why was he stopped at Heathrow and turned back? Because his presence threatened "public security in the U.K," according to the Home Office.

Meaning, of course, that Muslims would become violent if Wilders was allowed to speak.

So, the fear is that Muslims would demonstrate their outrage about being characterized as a violent religion by becoming violent.

I think I understand.

Elsewhere, as reported on NWRepublican :

NEW YORK (Feb. 16) -- The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said. Muzzammil Hassan has been charged with murder in the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.

These people are REALLY off message.

Can you lose what you don't have?

The Funny Paper reports today that Metro's auditor, Suzanne Flynn, took a look at Metro's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, and found it lacking.

It seems they are spending the vast majority of their "sustainability efforts" (read: money) on projects that have little impact on CO2 reduction, while leaving all sorts of low hanging fruit on the vine.

The Auditor said that their poor performance, Metro "risks losing credibility in the region." Was that a laugh line?

I've already heard some commentary that Metro is being hypocritical - scolding us all for our carbon footprint while not reducing its own. But I don't think this is quite right. Metro is trying to reduce its carbon emissions, but they are just going about it wrong. Spending the bulk of their resources on efforts that yield little, and ignoring efforts that could yield much.

So they aren't hypocrites. They are INCOMPETENT.

But give them a break. This is the way they have operated for years on end. Consider: for years on end Metro has spent up to half its transportation funds on systems that 3% of travellers use. So why should we be surprised that they also misallocate funds for greenhouse gas reduction?

In other news...
Funny Paper ironic juxtaposition of the day: In the story about Randy Leonard's building code hit squad Commissioner Dan Saltzman gives the effort high praise. The article reads:

"This is the model of bureaus working together," Saltzman said. "There are other areas of the city that would benefit from that approach."

Then, in the very next sentence of the story:

"Nevertheless, Saltzman said he has no idea how the team works."

Huh? You really can't make this stuff up.

An interesting conspiracy theory

If the basis for this theory wasn't a US Congressman's interview on C-Span, I wouldn't make too much of it. I'm not big on conspiracy theories.

As it stands, there are a lot more questions than answers. But it is interesting. Exactly how unusual is it to get $550 billion withdrawn from money market accounts in a couple hours? Was it thousands of accounts or was it fewer big accounts?

As the Congressman describes it, it was pretty cataclysmic. Would anyone actually be ablet to coordinate something like this? Or was it just widespread panic that happened all at once in turbulent times?

Interesting. Sure seems that nobody is trying to give us any answers though.

Democrat job killers

I couldn't believe it. I was down at the Capitol yesterday and ducked into the House Land Use Committee hearing where they were voting on HB2375.

I heard the tail end of discussion, and watched the vote. The intent of the bill was basically to kill an existing fireworks business that had existed for almost two decades, employing ten people year round and hundreds during fireworks season. It had to be killed because the company was using land designated as "exclusive farm use."

The company was granted a formal exemption back in 2003. This bill removed the exemption. Bye bye jobs.

Unbelievable. In this economy, the Democrats swerve off the road to run over a small business because it didn't use its land as they thought it should be used. Never mind that the business had a legislatively granted exemption - they just changed the rules, revoked the exemption. Sorry!

Even better: Rep. Mitch Greenlick, one of the biggest socialists in the legislature, was a "yes" vote in the committee to kill the business. But in 2003, he actually voted to grant the exemption!

What a prick. I'm sorry - in this economy, you'd think the Democrats might want to avoid going out of their way to kill jobs. You'd think they would be looking to loosen the abstract land-use regulations that have mis-zoned so much land in Oregon.

And you'd think they might realize what their action says to other businesses that are already in Oregon or that might try to grow here. The Democrats might just change the rules in the middle of the game, and put you out of business.

Rep. Mary Nolan is the chair of the committee. An West Portland urban legislator in charge of the land use committee. God help us.

Replicating insanity

So the Governor announced yesterday to great fanfare that Oregon was going to get a whole bunch of the federal stimulus money that has been earmarked for "sustainability" projects.

He said we would wow the country, and "showcase to the world our expertise in green planning and green development."  Among the big ideas he has planned, according to The Funny Paper, is to "take the solar lighting project at the intersection of Interstate 5 and 205, and replicate it all around the state. 

Great idea! The electricity generated by that project costs about 60 cents per kilowatt hour. We pay PGE about 8 cents. By all means, lets show the world how smart we are by replicating this idiocy all over the place. 

Other laugh-out-loud lines in TFP today: the lead editorial supports the idea of putting a minor league baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter. It's needed to revitalize the embarrassing dead zone in the Quarter. The planners dreamed about a robust and vital retail and night-scene around the Rose Garden, but it never materialized.  Quote:

"That was nine years ago. Today, the place remains a dead zone - the most conspicuous failure of planning in a city that normally does the job well." 

Huh? What about Cascade Station? South Waterfront? The shameful state of the transportation system? If anything, the Rose Garden is a success when compared to these other hugely expensive planning failures. At least it is busy 42 nights a year - more than you can say for South Waterfront. And at least it was mostly done with private dollars.

The Funny Paper can't admit it, though, because it has been the biggest cheerleader for these disasters all along. You won't see much criticism of Portland planning, especially South Waterfront. Do I really have to point out again that Bob Caldwell's wife is the Commissar of Propaganda at OHSU? 

Obama's first press conference

President Obama held his first press conference yesterday to talk about the stimulus package. I listened to almost the whole thing, mostly because every radio station ran it.

Here's what I didn't know about Barack Obama: he is incredibly long-winded. He only took 13 questions in the hour, mostly because he went on and on and on in his answers, sounding like he was giving a campaign speech. His answer to the very first question lasted over ten minutes!

He claimed that the package was without a single "earmark." Laughable! The whole thing is one giant earmark.

Many of his answers were standard-issue demagoguery, which was disappointing. Talking about the stimulus, he'd say things like: "They question why we have money to build schools. I was in a school in South Carolina that was built in 1860 and was so run down that...."

That's not a policy statement, it is just campaign style demagoguery, and it was disappointing.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that President Obama blew a wonderful opportunity to live up to the rhetoric of his campaign. Leaving aside the question of whether this kind of stimulus is good or bad for the economy - that is debatable, and will be debated for a long long time.

But Obama campaigned saying he was going to change how Washington operated, that he was different, that the politics of fear was over. So the first thing he does is hand off the architecture of a trillion dollar stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi! What did the think she was going to do with it?

Then he tries to scare us into accepting this toxic waste dump of ridiculous spending programs, a good bit of which will just go directly to the federal government baseline, which will have to be rolled up year after year, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions in future commitments.

Had Obama told Pelosi "if you send me a package with a bunch of crap in it, I will veto it," he would have gained so much credibility with the American people. He blew it. Now he has this pig he has to try and put lipstick on (which what his press conference was for) and everybody knows that the Democrats just used the crisis to pass off all their spending wet dreams, and Obama went along.

So the New Politics lasted about two weeks.

The voters aren't stupid as The Funny Paper thinks

Very interesting. As pointed out on OregonCatalyst, new polls show that the public is increasingly skeptical of the global warming agenda. Not only does concern over global warming rank dead last on the list of issues in a poll done by Rassmussen, but a majority of people in another poll question whether warming is man made to begin with.

This is great news, but you can bet that it will be ignored by Ted Kulongoski and President Obama, who will shove an economically ruinous Cap & Trade scheme down our throats anyway. In political terms, however, this is good for Republicans, as long as we stay solid in opposing this stupid idea. We can hang the disaster of Cap & Trade right around the necks of all the Democrats who support this idiocy, knowing that the people are on our side.

The fact is, voters just aren't that stupid. They recognize a hidden agenda when they see one.

Ironically, The Funny Paper today once again revealed its arrogance and disdain for the public, in its editorial bashing Measure 57. They wrote something that I thought, when I readit, that they could have easily been talking about Cap & Trade:

"It's tough for voters to think much about costs and economic implications when they are bombarded with campaign rhetoric designed to scare the living daylights out of them..."

They were actually talking about Measure 57, trying to explain why voters bought it. (Because they are stupid.)

And The Funny Paper is convinced that the stupid voters will also buy their crap about global warming, since they have been trying to scare the living daylights out of them for the last decade.

Well, it ain't working. Voters bought Measure 57 because they want the government to do what it is supposed to do - keep us safe. They are rejecting global warming because they know it is just another power/money grab by the ruling class.

But if your point of departure is contempt for voters, you misinterpret both acceptance of M57 and rejection of global warming hysteria. That is where The Funny Paper finds itself now.

Time and again telling us we are stupid. Great way to build readership!

A midwinter irony

My wife, son and I stole away to Los Angeles this weekend to visit my college daughter, and watch her perform in an opera, The Marraige of Figaro.

We left a sunny Portland late Thursday morning. When we landed in L.A., the rain had just started. It rained the entire four days we were there. Hard. Flooding type of rain. So we left a sunny Portland for four rainy days in L.A.

Luckily, we weren't there for Disneyland or other outdoor stuff (although we stayed near Anaheim and saw many families with young children whose trips were pretty much ruined.) So we still had a nice time.

And I'm not an opera type - this was my second one ever. But it was great. My daughter was the understudy for one of the lead parts, and as understudy got to perform one of the nights. It was great - she was great.

Back in Portland now, reading the Sunday Funny Paper. I see they are still up to their old tricks: front page story on how will the state ever pay for Measure 57 in these budget crunching times??!!

Still waiting for the story on how the state will pay the roll-up costs that have ensued from last biennium's 16% increase that included hefty public employee union raises.

Oh well.

"That Genre"

Newsweek has a long story about how The Funny Paper once again got totally scooped by Willamette Week and Nigel Jaquiss.

The story covers the details of the SAMBLA scandal, but the real point of the story was to explore why it is that The Funny Paper can't seem to bring itself to pursue big stories about leading figures in the Oregon power structure.

A bit too cozy, the article basically says. The funniest part of the story was a quote from Sandra Rowe. She was getting pretty defensive about getting scooped time and again by a little weekly alternative rag. She said:

"Nigel has built quite a reputation with sex scandal stories, and deservedly so. He is dogged and very good at that genre."

That genre? Oh yeah, that's all Nigel does - true crime sex scandal novellas. Excuse me, Publisher Rowe - THAT GENRE is called REPORTING!

And yes, Sandra Rowe, Nigel does do it better than anyone at your newspaper.