School district shenanigans

The following is my BrainstormNW column from April. This problem is growing worse, and eventually we may need to file a lawsuit to stop it.

School District Shenanigans

It has been more than six years since Oregon passed its charter school law. Since then, I’ve been involved with dozens of charter school projects, mostly helping the schools navigate the approval process in which they must convince a school district to grant them their charter.

Time and again I’ve seen school districts pull shenanigans that should land them in court, but they know they benefit from the classic power imbalance: a fledgling non-profit with few resources can afford neither the time or the money to run to court every time the district jacks them around, and the districts know it.

Districts have had six years to figure out how to neutralize charters. Led by the Oregon School Board Association legal staff, school districts have pretty much figured out how they can stop any charter proposal they don’t want, even if legions of parents in the district want the school.

In a column I wrote last year, I wondered aloud whether the charter school movement would avoid the fate that has met every other promising reform to come down the pike in the last fifty years: become assimilated by the “Blob” (Big Learning Organization Bureaucracies.)

I’m sorry to report that in many respects, that is exactly what is happening in Oregon. School districts have not only learned how to complicate the chartering process to discourage all but the most persistent schools, but have also learned how to use the law to suck down grant dollars that were supposed to go truly independent charter schools.

Charter schools can apply for a federal start-up grants of about $350K over the first three years of the project. For most new charters, there is no way they could pay for the start-up costs without these grants. The grants are administered on a competitive basis by the Oregon Department of Education. They give about 10-15 of these grants each year.

In the last several years, the majority of the grants have gone not to independent charter school projects, but rather to “charter schools” that are run by school districts. In many cases, the district charters are simply alternative schools by another name.

Districts are required to offer alternative education programs for students who have dropped out or left school because of disciplinary reasons. Why not “convert” their alternative school to charter status, and get $350K from the state to do it?

There has even been a case of a district getting the grant to convert an alternative school to charter status, then when the funds run out, converting it back to alternative school status!

The State Department of Education could put a stop to this, but despite our repeated complaints, the bureaucrats there don’t see it as a problem.

Frustrating as that is, it pales in comparison to the runaround some charters are getting from the school districts during the approval and start-up phases. When a charter proposal is fortunate enough to get approved by the board, it must then negotiate a contract with the district that is supposed to reflect the provisions of the proposal. That's when the fun really begins, especially if the district retains the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) to handle the “negotiation.”

With the OSBA involved, they invariably insist on all sorts of contractual provisions that were never discussed during the entire four month approval process. Often the provisions they insist on contradict what the approved charter proposal said. And if the charter school refuses to accept the conditions the OSBA unilaterally decrees, they then tell the district to rescind the approval!

We’ve pointed out that this behavior is against the law. The charter school statute reads:

“The sponsor and applicant shall develop a written charter that contains the provisions of the proposal that have been duly approved by the sponsor and public charter school governing body.”

That means they can’t just try to cram new provisions down our throat unless we agree. So far, we’ve had no success convincing them to follow the law. Their attitude seems to be: “so sue us.”

Of course they know a lawsuit would be a year or more to conclude, during which time the school would stay on hold – not a bad result if your goal is to delay the project anyway. Especially if your attorneys are paid by tax dollars.

Despite these struggles, Oregon’s charter school law has resulted in a good number of terrific schools who were generally fortunate enough to get started before the “Blob” figured out how to strike back.

But I’m not very optimistic, unless the Oregon Department of Education takes a leadership role in holding school districts and the OSBA accountable, that Oregon’s charter law will result in the robust, innovative and high achieving network of schools that it once promised to create.

A year

I just realized that today is my one year anniversary doing this blog.

I've made 135 posts during the year, so that's about one every three days. I know a lot of bloggers are a lot more active than that. I guess I don't think I have something interesting to say more than three times a week.

I do like doing it, though, and I expect I'll probably be a bit more active over the next year.

I hope to have some more news on the Blazer deal to report soon.

Governor Race

It's been a couple weeks since I've posted - I've been very busy working on the Blazer deal.

The governor race is down to the final fortnight, and the fur is flying. I'm of course backing Ron Saxton, and I think the signs are becoming clear that Ron is in very good position to win.

Take a look at this poll, done by Survey USA. It asked about name familiarity, favorables and unfavorables on every candidate running for Governor. It did not ask who they were voting for, but the information is interesting for what it says about how the candidates' messages are being heard and received.

The results not only bode well for Ron Saxton, but are a virtual train wreck for Ted Kulongoski. There is also some fairly bad news for both Kevin Mannix and Jason Atkinson.

Here are the key items:

• Among registered Republicans, Saxton and Mannix have almost identical favorables - 33% and 34%. Mannix, however, has significantly higher negatives - 25% vs 14%.
• Jason Atkinson's message is not getting heard, which makes sense because he has not had the money to buy the kind of media that would reach a lot of people. Even among Republicans, only 47% know who he is. Even worse for Jason is the fact that among that 47%, more people have a negative impression of him than positive. So when his message IS heard, it isn't winning people over.
• Jason continues to have a huge gender gap in his support. This was first identified in a poll that Mike Riley did a few months ago, and it was confirmed in this poll. Women are barely more than half as likely to like Jason than are men.
• Perhaps the most surprising result is that Saxton does better than either Atkinson or Mannix with Republicans who call themselves conservative. Conservatives were just as likely to dislike Jason as like him. For Mannix, conservatives were twice as likely to approve of him, and for Saxton, a little south of three times more likely.
• Kulongoski is in trouble. Among Democrats, 34% have an unfavorable impression vs. 44% favorable. Only 20% neutral. That would seem to predict he would get something less than 60% in the primary. The equivalent of blood in the water.
• Ben Westlund is still not well known, with 56% of all voters not having an opinion. Of those who know him, he's perceived as a lefty. Conservatives dislike him 2:1, and liberals like him 3:2. This lends weight to the argument that he would draw more votes from Kulongoski in the general election.

This poll didn't try to exclude registered voters who are unlikely to vote in the primary, which does give me pause. Primary voters tend to be more politically aware and more ideological than those who only vote in the general election, so there is some reason to take these numbers with a grain of salt.

I am told that a poll will be released tomorrow or Wednesday that will give a ballot test on both the Republican and Democrat governor races. It will be interesting to see if it confirms these numbers.

Terry Porter can bring back Rip City

As the Oregonian reported today, I am involved with ex-Blazer Terry Porter and two other local guys in an effort to raise the capital necessary to buy the Trailblazers and keep the team in Portland.

We've been working on this deal for about six weeks, quietly putting the pieces in place until we could make the public announcement that we are seeking local investors.

The Blazers are too important to this town to just sit back and allow them to leave town. This city was once head-over-heels in love with the Blazers, and it can be again.

Who better to lead them back to their former glory than the one player who more than any other symbolizes what Portland fell in love with about the team during their heyday?

We have lined up $100 million in debt financing for the purchase, contingent upon raising significant local investor equity capital to round out the purchase. Terry will be in town next week to meet with prospective investors.

We met on Tuesday with NBA Commissioner David Stern to let him know our plans. It was clear to me at the meeting that Stern really wants a resolution to the Blazer problem, and that he would be perfectly happy to work with us provided we can raise the local investor equity necessary to buy the team.

The premise behind a Terry Porter led purchase is that Portland will once again support the Blazers if the players have good character, try hard every night, become part of the community, and respect the fans and the game. In any organization, the personnel tend to reflect the values and the character of its leader. Terry's team will reflect his character.

Terry will say to the people of Portland: "I pledge to put a team on the court that you can respect. We may not win right away - that will take time. But I will field a team that earns your trust. We will not ask the city for any public subsidy. The only public support we ask is to come back to the Rose Garden and support our team. Together we can BRING BACK RIP CITY!

We've put together a little web site where people can express their support of Terry Porter buying the team. Please give it a click and leave your name in support.

As the Oregonian reported, finding the local equity to make this happen is a difficult task. Terry is committed to doing everything he can to keep the Blazers in Portland. He's been personally calling several dozen prominent local people and businesses to ask them to attend a meeting next week where he will present the details of the proposal.

I've had occasion in my life to spend a lot of time around sports celebrities. I can say without exaggeration that Terry Porter is in a league of his own. He is humble, smart, charming, funny and willing to work hard. All the qualities that Portland came to know of him when he lived and played here -- they are absolutely true. They aren't just image - Terry Porter IS a class act in every sense of the word and I consider it to be a privilege to be working with him on this effort.

I'll post updates on our progress on this blog. Go to the website and join the effort.

Help Terry BRING BACK RIP CITY!

A bias against academic rigor

I've written a lot about the mindset of the "progressive education philosophy."

Among the central tenets is that academic rigor is to be avoided because learning must be fun. Joe Terry Olsenon, a retired Portland teacher turned education blogger gives us a great example of this viewpoint in a recent blog post.

He laments the trend toward bringing academic rigor to kindergarten classes, saying:

"It's a sad day ... when academic rigor seeps into the kindergarten classroom, and the joy of learning seeps out."

There it is: academic rigor means the joy of learning is gone. That explains the progressive education establishment's longstanding attack on traditional academic content and delivery.

I would like Olsenon to visit one of my Arthur Academies, where we teach kindergartners to read by providing them a rigorous program in directly taught phonics. He would see very excited children in small groups, led by a teacher, happily participating in the day's lesson.

Each day they learn another precisely calibrated morsel of skill and knowledge that build upon each other to form the foundation of reading fluency. They are having fun.

They are succeeding, and learning to read. And they love it. Learning is fun for them.

It is a far cry from what Olsen obviously thinks of a kindergarten classroom that focuses on academics. He apparently thinks that children can only be having fun and enjoy learning when they are discovering things on their own through play and activities.

In other words, when they aren't being taught anything.

It is an interesting viewpoint, but sadly it is pervasive in the public school system and it has done great damage to our children.

Ballot Measure 1 Report out

The legislative committee charged with fulfilling the requirements of Ballot Measure 1 (which requires the legislature to "adequately" fund schools or issue a report explaining why they couldn't) is now complete.

The verdict: they legislature fell a scant $1.8 billion dollars short of giving the schools what the Quality Education Commission says is necessary to provide sufficient alms to all the school employee unions.

That's $1.8 billion more than the $5.3 billion allocated to K-12! They want 33% more than the schools received.

And what would we get if we shorted every other part of the budget to cough up the dough? The Quality Education Commission says that if we fund the schools to that level, then 90% of Oregon students would meet state standards. OK, fine. Certainly they'd be willing to give us some guarantee, right? Maybe fire every administrator whose school didn't meet the 90% benchmark?

Uh, well, no. Just give us the money. No guarantee on outcome. That according to Lynn Lundquist, the architect of the entire scam. Quoting from the Oregonian:

Lundquist "agreed that outcomes are not guaranteed, but he said the commission's list of resources and practices needed in quality schools is a good one. And if there's no relation between spending and outcomes, he said, why not cut school spending in half?"

Basically: "Trust us. Give us the money, but don't expect us to be accountable for it. What do you think we are - public servants? You got it wrong, taxpayers ..... you serve us."

And I especially love the suggestion of cutting school spending in half - that is precisely what charter schools have basically done - and many of them are indeed meeting the 90% goal, operating on roughly half of the per-student all funds budget of the local school district.

Are they embarrassed? They should be.

I'm back from spring break, open the paper this morning to see the Oregonian continues to pretend it is a newspaper.

A front page article "analyzed" Portland School District spending, and found that: 1) employee benefits were higher than other districts, and 2) total spending was higher than similar sized districts.

"Wait," I thought..... haven't I seen or heard that somewhere before? Oh that's right! It is what I and others have been saying and writing for years on end! And further, it looked suspiciously like an article that featured about three weeks ago in the Portland Tribune.

For years on end we have been told by the Oregonian that PPS is underfunded. That we must raise taxes to save the district. That people like me who think they have enough money are not worthy of taking seriously.

Now, after the dinky little Tribune shows them up so badly, they cough up their own "analysis," and put it on the front page as if it is news?

Pulleeeeeze.

It's a pattern we have seen from the Oregonian time and again. Just yesterday, a front page headline ran in the O that headlined: "Tram's price unrealistic from the get-go."

Oh really? You mean after months and months of Oregonian editorials saying the city must pay more for the cost overruns, after the blogosphere exposed the cost projection lies, the sham public process that ignored completely the neighborhood activists who directly challenged the cost estimates, the Oregonian now shouts a headline that the Tram's developers lied to everyone all along about what the thing would cost?

What is the Oregonian's part in perpretrating that lie? Where exactly do they take responsibility for pulling this expensive sham over on the public?

And why would they think they have any credibility remaining?

School Funding Lawsuit

I wrote the following in this month's BrainstormNW column. The news of the suit landed yesterday, announced by an organization headed up by Paul Kelly, former Nike chief counsel and long time school funding advocate. I'm going to dig around a bit and see if I can find who is funding this new group. I'll be shocked when I find that the OEA is funding them.

School Funding Fight Goes to Court

School funding activists are just about to take their fight to a different arena in their never ending quest to get more state general fund dollars into education: the courts. A newly created group, called the Oregon School Funding Defense Foundation, is planning to file a lawsuit to force the legislature to give more money to the schools.

After more than a decade not getting what they want out of the legislature, and after the voters have continually said no to their demands for tax increases, they plan to do what liberals always do – find a sympathetic judge.

School funding lawsuits are not a new development – they have been filed in 37 other states. But the suit planned for Oregon is different. In nearly all the other states, the lawsuits have been about “equity funding.” Most state constitutions (including Oregon’s) have language that implies there shouldn’t be huge discrepancies between school districts in how much money they have for schools.

Oregon never faced such a lawsuit, in part because Measure 5 shifted most of the school funding burden to the state, and various laws passed since then have basically equalized school funding for districts.

The lawsuit planned by this group (which is made up of a virtual “usual suspects” list of long time school funding advocates) is challenging the adequacy of school funding, not the equity. The suit will claim that Oregon’s constitution requires a certain level of funding that is not being met by the legislature’s K-12 budget allocation.

Their basis for the claim comes from Ballot Measure 1. Remember that one? Didn’t think so. Most people thought it was just a symbolic ornament that John Kitzhaber wanted put on the ballot so he could look as if he cared about schools. It passed easily.

The ballot measure amended the constitution to read: “The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state's system of public education meets quality goals established by law…”

Just what are those “quality goals,” and who will define them? Remember the “Quality Education Model?” It was former House Speaker Lynn Lundquist’s project that defined the “optimal school model” and then calculated what it would cost to make every school in Oregon look like the model. The current price tag on the model is $7.2 billion, almost $2 billion more than the current K-12 allocation.

Well, while you weren’t watching, the legislature passed laws that basically defined “quality goals” for the purpose of defining school funding adequacy to be the “Quality Education Model.”

So there we have it. The constitution says funding must be adequate for certain goals to be met, and those goals require $7.2 billion.

When Ballot Measure 1 was being debated back in the 2000 election cycle, I was pretty lonely opposing such a feel good measure. (It passed in every county in the state, and got 66% statewide.) I argued that it was a power grab - the effect would be to take the question of school funding out of the legislature’s hands and give it to an unelected commission, the Quality Education Commission.

And that is precisely what this lawsuit, if successful, will bring about.

It took them six years to get the necessary framework in place to file the suit. They had to pass a few bills that fleshed out the constitutional language – bills that created the Quality Education Commission, and that codified the Quality Education Model as defining Oregon’s education goals.

For six years they’ve been busily grinding out all the requisite white papers and proceedings, all using public dollars, so now they can finally file the lawsuit that was the point of the entire exercise. Everything is in place.

If this lawsuit succeeds, then the legislature will no longer have a say in how much schools get from the budget. The number will be handed down by the unelected Quality Education Commission, and will be based on an entirely fabricated standard that emanates from the Quality Education Model, which has never had its own assumptions subjected to empirical scrutiny.

There is a silver lining here. By the time the lawsuit grinds its way to a conclusion, we can predict that the funding level required by the Quality Education Model will be even more laughably distant from any realistic level the state budget could allocate. It’s already about $2 billion higher than the current K-12 funding allocation.

The lawsuit could take three or four years. Assuming it succeeds, what will happen when the courts decide that the constitution requires an additional $3 or $4 billion be give to the schools?

But the real question is the question that is almost too late to be asked. It should have been asked in 2000 when Ballot Measure 1 was getting a free pass: are the courts the appropriate arena to decide the level of K-12 funding?

Oregonian Watch

I predicted some time ago that we were going to be treated to a regular stream of "invented" news stories by the Oregonian, all of which would be some variant on the theme "government needs more money."

We got another one today. Front page story on how Oregon is "falling behind" other states in public funds for pre-school, and how important pre-school is to get kids off on the right foot.

In their proud tradition, there isn't any news in the story. There was no national study that triggered the reporting, no proposal announced by a governor candidate or the like. Rather, the Oregonian has a point it wants to make, and in the absence of news on the issue, it just writes a story that supports its position.

The reader is supposed to read the article and then worry that we are hurting children by not paying for as much pre-school as other states. More money would of course solve the "problem."

The article refers to research that shows a dollar invested in pre-school saves more than $12 in social servces needed later on. It didn't, however, make any mention of the significant body of research that shows the Head Start pre-school program has little if any lasting effect on student achievement and other indicators. Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights evaluated that research in her book "No Excuses."

I have a better idea. Rather than raise more tax money to pay for pre-schools that working mothers send their kids to, why not reduce taxes so families can afford to have one parent stay home with their kids until they are school age?

It seems as if the government class wants kids to be in their schools at the earliest age possible. With the well-known deficiencies in our public school system, why would we be looking to expand their reach and mission to pre-schoolers?

The Oregonian excludes Dave Lister

In yesterday's "InPortland" pullout section of the Oregonian, there was a full page profile of three candidates for Eric Sten's seat on city council. Each had full-body photos with wrapped text that consisted of the candidate's answers to a bunch of whimsical questions the Oregonian had asked of them.

The candidates profiled were Emily Boyles, Ginny Burdick and Eric Sten. Notably absent from the profiles was Dave Lister.

I wrote to the reporter covering the race to give her the business. She responded with the typical explanation: "We can't cover everybody"... "He hasn't raised much money" ... "It was a hard decision" ... blah blah blah.

Of course, Dave Lister is the only candidate in the race who opposes all the policies that the Oregonian has supported all these years: light rail, urban renewal, "new urbanism," the tram, etc.

Each of the other three candidates who were graced with the implied legitimacy of the Oregonian profile can be described as "left, lefter and leftest." God forbid we actually have a debate over ideology in a city council race. We certainly can't have a voice for small business, lower taxes and ending wasteful city spending in a city council race.

Dave Lister has written a column on Portland issues for BrainstormNW magazine for two years. He has served for years on the city's Small Business Advisory Committee. He has owned and operated a small business for a couple decades. He is raising money for his campaign, employs paid campaign staff, and has been invited to participate in the City Club's debate next Friday. He has been endorsed by Jack Bogdanski, who runs Portland's most well read blog (bojack.org)

But the Oregonian doesn't think this qualifies Dave Lister as a candidate legitimate enough to be covered on par with Emily Boyles, who as far as I can tell has done little other than get 1000 people to give her $5 so she can spend $150K of taxpayer money on her campaign.

The Oregonian really showed its stripes on this one. Oh sure they'll try to explain it away, but bottom line they don't want Dave's voice heard, and so they will do nothing to tell voters about him.

Is it any wonder why the Oregonian's reputation is sliding so far, so fast these days?

They should understand that gone are the days when they can make this kind of call with impunity. They don't get it yet, but "new media" is big enough and powerful enough that when establishment media pulls this kind of a stunt they pay a price.

Just as CBS didn't get away with publishing fake documents, because the bloggers tore them apart like so many pirhana feasting on a dead carcass of an ox floating downstream, the Oregonian can't define any longer who is and who is not a legitimate political voice.

Dave Lister is not just a legitimate voice - his common sense views about all the craziness happening in Portland's political arena have a following among political liberals and moderates as well as conservatives.

Maybe that is what the Oregonian is worried about!

A good example of a campaign lie

I'm supporting Ron Saxton for governor, but I've said all along that we have three terrific candidates running, each with his own strengths, and that I would support any of them in November.

Because I want a Republican governor, I have tried to only stress the positive things about my chosen candidate, and have refrained from tearing down either of the others on my radio show, BrainstormNW column, this blog, and other public utterances.

That said, I don't think it is out of bounds to point out when one candidate is stretching the truth so far as to make it unrecognizable, as was reported in the Oregonian today.

The story is about the kicker, and each candidate's position on whether to keep it or send it back to the taxpayers. I'm assuming that what the O reported is accurate here. If not, I am perfectly willing to stand corrected.

The Mannix campaign, according to the O, is telling people that Ron Saxton voted to keep the kicker.

Here is the actual text of the story:

On the Republican side, Kevin Mannix's campaign staff pilloried Ron Saxton for what they claim is an election-year turnaround, saying Saxton supported spending the kicker on schools when he was Portland School Board chairman but opposes the idea now.

"Saxton voted to have state government -- rather than taxpayers -- keep state tax 'kicker' refunds," according to a flier Mannix campaign workers hand out at events. As evidence, the flier cites a Nov. 22, 1999, Portland School Board resolution.

What the resolution actually supported was voluntary donations from parents who wanted their kicker refund check to go to schools. Saxton has never favored repeal of the kicker, said his campaign manager, Felix Schein.

That's about as misleading as it gets.

Look - I have no problem with Kevin Mannix criticising Ron Saxton's record. That is fair game, even if the 11th amendment Commandment is in play. But to completely mischaracterize Saxton's record is another matter entirely.

Supporting voluntary contributions of the kicker returns is not the same thing as voting to keep the kicker. It isn't even close, and the Mannix camp knows it.

Mannix doesn't do himself any favors by making such obviously false claims. If he wants voters to trust him, he should stick to the truth.

So, I will say it first:

Knock it off, Kevin.

Atkinson Blogger is making things up

All the Atkinson bloggers are posting their updates on Dorchester, and one of them, run by a guy I don't know (or at least I don't know if I know him) has posted a bald-faced lie about me.

I added a comment to false post on his blog, challenging his blatantly false assertion, and apparently he has blocked it from appearing. It's been more than a half day since I posted it. When I did it, there was a message that said the post would appear after the blogger approved it.

Interesting, I thought. Most every other blog I've posted to immediately displays the comments. I wonder if he will censor it?

Well, it hasn't appeared.

Background: I asked all the Governor candidates to come on my radio show that I was broadcasting from the Dorchester Conference Sunday morning. While on a break from the show, I asked Jason to come on, and he told me he wasn't at all happy with KXL and he didn't think he'd come on.

I said "What have I ever said that was negative about you? He said he didn't know.

When I got back on the air, I mentioned to my co-host that we'd be having all the governor candidates but wasn't sure if Jason was coming on. Marc Abrams, my co-host, said something like "He's passing up the chance to reach our audience for free?"

A few minutes later, Jason came to the booth, sat down, and we had our interview. It was perfectly cordial. Marc did most of the interviewing, as is our practice - we usually let the liberal ask the conservative guests questions and vice versa.

That was that.

Here's how the blogger Max Redline characterized the interview:

Atkinson takes another hit on KXL
The Kremer&Abrhams show is on, and Kevin's about to put in an appearance. Atkinson was asked as well, and apparently said that he might appear - this was greeted with derision by Kremer, who cracked that that attitude pretty well tells him all he needs to know about the Atkinson campaign.

This is blatantly false, and I told him so. I said no such thing. I was not derisive in my tone with Jason in the interview and I did not say anything like what the blogger said.

In the comment he apparently censored, I pointed this out.

It is one thing for a guy to get it wrong - people can make mistakes, hear what they want to hear, misinterpret, or attribute a comment to the wrong person. That can be done in good faith.

But to have the falsehood pointed out and then block the correction from his blog - well, that speaks to the integrity of the blogger.

So, I know not who this guy is, but there's no reason to take anything he says seriously.

Proof that Randy Leonard hates black people

Randy Leonard and I have a running joke that stems from the radio shows we have done together. Randy's debate style is to engage in the issue for a certain period of time, only to suddenly launch a nuclear attack.

For instance, we might be talking about school spending, debating where the excesses are, PERS, health insurance, etc., and at some point Randy says: "Rob, why do you hate children?"

The first few times I was irritated, since it is such an obvious attempt at over the top demagoguery. But I soon learned with Randy just to do it back to him.

So when we would talk about minimum wage, which cuts off the lowest rungs of the ecomic ladder for the least skilled amongst us (and disproportionately harms black teenagers,) I would just ask: "Randy, why do you hate black people?"

We both usually start laughing about that time. We actually like each other. I disagree with Randy on almost everything, but I like Randy. The world is a much more interesting place with him in it.

Recently, however, Randy gave us ipso-facto proof that he does indeed hate black people! I would have never believed it - but it must be true.

I read in the Willamette Week today that the cell phone tax Randy is pushing has a far greater impact on blacks and Hispanics than it does white people! That is right - Randy Leonard is trying to save the schools on the back of black people!

I know it's hard to believe.

Randy, oh Randy: why do you hate black people?

My son, on tolerance

My son is 15, a freshman at Lake Oswego High School. He likes to debate political issues and other things with friends and classmates.

Several times lately he's come home with stories about class discussions about "tolerance." He says the overwhelming consensus among his schoolmates is that tolerance means no one should ever judge anybody else. He's often laughed at the self-refuting nature of the notion of tolerance (should we tolerate intolerance?) and the other day, he wrote the following, which I thought was perfectly worthy of being posted on my blog:


What is tolerance?

Why is it that we aspire to nullify our opinions when our opinions are all we have? After all tolerance only morphs itself into the hatred of intolerance, at which point everyone is pressured into tolerance through intolerance.

Therefore a feigned tolerance reigns over the general populace who fear being alienated as outsiders.

Opinions seperate us from animals. Animals have no opinions and and cannot follow a logical path. So why attempt to nullify our opinions which in effect gives animals an equal station to humans?

Because opinions make us individuals, the admission of equal correctness of all opinions creates a uniform society in which if you have an opinion and therefore are an individual you are not tolerated. That is a communist state.

I dont advocate fighting over every small difference in opinion, but I do protest the notion that it is somehow wrong to hold an opinion on another's life style.
For those who say "who are you to judge?" - I am a human being, of body and mind capable of logical thought.

That alone permits me to judge.

Bush, Kulongoski, and renewable fuels

President Bush says we are addicted to foreign oil, and he wants to reduce our dependence on it. Governor Kulongoski says he wants to increase 25% of Oregon's fuel consumption to be renewable energy.

Both are misguided; both misunderstand basic economics.

We hear a lot about the risk of depending on the middle east for oil. When we buy oil from Arab nations we fill the government coffers with dollars that in some cases are used by those governments to fund terrorism. If we cut our consumption by 10%, I've heard it said, we could get by without oil from the middle east, and bring them to their knees economically.

It wont work. If we reduce oil consumption, the global demand for oil will obviously go down, and the price will go down a bit as well. So would it have much effect on Arab oil nations? No.

Arab nations are the world's lowest cost producer of oil. A lower global oil price would only hurt the higher cost producers, who might find the new equilibrium price of oil above their production costs. Arab nations would sell the same amount of oil, but perhaps at a slightly lower price.

So, if the point of reducing our dependence is to reduce the cash flow of terror sponsoring Arab nations, it simply won't work. The middle east produces oil for about $5 a barrel. Reduce global demand all you want, the Arab nations will be the last man standing becuase they are the lowest cost producer.

If the point is to make sure our economy isn't vulnerable to political events in the middle east that might disupt oil supply, it also doesn't make much sense. So we are supposed to consume higher-priced domestic energy sources rather than Arab oil in case the Arabs stop selling their oil to us?

It doesn't make economic sense, because every form of alternative energy costs more than oil, so the only way they get produced is with government subsidies. Subsidies are bad policy.

Take ethanol, as an example. Ethanol production in the U.S. gets subsidized to the tune of 50 cents a gallon. Guess what the major input in the production of ethanol is? Yup, energy - oil. Lots of oil involved in the planting and harvest of the corn, transporting it and distilling it into ethanol. Studies have been conducted that add up all the oil involved in ethanol production and found that each gallon of ethanol uses more than a gallon of oil!

So subsidizing ethanol production actually INCREASES our demand for oil!

But, you say, if we subsidize the production now, then we will figure out new and better and more efficient ways to produce it, and we will be ready to convert if some event in the middle east cuts raises the price of oil.

That sounds right, but the subsidy is not necessary, unless you believe in the all-knowing ability of government to correctly anticipate future technological advancements. How do we know ethanol will be the best alternative energy source? How about wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, or cold fusion? Nobody knows what technology will be developed on any of these things. For the government to choose now and subsidize one or more of them requires a much greater faith in the efficacy of political decision-making than I have (or than is warranted by its track record.)

The oil industry is extremely profitable. There is a tremendous incentive for private industry to pursue alternative energy technology. As a general rule, if there exists a huge incentive to engage in an activity, no subsidy is required.

So why do politicians like Bush and Kulongoski love to subsidize alternative fuels? Well, the agricultural industry has a very effective lobby. They get billions each year in farm subsidies of one sort or another.

This is just another.

Jack Ohman come home

I'm a fan of Jack Ohman, the Oregonian's nationally syndicated cartoonist. I think Jack is on the short list of political cartoonists who have not yet won the Pulitzer. I won't be surprised when he wins it.

Ohman approaches issues from a decidedly different perspective than me, but I have always enjoyed his wit and cleverness that came through so clearly in his cartoons. He's extraordinarily talented.

That said, I think Ohman has been on a long dry spell, in which his cartoons have become disappointingly predictable. It's not just that the message of his cartoons has failed to surprise of late, but the cleverness that distinguished him from his less talented peers has seemed to give way to a daily drumbeat of the same unimaginative, shopworn images, whether his subject is of local or national interest.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems as if there used to be a certain underlying joy in the way he did his work. Even if he was characterizing his target in a severely negative light, there was a certain lightness of being in the way he did it, a humor, or a unique way of presenting his point that often made me marvel at his craft, even as I disagreed vehemently with it.

His cartoons rarely seemed mean-spirited, and the statement his images were almost always sophisticated - the equivalent of a serious intellectual argument rather than a sound-bite.

I've always considered political cartoons to be one of the most powerful of all mediums. I've wished I had the talent to do them well. Because of the unique forum a political cartoonist has -- with the ability to combine an image with text to drive home a point, a cartoonist is able to take a political argument directly from premise to conclusion without the need for the intermediate step that regular columnists must forge - logical argument.

So cartooning is extraordinarily powerful. In a matter of a few brief reader's seconds a cartoonist can drive home a point that would take 700 words for a political columnist - and the cartoonist doesn't have to have anywhere near the intellectual consistency required of the columnist.

In my view, this is a huge responsibility for the cartoonist. Since the medium almost begs cartoonist to make stereotype part of their stock and trade, I think they have to be very careful to avoid descending into putting forth images that trade off the most convenient examples.

And that is where I think Ohman has gotten intellectually lazy. It seens his cartoons have for the last few years so regularly just made the most obvious sterotypical points: "Bush is dumb," or "Republicans are racist," or "Schools don't have enough money."

It has gotten tiresome, and it is too bad, because I remember many times truly enjoying Ohman cartoons that I completely disagreed with but which I thought were brilliantly done. On more than one occasion I wrote him to tell him just that.

I'm hoping that he can get back to his former self. The world is a much more interesting place with Jack Ohman on the top of his game. He's a truly talented guy.

Honestly, we are lucky to have a cartoonist as talented as Jack Ohman working out of our local paper. I hope he can snap out of whatever mid-career slump he's found himself in, and recapture his rapier-like wit (even if it is mostly aimed at people on my side of the political arena.)

Visioning Project: giveaways to the usual suspects

Did you know that Mayor Potter is giving out $200,000 in "Community Grants" to non profit organizations so they can ask their constituents a list of questions about their vision for Portland?

They received 142 applications for the grants, which range from $1,000 to $15,000. I spoke to someone today who went to the application meeting. I'm told that all the usual suspects were there - almost all of the organizations represented were of one or another liberal stripe.

So that's the plan... get all the liberal groups to ask their "communities" what they want Portland to be in 30 years. Guess whose vision dominates the discussions?

It will be interesting when they release the list of who got the grants. That will go a long way toward explaining what "vision" the project tells us Portlanders want for the city.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the vision that comes out of this process is that 1) we need more light rail; 2) we need more bike lanes; 3) etc.

Westlund's Candidacy: Who does it hurt?

So Ben Westlund is no longer a Republican, and will run for governor as an independent. So the question is: will he draw more votes from the Democrat or the Republican nominee?

It's a close call, but I think an argument can be made that Westlund would draw more votes from Kulongoski (assuming he's the nominee.) Here's the reasoning:

Westlund is neither a fiscal or a social conservative. He's been out front trying to raise taxes, he supports a sales tax, and he was a co-sponsor of SB1000, the same sex marriage bill.

Why would a bunch of Republicans flock to him? I could see some moderate R's vote for an independent who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but Westlund is liberal on both.

Democrats, on the other hand, are very disenchanted with Kulongoski, and are looking for some alternative. I think they would find Westlund's positions very attractive.

It could be that Westlund's defection will be good for the Republican nominee.

Anybody?

Who says you can't pave your way out of congestion?

I don't know how many times I've heard it said by all the planning ninnies around here, but I'm sure you've heard it too: "We will never pave our way out of congestion." It comes with lots of corrollary statements, such as "If we build more roads, that will just bring more cars."

Of course nobody in their right mind would apply this ridiculous principle to any other facet of their life. Would they ever say "If we install the big pipe, people will just poop more." Or "If I make more money, I'll just spend it."

OF COURSE increasing road capacity will decrease congestion. And in today's Oregonian, we have a great example of it. It concerns the Bridgeport Village retail center. Planners can't stand Bridgeport Village, because the entire thing is built with cars in mind. There aren't bike racks everywhere, not rail lines coming in. Although there is a bus mall nearby, I've never seen anybody get off the bus and walk over to Bridgeport.

In short, Bridgeport Village is hugely successful, precisely because it has rejected every single element of the planner's dogma.

Especially with regards to road capacity.

When it was in the planning stages, all the naysayers said that adding 800,000 square feet of retail space in that area would create a crisis in an already troubled intersection. So they upgraded the intersections and roads around the center. The improvements were very well thought out.

In fact, the developer said that there is even room to grow, because the road improvements were made to handle "a larger office and retail complex than was built."

So there you have it. Turns out if you build more road capacity, you can handle more cars and congestion goes down! And if you add on to your restaurant, you can seat more people. And it if you add 100 amps of electric service to your home, you can run more appliances. And if you ....

Oh you get the idea.

Refusing to be held accountable

Go check out my exchange with this PERS-retiree teacher over on his blog.

Thanks to Gus for notifying me that this guy was writing about me. The conversation is pretty revealing as to how union teachers think they should not be held accountable.

Jim Hill

Jim Hill was in studio for an hour on my show today. Nice enough guy, but I was less than impressed.

His calculation seems to be very simple: I get union money instead of Ted, and it makes me competitive. He may be right. The way he was talking, the unions might well throw their considerable funds behind him.

To say he is a status quo guy is to understate the fact by quite a distance. He thinks PERS has been solved, and he couldn't name any government function that he would do away with.

He's a government guy, plain and simple. He said right out front that the government doesn't have enough money. The only difference between his and some other more purely socialist mindset is that Hill realizes that only a strong economy can generate more dollars for government programs, so he wants to grow the economy.

He doesn't however, have any real understanding of how to do so. He spoke of international trade being key, but said nothing about tax structure, land use regs, transportation, or anything else that might release private sector energy in the form of capital formation.

His answers were ponderously unfocused, filled with tangential pathways, and almost entirely lacking specificity.

He got angry with me right off the bat when I challenged him on PERS. It was really quite funny. He said "The problem has been solved." I wrote the statement down right then, and challenged him, saying "You're sitting there telling me the problem is solved when schools are paying 23% of payroll into PERS?"

He then said "Don't insult me. I didn't say the problem was solved." I asked "You did just that. And how does it insult you to read your words back to you?"

It was interesting how unprepared he seemed for this kind of pushback. This guy has won statewide campaigns, and ran for governor before, yet he seemed really astounded that I would take him on directly by challenging his answers. And he didn't handle it well - he got mad. Not good on the radio - especially when you're arguing with a guy like me who actually likes that kind of conflict.

None of this matters, however. He is going to shill for the unions, and if he gets their $$ he'll have the resources to mount a credible campaign. With the widespread disenchantment with Kulongoski, he could get the nomination.

I'm supporting Saxton. I can only hope like hell that Hill beats Kulongoski in the primary, because Saxton would walk all over Hill in the general.

All in all, Hill is a government guy. His world view is "government is good." He may not have noticed, but that view is a little out of tune with the times.

It's just a question of image

The Portland School District abandoned their tax dreams because the poll they commissioned showed that either an income tax or a new local option property tax was about as popular as Bill Sizemore at an OEA convention.

In the Oregonian today: "School leaders say they must remake the district's image before they ask for more money."

Ahem....

They still don't get it, do they? They honestly believe that it is simply a matter of marketing and messaging. That they can hire Gard and Gerber to conduct a PR campaign and all of a sudden people will realize that PPS has been doing a great job all along, and will support all sorts of new revenue.

Here's a good way to start remaking the district's image:

1) Cap health care premiums at $650/month per teacher.
2) Cut every administrator's salary by 25%.
3) Launch a ten year effort like Chicago Public Schools is doing to contract out low performing schools to be operated by outside school management companies.
4) Cut all curriculum specialist positions and Director of Student Achievement (DOSA) positions.
5) Get rid of the faddish "new new math" curriculum and replace it with proven programs such as Connecting Math Concepts from the University of Oregon.
6) Implement a direct, intensive, systematic, explicit and comprehensive phonics curriculum.
7) Let Self-Enhancement Inc., which now operates a charter middle school in NE Portland, take over Jefferson Cluster schools.
8) Take a leadership role in ending the PERS system and replacing it with a defined contribution program.

That would be a start, if you were truly interested in creating a system of schools that could compete.

Or, you could just hire the PR firm. That would be a lot easier.

Jim Hill on my radio show Sunday

In his first radio interview since he announced he is running for Governor, Jim Hill will be on Kremer & Abrams this Sunday from 10-11:00.

Ideas for questions to ask Mr. Hill? I don't know a ton about the guy, but I will be interested in his take on the big picture issues.

Two great examples of the problem in a single issue!

Today's Oregonian gave us two great examples of the problem with having a monopoly newspaper.

Imagine if Portland was a two newspaper town. Major political issues of the day would be debated in the editorial pages, and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments on both sides would come out. Neither of the papers would be able to define the issue by using the news pages to offer up only stories that support the editorial position the paper has taken. Neither paper could dismiss the arguments of the other side as not worthy of consideration.

The Oregonian today gives us two examples of what I'm talking about:

Example #1: We all know the Oregonian wants a property tax hike to once again save Portland School District from itself. So, just like they did when the ITAX was being debated, we can expect an onslaught of "news" stories based on the theme: "schools don't have enough money."

Today we saw the first one - a completely invented news story about high Oregon class sizes. It wasn't a story about release of a national study or anything - it was entirely self generated. The Oregonian apparently asked the Department of Education for class size information, and then they wrote a story about it. Big news.

But it supports their theme of "schools need money," so they do it.

The article itself is basically just a series of whining school officials. They are careful to mention that class sizes would be worse still were it not for the ITAX, and so they will go up unless some replacement revenue is found.

It's a very good example of the way the Oregonian operates - how their "news" pages work in a coordinated fashion with the editorial side.

You'd think any honest discussion of class size might ask the question "why are Oregon's class sizes higher than other states that spend less money than us?" But you won't find it anywhere in this story. You won't find a whisper of the dirty little secret that Oregon has been trading high teacher pay and benefits for class size for years, and that we now have the highest level of teacher benefits in the nation.

That's how you know the story was simply invented to support their push for a new tax. Expect more of them. Mark my words, in the coming months you will see story after story, equally invented (by invented I mean a story not triggered by any news event) that covers some aspect of the theme "schools don't have enough money."

Example #2: The Oregonian's editorial today on light rail.

You probably saw that the Bush administration funded two big transportation projects for the Portland metro area: the commuter rail project that is going to run from Wilsonville to Beaverton, and the I-205 light rail that will go from Clackamas Town Center to the eastside Max.

There is a rapidly growing and very compelling body of research, analysis and opinion that shows light rail and commuter rail projects such as these are monumental wastes of money that fail to deliver on any of the promises that they make. Take a look at this website.

Rail is hugely expensive, inflexible, slow, and it makes traffic congestion and pollution worse, not better. Analyze the cost vs. the ridership numbers and it is pretty clear - rail is a horrible investment if your purpose is to move bodies and goods efficiently.

But I have never seen any analysis of the numbers in the pages of the Oregonian. Not once. Maybe there is somehting I am not recalling, but I don't think so. So, consider the contrast: the Oregonian WANTS a new tax, so they ask the ODE for class size numbers and concoct a "news" story analyzing those numbers to show that we have high class sizes.

Think the Oregonian would ever do a similar analysis of light rail numbers? No interest.

But it is worse than just having an agenda. The real damage of the monopoly newspaper is that it is able to dismiss the other side of the debate. The Oregonian NEVER covers any of the growing body of research that critiques light rail. There's never a news article about the latest study that shows light rail fails to deliver.

In fact, the Oregonian dismisses light rail critics with a derisive snort. This from today's editorial:

"...expect to hear the usual loud chorus of negativity from opponents of rail transit. It's a favorite punching bag for those who think Oregon can simply pave its way out of transportation gridlock."

And later in the same editorial:

"...boo-birds loved to chirp about the sometimes-empty train cars they saw. "

The subtext here is: "There is no reasonable argument against light rail, and any person who argues against it is not worthy of being taken seriously."

And THAT is the damage caused by a monopoly newspaper. They pretty much have free reign to define the political spectrum as, one the one hand, reasonable progressives who support all the right policies, and on the other, "boo-birds in the chorus of negativity."

Over the long term, this has done trememdous damage to the political culture in Oregon. I hope the advent of new media can bring it back.

PS: Here is something I would like to hear from my governor candidate:

"I don't want the Oregonian's endorsement. I think the Oregonian is part of the problem. They have supported all the things over the years that I stand against - things that have done great harm to this state that I love. Why would I ask the Oregonian to endorse me, when I oppose so much of what they support?"

How bureaucrats harrass business - a case study

The Willamette Week reported today that Geoff Thompson might be "breaking the rules" in trying to re-open the View Point Inn after fighting for a decade with various governmental bureaucrats.

The story is a case study in how faceless bureaucrats, probably grinding a personal vendetta, can basically bankrupt small business owners. Here's the story:

Thompson owns this historic bed and breakfast, but Columbia Gorge regulations prohibited him from using it for the purpose it was built. The regs wouldn't allow commercial activities of that sort on his property, which has a great view of the Gorge.

He fought for a decade to finally get the permission to open it up. All he wants to do is employ people, pay taxes, run a business and offer tourists an historic setting for a meal or an overnight stay. After the Gorge Commission finally said OK, now Multnomah County just needs to get the paperwork done to recognize the zoning change.

The usual process: public notification, comment period, etc. Should take a couple months at most, if the County was at all interested in helping business, and not interested in sticking it to a guy who had ruffled some feathers trying to get the permission to make a living.

By rule, the County has nine months to get it done. But Thompson would sure like to be open for high tourist season this summer. Being open this summer literally means hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue, and after spending a decade fighting, he could use the cash flow.

Is the County going to lift a finger to help him? Expedite the process a little bit so he can open in spring rather than having to wait til the middle of summer when the nine months is up? They claim they are "doing everything they can" but their actions say precisely the opposite.

His target open date is July 1st. The County could help him and move it up if they want, but instead they are just harrassing him further.

What would you do if you wanted to hit the ground running with a July 1 opening for a restaurant/lodge? You might want to make sure you were filled to the brim right away, so you don't lose any more revenue from having your businesses only asset sitting idle. Which means you'd advertise a little and take some advance reservations.

Believe it or not, the County has told him to STOP taking advance reservations! They say doing so is a commercial activity, and his property does not yet have a permit for such commercial activity! I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!

This is the same Multnomah County that is chronically short of funds, can't even open up a brand new jail, fix bridges or prosecute property crimes. Wouldn't you think they might want to HELP a small business get going, so maybe it would start paying some taxes?

Now he has to go argue it out in front of a land use judge. The County is threatening to fine him $100 a day if he doesn't stop taking reservations!

This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start. It actually strikes close to home for me. I try to open at least one Arthur Academy Charter School each year. We almost always need to get conditional use permits for our school facilities. We regularly adverstise and take enrollment applications for the schools long before they have all their land use approvals. It's the only way we can do it - it is not easy to convince parents to send their child to your school, and the vast majority of these decisions are made in the spring before the next school year.

If the County's interpretation is correct, that means we'd have to wait until we had all the use permits before marketing the school and enrolling kids, which would severely limit first year enrollment in most cases, and probably cause us to delay opening a year in some cases, which costs a lot of money.

The real question is: why is the County taking this position, and who can we get fired?

It is time to get angry, and make these petty bureaucrats afraid.

Saxton makes it official

Last night Ron Saxton made it official.

He launched his campaign with a crowd of several hundred supporters at the Oregon Historical Society. It was quite a festive scene: bright lights, TV cameras, balloons, and a lot of enthusiastic people.

I've been to a lot of these things (and done one of my own), but Ron's was unusual. Typically, it is like pulling teeth to get bodies to a campaign kickoff. The candidate of course wants lots of people, so if the media does show up it looks substantial and credible. But it's not all that easy to get people to show.

Ron had no such problem. There were not only lots of people, but lots of energy in the room. And Ron gave his speech, which left little doubt that he is running to DO something rather than to BE something.

His speech was full of specifics. It wasn't your run of the mill thematic stump speech, full of platitudes and feel-good bromides. He went down the list of state agencies and programs and talked about how he would change them. Privatize anything the private sector can do more cheaply and efficiently than government employees. Specifics: DEQ emmissions testing. He gave others.

Fix PERS. He said it is unconscionable that government agencies such as schools are paying as much as 25% of payroll into the retirement system. Wrap your mind around that! What is YOUR 501k employer contribution? Five percent is about average.

Bring competition to the public schools. I've spoken with Ron at length on this issue, as you might imagine. Ron has a deeper understanding of the school problem and how competition can help fix it than any person I know. He saw the face of the problem during his time on the Portland school board.

Lots of people who have criticised me for endorsing Ron like to attack him for his tenure on the school board. Guess what? Ron pushed for every single charter school that came in front of the board, and at times was the lone "yes" vote.

Did he singlehandedly reform the district? No, a school board member has no power to do that, especially in Portland where his colleagues are hand picked by the teachers union and are the usual stripe of Portland latte leftists.

The Saxton campaign had a great week. Lars endorsed him yesterday, completing the KXL "hat trick," since Jeff Kropf and I had already endorsed him. Lars had previously supported Atkinson, but when Jason took the curious position in support of Bush's guest worker program (which is just amnesty by another name) Lars could no longer support him.

So he threw his considerable weight behind Ron.

The event had a funny, if pathetic sideshow. On the sidewalk in front of the Historical Society lobby were about five protesters, each holding picket signs. They weren't causing a ruckus or anything, just stood there glumfaced holding their signs, which were hand-lettered with magic markers and looked as if they spent all of 30 seconds putting them together.

One sign read: Ron Saxton: Neil Goldschmidt's personal lawyer.

Very nice! That is totally false - Ron was never Goldschmidt's lawyer for anything. It was pretty disappointing - not that protesters would show up with false assertions on their picket signs - that just means that the Saxton campaign matters. Nobody bothers to picket someone who is irrelevant.

No, what was disappointing is how feckless, amateurish and clumsy the protest was. Assuming that the protest was in some plausibly deniable way originated by the Mannix campaign, is that really the best they can do? Hand-lettered smears on picket signs hoping to somehow cast a pall over the festive atmosphere?

All they succeeded in doing is making themselves (and the Mannix campaign, even if it wasn't at all involved, since everyone would naturally assume that it was) look pathetic.

Is that how this campaign is going to play out? Energy and enthusiasm on one side, desperate smears on the other?

If so, I like Ron's chances!

Dave Lister files for city council

The Eastside Guy, Dave Lister, is running against Eric Sten for city council.

He's known as the Eastside Guy because he writes a column for BrainstormNW Magaizine by that name, in which he comments on Portland issues. I've known Dave for several years. He's a business owner - he and a partner run a small software development company that specializes in billing systems for businesses.

Ironically, one of Eric Sten's biggest failures was the mismanagement of converting Portland's water billing system to another software provider. Lister's company develops precisely this kind of software. He wrote a feature length article for Brainstorm about how badly Sten bungled the conversion.)

Which cost the city about $40 million.

Dave Lister is exactly what the city of Portland needs on the council: common sense. A small business perspective. Someone who has signed the front of a paycheck. Someone who understands that incentives drive behavior, and high taxes discourage capital and job formation.

Give the guy a look. I think what you'll find is a plain speaking, refreshing, informed and intelligent person who is motivated not by ambition for a political career, but by changing the political culture of the city that he has spent entire life loving.

Let's give Eric Sten the chance to get the private sector experience he so desparately needs.

What is your theory of change?

Mayor Potter's "Visioning Project" is underway. The Oregonian reported today that the effort has exactly one fan on city council - the Mayor.

Here's the plan: the Mayor wants to spend $1.1 million to figure out what "vision" the people of Portland have for what the city will look like in 30 years. He's appointed a 55 member "visioning committee" to spearhead the whole thing.

I wrote about the project when he first announced it, so I won't go into detail here how ridiculous it is to pretend that there is a single unifying vision that Portlanders agree upon.

I find it also a bit funny that he would appoint a committee so big that it has a Committee IQ of below .25 (yes that is point-two-five.)

But mostly, I want to write a little bit about what the Mayor's project (and other similar projects being conducted around the state) reveal about the Mayor's "theory of change."

What do I mean by "theory of change?"

Basically, I mean: what do you think drives change? What impels social institutions to reform? What forces bring it about? Look at any politician's programs, and you can tell a lot about how he or she thinks change happens.

Potter has appointed a committee to talk to the people in the hope that a unified vision will emerge, which he can then lead them toward. He thinks this is really important. He even said that visioning was "the most important thing he'll do as mayor."

There are a couple assumptions that underlie this effort. 1) There exists among the citizens a single coherent vision, agreed upon by everybody, about what Portland should be. 2) The leader's job is to figure out what this is, and lead the people toward it.

The leader, then, in the Potter view, is less of a leader than an implementor. His job is to divine where people want to be led, then to be an efficient technocrat by getting them to this place in the most efficient manner.

I think this is, well, absurd. There is no such thing as a shared vision. That is the language of collectivism. There is a majority vision, to be sure. Politics is an exercise in deciding on which is the majority vision and the winner gets to make it happen, if he or she has the skill.

But there is no such thing as a shared vision in any political body as large and diverse as the city of Portland.

The funny thing about Potter's project is that for more than two decades Portland has indeed pursued a vision. It happens to be a vision that I disagree with, but apparently a majority of Portlanders don't, and so it has been implemented with all the usual efficiency of government (insider's graft, sham processes, budgetary shamanism, public relations initiatives, etc.)

So now, after decades of implementing this vision, Potter wants to conduct a million dollar visioning initiative?

OK, let me fantasize for a moment. Imagine that every public meeting, every forum, and every outreach session that the committee of 55 (with a committee IQ of .25) held was completely void of any "new urbanist" perspective. Imagine if in every meeting the Mayor and his committee heard only from people who: reject light rail, think we need more road capacity, think "sustainability" is code for "radical environmentalism, think transit oriented developments are a waste of resources, love Wal-Mart, and think Homer Williams is a whore.

Do you think the Visioning Committee would dutifully report that Portland should embark on a long term vision of paving over light rail lines and increasing road capacity?

No Way! This is not an attempt to divine the people's vision; it's an attempt to pretend that the current vision is supported by the people!

And the theory of change? Technocratic. Decide how we want the place to look, and put the proper programs in place to make it look that way.

As opposed to a dynamic theory of change. A dynamic theory cares not a whit about what the future will look like. It is futile to guess! In 1985, how many of us could predict and plan for the changes that would come from the internet? Which technocrats effectively planned for that?

My theory of change, at least as it applies to politics, is quite different. I believe change to established institutions never happens from within. It is only brought about by pressure. Institutions will NEVER reform themselves, even if a committee is charged with doing so.

That means if you want to improve an institution (say, public schools) the LAST thing you'd want to do is appoint a committee of "stakeholders" to figure out what to do.

Yet what is the most common thing we see politicians propose? A "Blue Ribbon Committee."
Think of how many such committees we've seen. The Quality Education Comission, for one. A much shorter list: how many have actually reformed an institution?

I spend a lot of my time trying to build a vibrant and robust charter school industry in Oregon. As a theory of change, charter schools are the exact opposite of the "stakeholder/committee" model. They are organic/dynamic, and succeed only when there is enough pressure on the establishment schools to create a market for the charter.

My opinion is that reform never comes from within. It only comes from outside pressure.

Mayor Potter's "Visioning" project will just be further proof.

Acting like a monopoly

Did you catch the article in the Oregonian today about the Portland School District cracking down on parents who lie about where they live to get their kids into a better school?

I love it when this issue surfaces, because it illustrates in such stark terms what is wrong with the school system. Some parents, it turns out, want something better for their children than the failing public school to which they are assigned, and don't have the means to afford tuition or to move to a better area. So they commit the heinous crime of enrolling their child in a better public school than the one the school administrators find it convenient to assign them to.

And what is the reaction of the bureaucracy?:

"There will be consequences if they lie about where they live," said Judy Dauchy, the administrator for the district's enrollment and transfer center.

Only a government monopoly could have this kind of arrogant attitude.

Does the fact that parents want out of one school and into another cause them any concern? It sure wasn't expressed by Ms. Dauchy. No, they want to punish the parents who are rejecting the lousy product they provide.

What should they do? If parents are leaving school A for school B, why not let the management of school B take over school A? Why not punish the people who run school A, rather than punish the customers who want something better for their kids?

Oops, silly me. I used the word "customers." I keep forgetting that in our public school system, parents and students aren't customers, they are captives. Their educational interests are secondary to more important considerations, such as what is convenient for the school district administrators and most of all, the unions.

After all, what could be more inconvenient than parents who won't go along with where their kids are assigned? If they allowed parents to go where they wished, the administrators would have all sorts of management issues such as figuring out how to increase the capacity of the desireable schools, and to adjust the staffing levels of the crappy ones.

That might not even be allowed under the district's own governing document - the collective bargaining contract! It, of course, has final say over such matters, and nothing - certainly not something as unimportant as the desires of parents -- can be allowed to override it.

So, I imagine that Portland School District will have to have an enforcement division. Public employees whose job it is to check up on students by doing home visits to the addresses they claim on their enrollment forms. This is done in other districts.... John Stossell just ran a special on ABC called "Stupid in America" that followed one such investigator and showed how he determined whether a student lived in the home he claimed. The investigator actually went in the house, into the student's bedroom to check if there were clothes in the drawers, books on the shelves, etc, in order to root out those evil parents who don't go along with where the bureuacracy assigns their kids to be uneducated.

By the way, Stossell is coming to Portland this Sunday, speaking at a Cascade Policy Institute dinner.

Imagine the moral foundation of a school system that punishes the parents, rather than the school officials, when a school is so undesireable that parents lie about where they live rather than send their kids there.

This is the school system that is asking for yet another income tax, so it can continue to do business the way it now operates rather than make the structural changes it should have made two decades ago.

Is it any wonder that public support is waning?

Bush political appointee screws up, puts us all at risk

If you didn't catch 60 Minutes yesterday (and I didn't; I never do) they had a story about a real Bush administration screwup that could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

What would happen if Al Qaeda succeeded in detonating a nuclear bomb in the US? There would be tens of thousands perhaps dead, but hundreds of thousands more would have radiation sickness.

In 2003, Bush created Project Bioshield, which allocated $6 billion to help develop a biodefense industry that would create drugs that could be used in the event of a terrorist strike. He appointed a Republican political ally, Stewart Simonson, who was a lawyer for Amtrack, to administer the program.

A company called Hollis Eden Pharamaceutical (HEPH - Nasdaq) has developed a very effective drug for radiation poisoning that is far and away the most effective drug for preventing the bleeding and other maladies that come with radiation exposure. [Full disclosure: I own some stock in Hollis Eden. I've owned it for almost two years, having heard about the drug they were testing.]

The Pentagon has partnered with Hollis Eden because it knows its drug is the best. It can be self administered, and stockpiled for long periods of time. Literally millions of doses would be needed, because it has to be stockpiled in major cities - no one knows where the bomb might go off.

Unfortunately, Project Bioshield is run out of Department of Health and Human Services, and when it came time a couple months ago to announce the first big purchase of the radiation treatment drug, what did Stewart Simonson at HHS decide?

They announced they would buy 10,000 doses, and it would not be Hollis Eden's drug, developed with the encouragement of the Pentagon and Project Bioshield, but an inferior drug developed by a competitor. What happens if a nuke hits now? Ten thousand doses is only a small fraction of what is needed.

Imagine if it happened. The 60 Minutes story is already out. They could have the millions of doses ready and waiting, but chose to buy only 10,000. What if tens of thousands of people died of radiation poisoning because Project Bioshield refused to do its job, due to the bungling of a railroad lawyer who has no biomedical background?

The Bush Administration would be finished. Karl Rove I hope you are paying attention.

AFL-CIO targets Wal-Mart

The AFL-CIO is sponsoring a ballot initiative aimed at Wal-Mart. You've probably read about it - it requires any company of more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8% of its payroll on health care for employees.

Guess how many companies in Oregon employ that many people and don't already spend 8% on health care? Yep, one: Wal-Mart.

This is not just an Oregon thing. It is part of a coordinated nationwide AFL-CIO led effort to make Wal-Mart buckle under. The unions know they can't successfully unionize Wal-Marts, but they might be able to take away their competitive advantage through ballot measures and state legislatures.

Maryland just passed the same law that Oregon's AFL-CIO is trying to get on the ballot here. Actually, the state legislature overrode the governor's veto to get the law passed. Wal-Mart's next move? They cancelled plans to build a distribution center in Maryland, which would have created 800 jobs. As reported in OpinionJournal.com, the Wal-Mart spokesman said about the decision to cancel the distribution center:

"You have to take a step back and call into question how business-friendly is a state like Maryland when they pass a bill that . . . takes a swipe at one company that provides 15,000 jobs."

EXACTLY. The same goes for Oregon. What does it tell a prospective large employer considering a move to Oregon (or a small company already here that hopes to be a large employer) when the state swerves off the road to punish Wal-Mart because it doesn't provide the benefits the union wants it to?

You think they might have seconds thoughts about Oregon as a place to grow?

You think the AFL-CIO cares?

It will be very interesting to see how Oregon votes on this one. Call it the canary in the mine. If people here are serious about being competitive again, they will reject it. If not, well, good for Clark County.

Kremer's Theorem on Committee IQ

Take a look at the equation on the right.

It is the result of years and years of observations, empirical study and statistical analysis, conducted by my brother, who has a Ph.D. in physics from Cal Tech.

We continue to get illustration after illustration as to the truth of the theorem. In fact, the political science community is ready to say that it is no longer a theorem - it has been proved sufficiently for it now to be known as

"Kremer's Axiom."

Here's the axiom, in layperson's terms: If you want to estimate the intelligence of a committee (IQc), take the average intelligence of the members of the committee (IQ with the bar over it) and divide it by the number of members on the committee squared (N2).

So, how does it play out? Let's say we have a school board, say, Portland, seven members. Generously estimating their average intelligence at 100 (100 is the average intelligence of an adult), then the IQ of the school board is:

100/(7*7) = 2.04

It has been shown that your average vegetable, say, spinach, has an IQ of about 2. After all, it knows to turn toward the sun to get nourishment. So, school boards in Oregon are about as intelligent as spinach.

Now, some school boards are made up of five members. This, according to Kremer's Axiom, actually doubles the committee IQ:

100/(5*5) = 4

It is easy to see that a committee of ten or more people has a committee IQ of 1 or below. That would explain the output of legislatively created committees such as the Quality Education Commission.

It would certainly explain our state legislature. With sixty members in the house, Kremer's Axiom estimates a "Committee IQ of:

100/(60*60) = .028

The Oregon Senate is far, far smarter than the House. Its Committee IQ comes to:

100/(30*30) = .111

So, whenever you are puzzled by the decisions made by city councils, county commissions, school boards, state legislatures, just remember Kremer's Axiom.

And don't even bother estimating the U.S. House of Representatives. The Committee IQ is not significantly higher than zero. As if you needed Kremer's Axiom to know that!

A very thoughtful column on race, Democrats and Republicans

It ran in OpinionJournal.com yesterday, by Shelby Steele.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007854

Commissioner Sam Adams co-hosting my show Sunday

Marc Abrams is out of town this weekend, and so Commissioner Sam Adams has agreed to co-host my radio show in his place.

It should be a lot of fun. Sam has been in the news a lot lately, and I look forward to talking with him about it.

Sam and I disagree about most things (which of course is kind of a pre-requisite to co-host my show with me,) but I like him and respect him for never shying away from explaining his positions with the public. He's a thoughtful guy, really smart, so it should be a good time.

Tune in and call in. 9-11 AM Sunday.

Oh - I will be filling in for Jeff Kropf on Saturday, from 6-9 AM.

Yeah I changed templates

No particular reason. Kinda got tired of the baby-puke yellow background.

The Bicycle Activist v. Tri-Met

Let me get this straight. The cycler didn't want to ride on the bike path that taxpayers so generously paved for his ilk, because it had too much gravel on it. So he rode in the car lane, on the Hawthorne bridge.

Then, when the Tri-Met bus had to squeeze by him, it came within (in his own words) 18" of his handlebars. Well, duh! What does he expect? He was in the car lane!

In a childlike tantrum, he catches up the the bus as it stops in traffic and blocks it by parking his bike on the street in front of the bus. Reminds me of Tiannanmen Square, when the guy (whose name, as I recall, was Sum Dom Fock) stood in front of the tanks.

Except this bicycle activist, far from becoming a symbol of brave resistance to totalitarian force, is just a childish and entitlement-minded wing nut.

So, we have a stand-off between a bicycle and the bus, crowded with people. One of whom takes matters into his own hands, gets off the bus and basically manhandles the idiot off the street and onto the sidewalk.

Which of course is just what the wing nut wanted, because now he can sue Tri-Met and become a big celebrity in his bike nazi community. He's claiming medical bills, lost work, plus $48K in other damages.

What does he expect? That he can act like that and have no consequence whatever? That he is owed an apology by the bus driver for driving near him when he is not on the bike path?

I saw the video of the whole thing. From what I saw the man who left the bus to take care of the situation didn't really hurt him - he just kind of forced him over to the side of the road where he belonged. It didn't look like he swung at him or anything like that. The last frame that I saw, the bike nazi was still standing over his bike.

No way this guy should get any money, nor even an apology from Tri-Met. HE should be the one apologizing. (If indeed the man did swing at him, push him down or otherwise try to hurt him, I don't condone it. But I have no problem at all if what he did is what I saw on the video - forcibly move him off the road.)

Imagine! He thinks he should be able to throw a tantrum in the middle of the street, holding up an entire busload of people, and NOT be moved forcibly out of the way? What if you were walking down the sidewalk and some idiot blocked your way, and would not let you pass? Would you have the right to forcibly move him? How is this any different?

If you ask me, he got what he deserves. Hurrah for the unidentified man who had the guts to treat this bike nazi like the child he is.

One last thing . . . what do you want to bet that when the man re-boarded he bus, he was met by cheers from everyone on it?

Happy 300th Birthday, Ben Franklin

Today is Benjamin Franklin's 300th birthday.

Franklin was an extraordinary genius, on the order of Leonardo da Vinci.

Perhaps the best illustration of his incredible intellect is the "Silence Dogood" letters. The story is amazing.

As a 16 year old he was working as an apprentice in his brother James' newspaper in Boston.

Franklin was much more talented than his brother, who was quite threatened by his younger sibling's precociousness. James wouldn't let Benjamin write anything for the paper - he just ran the press and performed laborer's duties.

Frustrated, Franklin wrote a letter to the newspaper under a pen name, and slipped it under the door of the newspaper at night. The letter was from "Mrs. Silence Dogood," a 45 year old widow of a country parson. In the letter she spoke with the wry wit and self-deprecating wisdom of a mature, worldly woman. The letter shocked and delighted Boston society with her satirical, sometimes racy observations and comments.

He wrote a total of 14 letter from Mrs. Dogood, and by this time was the talk of the town. Readers speculated as to who she could be. Who was this woman, with her sometimes impertinant musings?

In one letter, she satirizes Harvard College, where she wanted to send her son. She describes entering the campus:

"The Passage was kept by two sturdy Porters named "Riches" and "Poverty", and the latter obstinately refused to give Entrance to any who had not first gain'd the Favour of the former; so that I observed, many who came even to the very Gate, were obliged to travel back again as ignorant as they came, for want of this necessary Qualification."

Many scholars consider the Dogood letters to be America's first newspaper columnist.

James Franklin never admitted that it was Benjamin who wrote the Dogood letters. Too embarrasing to admit that your kid brother was so much smarter than you.

Benjamin Franklin was an American genius. Read a biography of him sometime. You won't regret it.

The Real Message of "24"

Did you watch the season premier of "24"? Two hour specials both Sunday and Monday night got this year's series kicked off. Riveting and compelling as ever.

It's also one of the highest rated shows on TV. As I watched it, it struck me - the Democrats just don't understand. They are constantly hammering on Bush's supposed violations of civil liberties, whining about wiretapping terrorist phone calls and subjecting detainees to discomfort.

Meanwhile the nation watches Jack Bauer execute a terrorist in cold bloods as he saves another 60 civilians from sure death. I'm sure a lot of Democrats were watching too, and they are secretly happy, no doubt, with the notion that we have real life Jack Bauers out there protecting us.

I hope the D's don't figure out that the civil liberties attacks on Bush are not going to work. I hope they were all watching BrokeBack Mountain win its 45 Golden Globe Awards, as Americans stay away from the movie in droves.

A few things

I've been posting sporadically lately, but things have piled up. Brief comments on some of them:

Metro's Open Spaces initiative - They want another $220 million to buy land for habitat protection. What a farce. About 96% of Oregon is open space already. The only reason we feel crowded inside the UGB is because land use laws won't let us build outside of it. So Metro wants money to mitigate a "problem" its own policies have created.

Here's what they don't tell you about the initiative:

• 5% of the total ($10 million) is set aside for "community group programs." That means Metro will dole out money each year to Audubon, Willamette Riverkeepers, and all the other greenie/socialist groups. Our tax money going to these people!
• 10% of the total will go to Metro "administration." Just what we need - keep feeding the beast.
• 10% will go to the cities inside the Metro territory. A payoff to build constituency for the bond measure.

The Oregonian had a nice fluff piece on the plan today. It read like a Metro brochure. Why do they continue pretending they are a newspaper? Why not just insert the press releases from government agencies and save themselves the transcribing.

Alito Confirmation - I was home sick in bed on Tuesday and was able to watch a lot of the hearing. It was pretty funny. Alito is not as dynamic and charming as Roberts, but equally smart. Biden was nauseating (I'll bet he spends an hour a day talking to himself in front of a mirror) and Kennedy was, as usual, offensive.

Watching the proceedings it was pretty apparent that Alito is simply much smarter than anybody on that committee. He'll be confirmed easily, and it'll be a big win for Bush.

Kitzhaber- I didn't think for one second he would run again for governor. His biggest problem is that he is an asshole, and that was nowhere more apparent than in the way he handled this whole affair. He completely screwed his buddy Ted, made him look weak and ineffectual at a time when he's trying to gear up and run for re-election. In his press conference, Kitzhaber was asked if he had told Kulongoski of his decision, and he snapped: "I just did."

Wow - he didn't even have the class to call Teddy and tell him he wasn't running.

The Kitzhaber health care "plan" is not just half baked, it's not even in the oven. Here's what it amounts to: "give me all the money and I'll figure out how to deliver great health care for everybody."

OK John. Maybe you could design something as successful as your Oregon Health Plan.

Legislative nepotism - Big brouhaha about legislators hiring family members as legislative aides ever since crackhead Kelly Wirth abused the system. The O and others are calling for rules and regs covering legislative hiring.

This is so typical - make rules creating a big hassle for everybody because one person abused the system. It is not necessary. Lots of legislators have spouses or children working for them. In most cases they are the most trusted advisors. They have been through their campaigns and have advised them all along the way. They know what is going on. I'd much rather deal with a spouse than some 22 year old who doesn't know anything.

I think abuses are very rare.

The Now Infamous Tram - I just love the fact that the Tram is blowing up in the city of Portland's face.. They richly deserve it. Vera crammed it down the throats of the neighborhood and the other council members, who were all too timid to take her on. Now, she's gone and they are left holding the bag, desperately trying to save face now that the price tag has more than tripled.

The fact is the process by which the Tram got approved is no different than dozens of other scams the city has perpetrated over the last decade. Sham public hearings, cooked numbers justifying the "investment," favored insiders getting sweetheart deals - it happened with Cascade Station, South Waterfront, the Armory remodel, the Airport spur, Cascade Station, Interstate light rail, PGE Park, the Burnside Couplet -- the list goes on and on.

My buddy Randy Leonard says that staff mislead him about the cost of the Tram. OK fine, but this goes so much deeper than one lie about one project. How about the lie about 10,000 biotech jobs coming to South Waterfront? That was the whole justification for the $500 million plus public subsidy.

The Tram is a symbol of the way Portland has done business. It has to change.

Saxton - Since I announced I was supporting Ron Saxton for governor, I've taken a lot of heat. That's OK, but I was surprised at how some people felt it necessary to really try and tear Ron Saxton down.

Let's try to live by Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment just a little bit more, shall we?

John Stossel on School Choice

This Friday on KATU at 10:00 PM, John Stossel will host an hour long special on school choice titled "Stupid in America - How we are cheating our kids."

If you've never seen a John Stossel special, you are in for a treat. He is hard hitting and unafraid to gore oxes of monied interests.

He's coming to town next month to give a lecture sponsored by Cascade Policy Institute. It's February 5th in the evening.... go to their website to register.

Saxton for Governor

I am supporting Ron Saxton’s effort to win the Republican nomination for Governor.

I have taken awhile to make this decision, because we have three very solid Republican candidates. I would happily and enthusiastically support any of them in the general election, but I think Ron Saxton is the best candidate, and so I will work to help him win the primary in May.

Before going into my reasons for supporting Ron, I want to address an important issue: lots of conservative bloggers have been trying to paint Ron Saxton as a liberal, or as an inauthentic Republican - a RINO.

Let me put it simply: They are wrong.

Ron is not only the most fiscally conservative candidate running for governor, I believe he has the best grasp of precisely what is wrong about they way Oregon government operates right now and how to correct it.

On social issues, Ron is conservative where it matters: he would sign a ban on partial birth abortion, and he supports parental notification. He may not be as much as an abortion purist as the other candidates, but I have news for you: it doesn’t matter who the governor is – you’re not going to get more than this.

There’s been a lot of discussion about Ron’s association with Diana Goldschmidt, which, it is claimed, taints him because she is married to Neil Goldschmidt. Diana is a long time loyal Republican, and she supported Ron’s last run for Governor. Ron was instrumental in bringing Diana in to serve as interim superintendent of PPS, which was a very good move.

Did Ron’s firm also have various business dealings with Neil? Of course. Ron was the managing partner of a large law firm in Portland. Goldschmidt was involved with most every significant business deal in the city. Their professional lives inevitably crossed.

The real issue here is that Ron’s opponents want you to believe that he is a part of the “central planning/pro-light-rail/anti-car/anti property rights” culture that Goldschmidt ushered in and that has so badly damaged Portland and Oregon.

He’s not. I know him; I’ve talked with him at length about every one of these issues. I’ve literally drilled him on the gamut of things that drive me crazy about the political culture in Oregon. He’s as disgusted as I am about the way things are done here.

More important, he understands what he needs to do as governor to correct it, starting with a wholesale change of the people at every level of state government.

He understands that we need more roads, and that light rail is a bad investment if our goal is actually to move people as efficiently as possible. He understands that the land use system in Oregon has created hundreds of planning fiefdoms in city halls and county seats in every corner of the state that make building even the simplest structure an expensive and frustrating nightmare.

He understands that government’s job should not be to pick winners and losers, and that our land use laws are one of the single biggest obstacles to job growth in Oregon. (The tax structure is another.) He understands that competition is critical to reforming schools, and that PERS is devouring the budgets of every level of government.

I’ve talked with Ron at length about all of these things and more. I think his rural/farming background combines with his legal/business dealings in his professional life to give him a visceral understanding of what is wrong with Oregon. I don’t think the other candidates grasp it quite as well.

And that is why I am supporting Ron Saxton for governor.

One last thing: Ron has the best chance of any Republican candidate to win in November. Hands down. Any Republican who wants to win a statewide race in Oregon better have some strategy to pull 33-35% of the votes in Multnomah County. Ron is the only one who could do that.

In fact, I think that the primary will be a harder race for Ron to win than the general election.

So I urge you to take another look at Ron Saxton, and make a judgment for yourself. There are plenty of people I respect trying to make him appear to be a latte liberal RINO. I get that – they have chosen sides and are trying to help their candidate.

But it's not true. I like the other candidates both personally and politically, and I will not attempt to run either of them down. They each have many things to recommend them, and I would hope that their supporters would focus their energy on convincing people of these positive attributes rather than trying to denigrate Ron Saxton.

I don't think most people think I am a liberal, nor Don McIntire, who is also supporting Ron.

All I ask is that you take some time to listen to what Ron has to say, and judge for yourself whether he has a good handle on how to turn around the damage done in 25 years of Goldscmidt/Roberts/Katz/Kitz/Kulongoski rule in Oregon.