Blogs are all about self-indulgence, right? So it is OK to use it to reminisce.....
With the Chicago White Sox in the World Series for the first time since 1959, I can't help but think about my days in Chicago and how fortunate I was to get to know a man who arguably had the most significant impact on the sport of major league baseball than any other person - former White Sox owner Bill Veeck.
Bill Veeck was a giant of a man. He was larger than life in every respect. Most people have a passing familiarity with him, because he will forever be remembered for his most famous stunt - putting a midget to bat in a major league baseball game. That was indeed a fabulous story, but Bill Veeck the man was so much more than a showman with a genius for marketing stunts.
He was the most learned person I have ever had the blessing of spending time around.
I got to know him in the early 1980's. I was just out of school, working at a large bank in Chicago and attending business school in the evenings. I lived in Hyde Park, where University of Chicago (my alma mater) is located.
Bill Veeck had sold the White Sox about a year earlier to Jerry Reinsdorf. He correctly saw that the game of Major League Baseball was quickly becoming all about money, and he never had the resources to fund bidding wars for free agents.
The story of how he acquired the White Sox in the first place is a story in itself. It was actually the second time he owned the team - he bought and sold it a decade or so prior to when he reacquired it in the mid 1970's. It was typical Bill Veeck dealmaking. He never actually was all that rich - he would convince well-heeled friends to back him, create a consortium of owners, and he would be the public figure in the front.
Anyway, as I stomped around Hyde Park I'd see Bill here and there. He loved to while away Saturday afternoons in local bars drinking beer and holding court with whoever wanted to sit at his table and listen to his stories. In my senior year in college I worked at a fancy Hyde Park restaurant as a waiter, and Bill's daugher Marya worked there also.
She was a dear, and we became friends. Through her I met her sister, Lisa, and Lisa and I dated for the better part of a year.
During my time hanging around Lisa was when I got to know Bill and his lovely wife Mary Frances quite well. I spent many weekend days with him, and also many nights eating and drinking at restaurants all over town.
Going out to eat at a restaurant with Bill Veeck in Chicago meant that your table was a constant bustle of activity: people would stop by and chat, take pictures, and buy rounds of drinks for the table. It was not uncommon to have three drinks stacked behind each other as people would order our waitress to buy another round for the table - they'd just stack em up.
Bill would talk with anyone who came by. He loved people. He didn't care who they were. Everyone felt welcome to stop by, shake Bill's hand, and listen and laugh with everyone.
The best memories, however, are from the long Saturdays I spent with Lisa, Bill and Mary Frances in his condo, making Old Style empties and listening to Bill talk about his career.
His condo was on about the 30th floor of a building across the street from the Museum of Science and Industry. It had a great view of the museum grounds and Lake Michigan. Bill would sit on his couch, smoke cigarettes and drink beer. I fetched many a can from his fridge - the guy could drink, In fact he was a pretty famous alcoholic.
He was in awful physical shape from injuries he got in WWII. One leg was amputated, and he hobbled everywhere on his trademark peg leg. His eyes were bad, his hearing was bad, his other leg was shot up in the war also, and he had various and sundry other ailments about which he never complained.
On side of his wooden peg leg he carved out a little ashtray, and he would flick his cigarette ashes and stub out the butts in it. He was quite a sight.
He took a liking to me, as did Mary Frances. They told me all about his father, who was the GM of several baseball teams in the early part of the century. When Bill was a kid his dad was GM of the Cubs, right at the time Wrigley was built. As a youngster, Bill Veeck actually built the famous Cubs scoreboard that still stands today. He also planted the ivy that still covers the brick outfield wall that is the trademark of that wonderful stadium.
Mary Frances once broke out the family scrapbook. The whole family was on the cover of Life Magazine in the early 1960's. They showed me the newspaper stories they had saved when he put the midget up to bat, and told me all about how outraged the other team owners were about the stunt. He just laughed. It's a game, he would say.
He was guy who started all the promotions at baseball games. Bat night, poster night, kids night, ladies night, etc. He knew how to fill the stands. During games he never sat cloistered in an owners suite - no way. He sat in the stands. Actually, he would roam the stadium and talk to the fans, drink beer with them. He was a man of the people, and absolutley hated pretense.
There was nothing at all pretentious about Bill Veeck, even though he was the smartest man I ever met.
All his accomplishments, his storied career, all the stories he would tell about the people he knew in baseball - were only a small part of the man. He was also an historian. He knew more things about more things than anybody I have ever met. He read voraciously. He could cite chapter and verse about the battles and generals of the Mexican American war, the civil war, the history of Russia, and dozens of other historical events.
He was also an amateur etyomolgist. His vocabulary was unbelieveable and he knew the origins and roots of all sorts of obscure words. One of his prize possession was his dictionary. It was proudly displayed right in his foyer, on a table against the wall. It was a complete editon of the Webster, I think it was 12 volumes each about two inches thick, leather bound. He showed it to me once - opened it up to a page, and some common word (I forget what it was) had about a page and a half of definition, derivation, history, etc. He got a kick out of reading that kind of stuff.
I remember one of our long afternoons in his condo, watching a football game and drinking beers, listening to Bill and Mary Frances talk about the White Sox, and Mary Fraces said: "You know, Bill, Rob is the kind of guy you really wish you still owned the ballclub for."
I took that as the highest compliment.
The last time I saw Bill Veeck was a couple years after Lisa and I stopped dating. I went to a fall afternoon Cubs game, and after the game ended, exiting Wrigley, I saw Bill. Hobbling out of the bleacher gate exit, in a crowd of people, waving and talking to well wishers as he slowly made his way to the el station. His health had clearly deteriorated and his leg was obviously hurting him. Each step was pained.
But the larger than life smile was still on his face when I waved hi.
A few months later he died.
He was as great a showman who ever lived. But as a man he was about much, much more than a sports promoter. I will forever consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to understand why.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
NAEP scores just out; Oregon about average
The NAEP scores were released today. For the uninitiated, NAEP stands for National Assessment of Educational Progress. They are snapshots of average achievement levels in each state. Every student doesn't take the NAEP - it is only given to samples of students, and only to 4th, 8th and 12th graders every few years. The results are, however, statistically significant indicators of a state's achievement, and can be compared state to state.
Of course comparing states is still tricky, because of differing demographics. Affluent states with fewer minorities will tend to score higher than poor states with large minority populations. Oregon has an advantage on the demographic scale. We have a mostly white population, relatively high income, and higher than average education level.
But despite our demographic advantages, we score just about average on the NAEP. In some areas, slightly above average.
Scores were released for 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math and 8th grade math . In general, all the scores were slightly down from the last time the NAEP came out, 2003. Compared to the first years Oregon participated, in the 1990s, most of the scores are up.
The exception is 8th grade reading, which for some reason has pretty much steadily declined since 1998.
I've already seen some press releases on the scores touting the fact that Oregon's scores are higher than the mid-1990's scores. That is all well and good, but it glosses over the troubling fact that there is an apparent contradiction between NAEP and Oregon's statewide test results over the last couple years on the math test. That is, the math scores on Oregon's test have gone up significantly, while the scores on NAEP have not.
NAEP tests in grades 4 and 8, while Oregon tests in grades 3, 5 and 8. The results are expressed in terms of the percentage of students who are "below basic," "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced" in achievement. Oregon's tests have three categories - "Does not Meet," "Meets," and "Exceeds" benchmark. To compare the two tests, let's look at each test's results for the percentage of students who are at or above the "Basic," and "Meets Standard" levels.
Between 2003 and 2005, 8th graders on the Oregon's math test did better by 2.5%, but on NAEP, they did worse by 2.5%. Fourth graders on the NAEP math test did better by 1%, but on Oregon's test the third graders grew by a whopping 7.2% and fifth graders by 5.0%.
What is going on? I've argued for years that Oregon's assessment system is not reliable and valid. In 2003 we released a study by an OSU economist that had compelling evidence that Oregon's math tests in particular had gotten easier over the years. This gives us one more piece of evidence that it has.
The Oregon Department of Education has consistently ignored the mounting evidence that something is wrong with its tests. The mainstream media rarely asks penetrating questions about their claims of validity. How long can there be such a stark divergence between Oregon's scores and the NAEP scores before they have to actually admit that something just might be wrong?
Don't underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to stonewall and obfuscate. In Oregon, it is an art form.
Of course comparing states is still tricky, because of differing demographics. Affluent states with fewer minorities will tend to score higher than poor states with large minority populations. Oregon has an advantage on the demographic scale. We have a mostly white population, relatively high income, and higher than average education level.
But despite our demographic advantages, we score just about average on the NAEP. In some areas, slightly above average.
Scores were released for 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math and 8th grade math . In general, all the scores were slightly down from the last time the NAEP came out, 2003. Compared to the first years Oregon participated, in the 1990s, most of the scores are up.
The exception is 8th grade reading, which for some reason has pretty much steadily declined since 1998.
I've already seen some press releases on the scores touting the fact that Oregon's scores are higher than the mid-1990's scores. That is all well and good, but it glosses over the troubling fact that there is an apparent contradiction between NAEP and Oregon's statewide test results over the last couple years on the math test. That is, the math scores on Oregon's test have gone up significantly, while the scores on NAEP have not.
NAEP tests in grades 4 and 8, while Oregon tests in grades 3, 5 and 8. The results are expressed in terms of the percentage of students who are "below basic," "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced" in achievement. Oregon's tests have three categories - "Does not Meet," "Meets," and "Exceeds" benchmark. To compare the two tests, let's look at each test's results for the percentage of students who are at or above the "Basic," and "Meets Standard" levels.
Between 2003 and 2005, 8th graders on the Oregon's math test did better by 2.5%, but on NAEP, they did worse by 2.5%. Fourth graders on the NAEP math test did better by 1%, but on Oregon's test the third graders grew by a whopping 7.2% and fifth graders by 5.0%.
What is going on? I've argued for years that Oregon's assessment system is not reliable and valid. In 2003 we released a study by an OSU economist that had compelling evidence that Oregon's math tests in particular had gotten easier over the years. This gives us one more piece of evidence that it has.
The Oregon Department of Education has consistently ignored the mounting evidence that something is wrong with its tests. The mainstream media rarely asks penetrating questions about their claims of validity. How long can there be such a stark divergence between Oregon's scores and the NAEP scores before they have to actually admit that something just might be wrong?
Don't underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to stonewall and obfuscate. In Oregon, it is an art form.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Robed Hypocrites
Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.—
Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation…
Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—
Read the above three clauses in Oregon’s constitution. The courts in Oregon are so inconsistent in how they treat these clauses that it would be funny if it weren’t doing so much damage to our state.
The recent Supreme Court decision that said live sex shows are protected speech had to somehow make the argument that a paid sex act constitutes “expression of opinion.” Just what opinion might that be? Any reasonable person who reads Section 8 must conclude that the framers were referring to written and spoken opinion, not lewd acts. Yet the courts are so in love with the free speech rights that they expansively interpret it.
Not so with our property rights. If they can do the mental contortion necessary to convince themselves that a live sex act is an expression of opinion, then certainly they could be equally protective of our right to property, say, by acknowledging that regulating the entire productive use of your land away in order to achieve some public purpose just might be a “taking.”
But no, the courts care not a whit about property rights, so they narrowly construe the definition so as to allow government to steal property value again and again.
Then look at the privileges and immunities clause – this is the main argument Judge James had when throwing out Measure 37. Imagine if she applied the same criteria she used to throw out M37 to the very land use laws she was trying to protect?
Having an urban growth boundary that restricts development outside – doesn’t that inherently grant some citizens (those who own the land inside the boundaries) privileges that are denied to others (those with land outside)? Of course.
Would the courts in Oregon EVER make this argument? Of course not! They don’t believe in property rights, at least they don’t believe in them when the “community” wants to steal them. So they won’t protect them.
They aren’t really judges – they are politicians with political viewpoints and are perfectly willing to use their offices to further their political ideology, regardless of what the constitution actually says.
We are in a sorry state with judges like these.
Section 18. Private property or services taken for public use. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation…
Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—
Read the above three clauses in Oregon’s constitution. The courts in Oregon are so inconsistent in how they treat these clauses that it would be funny if it weren’t doing so much damage to our state.
The recent Supreme Court decision that said live sex shows are protected speech had to somehow make the argument that a paid sex act constitutes “expression of opinion.” Just what opinion might that be? Any reasonable person who reads Section 8 must conclude that the framers were referring to written and spoken opinion, not lewd acts. Yet the courts are so in love with the free speech rights that they expansively interpret it.
Not so with our property rights. If they can do the mental contortion necessary to convince themselves that a live sex act is an expression of opinion, then certainly they could be equally protective of our right to property, say, by acknowledging that regulating the entire productive use of your land away in order to achieve some public purpose just might be a “taking.”
But no, the courts care not a whit about property rights, so they narrowly construe the definition so as to allow government to steal property value again and again.
Then look at the privileges and immunities clause – this is the main argument Judge James had when throwing out Measure 37. Imagine if she applied the same criteria she used to throw out M37 to the very land use laws she was trying to protect?
Having an urban growth boundary that restricts development outside – doesn’t that inherently grant some citizens (those who own the land inside the boundaries) privileges that are denied to others (those with land outside)? Of course.
Would the courts in Oregon EVER make this argument? Of course not! They don’t believe in property rights, at least they don’t believe in them when the “community” wants to steal them. So they won’t protect them.
They aren’t really judges – they are politicians with political viewpoints and are perfectly willing to use their offices to further their political ideology, regardless of what the constitution actually says.
We are in a sorry state with judges like these.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Oregon courts are a mess
Four recent decisions by Oregon courts have me shaking my head. Live sex acts are protected speech. Fraternal clubs have to accept women. Portland School District can't sub out its janitors. Measure 37 is thrown out.
Have we had enough? Getting Jack Roberts on the supreme court will be a start. But it's about a one-yard run on third down and 75.
When some piss-ant district court judge can toss out M37 (which 61% of Oregonians voted for) on the most ridiculous of legal pretenses, we are in trouble.
I love the part about M37 violating the "equal protection" clause of Oregon's constitution. It is unfair to the "group" of people who are more recent property purchasers, since they have the restrictive rules the other "group" (who bought their land earlier) don't suffer from.
First, this is a pretty expansive definition of "group." I'm guessing you could find thousands of Oregon laws that treat different people differently if this loose definition of class or group is allowed to stand. Second, if M37 is disallowed on this basis, wouldn't that invalidate ANY law that created a grandfather clause exempting a "group" of citizens to whom the law doesn't apply because they acted before the law was passed?
So the decision it seems to me, puts the court in an impossible dilemma between this new legal principle and an age old one - that of disallowing retroactive laws.
M37 is basically a grandfathering law. It says they can't change the land use rules on the land you already own. This decision basically says grandfather laws are unconstitutional because they always create two classes of citizens - one who is exempt from the law and one who is not.
So, this decision basically says all laws HAVE TO BE RETROACTIVE! Which of course violates what I always thought was another pretty established legal principle.
This is what happens when you have judges who are nothing but politicians in robes. This judge knew where she wanted to get, and so she concocted a legal basis to get there. But the lame-brain that she is, she failed to think it through and realize that her basis for the decision would invalidate a huge body of other laws.
Can we get Jack Roberts on the Supreme Court before this stupid decision gets up there?
Have we had enough? Getting Jack Roberts on the supreme court will be a start. But it's about a one-yard run on third down and 75.
When some piss-ant district court judge can toss out M37 (which 61% of Oregonians voted for) on the most ridiculous of legal pretenses, we are in trouble.
I love the part about M37 violating the "equal protection" clause of Oregon's constitution. It is unfair to the "group" of people who are more recent property purchasers, since they have the restrictive rules the other "group" (who bought their land earlier) don't suffer from.
First, this is a pretty expansive definition of "group." I'm guessing you could find thousands of Oregon laws that treat different people differently if this loose definition of class or group is allowed to stand. Second, if M37 is disallowed on this basis, wouldn't that invalidate ANY law that created a grandfather clause exempting a "group" of citizens to whom the law doesn't apply because they acted before the law was passed?
So the decision it seems to me, puts the court in an impossible dilemma between this new legal principle and an age old one - that of disallowing retroactive laws.
M37 is basically a grandfathering law. It says they can't change the land use rules on the land you already own. This decision basically says grandfather laws are unconstitutional because they always create two classes of citizens - one who is exempt from the law and one who is not.
So, this decision basically says all laws HAVE TO BE RETROACTIVE! Which of course violates what I always thought was another pretty established legal principle.
This is what happens when you have judges who are nothing but politicians in robes. This judge knew where she wanted to get, and so she concocted a legal basis to get there. But the lame-brain that she is, she failed to think it through and realize that her basis for the decision would invalidate a huge body of other laws.
Can we get Jack Roberts on the Supreme Court before this stupid decision gets up there?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Office of Unsustainable Economics
I chuckled when I read the story in today's Oregonian that five city bureaus are leasing office space in the private market while city-owned owned offices remain vacant.
Just another run-of-the-mill example of incompetence and perverse incentives we so often find in government budget management.
But I laughed out loud when I read the comments by the head of the "Office of Sustainable Development" when she justified the fact that her office is spending $25+ per square foot to lease swanky offices in the Pearl instead of occupying the vacant city-owned offices.
So all the greenies in the office go to work in the "uber-green Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center building, commonly known as the Ecotrust building."
Why do they need to spend all this money to be in the upscale office buiding: As the article says: "City employees can walk downstairs for a slice of organic pizza or pick up a new fleece from the Earth-friendly Patagonia store. "
from the article, Susan Anderson, head of the office says the expensive space is
"core to our mission" because it shows the office is committed to the environment. That's helped attract more private money to beef up the budget, Anderson said.
"If you dig even an inch deep, you can see the economic sense of it," Anderson said. "Could we do our work from someplace else? Sure. Could we do it as well? Probably not. That I'm pretty sure of."
Just another run-of-the-mill example of incompetence and perverse incentives we so often find in government budget management.
But I laughed out loud when I read the comments by the head of the "Office of Sustainable Development" when she justified the fact that her office is spending $25+ per square foot to lease swanky offices in the Pearl instead of occupying the vacant city-owned offices.
So all the greenies in the office go to work in the "uber-green Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center building, commonly known as the Ecotrust building."
Why do they need to spend all this money to be in the upscale office buiding: As the article says: "City employees can walk downstairs for a slice of organic pizza or pick up a new fleece from the Earth-friendly Patagonia store. "
from the article, Susan Anderson, head of the office says the expensive space is
"core to our mission" because it shows the office is committed to the environment. That's helped attract more private money to beef up the budget, Anderson said.
"If you dig even an inch deep, you can see the economic sense of it," Anderson said. "Could we do our work from someplace else? Sure. Could we do it as well? Probably not. That I'm pretty sure of."
Ok, let's analyze this just a little bit.
Greenies like Anderson don't understand a central tenet of economics, which is that a dollar represents a claim on resources. Spending dollars unnecessarily is the anithesis of "sustainability."
For her to say that she attracts more private money to the office because they show their commitment to sustainabilty by wasting taxpayer dollars is just, well, laughable on its face.
She says if we dig an inch deep we would see the sense of it? Reminds me of another saying about so-called environmentalists. Scratch a greenie and you'll find red underneath.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Solving school overcrowding
Lots of stories lately about the struggles growing school districts face building enough schools.
Districts like Beaverton are adding the equivalent of a school building worth of students each year. But land and construction costs are hugely expensive, and few districts have current bond issues sufficient to build the needed schools.
The only solution they can conceive is to ask the voters for a bond to build more brick and mortar.
This is the wrong answer for a couple reasons. First - school districts are demonstrably incompetent at building schools. The going rate for a 600 student elementary school is about $12 million. That is $20,000 per student-seat, or, if annualized comes to about $1,000 per student per year. High schools are even more costly. Plus, huge cost overruns are the rule in school construction. Projects almost never come in on budget. Prevailing wage regulations balloon the cost, and land prices are outta sight.
So you would think that school districts would be looking for any alternative they could find to building more school buildings. But they aren't.
What possible alternatives, you ask? Here are a couple:
1) Encourage parents to enroll their kids in a virtual charter school. The Oregon Connections Academy is off and running fast. If a school district wanted to take pressure off its facilities capacity, why not assist parents in taking advantage of this new and innovative program? The best part is that the district still gets 5% of the state funds allocated to the district for the student! In other words, for every student from the district they enroll in the virtual school, they get $250, and they do not have to educate him!
2) Did you know that there are several national charter school management organizations waiting to be invited into a district to start a school, and the companies will build the school building at no taxpayer expense? So a district like Beaverton, who is just about to ask voters for $200 million plus to build a bunch of schools, could simply contract with one of these companies to build the schools instead. They would have new schools without new taxes. Why is this not even on the table? Why doesnt' the Oregonian EVER ask this question in their stories about school bonds?
A case in point is Portland Public Schools, who are looking for ways to pay for the new school they want to build in the Columbia Villa housing project. They want to borrow about $8 million and patch the rest together from donations. This of course is at the same time they are contemplating which schools they will be closing in the next year because of enrollment declines!
Months ago I approached the District and the Housing Authority of Portland with an idea: Instead of spending public money to build the school, why not contract with an already approved but not yet opened charter school to build and run the school? Mosaica Education, which is the school management company behind the "Portland Arts and Sciences Academy" which the district approved back in 2001 has expressed its willingness to build the school at no taxpayer expense and run it as a charter.
No interest. I got the runaround for a couple months before I finally got a response, something on the order of : "Director Wynde says they want to pursue other options for the school."
Which I can only take to mean that the district would rather spend $12 million in public money to get something that they could get for no taxpayer dollars.
And they wonder why the public has a decreasing appetite for tax hikes?
Districts like Beaverton are adding the equivalent of a school building worth of students each year. But land and construction costs are hugely expensive, and few districts have current bond issues sufficient to build the needed schools.
The only solution they can conceive is to ask the voters for a bond to build more brick and mortar.
This is the wrong answer for a couple reasons. First - school districts are demonstrably incompetent at building schools. The going rate for a 600 student elementary school is about $12 million. That is $20,000 per student-seat, or, if annualized comes to about $1,000 per student per year. High schools are even more costly. Plus, huge cost overruns are the rule in school construction. Projects almost never come in on budget. Prevailing wage regulations balloon the cost, and land prices are outta sight.
So you would think that school districts would be looking for any alternative they could find to building more school buildings. But they aren't.
What possible alternatives, you ask? Here are a couple:
1) Encourage parents to enroll their kids in a virtual charter school. The Oregon Connections Academy is off and running fast. If a school district wanted to take pressure off its facilities capacity, why not assist parents in taking advantage of this new and innovative program? The best part is that the district still gets 5% of the state funds allocated to the district for the student! In other words, for every student from the district they enroll in the virtual school, they get $250, and they do not have to educate him!
2) Did you know that there are several national charter school management organizations waiting to be invited into a district to start a school, and the companies will build the school building at no taxpayer expense? So a district like Beaverton, who is just about to ask voters for $200 million plus to build a bunch of schools, could simply contract with one of these companies to build the schools instead. They would have new schools without new taxes. Why is this not even on the table? Why doesnt' the Oregonian EVER ask this question in their stories about school bonds?
A case in point is Portland Public Schools, who are looking for ways to pay for the new school they want to build in the Columbia Villa housing project. They want to borrow about $8 million and patch the rest together from donations. This of course is at the same time they are contemplating which schools they will be closing in the next year because of enrollment declines!
Months ago I approached the District and the Housing Authority of Portland with an idea: Instead of spending public money to build the school, why not contract with an already approved but not yet opened charter school to build and run the school? Mosaica Education, which is the school management company behind the "Portland Arts and Sciences Academy" which the district approved back in 2001 has expressed its willingness to build the school at no taxpayer expense and run it as a charter.
No interest. I got the runaround for a couple months before I finally got a response, something on the order of : "Director Wynde says they want to pursue other options for the school."
Which I can only take to mean that the district would rather spend $12 million in public money to get something that they could get for no taxpayer dollars.
And they wonder why the public has a decreasing appetite for tax hikes?
Dr. John performs castration surgery
You gotta love it.
Democrats meet in their pow-wow this weekend in Bend in a desperate search for their soul, and have to listen to a scathing critique by the guy who is chiefly responsible for the sorry state of their party - former guv Kitzhaber.
If that wasn't bad enough, a few Stockholm Syndrome sufferers actually are pushing Kitzhaber to run for governor again, apparently thinking that if you want to solve big problems, who better to turn to than the person who caused them?
And the best part: Kitzhaber wouldn't say no. He gave the usual politicians' "no-plans-at-this-time" non-denial. You could almost hear him enjoying being wooed again.
This is funny on so many levels. First - it shows how bad off the D's really are. At a time when the Republicans have severe electoral liabilities both nationally and locally, if they had their act together and had some idea about what they stood for and how to solve some of our biggest problems they could rout the R's in the next election.
But instead of looking forward, they look backward to the failed leadership upon whose watch most of the current problems came to roost.
Second: Kitzhaber's refusal to put speculation to rest about running again completely neuters Governor Ted. It was Kitz who recruited Ted to run in the first place. Now his non-denial implicitly encourages speculation that he will run against him. Talk about castration! Does Kitz have any idea how weak that makes Kulongoski look? Does he care?
I am none-too-optimistic about the state of the Republican party these days and its chances at achieving an electoral majority any time soon. But with an opponent like the Oregon D's, well, things may not look so hopeless after all!
Democrats meet in their pow-wow this weekend in Bend in a desperate search for their soul, and have to listen to a scathing critique by the guy who is chiefly responsible for the sorry state of their party - former guv Kitzhaber.
If that wasn't bad enough, a few Stockholm Syndrome sufferers actually are pushing Kitzhaber to run for governor again, apparently thinking that if you want to solve big problems, who better to turn to than the person who caused them?
And the best part: Kitzhaber wouldn't say no. He gave the usual politicians' "no-plans-at-this-time" non-denial. You could almost hear him enjoying being wooed again.
This is funny on so many levels. First - it shows how bad off the D's really are. At a time when the Republicans have severe electoral liabilities both nationally and locally, if they had their act together and had some idea about what they stood for and how to solve some of our biggest problems they could rout the R's in the next election.
But instead of looking forward, they look backward to the failed leadership upon whose watch most of the current problems came to roost.
Second: Kitzhaber's refusal to put speculation to rest about running again completely neuters Governor Ted. It was Kitz who recruited Ted to run in the first place. Now his non-denial implicitly encourages speculation that he will run against him. Talk about castration! Does Kitz have any idea how weak that makes Kulongoski look? Does he care?
I am none-too-optimistic about the state of the Republican party these days and its chances at achieving an electoral majority any time soon. But with an opponent like the Oregon D's, well, things may not look so hopeless after all!
What, that's not business?
I loved it. What a perfect illustration of the problem.
Sunday Oregonian, Business Section. This is the Sunday newspaper, mind you. The issue where the most comprehensive and in-depth articles generally run, because people have far more time to read than the typical weekday.
Grand total of ONE real news story in yesterday's issue. One. And what's it about? Local business trying to expand struggles with the added expense of land use requirements? Nope. Local business develops new niche market for its product? Nope. Local business tries to deal with increasing traffic congestion, making it more expensive to deliver their goods? Nope.
No indeed, the only news story in yesterday's Sunday edition was about how low income homeowners are struggling to fill the gap between the cost of heating their homes and what is available from the government subsidies.
In other words: "We need more government."
What a wonderful example of the malaise that has gripped Oregon's business culture.
Sunday Oregonian, Business Section. This is the Sunday newspaper, mind you. The issue where the most comprehensive and in-depth articles generally run, because people have far more time to read than the typical weekday.
Grand total of ONE real news story in yesterday's issue. One. And what's it about? Local business trying to expand struggles with the added expense of land use requirements? Nope. Local business develops new niche market for its product? Nope. Local business tries to deal with increasing traffic congestion, making it more expensive to deliver their goods? Nope.
No indeed, the only news story in yesterday's Sunday edition was about how low income homeowners are struggling to fill the gap between the cost of heating their homes and what is available from the government subsidies.
In other words: "We need more government."
What a wonderful example of the malaise that has gripped Oregon's business culture.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
States don't have rights.
I hear it all the time, especially when the Supreme Court is looking at issues such as Oregon's Doctor Assisted Suicide law. Discussions of "states rights." Does Oregon have the "right" to allow this practice, or, conversely, does the federal government have the "right" to stop us?
I cringe when I hear the question posed this way - and I think that conservatives are more guilty of it than liberals (probably only because conservatives tend to care more about the issue than liberals, the latter being far more comfortable with a vigorous federal government.)
But here's the problem:
States don't have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights.
Ok, maybe this is just semantics. But I think semantics are important, because words should mean something. When we allow misstatements like "states rights" to become accepted in the media, courts and political culture, we allow the denigration of what rights actually are in the first place - something that government cannot restrict you from doing. If the body politic doesn't properly understand what rights are in the first place, how will it know if and when the government is violating them?
God knows we see plenty of politicians totally mis-use the term "rights." Hillary Clinton thinks that health care is a "right." Others think you have a "right" to a living wage. References to these bogus rights are everywhere - "patient's bill of rights," "taxpayer bill of rights," etc.
I understand why liberals don't mind if the popular political culture completely destroys the original meaning of what rights really are. The more they can sell the idea that rights are something the government must do for you (rather than what it cannot do TO you) then the more they can create the welfare state they have pushed for all these many years.
But conservatives should correct them at every turn. We cannot allow them to change the meaning of the very concept that is at the core of our Republic.
Rights are things that the government can't restrict you from doing. They come from our creator, and the government's role is to secure them.
All those other things - education, health care, welfare, - those are societal privileges.
So when you hear conservatives utter the words "states rights," make sure you don't let it go uncorrected. Just tell them:
"States don't have rights. They have powers. Only individuals have rights."
(Heck, do it to liberals too. They won't understand what you are saying, but you will get to enjoy the puzzled look on their faces.)
I cringe when I hear the question posed this way - and I think that conservatives are more guilty of it than liberals (probably only because conservatives tend to care more about the issue than liberals, the latter being far more comfortable with a vigorous federal government.)
But here's the problem:
States don't have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights.
Ok, maybe this is just semantics. But I think semantics are important, because words should mean something. When we allow misstatements like "states rights" to become accepted in the media, courts and political culture, we allow the denigration of what rights actually are in the first place - something that government cannot restrict you from doing. If the body politic doesn't properly understand what rights are in the first place, how will it know if and when the government is violating them?
God knows we see plenty of politicians totally mis-use the term "rights." Hillary Clinton thinks that health care is a "right." Others think you have a "right" to a living wage. References to these bogus rights are everywhere - "patient's bill of rights," "taxpayer bill of rights," etc.
I understand why liberals don't mind if the popular political culture completely destroys the original meaning of what rights really are. The more they can sell the idea that rights are something the government must do for you (rather than what it cannot do TO you) then the more they can create the welfare state they have pushed for all these many years.
But conservatives should correct them at every turn. We cannot allow them to change the meaning of the very concept that is at the core of our Republic.
Rights are things that the government can't restrict you from doing. They come from our creator, and the government's role is to secure them.
All those other things - education, health care, welfare, - those are societal privileges.
So when you hear conservatives utter the words "states rights," make sure you don't let it go uncorrected. Just tell them:
"States don't have rights. They have powers. Only individuals have rights."
(Heck, do it to liberals too. They won't understand what you are saying, but you will get to enjoy the puzzled look on their faces.)
Monday, October 03, 2005
TalkFest - the real reason you must go
Yes it's TalkFest time again - the annual gathering where KXL brings in its nationally syndicated hosts and they take stage for an evening of political chit chat. It's this Friday at the Rose Garden.
This year Lars will be joined by both Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow. That's a pretty high powered line up.
But there's an even better reason to go to the show:
My 17 year old daughter Jessica will sing "God Bless America" to open the festivities.
She's got a beautiful voice, and the song brings it out wonderfully. So, if Tony and Bill don't float your boat, come for the REAL star of the show!
This year Lars will be joined by both Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow. That's a pretty high powered line up.
But there's an even better reason to go to the show:
My 17 year old daughter Jessica will sing "God Bless America" to open the festivities.
She's got a beautiful voice, and the song brings it out wonderfully. So, if Tony and Bill don't float your boat, come for the REAL star of the show!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Imagine the headline: "A capitalist, but a friend of Nazis"
Did you catch the long and prominently placed obituary in the Oregonian about Ben Brostoff?
He was a Polish immigrant who came to the U.S., made a fortune in the pizza business, but was always enamored with communism. He took trips to Russia and China to admire their governments, which apparently never lost their shine to him even after the collapes of the Soviet bloc.
The article is written in a very positive tone. Almost like: "isn't it charming, this guy who made millions selling pizza was an open communist sympathizer all his life."
Why is it that it is considered OK to have cozied up to communism? The Soviet communists murdered tens of millions of people. It is the bloodiest government in the history of the planet - yet for some reason it is considered cute to be a communist.
Hitler never aspired to the kind of bloodbath brought about by Stalin. Yet I doubt a successful businessman who admired Nazi Germany would get a glowing obituary in the Oregonian.
He was a Polish immigrant who came to the U.S., made a fortune in the pizza business, but was always enamored with communism. He took trips to Russia and China to admire their governments, which apparently never lost their shine to him even after the collapes of the Soviet bloc.
The article is written in a very positive tone. Almost like: "isn't it charming, this guy who made millions selling pizza was an open communist sympathizer all his life."
Why is it that it is considered OK to have cozied up to communism? The Soviet communists murdered tens of millions of people. It is the bloodiest government in the history of the planet - yet for some reason it is considered cute to be a communist.
Hitler never aspired to the kind of bloodbath brought about by Stalin. Yet I doubt a successful businessman who admired Nazi Germany would get a glowing obituary in the Oregonian.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Closed PPS schools still vacant.
Remember the five elementary schools that PPS closed despite great controversy and opposition last spring? The plan was to lease out the facilities and make some money. Turns out, according to this story in the Tribune, that months later, four of the five buildings are still vacant, because the market wouldn't pay what the district was asking.
Well, Duh. A few years ago I looked into leasing one of the district's vacant facilities. They wanted $12 a square foot. That's about twice what school facilities are worth.
According to the story, the district thinks the newly closed facilities are worth $9-12/SF, but only one of the five buildings has found a tenant, and that is the Multnomah ESD. Great - one tax funded entity leases from another. Big net gain for taxpayers.
The district facilities guy is even quoted as saying that if a tenant needs access to the facility to make leasehold improvements, that they have to pay the rent during the time it takes to make the improvements! That's not how it usually works. Little wonder they can't find tenants.
I would happily lease the Applegate site from them for $6/sf for one of my Arthur Academy Charter Schools But the district wants more.
Actually, I think that PPS should let us use the facility for nothing. Arthur Academy is a public school educating PPS students. School buildings were paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of educating public school students. By what moral standard does the district charge money for public school students to use a facility for the purpose taxpayers intended?
I've asked this very question to Vicki Phillips, Julia Brim Edwards, David Wynde, Bobbie Regan and Dilafruz Williams. Not one of them would answer it.
So they not only want us to pay money to lease the public school facility that we want to use to educate Portland Public School kids, but they are also way off the market in their asking price!
Could it be they don't want to do anything that might help a charter school succeed?
Call me a cynic.
Well, Duh. A few years ago I looked into leasing one of the district's vacant facilities. They wanted $12 a square foot. That's about twice what school facilities are worth.
According to the story, the district thinks the newly closed facilities are worth $9-12/SF, but only one of the five buildings has found a tenant, and that is the Multnomah ESD. Great - one tax funded entity leases from another. Big net gain for taxpayers.
The district facilities guy is even quoted as saying that if a tenant needs access to the facility to make leasehold improvements, that they have to pay the rent during the time it takes to make the improvements! That's not how it usually works. Little wonder they can't find tenants.
I would happily lease the Applegate site from them for $6/sf for one of my Arthur Academy Charter Schools But the district wants more.
Actually, I think that PPS should let us use the facility for nothing. Arthur Academy is a public school educating PPS students. School buildings were paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of educating public school students. By what moral standard does the district charge money for public school students to use a facility for the purpose taxpayers intended?
I've asked this very question to Vicki Phillips, Julia Brim Edwards, David Wynde, Bobbie Regan and Dilafruz Williams. Not one of them would answer it.
So they not only want us to pay money to lease the public school facility that we want to use to educate Portland Public School kids, but they are also way off the market in their asking price!
Could it be they don't want to do anything that might help a charter school succeed?
Call me a cynic.
Just 2%... and our schools would be great. (We promise)
A local anesthesiologist wrote a piece for the Tribune that called for a 2% sales tax as a dedicated funding source for schools.
Click through to the link and read the column. It's really pretty funny in the over-the-top assertions that he makes, which he apparently thinks the reader should take on faith.
Here is what he says will happen if we send the extra $2 1/2 billion or so to schools:
"The quality of public education soars. The best teachers in the country compete to work in Oregon. Students learn more, learn faster and stay interested longer. Literacy rises. More literate high school graduates seek jobs with high potential, or plan for higher education. Welfare use drops. Recreational drug use declines. Teenage pregnancies go down. Prisons slowly empty as fewer criminals enter. New businesses look favorably on Oregon for relocation sites. And all of us enjoy safer streets."
Wow! A panacea! More money for schools will solve all our problems. Peace and prosperity will reign!
I just wonder - is the guy really that gullible? Or is his wife a teachers union boss?
Click through to the link and read the column. It's really pretty funny in the over-the-top assertions that he makes, which he apparently thinks the reader should take on faith.
Here is what he says will happen if we send the extra $2 1/2 billion or so to schools:
"The quality of public education soars. The best teachers in the country compete to work in Oregon. Students learn more, learn faster and stay interested longer. Literacy rises. More literate high school graduates seek jobs with high potential, or plan for higher education. Welfare use drops. Recreational drug use declines. Teenage pregnancies go down. Prisons slowly empty as fewer criminals enter. New businesses look favorably on Oregon for relocation sites. And all of us enjoy safer streets."
Wow! A panacea! More money for schools will solve all our problems. Peace and prosperity will reign!
I just wonder - is the guy really that gullible? Or is his wife a teachers union boss?
Why use private dollars when we can spend tax money?
You may have seen the article about the new school that Portland School District wants to build in the Columbia Villa housing project.
They need a 550-student elementary school for the new neighborhood, and their plan is to close down nearby Ball Elementary, because it is in need of substantial repair. The problem is the District doesn't have the money to build the school.
So they have tried to put together a creative financing package that includes a bank loan, fundraising, tax credits and about a million dollars from the city of Portland. Last week the city said "No Dinero."
So they are stuck. Turns out that NOT building the school will cost them a million dollars or so since they will have to do the repairs to Ball, and bus the kids from Columbia Villa there.
Here's the punchline: they could have a brand new public school built on that parcel of land using no taxpayer money, but they turned down the offer.
How? Well, Portland School District approved a charter elementary school a few years ago that never opened because it could not find a facility. The charter school would have happily built the school on the Columbia Villa site, and offered to work with the district and the Housing Authority of Portland to make it happen.
The district had no interest. They would rather spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a school rather than get the school for free. Why?
Well that would be a good question for the school board.
They need a 550-student elementary school for the new neighborhood, and their plan is to close down nearby Ball Elementary, because it is in need of substantial repair. The problem is the District doesn't have the money to build the school.
So they have tried to put together a creative financing package that includes a bank loan, fundraising, tax credits and about a million dollars from the city of Portland. Last week the city said "No Dinero."
So they are stuck. Turns out that NOT building the school will cost them a million dollars or so since they will have to do the repairs to Ball, and bus the kids from Columbia Villa there.
Here's the punchline: they could have a brand new public school built on that parcel of land using no taxpayer money, but they turned down the offer.
How? Well, Portland School District approved a charter elementary school a few years ago that never opened because it could not find a facility. The charter school would have happily built the school on the Columbia Villa site, and offered to work with the district and the Housing Authority of Portland to make it happen.
The district had no interest. They would rather spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money to build a school rather than get the school for free. Why?
Well that would be a good question for the school board.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Penn & Teller on PETA
I didn't even know Penn & Teller, the offbeat comedian duo, did political stuff.
But you have to go watch this video exposing PETA for the radical violent hypocrites they are.
It's about 15 minutes long. Must see.
But you have to go watch this video exposing PETA for the radical violent hypocrites they are.
It's about 15 minutes long. Must see.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Is it any wonder our kids don't understand economics?
I got an email this morning from a friend whose son is a junior at Wilson High School. He attended the back to school night, and couldn't believe what his son's economics teacher proudly displayed as the first assignment of the year.
His Email:
Wilson High School Back to School Night
Junior Year
My son's first period class: Economics
1st assignment due 9/26/05:
Using Art, Poetry, Music or some other approved creative medium, Illustrate your understanding of one of the following:
Economic Resources
Economic Questions
Production Possibilities Curve
Forms of Exchange
Current events assignment: 5 of these are due per quarter. You may do all 5 early in the quarter, but you may only turn in one per week late in the quarter. (In other words, if he waits until the last 3 weeks, he can only turn in three of these)
Clip an editorial article, and State the subject, the byline The periodical from which you found it. State the who, what when where why and how; state whether the article is fact or an opinion, [Duh! It's an editorial! - RK] and if it is biased one way or another [Editorials are SUPPOSED to be biased! - RK]. Clearly state your understanding of the subject. [What kind of an instruction is this? It's not just awkwardly worded, it is difficult to understand what it is she is looking for. -RK]
(The teacher said she would deduct points if she had to actually read the article. Remember, this is not Journalism, it is Econ)
This is no joke. We have all seen e-mails and snippets that kid about this, but this is for real. I sat there last night and was shocked.
His class is Economics...not Art, not English Literature, not Music nor Applied sociology.
It occurs to me that several of you may have some Ideas for how my son can best complete this assignment. With your help, I am sure he will get an A in this class.
My response:
You've run into a shining example of "integrated" curriculum. That's where everyone pretends that there's great educational benefit drawn from melding two or more disciplines into one activity or lesson, which almost always results in a completely contrived exercise in which the actual learning objective becomes secondary to the form of the product.
Part of the philosophy here is that every student has a different "learning style" and so it is tyranny to expect all kids to perform an academic exercise in the same way, with the same medium. So things like music and art are fine substitutes for mundane skills like writing clearly. If Johnny isn't a verbal learner, but rather is a visual learner or an auditory learner, it is wrong to require that he produce coursework using the written word. It is perfectly OK for him to, say, perform a rap routine to demonstrate his mastery of economics as it is for him to produce a well articulated essay.
There is so much wrong with this way of thinking that it is hard to know where to start. First, we all know, after all, that his employers are going to similarly adjust what they require from him based on his "learning style," right? What message are we sending our kids when we tell them the world will constantly adjust what it requires based on what their strengths may or may not be? Of course we tell them that they shouldn't worry about getting better at what is difficut for them, and they only have to do what comes easy. There's a great message for our youth.
Second, there is absolutely no good evidence that 1) there are really "learning style" differences and 2) if there were, there still isn't any valid way for a teacher to gauge what student's learning style actually is. It's all just assumption based on theory resulting is some of the most inane classroom procedures ever concocted - a wonderful example of which you have given here.
Finally - just look at the exercise. Forget for a minute the part about using music or art. Even if the teacher had asked them to write an essay about one of those four topics - consider how murky the assignment actually is. What is the teacher asking them to prove they know?
Demonstrate their understanding of Economic Resources? What does that mean? Economic Questions? WHICH economic questions?
How unfocused could it possibly get? This assignment means nothing because any and all responses could be valid.
I am sad to say that this is the kind of stuff that is predominant in our high schools these days. It is an utter and complete waste of time.
However, I do have a suggestion for your son as to what he can do for the assignment. He should demonstrate his understanding of "Forms of Exchange.'
He should compose a rap song, perform it as if he is 50 Cent, in which he proposes to give a street whore drugs in exchange for sex.
Perfectly valid demonstration of the economic principle of barter, one of the original "forms of exchange."
His Email:
Wilson High School Back to School Night
Junior Year
My son's first period class: Economics
1st assignment due 9/26/05:
Using Art, Poetry, Music or some other approved creative medium, Illustrate your understanding of one of the following:
Economic Resources
Economic Questions
Production Possibilities Curve
Forms of Exchange
Current events assignment: 5 of these are due per quarter. You may do all 5 early in the quarter, but you may only turn in one per week late in the quarter. (In other words, if he waits until the last 3 weeks, he can only turn in three of these)
Clip an editorial article, and State the subject, the byline The periodical from which you found it. State the who, what when where why and how; state whether the article is fact or an opinion, [Duh! It's an editorial! - RK] and if it is biased one way or another [Editorials are SUPPOSED to be biased! - RK]. Clearly state your understanding of the subject. [What kind of an instruction is this? It's not just awkwardly worded, it is difficult to understand what it is she is looking for. -RK]
(The teacher said she would deduct points if she had to actually read the article. Remember, this is not Journalism, it is Econ)
This is no joke. We have all seen e-mails and snippets that kid about this, but this is for real. I sat there last night and was shocked.
His class is Economics...not Art, not English Literature, not Music nor Applied sociology.
It occurs to me that several of you may have some Ideas for how my son can best complete this assignment. With your help, I am sure he will get an A in this class.
My response:
You've run into a shining example of "integrated" curriculum. That's where everyone pretends that there's great educational benefit drawn from melding two or more disciplines into one activity or lesson, which almost always results in a completely contrived exercise in which the actual learning objective becomes secondary to the form of the product.
Part of the philosophy here is that every student has a different "learning style" and so it is tyranny to expect all kids to perform an academic exercise in the same way, with the same medium. So things like music and art are fine substitutes for mundane skills like writing clearly. If Johnny isn't a verbal learner, but rather is a visual learner or an auditory learner, it is wrong to require that he produce coursework using the written word. It is perfectly OK for him to, say, perform a rap routine to demonstrate his mastery of economics as it is for him to produce a well articulated essay.
There is so much wrong with this way of thinking that it is hard to know where to start. First, we all know, after all, that his employers are going to similarly adjust what they require from him based on his "learning style," right? What message are we sending our kids when we tell them the world will constantly adjust what it requires based on what their strengths may or may not be? Of course we tell them that they shouldn't worry about getting better at what is difficut for them, and they only have to do what comes easy. There's a great message for our youth.
Second, there is absolutely no good evidence that 1) there are really "learning style" differences and 2) if there were, there still isn't any valid way for a teacher to gauge what student's learning style actually is. It's all just assumption based on theory resulting is some of the most inane classroom procedures ever concocted - a wonderful example of which you have given here.
Finally - just look at the exercise. Forget for a minute the part about using music or art. Even if the teacher had asked them to write an essay about one of those four topics - consider how murky the assignment actually is. What is the teacher asking them to prove they know?
Demonstrate their understanding of Economic Resources? What does that mean? Economic Questions? WHICH economic questions?
How unfocused could it possibly get? This assignment means nothing because any and all responses could be valid.
I am sad to say that this is the kind of stuff that is predominant in our high schools these days. It is an utter and complete waste of time.
However, I do have a suggestion for your son as to what he can do for the assignment. He should demonstrate his understanding of "Forms of Exchange.'
He should compose a rap song, perform it as if he is 50 Cent, in which he proposes to give a street whore drugs in exchange for sex.
Perfectly valid demonstration of the economic principle of barter, one of the original "forms of exchange."
Sunday, September 18, 2005
The Pledge
The recent court decision on the pledge was a topic on my radio show today. We've talked about it before, and treaded the usual territory about the meaning of the establishment clause.
I asked a question to my co-host, Marc Abrams, however, that seemed to distill the issue down to its essence.
Since our founding documents say people "are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," and that the government's role is to "secure these rights" - I asked if liberals would have a problem with students being taught that in our system of government, rights come from God.
He said yes, that would be a problem. Can't do it. He said it would be OK to teach what the Declaration of Independence says about rights coming from God, but that it establishes religion to teach that our Republic is actually based on this notion.
Such are the intellectual contortions necessary to not offend the ACLU these days. Nonsensical.
I asked a question to my co-host, Marc Abrams, however, that seemed to distill the issue down to its essence.
Since our founding documents say people "are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," and that the government's role is to "secure these rights" - I asked if liberals would have a problem with students being taught that in our system of government, rights come from God.
He said yes, that would be a problem. Can't do it. He said it would be OK to teach what the Declaration of Independence says about rights coming from God, but that it establishes religion to teach that our Republic is actually based on this notion.
Such are the intellectual contortions necessary to not offend the ACLU these days. Nonsensical.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Global Hype
You knew it had to come.
On the heels of disaster, the agenda had to be moved forward. And you knew the Oregonian would be ready and willing, almost panting to help out.
So we see the big front page story in the Oregonian today:
Researchers Examine Link Between Hurricane Intensity, Global Warming.
Nice charts accompany the headline. They typical reader would take a look at the story, read a few paragraphs, and be left with the decided impression that yep, scientists say Katrina was caused by global warming.
The agenda is moved, another step in the long term effort to convince us all.
Turn to the back page and you'll find the entire page taken up by the text of the story. It almost demands that the typical reader not read it. Who wants to read all the scientific technicalities? We get the point - global warming brings big hurricanes like Katrina.
So, you can hardly blame the average guy for not seeing all the disclaimers:
"Scientists caution that it's unknowable at this point whether the damage these potentially more powerful cyclones will bring upon people would be from global warming - or the simple chance of where people choose to build and live."
"Hurricanes more powerful than Katrina swept the Gulf Coast long before global warming."
"Some climate scientists believe that natural cycles are driving the observed variability in hurricane freqauency..."
In fact, the story taken as a whole can be summed up:
"One researcher says global warming might increase hurricanes, but nobody is really sure."
Front page news, ladies and gentlemen, at least if you have an agenda to push.
On the heels of disaster, the agenda had to be moved forward. And you knew the Oregonian would be ready and willing, almost panting to help out.
So we see the big front page story in the Oregonian today:
Researchers Examine Link Between Hurricane Intensity, Global Warming.
Nice charts accompany the headline. They typical reader would take a look at the story, read a few paragraphs, and be left with the decided impression that yep, scientists say Katrina was caused by global warming.
The agenda is moved, another step in the long term effort to convince us all.
Turn to the back page and you'll find the entire page taken up by the text of the story. It almost demands that the typical reader not read it. Who wants to read all the scientific technicalities? We get the point - global warming brings big hurricanes like Katrina.
So, you can hardly blame the average guy for not seeing all the disclaimers:
"Scientists caution that it's unknowable at this point whether the damage these potentially more powerful cyclones will bring upon people would be from global warming - or the simple chance of where people choose to build and live."
"Hurricanes more powerful than Katrina swept the Gulf Coast long before global warming."
"Some climate scientists believe that natural cycles are driving the observed variability in hurricane freqauency..."
In fact, the story taken as a whole can be summed up:
"One researcher says global warming might increase hurricanes, but nobody is really sure."
Front page news, ladies and gentlemen, at least if you have an agenda to push.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
They will never stop
Read in the Oregonian today that local school leaders are trying to figure out how to package an income tax for schools that voters will accept.
Former Portland Superintendent Jim Scherzinger is spearheading the effort. According to the story he sent out info to local school districts outlining different prospective rates and how much each district would receive from it.
He's trying to downplay how far along they are, but apparently they are considering having the Metro government be the taxing authority, and the rate would be between .2% and .5%.
This is pretty amazing. They want to get hammered again? Make our day. Put it on the ballot.
I have a different idea. Why can't we approach it this way? Want more money for schools? I've got a suggestion.
It occured to me one day when my local district was pushing a local option tax, and a neighbor who supported the tax said that she thought local districts should have the right to tax themselves more if they so choose.
I thought: you don't really want the right to tax yourself more - you can do that any time you want by sending money straight to the district. Rather, you want to force the people who don't want to pay the tax to pay the tax, using majority rule.
Yes, I understand that majority rule is how we decide such things inour society, but does it always have to be? Maybe there is another way that would raise money for schools without forcing a tax down peoples throats who do not support it.
Here's how it would work:
School district proposes to raise (just to choose a number) $10 million a year through an increased property tax. Only those who vote yes will have the tax added to their property tax statement. The more people who vote yes, the lower the tax assessment on each voter's property.
The district could propose a minimum level of support below which the tax would fail. The campaign, then would be to maximize the number of yes votes in order to distribute the burden among the most taxpayers. But a no vote won't pay the tax at all. Nobody forces anything on anybody.
What is wrong with this?
Former Portland Superintendent Jim Scherzinger is spearheading the effort. According to the story he sent out info to local school districts outlining different prospective rates and how much each district would receive from it.
He's trying to downplay how far along they are, but apparently they are considering having the Metro government be the taxing authority, and the rate would be between .2% and .5%.
This is pretty amazing. They want to get hammered again? Make our day. Put it on the ballot.
I have a different idea. Why can't we approach it this way? Want more money for schools? I've got a suggestion.
It occured to me one day when my local district was pushing a local option tax, and a neighbor who supported the tax said that she thought local districts should have the right to tax themselves more if they so choose.
I thought: you don't really want the right to tax yourself more - you can do that any time you want by sending money straight to the district. Rather, you want to force the people who don't want to pay the tax to pay the tax, using majority rule.
Yes, I understand that majority rule is how we decide such things inour society, but does it always have to be? Maybe there is another way that would raise money for schools without forcing a tax down peoples throats who do not support it.
Here's how it would work:
School district proposes to raise (just to choose a number) $10 million a year through an increased property tax. Only those who vote yes will have the tax added to their property tax statement. The more people who vote yes, the lower the tax assessment on each voter's property.
The district could propose a minimum level of support below which the tax would fail. The campaign, then would be to maximize the number of yes votes in order to distribute the burden among the most taxpayers. But a no vote won't pay the tax at all. Nobody forces anything on anybody.
What is wrong with this?
Portland Tree Police
Just in case you thought that the City of Portland was starting to get it...... I get the email below forwarded from a friend.
Is this really what we want our government to be doing? Were you aware that there is an "Urban Forestry Division" in the Parks and Recreation department?
Of course they don't say what precisely a Tree Liaison will actually do, other than "promote proper tree care" and be a "resource" for the neighborhood. How will that actually manifest itself? " Will they police the neighborhoods to make sure that people treat their trees properly? A cadre of local tree police, deputized by the parks and recs dep't?
Such nonsense, and it is on your dime.
Help care for trees in your neighborhood by becoming a Neighborhood Tree Liaison. A Neighborhood Tree Liaison is a local leader who promotes proper tree care and serves as a resource for his/her neighborhood on tree issues. To become a Neighborhood Tree Liaison you do not need to know a lot about trees.
You do need to have a passion for trees, desire to learn, and the commitment to help. This program offered by Portland Parks Recreation teaches you about tree care, and then works with you to develop tree projects in your community. The Neighborhood Tree Liaison class teaches; tree biology, pruning, planting, preservation, tree identification and common tree diseases.
Classes are hands on, and taught by leading professionals in the tree care industry. The first class is on September 17th. Registration is required, and the cost is $20. For the complete class schedule and to sign up and call Portland Parks Recreation at 503-823-1650 or visit http://www.portlandparks.org/TreeServices/NTL.htm.
Karl DawsonPortland Parks
Recreation Urban Forestry Division
503-823-1650
kdawson@ci.portland.or.us
Is this really what we want our government to be doing? Were you aware that there is an "Urban Forestry Division" in the Parks and Recreation department?
Of course they don't say what precisely a Tree Liaison will actually do, other than "promote proper tree care" and be a "resource" for the neighborhood. How will that actually manifest itself? " Will they police the neighborhoods to make sure that people treat their trees properly? A cadre of local tree police, deputized by the parks and recs dep't?
Such nonsense, and it is on your dime.
Help care for trees in your neighborhood by becoming a Neighborhood Tree Liaison. A Neighborhood Tree Liaison is a local leader who promotes proper tree care and serves as a resource for his/her neighborhood on tree issues. To become a Neighborhood Tree Liaison you do not need to know a lot about trees.
You do need to have a passion for trees, desire to learn, and the commitment to help. This program offered by Portland Parks Recreation teaches you about tree care, and then works with you to develop tree projects in your community. The Neighborhood Tree Liaison class teaches; tree biology, pruning, planting, preservation, tree identification and common tree diseases.
Classes are hands on, and taught by leading professionals in the tree care industry. The first class is on September 17th. Registration is required, and the cost is $20. For the complete class schedule and to sign up and call Portland Parks Recreation at 503-823-1650 or visit http://www.portlandparks.org/TreeServices/NTL.htm.
Karl DawsonPortland Parks
Recreation Urban Forestry Division
503-823-1650
kdawson@ci.portland.or.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)