I've taken a break from blogging over the Christmas season. A new year is about to begin, and I'll be getting back to more regular posting.
For the last post of the year, I just have to give a reaction the the completely idiotic editorial in The Funny Paper yesterday about South Waterfront and the Tram. Hat tip to Steve Schopp, who sent an e-mail out yesterday that I have adapted for this post. Steve knows much more about the whole fiasco than I do, and so I have pasted significant portions of his e-mail below.
The Funny Paper says: Bring on the bridge! The Tram is such a success, we just HAVE to add a pedestrian/light rail bridge over the Willamette!
They Tram is a success? By what measure?
We are told the city had to pay "only $8.5 million" for its share of the Tram cost overruns. While negotaitons and politicking by City Commissioners to finish the tram proceeded, millions of dollars in cash payments to OHSU and developers miraculously appeared in SoWa budgets. Those cash payments, under various line items such as jobs accelerator, econominc development and biotech research, have grown to over $50 million to OHSU and many millions more to the developers in SoWa.
So much for the city's small Tram share.
The Funny Paper is still propagandizing that the Tram triggered the $2 billion development in SoWa, which echoes the past lie that 10,000 biotech jobs would be created by the public investment in the district.
Here's complete fabrication: the editorial says "Oregon Health & Science University has completed one research building on the South Waterfront". Anyone who has been paying attention to SoWa knows that first OHSU building in SoWa is not a research building at all. It is an OHSU doctor's owned, tax exempt, clinic, doctors offices, administration offices, a lavish health club with some token components to accomodate some future research if ever needed.
So disconnected from reality is this piece that it never so much as makes a passing reference to the fact that OHSU recently announced that 1) they are losing upwards of $50 million a year, requiring that they scale back research spending, and 2) they are $60 million short of equipping and staffing the big research building recently completed on pill hill. That building was funded with a $200 million bond.
The bottom line? The Tram did not trigger anything but a park and ride lot in SoWa and an extensive cover up of the real public costs.
OHSU has placed a huge bet (at public expense) on the SoWa district, and in the process put fiscal stability at risk. The 10,000 biotech jobs were a scam, a sexy rationale that never had any basis in anything resembling reality, but which The Funny Paper endlessly touted.
Instead we got doctors offices and a high rise condo jungle, scheduled to be completed just in time for the biggest condo glut since the 1970's.
And The Funny Paper says we should spend hundreds of millions more on toy projects, because "money miraculously seems to be attracted to worthwhile projects effectively presented". There is nothing miraculous about elected officials directing funding towards boondoggles while basic infrastructure crumbles and our road system turnss to gridlock. It's irresponsible.
This is in the face of huge cost overruns for the existing SoWa build out, along with hundreds of millions in unfunded road infrastructure needs including, (but among many others) the $60 million unfunded greenway along the river, $200 million unfunded Sellwood Bridge replacement, $50 million I-5 ramp and the $650 million unfunded street maintenance backlog.
The Funny Paper editorial board has lost any pretense at credibility.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Funny Paper hit piece
For years we’ve been reading “Monday Profiles” in The Funny Paper, where they publish a fluff piece on some certified interesting person around the town. The person they choose is almost always some cultural or political liberal, and the treatment they receive is uniformly positive.
But today, The Funny Paper did one of their Monday profiles on a conservative. Randal O’Toole, who just published a book that is scathingly critical of Portland’s planning class. Did he get their famous Monday profile fluff piece? HA!
No, that treatment is reserved for people The Funny Paper wants you to like. People such as New-Urbanism activist Chris Smith, bike advocates, school activists – you know, people who have the “correct” views – they get the kid gloves.
Critics of land use policies? Well, The Funny Paper uses its Monday Profile to let everyone know in no uncertain terms that we should not take them seriously.
Consider the opening of the article, the set-up, where writer Anna Griffen so evenly and without bias provides a glimpse into Randal O’Toole’s persona:
“Slap a Bible in his hand and O'Toole could easily pass for a frontier preacher. He has the look, if not the Good Book: a stern, tight-lipped expression, an impressive display of graying facial hair, a wardrobe that tends toward simple black suits and looping Western-style bow ties.
He has quite the homily to tell with his slides, a story of righteousness vs. sin, of good guys and bad guys and the long-term consequences of bad judgment and poor choices. Bashing Portland has become a cottage industry, and O'Toole is its leading figure.”
Oh, thanks for the neutral introduction, Anna. Thanks for the heads up that nothing this frontier preacher has to say needs to be taken seriously. She hurries to tell us that O’Toole has it all wrong:
“Times are flush in Portland. Planners and civic leaders from around the world come to see how we do it. The New York Times can't stop writing about how great we have it, whether we're sipping tea, buying big vacation homes or biking to work. Although the housing market has cooled, Portland hasn't suffered the same steep decline as the rest of the country. “
Times are flush? I thought Sam Adams wanted a tax increase to pay for the huge backlog of street maintenance? If the NYT likes Portland’s planning culture, well, then what could Randal O’Toole possibly have to say?
Nothing that needs to be listened, to, she so very carefully points out:
"Yet the people in power say they don't take this would-be shadow government very seriously. Homer Williams, one of the city's most prominent developers, called O'Toole "an idiot" in the Daily Journal of Commerce. Ethan Seltzer, head of Portland State University's urban planning department, wonders why anyone would waste time writing about O'Toole -- or even listening to what he has to say. "
Can you imagine any such quote about one of The Funny Paper’s liberal activists finding its way into the story?
And how about this:
"He's crafted a complicated narrative to explain the Portland region's evolution into a national smart-growth darling: Once upon a time…”
Oh I get it, he is just telling fairy tales about how Goldschmidt started the whole light rail thing going in Portland. Again, no reason to take him seriously. He doesn’t analyze what happened, he “crafts complicated narratives.”
Then she so evenly presents the two competing visions for Portland (in a batant example of the liberal’s favorite logical fallacy, the fallacy of the false alternative:
"Vancouver [BC] is, of course, the urban planner's dream city, sleek and sophisticated, laid out as carefully and creatively as blown glass. Houston is the planner's nightmare, a sprawling monster of a town with no zoning code and a love affair with the automobile."
No bias in these two descriptions! Then she says:
Judging from recent elections, most Portlanders would rather trade in their Keens, give up their microbrews and swear off fleece than live in Houston. Portland's annual survey of residents suggests that most like where the city is headed, even if they might prefer a quicker commute or cheaper real estate."
Oh really, Anna? Is that why Portlanders twice voted down light rail lines, but got them shoved down their throat anyway? Is that why Measure 37 passed overwhelmingly?
Nowhere in this article did the writer so much as pretend to consider any of O’Toole’s substantive critiques of the effects of planning on Portland. The high housing costs, the congestion, the pollution. What could have been an interesting profile of a very interesting person with well researched and well considered conclusions was instead just another dismissive hit piece, intended to silence the contrarian view rather than present it so people can consider it.
Typical Funny Paper.
But today, The Funny Paper did one of their Monday profiles on a conservative. Randal O’Toole, who just published a book that is scathingly critical of Portland’s planning class. Did he get their famous Monday profile fluff piece? HA!
No, that treatment is reserved for people The Funny Paper wants you to like. People such as New-Urbanism activist Chris Smith, bike advocates, school activists – you know, people who have the “correct” views – they get the kid gloves.
Critics of land use policies? Well, The Funny Paper uses its Monday Profile to let everyone know in no uncertain terms that we should not take them seriously.
Consider the opening of the article, the set-up, where writer Anna Griffen so evenly and without bias provides a glimpse into Randal O’Toole’s persona:
“Slap a Bible in his hand and O'Toole could easily pass for a frontier preacher. He has the look, if not the Good Book: a stern, tight-lipped expression, an impressive display of graying facial hair, a wardrobe that tends toward simple black suits and looping Western-style bow ties.
He has quite the homily to tell with his slides, a story of righteousness vs. sin, of good guys and bad guys and the long-term consequences of bad judgment and poor choices. Bashing Portland has become a cottage industry, and O'Toole is its leading figure.”
Oh, thanks for the neutral introduction, Anna. Thanks for the heads up that nothing this frontier preacher has to say needs to be taken seriously. She hurries to tell us that O’Toole has it all wrong:
“Times are flush in Portland. Planners and civic leaders from around the world come to see how we do it. The New York Times can't stop writing about how great we have it, whether we're sipping tea, buying big vacation homes or biking to work. Although the housing market has cooled, Portland hasn't suffered the same steep decline as the rest of the country. “
Times are flush? I thought Sam Adams wanted a tax increase to pay for the huge backlog of street maintenance? If the NYT likes Portland’s planning culture, well, then what could Randal O’Toole possibly have to say?
Nothing that needs to be listened, to, she so very carefully points out:
"Yet the people in power say they don't take this would-be shadow government very seriously. Homer Williams, one of the city's most prominent developers, called O'Toole "an idiot" in the Daily Journal of Commerce. Ethan Seltzer, head of Portland State University's urban planning department, wonders why anyone would waste time writing about O'Toole -- or even listening to what he has to say. "
Can you imagine any such quote about one of The Funny Paper’s liberal activists finding its way into the story?
And how about this:
"He's crafted a complicated narrative to explain the Portland region's evolution into a national smart-growth darling: Once upon a time…”
Oh I get it, he is just telling fairy tales about how Goldschmidt started the whole light rail thing going in Portland. Again, no reason to take him seriously. He doesn’t analyze what happened, he “crafts complicated narratives.”
Then she so evenly presents the two competing visions for Portland (in a batant example of the liberal’s favorite logical fallacy, the fallacy of the false alternative:
"Vancouver [BC] is, of course, the urban planner's dream city, sleek and sophisticated, laid out as carefully and creatively as blown glass. Houston is the planner's nightmare, a sprawling monster of a town with no zoning code and a love affair with the automobile."
No bias in these two descriptions! Then she says:
Judging from recent elections, most Portlanders would rather trade in their Keens, give up their microbrews and swear off fleece than live in Houston. Portland's annual survey of residents suggests that most like where the city is headed, even if they might prefer a quicker commute or cheaper real estate."
Oh really, Anna? Is that why Portlanders twice voted down light rail lines, but got them shoved down their throat anyway? Is that why Measure 37 passed overwhelmingly?
Nowhere in this article did the writer so much as pretend to consider any of O’Toole’s substantive critiques of the effects of planning on Portland. The high housing costs, the congestion, the pollution. What could have been an interesting profile of a very interesting person with well researched and well considered conclusions was instead just another dismissive hit piece, intended to silence the contrarian view rather than present it so people can consider it.
Typical Funny Paper.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Interesting article in The Funny Paper today about the efforts to engage Hispanic students at Centennial High School.
The pathetic dropout rate and achievement levels of Hispanic kids in Oregon has been well documented, and Centennial is trying to figure out ways to get these kids engaged, both socially and academically.
The good news is that an increasing number of Centennial Hispanic kids seem to be engaging, according to the article. If Hispanics are this century’s immigrant story, like the Irish and Germans of the 20th century, it is essential that they assimilate into our culture, and become Americans in both thought and deed.
But guess what? The article explains that the primary motivating factor and social organizing point for these kids is the MEChA Club, whose membership has tripled, making it the second largest student club at the school.
What’s wrong with that? Far from encouraging assimilation, the ideology around which MEChA was formed in 1969, which is has quite unconvincingly distanced itself from nowadays, is overtly racist, separatist, and anti-American.
Quoting “FrontPage Magazine:”
The Funny Paper article somehow neglected to so much as breathe a whisper of this information, oddly enough. I wonder if a bunch of rural white kids were re-energized by school due to a growing membership in a White Aryan Nation club, The Funny Paper would studiously avoid mentioning the club’s ideology?
The pathetic dropout rate and achievement levels of Hispanic kids in Oregon has been well documented, and Centennial is trying to figure out ways to get these kids engaged, both socially and academically.
The good news is that an increasing number of Centennial Hispanic kids seem to be engaging, according to the article. If Hispanics are this century’s immigrant story, like the Irish and Germans of the 20th century, it is essential that they assimilate into our culture, and become Americans in both thought and deed.
But guess what? The article explains that the primary motivating factor and social organizing point for these kids is the MEChA Club, whose membership has tripled, making it the second largest student club at the school.
What’s wrong with that? Far from encouraging assimilation, the ideology around which MEChA was formed in 1969, which is has quite unconvincingly distanced itself from nowadays, is overtly racist, separatist, and anti-American.
Quoting “FrontPage Magazine:”
MEChA is an acronym for "Movimiento Estudiantíl Chicano de Aztlán" - Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. The goal of Aztlan is the secession of the Southwest U.S.A., which it calls Aztlan. The MEChA Constitution clearly calls for "the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán".
Another key document , "El Plan de Aztlan", states that "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent....We declare the independence of our mestizo nation...Nationalism as the key to organization transcends all religious, political, class, and economic factions or boundaries.
Nationalism is the common denominator that all members of La Raza agree upon." The MEChA slogan "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" (Everything for the Race - Nothing oustside the Race) -what is that if not racism? According to Miguel Perez , mechista of Cal State Northridge, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan....Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled....opposition groups would have to be quashed because you have to keep the power." "National revolution" was the theme for the 1997 MEChA conference, which called for becoming " a nation within a nation with a national plan of action as new soldiers in our struggle for national independence and an emerging XICANO nation."
Simply judging from its own documents and statements, MEChA is a racist, anti-American separatist hate group, and actually shares much in common with such groups as Aryan Nations, and the White Aryan Resistance, another California-based organization."
The Funny Paper article somehow neglected to so much as breathe a whisper of this information, oddly enough. I wonder if a bunch of rural white kids were re-energized by school due to a growing membership in a White Aryan Nation club, The Funny Paper would studiously avoid mentioning the club’s ideology?
Friday, November 30, 2007
The cap and trade scam
I've been intending to talk about this issue for quite a while, and today is a good day to post it because of the idiotic op-ed Piece in The Funny Paper today.
The “cap and trade” plan for carbon dioxide credits. It is corporate welfare of monumental proportions.
The government decides on the state’s CO2 emissions target that it says is needed to meet its CO2 reduction goals. That is the “cap,” in the “cap and trade.”
Then the government grants CO2 “credits” to companies for the sum amount of the target CO2 emissions. Think of them as rationing coupons. Companies must have coupons sufficient for the amount of CO2 they emit from their operations, which is based mostly on how much energy they use. If they want to use more energy than they have coupons for, they can go buy coupons from some company that has more than they need.
Thus, the “trade” in the cap and trade.
From an economics standpoint, if you want to limit some pollutant, and you can identify everyone who might create that pollutant, this is a very efficient way to do it. Why? Because the system “internalizes” the social cost of that pollutant by imposing a cost on the production of it. Assuming the government is smart enough to set the limit at the socially optimal level (a huge assumption, but let’s go with it,) then the cap and trade system creates the correct incentives. Companies have the incentive to reduce their emission of the pollutant, and they get to sell their credits.
But this assumes there are finite and identifiable sources of the pollutant, and they can all be brought under the system. And it also assumes the government can be trusted to allocate the “credits” in a reasonable, fair way.
For CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, nothing could be further from the truth. First, pretty much EVERYTHING (except young plants) emit CO2. It’s not just energy consumption that emits CO2 – livestock, insects, decay of biomass, and yes, breathing – it all creates carbon dioxide and other GHG's.
So a cap and trade system might start out just using energy consumption as a proxy for CO2 emissions, but that is only a small part of where the CO2 comes from, not to mention other greenhouse gasses like methane and nitrous oxide. The production of meat from livestock actually creates far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars on the road and planes in the sky today.
But a cap and trade system does nothing about these other sources of GHG's. So why do they still push for it? Because this isn’t about solving the phony global warming problem.
It is about 1) government rationing of energy consumption; and 2) big corporate payoffs in the form of energy credits to companies that know they are already under their quota, who would be handed tens of millions of dollars in carbon credits.
That's right – it is a big corporate payoff. Companies that have already invested heavily in low CO2 (read: less efficient) energy sources will finally get bailed out of their bad investments. They will get CO2 credits above and beyond what they need, and they get to sell them.
Guess who was one of the earliest and most vigorous proponents of Kyoto, and lobbied congress to give the EPA regulatory control over CO2 emissions? Enron. They knew that capping CO2 emissions would cripple coal-fired energy plants, and Enron was a big natural gas supplier. So they were simply rent seekers, trying to get the government to enrich them by hurting their competitors.
Plus, Enron would also get the CO2 credits, which they could sell and make a market in. A lovely double-whammy!
The Funny Paper today has an op-ed piece that makes one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard about a cap and trade system. I’m sure this idiot believes what he wrote, illiterate as he obviously is about economics. He wrote:
“By capping its gas emissions, Oregon will essentially be creating a new form of wealth out of what had been part of common ownership -- our air.”
Oh, my, it is worse than I thought. He actually believes that issuing rationing coupons creates wealth. If the government issued sugar coupons like it did in WWII, and you didn’t need yours, so you sold them, that certainly would have created wealth for you.
But it came at the expense of others. It is simply a wealth transfer; it doesn’t create a damn dime.
Yet we have people such as this, with no understanding of wealth creation, gracing the editorial pages of a once-great newspaper, making such idiotic statements. We are really in trouble.
Make no mistake, as Oregon goes trippingly down this path with “sustainable energy” mandates, and state based CO2 cap and trade systems, we will do it at an immense cost to ourselves.
You will see politicians of all stripes genuflect to this lunacy, and claim that it creates jobs and grows the economy. They are wrong. It doesn’t.
It is nothing but a huge cost for zero benefit, and a huge financial boon to big corporations who have been trying to build this trough they will feed from for more than a decade.
Oh - and don't forget - also a HUGE increase in government control over the economy.
The “cap and trade” plan for carbon dioxide credits. It is corporate welfare of monumental proportions.
The government decides on the state’s CO2 emissions target that it says is needed to meet its CO2 reduction goals. That is the “cap,” in the “cap and trade.”
Then the government grants CO2 “credits” to companies for the sum amount of the target CO2 emissions. Think of them as rationing coupons. Companies must have coupons sufficient for the amount of CO2 they emit from their operations, which is based mostly on how much energy they use. If they want to use more energy than they have coupons for, they can go buy coupons from some company that has more than they need.
Thus, the “trade” in the cap and trade.
From an economics standpoint, if you want to limit some pollutant, and you can identify everyone who might create that pollutant, this is a very efficient way to do it. Why? Because the system “internalizes” the social cost of that pollutant by imposing a cost on the production of it. Assuming the government is smart enough to set the limit at the socially optimal level (a huge assumption, but let’s go with it,) then the cap and trade system creates the correct incentives. Companies have the incentive to reduce their emission of the pollutant, and they get to sell their credits.
But this assumes there are finite and identifiable sources of the pollutant, and they can all be brought under the system. And it also assumes the government can be trusted to allocate the “credits” in a reasonable, fair way.
For CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, nothing could be further from the truth. First, pretty much EVERYTHING (except young plants) emit CO2. It’s not just energy consumption that emits CO2 – livestock, insects, decay of biomass, and yes, breathing – it all creates carbon dioxide and other GHG's.
So a cap and trade system might start out just using energy consumption as a proxy for CO2 emissions, but that is only a small part of where the CO2 comes from, not to mention other greenhouse gasses like methane and nitrous oxide. The production of meat from livestock actually creates far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars on the road and planes in the sky today.
But a cap and trade system does nothing about these other sources of GHG's. So why do they still push for it? Because this isn’t about solving the phony global warming problem.
It is about 1) government rationing of energy consumption; and 2) big corporate payoffs in the form of energy credits to companies that know they are already under their quota, who would be handed tens of millions of dollars in carbon credits.
That's right – it is a big corporate payoff. Companies that have already invested heavily in low CO2 (read: less efficient) energy sources will finally get bailed out of their bad investments. They will get CO2 credits above and beyond what they need, and they get to sell them.
Guess who was one of the earliest and most vigorous proponents of Kyoto, and lobbied congress to give the EPA regulatory control over CO2 emissions? Enron. They knew that capping CO2 emissions would cripple coal-fired energy plants, and Enron was a big natural gas supplier. So they were simply rent seekers, trying to get the government to enrich them by hurting their competitors.
Plus, Enron would also get the CO2 credits, which they could sell and make a market in. A lovely double-whammy!
The Funny Paper today has an op-ed piece that makes one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard about a cap and trade system. I’m sure this idiot believes what he wrote, illiterate as he obviously is about economics. He wrote:
“By capping its gas emissions, Oregon will essentially be creating a new form of wealth out of what had been part of common ownership -- our air.”
Oh, my, it is worse than I thought. He actually believes that issuing rationing coupons creates wealth. If the government issued sugar coupons like it did in WWII, and you didn’t need yours, so you sold them, that certainly would have created wealth for you.
But it came at the expense of others. It is simply a wealth transfer; it doesn’t create a damn dime.
Yet we have people such as this, with no understanding of wealth creation, gracing the editorial pages of a once-great newspaper, making such idiotic statements. We are really in trouble.
Make no mistake, as Oregon goes trippingly down this path with “sustainable energy” mandates, and state based CO2 cap and trade systems, we will do it at an immense cost to ourselves.
You will see politicians of all stripes genuflect to this lunacy, and claim that it creates jobs and grows the economy. They are wrong. It doesn’t.
It is nothing but a huge cost for zero benefit, and a huge financial boon to big corporations who have been trying to build this trough they will feed from for more than a decade.
Oh - and don't forget - also a HUGE increase in government control over the economy.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
I thought it was a joke, but he is dead serious!
Over at BlueOregon, some guy named Albert Kaufmann, a regular B.O. columnist, has a post titled: "It's time for a US Societal Re-education Campaign."
When I read the title I thought surely, this must be a lampoon of some sort. Who in their right mind would actually write a title like that? Certainly no one who knew anything about the shameful history of totalitarian socialist regimes like Mao China and the USSR could sincerely suggest that the US government do the same thing.
Wrong.
Right off the bat, this guy acknowledges that similar efforts in the past weren't really all that kosher, but says it is necessary to "save our asses," so we should do it anyway, just call it something other than "re-education."
So, he actually calls for annual week-long mandatory classes in which every citizen would be taught a laundry list of (in his view) essential learnings. He scripts a daily syllabus for what he wants to 'teach' us all. Predictably, what follows is a litany of liberal dreams: global warming, local buying, recycling, anti-capitalism, living without a car, sharing resources, and on and on ad nauseum.
The list itself is hysterical - one after another totalitarian-liberal platform is tossed in as if it is just obvious that all these things are unquestionably desirable things, with which no reasonable person could object. Eat more vegetables. Organic farming. Bicycle riding classes. The ins and outs of hitchhiking! How to play well with others. How to have a romantic relationship!
You simply have to read it - it is that laughable. But also very, very sad, and more than a little bit scary.
Scary because this is a person who simply sees no limitation at all on the power of government to control our lives. The sweeping purview of the items he wants the government to train the entire population about is breathtaking. He seems to have no reticence about his certitude that all the things he lists are such obvious positives that we should use the coercive power of government to make sure we all agree.
Ok, sure he's a kook. I know. But he is not so much a kook that the leading liberal blog in Oregon doesn't give him space to display his idiotic views for all to see, nor does his post generate much opposing views from his fellow BO bloggers.
The sad truth is, this guy isn't really all that far out of the political mainstream here in Oregon. And that should scare us very, very much.
When I read the title I thought surely, this must be a lampoon of some sort. Who in their right mind would actually write a title like that? Certainly no one who knew anything about the shameful history of totalitarian socialist regimes like Mao China and the USSR could sincerely suggest that the US government do the same thing.
Wrong.
Right off the bat, this guy acknowledges that similar efforts in the past weren't really all that kosher, but says it is necessary to "save our asses," so we should do it anyway, just call it something other than "re-education."
So, he actually calls for annual week-long mandatory classes in which every citizen would be taught a laundry list of (in his view) essential learnings. He scripts a daily syllabus for what he wants to 'teach' us all. Predictably, what follows is a litany of liberal dreams: global warming, local buying, recycling, anti-capitalism, living without a car, sharing resources, and on and on ad nauseum.
The list itself is hysterical - one after another totalitarian-liberal platform is tossed in as if it is just obvious that all these things are unquestionably desirable things, with which no reasonable person could object. Eat more vegetables. Organic farming. Bicycle riding classes. The ins and outs of hitchhiking! How to play well with others. How to have a romantic relationship!
You simply have to read it - it is that laughable. But also very, very sad, and more than a little bit scary.
Scary because this is a person who simply sees no limitation at all on the power of government to control our lives. The sweeping purview of the items he wants the government to train the entire population about is breathtaking. He seems to have no reticence about his certitude that all the things he lists are such obvious positives that we should use the coercive power of government to make sure we all agree.
Ok, sure he's a kook. I know. But he is not so much a kook that the leading liberal blog in Oregon doesn't give him space to display his idiotic views for all to see, nor does his post generate much opposing views from his fellow BO bloggers.
The sad truth is, this guy isn't really all that far out of the political mainstream here in Oregon. And that should scare us very, very much.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Training Losers
This is a very interesting, and troubling, issue.
Front page Funny Paper today:
The Jefferson High School football team likes to perform the “Haka Dance” before the game to get themselves and their fans motivated. The dance comes from the New Zealand Maori people, and it is all the rage among rugby teams over there, and was performed on an episode of Friday Night Lights.
So the Jefferson High Football team has adopted the dance pre-game. But the problem is they do it near the opposing team’s sideline, facing their opponents, and the dance itself is full of all sorts of moves and gestures of a taunting nature.
The OSAA told them to stop doing the dance in front of the opposing team, but the Jefferson coach allowed the team to vote on it, and they voted to keep doing the dance and accept the 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
This is disturbing on a number of levels. First, they are trying to turn this into a cultural issue, since some of the students on the team are from Tongo, an island country near New Zealand. But it is no more cultural than if a few kids of native American heritage imported a war dance to Tigard High School and the team did it before the games.
They are simply trying to cloak the issue in cultural terms as a way to intimidate people from saying it is wrong. The problem is not with the ritual (as stupid as it is) but with the fact they do it in front of the opposing team. That is clearly, no question about it, taunting. It is not only really bad form, it is a penalty.
But the worst part of this is the Jefferson coach is allowing them to continue with the ritual and just take the 15 yard penalty, which is imposed on the opening kickoff.
What kind of a message does this send to these kids? The wrong one, I’ll tell you that.
The message is sends is that it is OK to defy the behavioral standards set by society if you think it helps you, gives you extra motivation, or, especially, if you claim that your cultural standards are different.
That is just terrific. That is precisely the opposite of what these kids need to be taught. I’m sorry to put this indelicately, but kids at Jefferson High School have hard enough time as it is joining productive society without being implicitly told by their football coach that they can break rules by majority vote.
One of the huge benefits of team sports in high school – especially football, with its “cog-in-the-wheel” mentality, is that conforming and rule-following can bring great achievements to a team. Football, first among team sports, requires all the moving parts to perform specific, and for the most part thankless, roles.
There is a name for teams with players who want to defy the rules for their roles: losers.
The coach at Jefferson High School, by literally encouraging his entire team to defy the rules about appropriate conduct, is training an entire team of young men to be losers.
This is a crying shame. The OSAA should step in and act as the adult that Jefferson’s coach obviously isn’t. They should let the team and its fans know that any player or fan who performs the Haka ritual in front of the opposing bench in their playoff game Friday will be ejected.
Front page Funny Paper today:
The Jefferson High School football team likes to perform the “Haka Dance” before the game to get themselves and their fans motivated. The dance comes from the New Zealand Maori people, and it is all the rage among rugby teams over there, and was performed on an episode of Friday Night Lights.
So the Jefferson High Football team has adopted the dance pre-game. But the problem is they do it near the opposing team’s sideline, facing their opponents, and the dance itself is full of all sorts of moves and gestures of a taunting nature.
The OSAA told them to stop doing the dance in front of the opposing team, but the Jefferson coach allowed the team to vote on it, and they voted to keep doing the dance and accept the 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
This is disturbing on a number of levels. First, they are trying to turn this into a cultural issue, since some of the students on the team are from Tongo, an island country near New Zealand. But it is no more cultural than if a few kids of native American heritage imported a war dance to Tigard High School and the team did it before the games.
They are simply trying to cloak the issue in cultural terms as a way to intimidate people from saying it is wrong. The problem is not with the ritual (as stupid as it is) but with the fact they do it in front of the opposing team. That is clearly, no question about it, taunting. It is not only really bad form, it is a penalty.
But the worst part of this is the Jefferson coach is allowing them to continue with the ritual and just take the 15 yard penalty, which is imposed on the opening kickoff.
What kind of a message does this send to these kids? The wrong one, I’ll tell you that.
The message is sends is that it is OK to defy the behavioral standards set by society if you think it helps you, gives you extra motivation, or, especially, if you claim that your cultural standards are different.
That is just terrific. That is precisely the opposite of what these kids need to be taught. I’m sorry to put this indelicately, but kids at Jefferson High School have hard enough time as it is joining productive society without being implicitly told by their football coach that they can break rules by majority vote.
One of the huge benefits of team sports in high school – especially football, with its “cog-in-the-wheel” mentality, is that conforming and rule-following can bring great achievements to a team. Football, first among team sports, requires all the moving parts to perform specific, and for the most part thankless, roles.
There is a name for teams with players who want to defy the rules for their roles: losers.
The coach at Jefferson High School, by literally encouraging his entire team to defy the rules about appropriate conduct, is training an entire team of young men to be losers.
This is a crying shame. The OSAA should step in and act as the adult that Jefferson’s coach obviously isn’t. They should let the team and its fans know that any player or fan who performs the Haka ritual in front of the opposing bench in their playoff game Friday will be ejected.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
It's official: The Governor is a proven liar
Funny Paper columnist Steve Duin proved it today: Governor Kulongoski lied to the public about Fred Leonhardt.
Kulongoski has been trying to distance himself from Leonhardt, for obvious reasons, portraying him as a disgruntled employee who was left on the dock when the Kulongoski ship of state left the harbor.
After Leonhardt went public with his accusation that Teddy knew all about Neil because he himself told him, the Governor told The Funny Paper that he and Leonhardt "lost most contact" after Kulongoski was elected to the Supreme Court in 1996.
Oops. One problem with getting away with lies for years and years with no accountability is that when all of a sudden the media decides to do its job and check out your story, you get caught.
It turns out that Leonhardt saved evidence of all sorts of very warm personal connections from Kulongoski from as recently as 2001. Things like notes from Kulongoski to Leonhart's mother, a photograph of Kulongoski at a party at Leonhardt's house, and a personal note on a birthday banner.
So Kulongoski lied when he tried to convince the Oregonian that he and Leonhardt were estranged friends back in 1996.
Which sounds like a wierd thing to get caught lying about. But if you are trying to make a case for some kind of vendetta on the part of Leonhardt, to explain why he would make up the story about telling him about Goldschmidt, then it makes some sense.
Bottom line, Kulongoski's credibility is pretty much shot. He got caught in a lie, red-handed, and now he wants us to believe that he is telling the truth about the central claim Leonhardt is making - that he told Kulongoski about Goldschmidt at Bernie Guisto's party in 1994.
The best part is that Lars Larson's bar complaint against Kulongoski might now have a little more teeth, since it is now provable that Kulongoski has misled the public on a material matter pertaining to the Leonhardt accusation.
Could this be the beginning of the end for Teddy K?
Kulongoski has been trying to distance himself from Leonhardt, for obvious reasons, portraying him as a disgruntled employee who was left on the dock when the Kulongoski ship of state left the harbor.
After Leonhardt went public with his accusation that Teddy knew all about Neil because he himself told him, the Governor told The Funny Paper that he and Leonhardt "lost most contact" after Kulongoski was elected to the Supreme Court in 1996.
Oops. One problem with getting away with lies for years and years with no accountability is that when all of a sudden the media decides to do its job and check out your story, you get caught.
It turns out that Leonhardt saved evidence of all sorts of very warm personal connections from Kulongoski from as recently as 2001. Things like notes from Kulongoski to Leonhart's mother, a photograph of Kulongoski at a party at Leonhardt's house, and a personal note on a birthday banner.
So Kulongoski lied when he tried to convince the Oregonian that he and Leonhardt were estranged friends back in 1996.
Which sounds like a wierd thing to get caught lying about. But if you are trying to make a case for some kind of vendetta on the part of Leonhardt, to explain why he would make up the story about telling him about Goldschmidt, then it makes some sense.
Bottom line, Kulongoski's credibility is pretty much shot. He got caught in a lie, red-handed, and now he wants us to believe that he is telling the truth about the central claim Leonhardt is making - that he told Kulongoski about Goldschmidt at Bernie Guisto's party in 1994.
The best part is that Lars Larson's bar complaint against Kulongoski might now have a little more teeth, since it is now provable that Kulongoski has misled the public on a material matter pertaining to the Leonhardt accusation.
Could this be the beginning of the end for Teddy K?
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Taxpayer Association, Oregon Style
This is really rich. Only in Oregon.
There's a new task force, just appointed by the Governor, called the "Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring." It's the result of a bill from last session, which told the Governor to create the task force to look into a new tax structure for Oregon.
Nothing particularly interesting about this. They've been appointing blue ribbon committees like this for years. And the process for this one is very typical - the enabling legislation proscribes the makeup of the committee by calling for appointees from different categories - labor, small business, big business, etc.
Here's the good part: there is a category for two seats on the committee called: "Taxpayer Association Representatives." Sounds reasonable. After all, if you are discussing options for restructuring the tax system, the taxpayer ought to be at the table.
But guess who was appointed to one of the Taxpayer Association seats?
Chuck Sheketov, from the Oregon Center for Public Policy!
Calling the OCPP a taxpayer association representative is roughly the equivalent of calling Planned Parenthood an "Embryo Advocacy Organization."
It has obviously gotten to the point where there is no real need to even pretend that any other voices should even be at the table when our one-party state decides things. Look at the makeup of the rest of the committee, for a good laugh:
There are two entire categories for unions - One called "Organized Labor Representatives" and the other called "Labor Association Representatives." What the heck is the difference? Then, under the category "General Public Representatives," guess who is the appointed member: a person from "Stand for Children," who I always refer to as their more accurate moniker, "Stand for Unions."
You know it is really bad here when the Governor's office cares so little about keeping up the appearance of engaging diverse viewpoints that they appoint Chuck Sheketov in the Taxpayer Repesentative seat.
A one-party state, and their grip tightens.
There's a new task force, just appointed by the Governor, called the "Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring." It's the result of a bill from last session, which told the Governor to create the task force to look into a new tax structure for Oregon.
Nothing particularly interesting about this. They've been appointing blue ribbon committees like this for years. And the process for this one is very typical - the enabling legislation proscribes the makeup of the committee by calling for appointees from different categories - labor, small business, big business, etc.
Here's the good part: there is a category for two seats on the committee called: "Taxpayer Association Representatives." Sounds reasonable. After all, if you are discussing options for restructuring the tax system, the taxpayer ought to be at the table.
But guess who was appointed to one of the Taxpayer Association seats?
Chuck Sheketov, from the Oregon Center for Public Policy!
Calling the OCPP a taxpayer association representative is roughly the equivalent of calling Planned Parenthood an "Embryo Advocacy Organization."
It has obviously gotten to the point where there is no real need to even pretend that any other voices should even be at the table when our one-party state decides things. Look at the makeup of the rest of the committee, for a good laugh:
There are two entire categories for unions - One called "Organized Labor Representatives" and the other called "Labor Association Representatives." What the heck is the difference? Then, under the category "General Public Representatives," guess who is the appointed member: a person from "Stand for Children," who I always refer to as their more accurate moniker, "Stand for Unions."
You know it is really bad here when the Governor's office cares so little about keeping up the appearance of engaging diverse viewpoints that they appoint Chuck Sheketov in the Taxpayer Repesentative seat.
A one-party state, and their grip tightens.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Their self-congratulations only cost us $60K
The Funny Paper today absolutely GUSHED over Portland’s newfound fame as the epicenter of sustainability. The city spent $60,000 congratulating itself at the “Greenbuild” conference in Chicago, and according to The Funny Paper, it’s money well spent.
A lavish reception area where all the greenies could come and pay homage Dan Saltzman, along with an entourage of 15 city bureaucrats, complete with hotel rooms and airline flights. But we were the toast of the town:
"The world watches Portland, believe it or not," said Kath Williams, immediate past president of the World Green Building Council. "Portland's got to stand up and take its rightful place as the future."
And get this fawning description of one of the Portland presenters, talking about water conservation in the OHSU building at South Waterfront:
"The water bills in the building have been running less than $100 a month," he said.
The audience gasped.
"That's for a 400,000-square-foot office building -- so match that!"
Applause erupted.
Let me get this straight. This guy tells his audience that a 400,000 square foot building uses $100 a month in water, and the reporter just buys it? No questions, please.
And later in the article:
"At PDX Lounge, meanwhile, Portland worked a separate magic. Dance music pulsed from the PDX Lounge sound system, while Full Sail beer and Medoyeff Vodka flowed from its two bars."
Glad you are paying for their little gathering?
The funny thing is that these folks actually believe their own press. They actually believe that layering on carbon taxes and mandating all sorts of inefficient energy saving systems will actually result in economic activity. Their reasoning goes something like this:
“If Portland establishes a leadership position by taxing the “wrong” kind of construction practices and subsidizing the “right” kind, we will develop expertise here that people from all over the world will come to pay us to learn. Green building construction companies will thrive, and they will get projects all over the world as other cities follow Portland’s lead and taxes carbon emissions in construction just like we do.”
The flaw in this thinking, of course, is that none of these supposed “green” building practices actually make any economic sense. The only way people actually build that way is when mandates force them to. They cost a lot compared to the energy they save.
For decades we have been promised that solar, wind and other “renewable” sources of energy would pencil out if we just gave them a kick start in the form of subsidy. But to this day, the only way anybody will build this stuff is if they are subsidized or coerced.
Of course, subsidy and coercion is the liberal environmentalist’s stock in trade. Hence Dan Saltzman’s carbon tax program, the Kyoto Treaty, the Governor’s “25 by 25” initiative, etc.
All this stuff does is consume more resources to produce the same energy that other sources produce more cheaply. And that makes all of us poorer.
And who gets hit the hardest? The low income, that is who.
A lavish reception area where all the greenies could come and pay homage Dan Saltzman, along with an entourage of 15 city bureaucrats, complete with hotel rooms and airline flights. But we were the toast of the town:
"The world watches Portland, believe it or not," said Kath Williams, immediate past president of the World Green Building Council. "Portland's got to stand up and take its rightful place as the future."
And get this fawning description of one of the Portland presenters, talking about water conservation in the OHSU building at South Waterfront:
"The water bills in the building have been running less than $100 a month," he said.
The audience gasped.
"That's for a 400,000-square-foot office building -- so match that!"
Applause erupted.
Let me get this straight. This guy tells his audience that a 400,000 square foot building uses $100 a month in water, and the reporter just buys it? No questions, please.
And later in the article:
"At PDX Lounge, meanwhile, Portland worked a separate magic. Dance music pulsed from the PDX Lounge sound system, while Full Sail beer and Medoyeff Vodka flowed from its two bars."
Glad you are paying for their little gathering?
The funny thing is that these folks actually believe their own press. They actually believe that layering on carbon taxes and mandating all sorts of inefficient energy saving systems will actually result in economic activity. Their reasoning goes something like this:
“If Portland establishes a leadership position by taxing the “wrong” kind of construction practices and subsidizing the “right” kind, we will develop expertise here that people from all over the world will come to pay us to learn. Green building construction companies will thrive, and they will get projects all over the world as other cities follow Portland’s lead and taxes carbon emissions in construction just like we do.”
The flaw in this thinking, of course, is that none of these supposed “green” building practices actually make any economic sense. The only way people actually build that way is when mandates force them to. They cost a lot compared to the energy they save.
For decades we have been promised that solar, wind and other “renewable” sources of energy would pencil out if we just gave them a kick start in the form of subsidy. But to this day, the only way anybody will build this stuff is if they are subsidized or coerced.
Of course, subsidy and coercion is the liberal environmentalist’s stock in trade. Hence Dan Saltzman’s carbon tax program, the Kyoto Treaty, the Governor’s “25 by 25” initiative, etc.
All this stuff does is consume more resources to produce the same energy that other sources produce more cheaply. And that makes all of us poorer.
And who gets hit the hardest? The low income, that is who.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Here it comes - the Carbon Tax
It is just perfect. It couldn't have been a better example of the problem. For years, I have said here and elsewhere that the Portland planning elites are motivated by all the accolades and awards they get from all their like-minded comrades back east.
Today, the front page of the Oregonian makes my point.
Dan Saltzman goes to the "Greenbuild International Conference" in Chicago, and at his swanky, invitation-only reception last evening, he unviels his latest, greatest program to win another sustainability award from his chums.
He wants to tax homebuilders who don't use enough carbon-reduction practices, and subsidize those who do. That of course requires "carbon inspectors," along with who knows how much associated bureaucracy.
And oh my, his fellow conferees were nearly orgasmic in their accolades: "It's bold," said Suzanne Malec-McKenna, Commissioner of the Environment for the city of Chicago. "I think it's great. It's definitely the direction our cities need to be going."
So Commissioner Dan is the toast of the sustainability crowd meeting in Chicago. And there was a perfect visual on the back page of the story: Saltzman, Tom Potter, and the lady who runs the city's Office of Sustainable Development, cocktail glasses clinking in mid-toast, huge smiles of accomplishment on their cheery faces.
Meanwhile, back at home, not everybody was smiling. Local builders are ready to go to battle. Saltzman didn’t bother to consult them, and they know exactly what this really means: higher housing costs, as so-called “sustainability” measures are mandated through tax incentives that drive up costs.
The builders know what a farce this stuff is. “Sustainability” apparently means spending a lot of money on energy saving systems that save only a fraction of the energy that would be required for it to be cost effective. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to mandate it –people would WANT to install the stuff without the tax incentive.
But Saltzman types don’t understand this, or they pretend not to. They think it is a good trade to spend $5,000 on some system to save $100 a year in energy cost, because, hey – it isn’t their money. I’ll bet if you offered Saltzman a similar return on his public pensions account he would politely decline.
But not every builder objects. We learn in the article that the program was designed with the help of local builder Gerdling Edlen, who is a “leader” in using these “sustainable” construction practices. Wow, what great, responsible people these builders are! They have made big investments in using all these money-losing techniques, so now they want the government to mandate them so their investment isn’t down the drain! What humanitarians!
The sad part of all this is it will just make housing that much more expensive in Portland, and hurt the low income and the young family that much more.
And that is the legacy of the “progressives:” harm the poor
Today, the front page of the Oregonian makes my point.
Dan Saltzman goes to the "Greenbuild International Conference" in Chicago, and at his swanky, invitation-only reception last evening, he unviels his latest, greatest program to win another sustainability award from his chums.
He wants to tax homebuilders who don't use enough carbon-reduction practices, and subsidize those who do. That of course requires "carbon inspectors," along with who knows how much associated bureaucracy.
And oh my, his fellow conferees were nearly orgasmic in their accolades: "It's bold," said Suzanne Malec-McKenna, Commissioner of the Environment for the city of Chicago. "I think it's great. It's definitely the direction our cities need to be going."
So Commissioner Dan is the toast of the sustainability crowd meeting in Chicago. And there was a perfect visual on the back page of the story: Saltzman, Tom Potter, and the lady who runs the city's Office of Sustainable Development, cocktail glasses clinking in mid-toast, huge smiles of accomplishment on their cheery faces.
Meanwhile, back at home, not everybody was smiling. Local builders are ready to go to battle. Saltzman didn’t bother to consult them, and they know exactly what this really means: higher housing costs, as so-called “sustainability” measures are mandated through tax incentives that drive up costs.
The builders know what a farce this stuff is. “Sustainability” apparently means spending a lot of money on energy saving systems that save only a fraction of the energy that would be required for it to be cost effective. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to mandate it –people would WANT to install the stuff without the tax incentive.
But Saltzman types don’t understand this, or they pretend not to. They think it is a good trade to spend $5,000 on some system to save $100 a year in energy cost, because, hey – it isn’t their money. I’ll bet if you offered Saltzman a similar return on his public pensions account he would politely decline.
But not every builder objects. We learn in the article that the program was designed with the help of local builder Gerdling Edlen, who is a “leader” in using these “sustainable” construction practices. Wow, what great, responsible people these builders are! They have made big investments in using all these money-losing techniques, so now they want the government to mandate them so their investment isn’t down the drain! What humanitarians!
The sad part of all this is it will just make housing that much more expensive in Portland, and hurt the low income and the young family that much more.
And that is the legacy of the “progressives:” harm the poor
Thursday, November 01, 2007
More government dysfunction
Reported in the Statesman Journal today: Dan Gardner at BOLI sued the City of Salem because a hotel construction project in an urban renewal area wasn't paying prevailing wage. They lost the suit, because it wasn't a public project. Just getting some kind of subsidy doesn't make it a public project.
The State sued Salem for $1.5 million plus maxiumum penalties, and apparently BOLI did everything it could to drag out the litigation and make it as expensive as possible for Salem. But they forgot one thing: to have a rational legal theory for the lawsuit.
Judge Mary Merten James rebuked BOLI, saying: "At no stage in the proceedings was BOLI able to articulate the factual or legal basis for its claim."
That is actually pretty hard to do. Sue someone and not be able to explain a factual or legal basis for the lawsuit?
It just goes to show what a puppet Dan Gardner is for the unions (as if that distinguishes him from every other highly-placed Democrat in the state.)
Salem sued to make the state pay the legal fees, more than $700K, and Judge James agreed. So, this little dalliance in union-shilling will cost the state more than $700K in legal fees that it must pay Salem.
Terrific. One government harassing another government with a spurious lawsuit. This state is so screwed.
The State sued Salem for $1.5 million plus maxiumum penalties, and apparently BOLI did everything it could to drag out the litigation and make it as expensive as possible for Salem. But they forgot one thing: to have a rational legal theory for the lawsuit.
Judge Mary Merten James rebuked BOLI, saying: "At no stage in the proceedings was BOLI able to articulate the factual or legal basis for its claim."
That is actually pretty hard to do. Sue someone and not be able to explain a factual or legal basis for the lawsuit?
It just goes to show what a puppet Dan Gardner is for the unions (as if that distinguishes him from every other highly-placed Democrat in the state.)
Salem sued to make the state pay the legal fees, more than $700K, and Judge James agreed. So, this little dalliance in union-shilling will cost the state more than $700K in legal fees that it must pay Salem.
Terrific. One government harassing another government with a spurious lawsuit. This state is so screwed.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Funny Paper: OHSU Apologist
Right on cue, The Funny Paper provides cover for the OHSU swindlers. They wrote a kid-glove editorial, saying, essentially, "things are on the right track now."
The Funny Paper was complicit in the swindle. They failed to scrutinize the ridiculous claims of 10,000 biotech jobs, and cheerled as OHSU borrowed (then wasted) $200 million in "Oregon Opportunity Funds," and built their shrine to Peter Kohler.
It was all based not just on lies, but on easily detected lies. Only because The Funny Paper ran interference could they have perpetrated this swindle.
And now we get the editorial, saying all will be OK. Nobody held accountable, again.
LOOSE ENDS? That's how they characterize it? Kohler sold a bill of goods, and they are losing $50 million a year, and The Funny Paper acts as if it is just a couple of details that aren't quite tied down to complete his vision.
Then we are treated to the apologia:
What a laugh! Even if it doesn't "quite" create 10,000 jobs! How about ONE?
The fact is, the whole OHSU/South Waterfront swindle was basically the Neil Goldschmidt Mafia's capstone boondoggle, and The Funny Paper should be held accountable for its role in allowing it to happen.
The Funny Paper was complicit in the swindle. They failed to scrutinize the ridiculous claims of 10,000 biotech jobs, and cheerled as OHSU borrowed (then wasted) $200 million in "Oregon Opportunity Funds," and built their shrine to Peter Kohler.
It was all based not just on lies, but on easily detected lies. Only because The Funny Paper ran interference could they have perpetrated this swindle.
And now we get the editorial, saying all will be OK. Nobody held accountable, again.
Dr. Peter Kohler drove the institution toward an ambitious vision as an economic development dynamo that would power an emergent biotech sector in Portland, but Robertson must focus on tying up some of Kohler's loose ends.
LOOSE ENDS? That's how they characterize it? Kohler sold a bill of goods, and they are losing $50 million a year, and The Funny Paper acts as if it is just a couple of details that aren't quite tied down to complete his vision.
Then we are treated to the apologia:
Even if OHSU never becomes quite the biotech dynamo that some proclaimed, it can strengthen its role as an anchor in the city's economy and the region's medical infrastructure. The region has a lot invested in its success.
What a laugh! Even if it doesn't "quite" create 10,000 jobs! How about ONE?
The fact is, the whole OHSU/South Waterfront swindle was basically the Neil Goldschmidt Mafia's capstone boondoggle, and The Funny Paper should be held accountable for its role in allowing it to happen.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Blue Oregon BlueBlockers
How could it be that the political earthquake that threatens the governing authority of Ted Kulongoski has gone without comment at the leading Oregon liberal political blog, BlueOregon.com?
Everyone saw the news. Fred Leonhardt's story was corroborated by about 15 different sources. There is only one holdout - only one person who Leonhardt says he told who denies it: Governor Kulongoski.
But over at BlueOregon, not a single post or comment when it becomes ever more apparent that the Governor protected a child molester. Not even a rebuttal. No, the release of the Guisto report was the occasion only for a BlueOregon thread on Senator Wyden's new twins and a post lamenting that Keith Olberman might not be so easy to watch on Comcast.
Go ahead, BlueOregon. Ignore the story. That worked out great for the Oregonian.
Everyone saw the news. Fred Leonhardt's story was corroborated by about 15 different sources. There is only one holdout - only one person who Leonhardt says he told who denies it: Governor Kulongoski.
But over at BlueOregon, not a single post or comment when it becomes ever more apparent that the Governor protected a child molester. Not even a rebuttal. No, the release of the Guisto report was the occasion only for a BlueOregon thread on Senator Wyden's new twins and a post lamenting that Keith Olberman might not be so easy to watch on Comcast.
Go ahead, BlueOregon. Ignore the story. That worked out great for the Oregonian.
OHSU - Oregon Hospital Scam Unreported
This is so typical.
Dr. Peter Kohler, former head of OHSU, sold this city a bill of goods. He talked of 10,000 new biotech jobs if the city went through with plans to build the tram and the shrine at South Waterfront, and if Oregonians approved the $200 million bond to finance OHSU's research expansion.
Lots of us knew it was total BS. BrainstormNW Magazine even wrote a cover story exposing the fraud. But the Funny Paper cheerled as usual, and barely even noticed when not a single actual biotech job ever surfaced.
Now, four years later, we read in the Funny Paper that OHSU is losing money fast, and that the Chief Financial officer has been warning for years that a "financial meltdown" was likely. Yet during this entire time, OHSU continued to push ahead on a $60 million tram, a new office building at SoWhat, the $200 million bond, and a new research center on the Schnitzer property.
Kohler, of course, is long gone. He knew when to get out. They papered over their cash flow losses by selling the Oregon Graduate Institute propery - a great way to make ends meet. Kohler escapes after running the place into the ground, but not before accepting all his awards and getting a building named after him.
Where was the Funny Paper when Kohler predicted that he could goose up research grants enough to cover his profligate spending? OHSU was in the red for years, and they kept the pedal to the metal on spending, cannibalizing their capital assets to cover the losses.
Go read that Brainstorm story. Every single element of the OHSU scam was debunked. Local venture capitalist Ralph Shaw is quoted extensively in the article, challenging the specifics of what OHSU was claiming. He was summarily dismissed, by all the OHSU brass, the PDC brass, and all the polticians. "Too negative." "Skunk at the party."
No one actually addressed his very specific criticisms, of course. He knows so much more about all this stuff than those idiots that they would never take him on on specifics. You get quotes like Jim Francesconi: "Ralph’s defining the problem, but I need some solutions.” That doesn't mean anything - the "solution" is to not spend a billion public dollars on a foolish investment!
And all along the way, from the Funny Paper, not a whisper. It's not as if it was hard to figure out. Brainstorm had the story in 2003. It was common knowledge that they were out of money. Just another scam, covered up by the Funny Paper of record.
So very typically Portland.
Dr. Peter Kohler, former head of OHSU, sold this city a bill of goods. He talked of 10,000 new biotech jobs if the city went through with plans to build the tram and the shrine at South Waterfront, and if Oregonians approved the $200 million bond to finance OHSU's research expansion.
Lots of us knew it was total BS. BrainstormNW Magazine even wrote a cover story exposing the fraud. But the Funny Paper cheerled as usual, and barely even noticed when not a single actual biotech job ever surfaced.
Now, four years later, we read in the Funny Paper that OHSU is losing money fast, and that the Chief Financial officer has been warning for years that a "financial meltdown" was likely. Yet during this entire time, OHSU continued to push ahead on a $60 million tram, a new office building at SoWhat, the $200 million bond, and a new research center on the Schnitzer property.
Kohler, of course, is long gone. He knew when to get out. They papered over their cash flow losses by selling the Oregon Graduate Institute propery - a great way to make ends meet. Kohler escapes after running the place into the ground, but not before accepting all his awards and getting a building named after him.
Where was the Funny Paper when Kohler predicted that he could goose up research grants enough to cover his profligate spending? OHSU was in the red for years, and they kept the pedal to the metal on spending, cannibalizing their capital assets to cover the losses.
Go read that Brainstorm story. Every single element of the OHSU scam was debunked. Local venture capitalist Ralph Shaw is quoted extensively in the article, challenging the specifics of what OHSU was claiming. He was summarily dismissed, by all the OHSU brass, the PDC brass, and all the polticians. "Too negative." "Skunk at the party."
No one actually addressed his very specific criticisms, of course. He knows so much more about all this stuff than those idiots that they would never take him on on specifics. You get quotes like Jim Francesconi: "Ralph’s defining the problem, but I need some solutions.” That doesn't mean anything - the "solution" is to not spend a billion public dollars on a foolish investment!
And all along the way, from the Funny Paper, not a whisper. It's not as if it was hard to figure out. Brainstorm had the story in 2003. It was common knowledge that they were out of money. Just another scam, covered up by the Funny Paper of record.
So very typically Portland.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Closing in on the Governor
So the Guisto report is out, and it is not good news for Ted Kulongoski.
Guisto admitted to investigators that he told Fred Leonhardt about Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of the girl. Leonhardt's story on this important piece of the puzzle - previously denied by Guisto - has been confirmed.
Why is this bad for Ted? Leonhardt was on of Kulongoski's close friends and confidants. This was early 1990's, after Goldschmidt was no longer governor, and Kulongoski was planning a run for Attorney General, and Goldschmidt was his primary political patron.
Wouldn't it strain credulity to for Leonhardt to know about Goldschmidt's secret and NOT tell Kulongioski? Your very close friend is planning a run for statewide office, using the influence of the former Governor. You know the former governor is a child molester, and the story could get out, and you wouldn't tell your friend?
Of course you would. Of course Leonhardt told Kulongoski.
Which means that Ted Kulongoski knew the story, but used Goldschmidt's influence to further his career anyway. And when he became governor, he appointed Goldschmidt to the State Board of Higher Education!
(I'm sure Neil was pissed - he likes younger girls. He probably wanted to be on the K-12 State Board!)
It will be interesting to see what moral and mental gymnastics the BlueOregon crowd does on this now.
Face it: Our Honorable Governor protected a child molester for his own career advancement.
Wonderful, wonderful people who run our government.
Guisto admitted to investigators that he told Fred Leonhardt about Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of the girl. Leonhardt's story on this important piece of the puzzle - previously denied by Guisto - has been confirmed.
Why is this bad for Ted? Leonhardt was on of Kulongoski's close friends and confidants. This was early 1990's, after Goldschmidt was no longer governor, and Kulongoski was planning a run for Attorney General, and Goldschmidt was his primary political patron.
Wouldn't it strain credulity to for Leonhardt to know about Goldschmidt's secret and NOT tell Kulongioski? Your very close friend is planning a run for statewide office, using the influence of the former Governor. You know the former governor is a child molester, and the story could get out, and you wouldn't tell your friend?
Of course you would. Of course Leonhardt told Kulongoski.
Which means that Ted Kulongoski knew the story, but used Goldschmidt's influence to further his career anyway. And when he became governor, he appointed Goldschmidt to the State Board of Higher Education!
(I'm sure Neil was pissed - he likes younger girls. He probably wanted to be on the K-12 State Board!)
It will be interesting to see what moral and mental gymnastics the BlueOregon crowd does on this now.
Face it: Our Honorable Governor protected a child molester for his own career advancement.
Wonderful, wonderful people who run our government.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Should we let Iran get the bomb?
There's an interesting thread over at Bojack.org, in which Jack Bogdanski laments Dick Cheney's increasingly definitive statements that we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. He predicts we will be bombing them by Christmas.
I asked if we should just allow Iran to get the bomb. I think it's a pretty reasonable question. I sure don't relish the thought of another armed conflict, but seriously - we are just going to sit back and let that madman have a nuclear weapon? The guy who has made it very clear that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map?
I was surprised by some of the responses to my question. They said, basically: Of course!
Iran is a sovereign nation, they say, and we have no right to dictate to them that they can't have the bomb.
I especially like this comment:
"Who the hell died and made us God. What would we do if France told us "no more war without UN approval." We would tell them to kiss off. Iran is a sovereign nation that has the right to do what it wants to do. If the international community deems their actions inappropriate, then the international community can take action."
On the one hand he says we would tell France to kiss off if they told us we needed UN approval to go to war, but he then says basically that the only way we could intervene in Iran is with the "international community" agrees! Which is it?
It is pretty frightening to me that this kind of thinking is apparently widespread. Rogue states like Iran have the right to get nuclear weapons? I am afraid that every Democrat candidate for President would actually let it happen.
Seems to me that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe out Israel, we ought to take him seriously. And that means we can't let him have the means to fulfill his plans.
I wonder what these folks would say if Ahmadinejad got a nuke and lobbed it over to Tel-Aviv? So sorry!
I asked if we should just allow Iran to get the bomb. I think it's a pretty reasonable question. I sure don't relish the thought of another armed conflict, but seriously - we are just going to sit back and let that madman have a nuclear weapon? The guy who has made it very clear that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map?
I was surprised by some of the responses to my question. They said, basically: Of course!
Iran is a sovereign nation, they say, and we have no right to dictate to them that they can't have the bomb.
I especially like this comment:
"Who the hell died and made us God. What would we do if France told us "no more war without UN approval." We would tell them to kiss off. Iran is a sovereign nation that has the right to do what it wants to do. If the international community deems their actions inappropriate, then the international community can take action."
On the one hand he says we would tell France to kiss off if they told us we needed UN approval to go to war, but he then says basically that the only way we could intervene in Iran is with the "international community" agrees! Which is it?
It is pretty frightening to me that this kind of thinking is apparently widespread. Rogue states like Iran have the right to get nuclear weapons? I am afraid that every Democrat candidate for President would actually let it happen.
Seems to me that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe out Israel, we ought to take him seriously. And that means we can't let him have the means to fulfill his plans.
I wonder what these folks would say if Ahmadinejad got a nuke and lobbed it over to Tel-Aviv? So sorry!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Did Gordon sell the bottom?
On the trading floors that I used to work on in the investment banking industries, one of the worst sins was to "sell the bottom."
That's when a trader has a "long" position in something - he buys a treasury bond future, currency, option, or whatever - and the market moves against it. The pain starts, and grows with every tick the position moves down. The trader hangs on, hoping the market will come back. The pain intensifies. He still believes in his position, but the market seems to say otherwise, and he starts to question his own judgment.
The market moves further, and the pain gets excruciating. The trader now has lost his compass: the position seemed so correct at the start, but now, all he can see is reasons why he was wrong. He talks to other traders, asks their opinion, substitutes their opinion for his own.
The market moves further against him, and he can stand the pain no longer. He sells.
But he doesn't just sell his position. He wants to make up for what he lost, so he takes a short position, hoping the market will keep going down so he can cover the short position at a profit, and make back some or all of what he lost.
But guess what happens? As soon as he "goes short," the market recovers, and goes up all the way past the level where he took the "long" position in the first place.
It's the cardinal sin on the trading floors - the classic "Sell-the-bottom-whipsaw."
Did Gordon Smith sell the bottom of the Iraq war?
It sure is starting to look like it. It is starting to appear as if you can mark the low point in the war in Iraq as the date that Gordon Smith made is infamous speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It seems that virtually since that moment, the news has gotten better from Iraq. The surge seems to be working, casualties are way, way down, and Al Qaeda is on the run.
And Gordon didn’t just “sell” his long position on the war and take his losses. He went “short” big time. He basically called the President a criminal, and even said we should “cut and run.”
So he lost on the way down, and now is losing on the way up – a classic “Sell-the-Bottom-Whipsaw.”
That's when a trader has a "long" position in something - he buys a treasury bond future, currency, option, or whatever - and the market moves against it. The pain starts, and grows with every tick the position moves down. The trader hangs on, hoping the market will come back. The pain intensifies. He still believes in his position, but the market seems to say otherwise, and he starts to question his own judgment.
The market moves further, and the pain gets excruciating. The trader now has lost his compass: the position seemed so correct at the start, but now, all he can see is reasons why he was wrong. He talks to other traders, asks their opinion, substitutes their opinion for his own.
The market moves further against him, and he can stand the pain no longer. He sells.
But he doesn't just sell his position. He wants to make up for what he lost, so he takes a short position, hoping the market will keep going down so he can cover the short position at a profit, and make back some or all of what he lost.
But guess what happens? As soon as he "goes short," the market recovers, and goes up all the way past the level where he took the "long" position in the first place.
It's the cardinal sin on the trading floors - the classic "Sell-the-bottom-whipsaw."
Did Gordon Smith sell the bottom of the Iraq war?
It sure is starting to look like it. It is starting to appear as if you can mark the low point in the war in Iraq as the date that Gordon Smith made is infamous speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It seems that virtually since that moment, the news has gotten better from Iraq. The surge seems to be working, casualties are way, way down, and Al Qaeda is on the run.
And Gordon didn’t just “sell” his long position on the war and take his losses. He went “short” big time. He basically called the President a criminal, and even said we should “cut and run.”
So he lost on the way down, and now is losing on the way up – a classic “Sell-the-Bottom-Whipsaw.”
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Interesting exchange by a Funny Paper editor
On (Jeff) Dan apes' political blog, there was an interesting and revealing exchange between some well known conservatives and Dan Hortsch, an (retired) editor at the Funny Paper.
The blog post was about the Oregon Catalyst blog criticising the Oregon Farm Bureau for its support of Measure 49. The Oregon Catalyst post pointed out that the Farm Bureau's support of 49 was simply for economic reasons - if people can't build on rural land, farm land prices will remain low.
Dan Hortsch, in the comments section, said:
"So, in the view of Tim Lyman on The Oregon Catalyst blog, farmers, nurserymen and women and vintners cannot look out for their own economic interests. What part of "conservative" does not include business people's right to look out for their own economic interests? "
Bill Sizemore and Steve Buckstein added comments pointing out the obvious: that conservatism involves respect for property rights, and the Farm Bureau position is essentially that they want to use government regulation to restrict their neighbor's property rights, to enrich themselves.
But Dan Hortsch just didn't get it. He responds with:
"... I still don't see how in protecting their interests farmers are doing anything out of bounds. It's free market, libertarian, capitalistic political/financial maneuvering. Everyone for himself."
Very interesting and revealing. It obviously is Mr. Hortsch's mindset that it is OK to use political influence to basically steal what is not your own, and that this is part of the "free market." Just another exercise of competition in a capitalist framework.
I guess, if you believed this, you would indeed support Oregon's land use system. If I want to lock down major tracts of Oregon lands because I think they are pretty, and I have the political power to do it, that is A-OK.
But what is strange is that he misunderstands conservatism so completely that he actually thinks it is not a violation of conservative principles to use government power to steal.
The blog post was about the Oregon Catalyst blog criticising the Oregon Farm Bureau for its support of Measure 49. The Oregon Catalyst post pointed out that the Farm Bureau's support of 49 was simply for economic reasons - if people can't build on rural land, farm land prices will remain low.
Dan Hortsch, in the comments section, said:
"So, in the view of Tim Lyman on The Oregon Catalyst blog, farmers, nurserymen and women and vintners cannot look out for their own economic interests. What part of "conservative" does not include business people's right to look out for their own economic interests? "
Bill Sizemore and Steve Buckstein added comments pointing out the obvious: that conservatism involves respect for property rights, and the Farm Bureau position is essentially that they want to use government regulation to restrict their neighbor's property rights, to enrich themselves.
But Dan Hortsch just didn't get it. He responds with:
"... I still don't see how in protecting their interests farmers are doing anything out of bounds. It's free market, libertarian, capitalistic political/financial maneuvering. Everyone for himself."
Very interesting and revealing. It obviously is Mr. Hortsch's mindset that it is OK to use political influence to basically steal what is not your own, and that this is part of the "free market." Just another exercise of competition in a capitalist framework.
I guess, if you believed this, you would indeed support Oregon's land use system. If I want to lock down major tracts of Oregon lands because I think they are pretty, and I have the political power to do it, that is A-OK.
But what is strange is that he misunderstands conservatism so completely that he actually thinks it is not a violation of conservative principles to use government power to steal.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
You have GOT to be kidding me!
Did you read in the Funny paper today that the State Department of Education actually forced a charter bus taking the Pendleton High School soccer team to a game in Redmond to pull over and wait for a yellow school bus to come get them and take them to the game.
Why?
Well, it seems, those big, comfortable charter coaches don’t meet the “standards” the state has for busses carrying schoolkids. Much better, for a three hour trip, to have the athletes sit in those horribly uncomfortable school bus seats. Never mind that millions of people are driven all over the country in coaches. They don’t comply with some bureaucrat’s regulation as to “window retention, roof strength, joint strength and durable seating.”
So now, when Sheldon has to travel down to South Medford for a football game, it has to endure the 2 ½ hour one way trip it in a yellow school bus. Great way to get loose for a ball game.
And here is what the state transportation bureaucrat said about it: "There's no legal authority to use those buses," said Deborah Lincoln, the director of pupil transportation for the Department of Education.
Wow. Do they take workshops in officiousness? Notice how she stated that – it reveals the perfect command and control bureaucrat mindset. It is the district that doesn’t have the legal authority to do something unless the state says it is OK. In a free society, the relationship is exactly the reverse – we are free to act as we wish unless there is some enumerated restriction on that action.
So now our local school officials are not competent to decide how to get kids to ballgames. If that is really true, why would we trust them with far more important tasks, such as teaching our kids?
It gets even better. The rules say that a district that is out of compliance with these rules has twelve months to get a plan in place to get back in compliance! A PLAN??
Bureaucrats love this kind of stuff because for them, it is job security. They monitor the plan’s development, offer assistance, then review and approve the plan, then monitor its execution. Can you imagine what a plan to stop using non-compliant busses would look like?
And of course, what would an issue like this be without the other tried and true tactic of bureaucrats everywhere: a committee. The state has appointed a 15-member “work group” to look into these bus regulations and propose “solutions,” that can be presented to the State Board of Education.
How about this: get rid of the stupid rules. That’s my plan.
Why?
Well, it seems, those big, comfortable charter coaches don’t meet the “standards” the state has for busses carrying schoolkids. Much better, for a three hour trip, to have the athletes sit in those horribly uncomfortable school bus seats. Never mind that millions of people are driven all over the country in coaches. They don’t comply with some bureaucrat’s regulation as to “window retention, roof strength, joint strength and durable seating.”
So now, when Sheldon has to travel down to South Medford for a football game, it has to endure the 2 ½ hour one way trip it in a yellow school bus. Great way to get loose for a ball game.
And here is what the state transportation bureaucrat said about it: "There's no legal authority to use those buses," said Deborah Lincoln, the director of pupil transportation for the Department of Education.
Wow. Do they take workshops in officiousness? Notice how she stated that – it reveals the perfect command and control bureaucrat mindset. It is the district that doesn’t have the legal authority to do something unless the state says it is OK. In a free society, the relationship is exactly the reverse – we are free to act as we wish unless there is some enumerated restriction on that action.
So now our local school officials are not competent to decide how to get kids to ballgames. If that is really true, why would we trust them with far more important tasks, such as teaching our kids?
It gets even better. The rules say that a district that is out of compliance with these rules has twelve months to get a plan in place to get back in compliance! A PLAN??
Bureaucrats love this kind of stuff because for them, it is job security. They monitor the plan’s development, offer assistance, then review and approve the plan, then monitor its execution. Can you imagine what a plan to stop using non-compliant busses would look like?
And of course, what would an issue like this be without the other tried and true tactic of bureaucrats everywhere: a committee. The state has appointed a 15-member “work group” to look into these bus regulations and propose “solutions,” that can be presented to the State Board of Education.
How about this: get rid of the stupid rules. That’s my plan.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Creative Capacity
No big surprise - Sam Adams is running for mayor, and barring some kind of political earthquake, the campaign will be more like a coronation.
You know what? In an odd sort of way, I actually look forward to a Sam Adams administration in Portland. I mean, sure, I am on the other side of virually every single issue that Sam believes in: global warming, peak oil, streetcars, urban renewal, density, you name it. But that fact doesn't distinguish Sam Adams from any other candidate who could possibly win the race.
I like Sam Adams. He's intelligent, not afraid to engage in debate, energetic, and he, unlike most Portland liberals, doesn't act as if it is a crime against humanity to be a conservative. He'll actually go on Lars' show and defend his views. He'll actually sub for Marc Abrams and banter with me for two hours on a Sunday morning.
Sam Adams promises to be an activist mayor - pushing all sorts of left/liberal causes and being effective in implementing his agenda. That kind of energy will be a refreshing change from the morose and moribund tone of the Potter administration.
So what if everything he'll push is wrongheaded? What do we think - that some social and economic conservative would win the race and turn Portland into Indianapolis?
Let's face it, fellow Portland-area conservatives. The lefties control this place. Might as well have a lefty leader who at least is a good guy, and makes it interesting!
So, the first "interesting" thing Sam has proposed is a major "infrastructure" investment in what he calls "Creative Capacity." He was all over the place today talking about the importance of the arts and how he will boost arts-related spending on every level.
The Creative Capacity Initiative. It's brilliant. What a great campaign theme! Who could be against that? He's gunna have a cakewalk, and he doesn't even have to talk about anything controversial!
Just what is the Creative Capacity Initiative? Here it is in Sam's words, from some Seattle on-line magazine called "Crosscut Seattle."
"Money. I want more money for science and creative efforts, organizations ... more arts and music education, especially in the elementary schools, more public support for nonprofit arts organizations, more business assistance for for-profit arts companies, and more services for artists, helping them market themselves, sell their wares, not just in Portland but outside of Portland, and assistance with affordable live/work space."
So here is my question, Mr. Mayor" You want to invest in your "creative capacity initiative." OK fine.
There is lots of government investment in infrastructure, and virtually all of it has an end product that can be measured. Road capacity. Water capacity. Sewage treatment capacity. Each and every government infrastructure investment can be measured in terms of what we spend on it and how much it yields in terms of some throughput metric.
But "creative capacity?" No way to measure it. How much money will be spent, and what increase in "creative units" will we get? How much creative throughput will there be, and what will it do for us?
Obviously, there are no answers to this question. So you, Mr. Future Mayor, are proposing, as your central campaign theme, a huge government infrastructure investment that you have no clue how or if it will yield anything whatsoever. There is no way to measure the effects or results of your proposed investment, nor is there any way to tie it back to any measurable benefit to the people of Portland.
Actually, for a liberal, it is the PERFECT issue!
You know what? In an odd sort of way, I actually look forward to a Sam Adams administration in Portland. I mean, sure, I am on the other side of virually every single issue that Sam believes in: global warming, peak oil, streetcars, urban renewal, density, you name it. But that fact doesn't distinguish Sam Adams from any other candidate who could possibly win the race.
I like Sam Adams. He's intelligent, not afraid to engage in debate, energetic, and he, unlike most Portland liberals, doesn't act as if it is a crime against humanity to be a conservative. He'll actually go on Lars' show and defend his views. He'll actually sub for Marc Abrams and banter with me for two hours on a Sunday morning.
Sam Adams promises to be an activist mayor - pushing all sorts of left/liberal causes and being effective in implementing his agenda. That kind of energy will be a refreshing change from the morose and moribund tone of the Potter administration.
So what if everything he'll push is wrongheaded? What do we think - that some social and economic conservative would win the race and turn Portland into Indianapolis?
Let's face it, fellow Portland-area conservatives. The lefties control this place. Might as well have a lefty leader who at least is a good guy, and makes it interesting!
So, the first "interesting" thing Sam has proposed is a major "infrastructure" investment in what he calls "Creative Capacity." He was all over the place today talking about the importance of the arts and how he will boost arts-related spending on every level.
The Creative Capacity Initiative. It's brilliant. What a great campaign theme! Who could be against that? He's gunna have a cakewalk, and he doesn't even have to talk about anything controversial!
Just what is the Creative Capacity Initiative? Here it is in Sam's words, from some Seattle on-line magazine called "Crosscut Seattle."
"Money. I want more money for science and creative efforts, organizations ... more arts and music education, especially in the elementary schools, more public support for nonprofit arts organizations, more business assistance for for-profit arts companies, and more services for artists, helping them market themselves, sell their wares, not just in Portland but outside of Portland, and assistance with affordable live/work space."
So here is my question, Mr. Mayor" You want to invest in your "creative capacity initiative." OK fine.
There is lots of government investment in infrastructure, and virtually all of it has an end product that can be measured. Road capacity. Water capacity. Sewage treatment capacity. Each and every government infrastructure investment can be measured in terms of what we spend on it and how much it yields in terms of some throughput metric.
But "creative capacity?" No way to measure it. How much money will be spent, and what increase in "creative units" will we get? How much creative throughput will there be, and what will it do for us?
Obviously, there are no answers to this question. So you, Mr. Future Mayor, are proposing, as your central campaign theme, a huge government infrastructure investment that you have no clue how or if it will yield anything whatsoever. There is no way to measure the effects or results of your proposed investment, nor is there any way to tie it back to any measurable benefit to the people of Portland.
Actually, for a liberal, it is the PERFECT issue!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)