We had a very interesting meeting yesterday. It was also very revealing.
The meeting was between representatives of The Oregon Connections Academy (ORCA) and a sub-committee of the State Board of Education. The meeting was supposed to be a "negotiation" over the terms and conditions of a possible waiver that ORCA has requested from the State Board.
The waiver being sought is from a provision of the charter law that was intended to kill on-line charter schools, called the 50% provision. The Oregonian's new columnist explained the issue this Sunday in her column, and last week the Willamette Week made the teachers union the Rogue of the Week because of their part in trying to kill virtual charter schools.
I put the word "negotiation" in scare quotes because what transpired was not anything that resembled the give and take of a true negotiation. Our side laid out our proposal for the conditions we would accept for the waiver. (We would accept a cap on total enrollment, and we would allow the resident school district of the child to be able to deny the child's enrollment, as long as there were specific criteria for any denial, and as long as there was a route to appeal that denial at the State level.)
The State Board sub-committee listened to our proposal (which they had already had for weeks in writing) and then told us what they would and would not accept, which we are then free to take or leave.
Some negotiation. No give and take at all. No requirement that the State justify its position with any rational reason, or any chance for us to challenge the reasons they did give. Just "thank you for your proposal, we find most of it untenable, so if you want the waiver on our terms, then fine."
And the best part, where the fault line was exposed, was in the State's refusal to allow parents to choose the school for their children. The subcommittee said the school districts must be able to deny a child's enrollment in ORCA, and THERE WOULD BE NO APPEAL ALLOWED AT THE STATE LEVEL.
For three years we have heard from the State Board of Education how important school choice is, how they support virtual schools, etc. But when push comes to shove, they WILL NOT empower the parents over the district bureaucrats. They still want a bureaucrat's judgment to overrule the parent's judgment.
Sure, they think virtual schooling and charter schools are great. But they want the school district hegemony to remain intact. If thousands of students are denied access to the schools their parents want for them, well, that is just too bad. We have to protect the education establishment.
Very sad.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Spring break is over
My wife and I spent the week in Phoenix to watch my son play baseball games with his high school team on their annual spring break trip. Here are some thoughts that occurred to me on the trip, disconnected as they may be:
Phoenix is a town that seems to function reasonably well, despite the fact that it is ground zero for the mortgage/real estate bubble. Our games took us to every corner of the metro region, so I was able to get a good look at the local situation.
There were LOTS of new subdivisions with apparently vacant homes. We played a game in Goodyear, AZ, a town that looks as though it was created from scratch about three weeks ago. A great big school complex, with a baseball field next to a brand new subdivision. It was a night game, and when the sun went down, lots of the houses were dark. A telltale sign.
I was sitting next to a friend, another father on our team, who runs a large Portland based construction company. He said that Goodyear was "ground zero" of the mortgage collapse. He pointed to the subdivision, and said "Look at that - all those houses - sub-prime mortgages. No one could afford those houses but they got the loans anyway."
A strip mall nearby had a big banner flapping in the wind: "Free Rent!"
I like the city of Phoenix, because it represents everything that the Portland planning culture detests. It is car oriented, and they are serious about trying to get people moved where they want to go in the transportation method of choice: the automobile.
The prevailing attitude of the political class seems to be: "Hmmm, people will want to drive here, so let's build the road capacity to make it possible." This as opposed to Metro's attitude, which is: "How do WE, the planners, want people to get around? Let's make it uncomfortable to do it any other way."
Spring break in Phoenix means spring training baseball. We saw the Mariners play the Dodgers in the new Dodgers/White Sox facility, Camelback Ranch Stadium. Great place to watch a game. We saw Manny Ramirez hit a bomb. Spring training games are more fun to watch than regular season games, because the environment is so much more intimate and relaxed. Less hassle getting in and out, and much easier to be close to the ball field.
I also got a chance to play golf. My good buddy former Blazer Terry Porter recently joined the ranks of the "unemployed," and he treated me to a round at his club, the Arizona Country Club. Terrific golf course. Terry's golf game has come a long way since the days I played with him in the mid 1990's when he lived here. Give a world class athlete the time to develop an athletic skill like golf, especially a guy like Terry, who is methodical and serious in his approach - and he's going to get good.
Terry is now about a 6 or 7 handicap. He shot a 78 on this pretty darn tough course. I shot, well, higher. It was my first round of the year, in my defense. I did have more birdies than him, though!
So spring break is over, and that means:
1) the legislative session will be in full bloom. About halfway over, and so things that are going to move will start moving. I'll be fighting the OEA's plans to shut down virtual charter schooling in Oregon, and that battle is just getting heated up. Hearings start on April Fools Day.
2) The high school baseball regular season starts this week. It is my boy's last time through. I can hardly believe he is a senior. So he has already had his "last first game of the year," and now comes his "last first league game of the year," and then his "last first playoff game of the year."
In just a few short weeks he will play his last last baseball game of his high school career. I am in absolutely no hurry to watch that game.
And then he will move on. And move out. Summer baseball this summer, and then off to Duke to play baseball in the ACC, the nation's toughest baseball conference. (Sorry PAC-10, it is true. Look at the data.)
This will be his last summer at home. In Division 1 college baseball, the players are assigned a summer baseball team to play for, in a woodbat league somewhere in the country. It is not going to be easy not getting to see him play every game.
But, that is life. Spring break is over!
Phoenix is a town that seems to function reasonably well, despite the fact that it is ground zero for the mortgage/real estate bubble. Our games took us to every corner of the metro region, so I was able to get a good look at the local situation.
There were LOTS of new subdivisions with apparently vacant homes. We played a game in Goodyear, AZ, a town that looks as though it was created from scratch about three weeks ago. A great big school complex, with a baseball field next to a brand new subdivision. It was a night game, and when the sun went down, lots of the houses were dark. A telltale sign.
I was sitting next to a friend, another father on our team, who runs a large Portland based construction company. He said that Goodyear was "ground zero" of the mortgage collapse. He pointed to the subdivision, and said "Look at that - all those houses - sub-prime mortgages. No one could afford those houses but they got the loans anyway."
A strip mall nearby had a big banner flapping in the wind: "Free Rent!"
I like the city of Phoenix, because it represents everything that the Portland planning culture detests. It is car oriented, and they are serious about trying to get people moved where they want to go in the transportation method of choice: the automobile.
The prevailing attitude of the political class seems to be: "Hmmm, people will want to drive here, so let's build the road capacity to make it possible." This as opposed to Metro's attitude, which is: "How do WE, the planners, want people to get around? Let's make it uncomfortable to do it any other way."
Spring break in Phoenix means spring training baseball. We saw the Mariners play the Dodgers in the new Dodgers/White Sox facility, Camelback Ranch Stadium. Great place to watch a game. We saw Manny Ramirez hit a bomb. Spring training games are more fun to watch than regular season games, because the environment is so much more intimate and relaxed. Less hassle getting in and out, and much easier to be close to the ball field.
I also got a chance to play golf. My good buddy former Blazer Terry Porter recently joined the ranks of the "unemployed," and he treated me to a round at his club, the Arizona Country Club. Terrific golf course. Terry's golf game has come a long way since the days I played with him in the mid 1990's when he lived here. Give a world class athlete the time to develop an athletic skill like golf, especially a guy like Terry, who is methodical and serious in his approach - and he's going to get good.
Terry is now about a 6 or 7 handicap. He shot a 78 on this pretty darn tough course. I shot, well, higher. It was my first round of the year, in my defense. I did have more birdies than him, though!
So spring break is over, and that means:
1) the legislative session will be in full bloom. About halfway over, and so things that are going to move will start moving. I'll be fighting the OEA's plans to shut down virtual charter schooling in Oregon, and that battle is just getting heated up. Hearings start on April Fools Day.
2) The high school baseball regular season starts this week. It is my boy's last time through. I can hardly believe he is a senior. So he has already had his "last first game of the year," and now comes his "last first league game of the year," and then his "last first playoff game of the year."
In just a few short weeks he will play his last last baseball game of his high school career. I am in absolutely no hurry to watch that game.
And then he will move on. And move out. Summer baseball this summer, and then off to Duke to play baseball in the ACC, the nation's toughest baseball conference. (Sorry PAC-10, it is true. Look at the data.)
This will be his last summer at home. In Division 1 college baseball, the players are assigned a summer baseball team to play for, in a woodbat league somewhere in the country. It is not going to be easy not getting to see him play every game.
But, that is life. Spring break is over!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Oregon School Administrators: keep kids out of public schools!
The Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) is one of the "big three" education establishment groups in Oregon. Its membership consists of, as its name would suggest, public school principals and superintendents. They, along with the teachers union (OEA) and the school boards association (OSBA) are very influential in Salem when the legislature takes up matters of school policy.
In a recent article in the Woodburn Independent, a COSA official actually argued that it is a bad thing to bring more kids into Oregon public schools! What a great advocate for public schools COSA is!
Here is the context: COSA has sponsored a bill to shut down the Oregon Connections Academy(ORCA) which is the largest public school in the state, serving 2650 students through an on-line curriculum. The bill is SB767, and it would make it illegal for an elementary aged student to attend ORCA, and would also allow school districts to deny any other child the right to attend the school.
The bill is a full frontal assault on this very successful charter school, brought to your by Oregon's education establishment, who always are on the march for educational excellence.
In the article in the Woodburn newspaper, Craig Hawkins of COSA explained why they want to shut down the school:
"Online schools add students, such as homeschool students, to the overall (public school) student population in Oregon, resulting in thinner per-student slices of the already-not-big-enough school funding pie."
In other words, it's a bad thing bring more kids into the public schools. I wonder if Hawkins would take the next logical step and advocate for REMOVING kids from the public school system in order to bring about "fatter per-student slices" for the remaining kids?
Hawkins also blatantly lied about the per-student funding situation for ORCA, and the newspaper not only caught the lie but pointed it out!
"Craig Hawkins of the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, one of the organizations backing SB 767, said the per-student funding for virtual and brick-and-mortar schools is "essentially the same."
The reporter knew this was wrong, and correctly pointed out that ORCA spends $4,000 less per student than the statewide average of "brick & mortar" schools. Basically, Hawkins lie was let sit there all alone for everyone to see.
If only we could get this kind of actual reporting out of The Funny Paper once in awhile!
I hope this bill, backed as it is by COSA, the OEA, the other school employee union the OSEA, and a slew of Democrat legislators will once and for all expose the lie that these people and groups have as their top priority the education of our state's kids.
Do they care about education? Sure, but it definitely isn't their top priority. Their top priority is making sure the school system works for the ADULTS. Anything that threatens them, the kids get sold down the river, and fast.
In a recent article in the Woodburn Independent, a COSA official actually argued that it is a bad thing to bring more kids into Oregon public schools! What a great advocate for public schools COSA is!
Here is the context: COSA has sponsored a bill to shut down the Oregon Connections Academy(ORCA) which is the largest public school in the state, serving 2650 students through an on-line curriculum. The bill is SB767, and it would make it illegal for an elementary aged student to attend ORCA, and would also allow school districts to deny any other child the right to attend the school.
The bill is a full frontal assault on this very successful charter school, brought to your by Oregon's education establishment, who always are on the march for educational excellence.
In the article in the Woodburn newspaper, Craig Hawkins of COSA explained why they want to shut down the school:
"Online schools add students, such as homeschool students, to the overall (public school) student population in Oregon, resulting in thinner per-student slices of the already-not-big-enough school funding pie."
In other words, it's a bad thing bring more kids into the public schools. I wonder if Hawkins would take the next logical step and advocate for REMOVING kids from the public school system in order to bring about "fatter per-student slices" for the remaining kids?
Hawkins also blatantly lied about the per-student funding situation for ORCA, and the newspaper not only caught the lie but pointed it out!
"Craig Hawkins of the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, one of the organizations backing SB 767, said the per-student funding for virtual and brick-and-mortar schools is "essentially the same."
The reporter knew this was wrong, and correctly pointed out that ORCA spends $4,000 less per student than the statewide average of "brick & mortar" schools. Basically, Hawkins lie was let sit there all alone for everyone to see.
If only we could get this kind of actual reporting out of The Funny Paper once in awhile!
I hope this bill, backed as it is by COSA, the OEA, the other school employee union the OSEA, and a slew of Democrat legislators will once and for all expose the lie that these people and groups have as their top priority the education of our state's kids.
Do they care about education? Sure, but it definitely isn't their top priority. Their top priority is making sure the school system works for the ADULTS. Anything that threatens them, the kids get sold down the river, and fast.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Krauthammer on Obama's stem cell order
Charles Krauthammer is, in my view, one of the most astute commentators in the country. He is deeply thoughtful and reasoned, and constantly makes points and looks at things from an angle that I learn from.
He wrote a typically insightful column on Obama's stem cell executive order.
In case you think that this is just another right winger hyperventilating on the pro-life issue, think again. Krauthammer is pro-choice, and he is also in favor of allowing embryonic stem cell research on spare fertility clinic embryos.
But the point Krauthammer makes is that in Obama's speech about his executive order, he revealed a lack of seriousness, indeed an utter hypocrisy, about the exercise of drawing moral lines around scientific research. While Obama said he has disconnected science from ideology, he went on to say that he would never allow human cloning.
Isn't that an ethical judgment?
Krauthammer also had interesting things to say about the seriousness of the Bush speech when he banned embryonic stem cell research, compared to the arrogance of Obama's speech overturning it.
It is well worth the read, no matter where you fall on this issue.
He wrote a typically insightful column on Obama's stem cell executive order.
In case you think that this is just another right winger hyperventilating on the pro-life issue, think again. Krauthammer is pro-choice, and he is also in favor of allowing embryonic stem cell research on spare fertility clinic embryos.
But the point Krauthammer makes is that in Obama's speech about his executive order, he revealed a lack of seriousness, indeed an utter hypocrisy, about the exercise of drawing moral lines around scientific research. While Obama said he has disconnected science from ideology, he went on to say that he would never allow human cloning.
Isn't that an ethical judgment?
Krauthammer also had interesting things to say about the seriousness of the Bush speech when he banned embryonic stem cell research, compared to the arrogance of Obama's speech overturning it.
It is well worth the read, no matter where you fall on this issue.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Another HUGE economic engine!
The Funny Paper is so amazing. They must think our memories have a half life of a .
Their lead editorial today insists that the legislature fund the new education building at South Waterfront. You remember South Waterfront ... that huge opportunity to attract 10,000 biotech jobs that was hyped and cheerled by the paper as we blew a couple hundred million dollars on what is now a largely vacant condo tower jungle.
So now TFP says we should spend $160 million putting up the next "linchpin." Reading the piece, I kept having to check the date on the paper. I thought somehow I was reading 2003 copy from the archives. Take a look:
"It would be the cornerstone of a powerful new economic engine and educational dynamo for all of Oregon....
It would provide facilities for health-profession training, undergraduate and graduate education in the life sciences and bioengineering, biomedical research and private industry partnerships.
Translation: Hundreds of new jobs with immeasurable educational and health-system value.
From every angle, this project looks exactly like the kind of capital project legislators should be funding in today's economic crisis. If they fail to, there's a good possibility the partnership will fall apart and the state will lose out on an opportunity of staggering proportion."
The same old rhetoric. Why on earth would they think The Funny Paper has any credibility whatsoever?
Their lead editorial today insists that the legislature fund the new education building at South Waterfront. You remember South Waterfront ... that huge opportunity to attract 10,000 biotech jobs that was hyped and cheerled by the paper as we blew a couple hundred million dollars on what is now a largely vacant condo tower jungle.
So now TFP says we should spend $160 million putting up the next "linchpin." Reading the piece, I kept having to check the date on the paper. I thought somehow I was reading 2003 copy from the archives. Take a look:
"It would be the cornerstone of a powerful new economic engine and educational dynamo for all of Oregon....
It would provide facilities for health-profession training, undergraduate and graduate education in the life sciences and bioengineering, biomedical research and private industry partnerships.
Translation: Hundreds of new jobs with immeasurable educational and health-system value.
From every angle, this project looks exactly like the kind of capital project legislators should be funding in today's economic crisis. If they fail to, there's a good possibility the partnership will fall apart and the state will lose out on an opportunity of staggering proportion."
The same old rhetoric. Why on earth would they think The Funny Paper has any credibility whatsoever?
Sunday, March 08, 2009
More on the bullying bill
I was going to respond in the comments section to some of the questions and criticisms of my post on the bullying bill, but decided to do it in another post, since it will be a little long for a comment.
First - what specific language in the bill do I find troubling, and why? The problem I have with this bill is that it would subject normal child and adolescent behavior to formal school discipline proceedings, and possibly even legal proceedings.
Here's how and why: The bill requires districts to put in place policies and disciplinary procedures for bullying, harassment and cyberbullying. It defines these terms as anything that, among other things, has the effect of
"Creating a hostile educational environment, including interfering with the psychological well-being of a student."
So here's the problem. Many commenters feigned shock and dismay that I was using such "sexist" terms when I suggested they just issue the boys pink panties. I did that for a reason.
That is EXACTLY the type of remark that would get a kid in school rung up on harassment charges under this bill. Suppose one boy says to another, "Hey you sissy, show me your pink panties." It is easy to imagine some school counselor considering that "interfering with the psychological well being" of the kid.
Perhaps you think that a boy saying something like this to another kid SHOULD be cause for disciplinary action. If so, I feel sorry for you. You apparently want us to be a nation of victims.
For almost two decades, in an effort to rid the schools of "gender bias," the public school establishment has been defining typical boy behavior as cause for discipline. A great book on the subject by well known feminist Christina Hoff Summers, called The War Against Boys examined all the different ways the feminist movement have made schools hostile to boys.
This is just another example.
Really, isn't it better to let kids figure out a few things by themselves? Sure, there is a time and place in which adult intervention is prudent and necessary when someone behaves badly toward another student in a school. But this bill would result in hair trigger disciplinary proceedings - and perhaps even criminal proceedings - for behavior that is at most, slightly untoward.
First - what specific language in the bill do I find troubling, and why? The problem I have with this bill is that it would subject normal child and adolescent behavior to formal school discipline proceedings, and possibly even legal proceedings.
Here's how and why: The bill requires districts to put in place policies and disciplinary procedures for bullying, harassment and cyberbullying. It defines these terms as anything that, among other things, has the effect of
"Creating a hostile educational environment, including interfering with the psychological well-being of a student."
So here's the problem. Many commenters feigned shock and dismay that I was using such "sexist" terms when I suggested they just issue the boys pink panties. I did that for a reason.
That is EXACTLY the type of remark that would get a kid in school rung up on harassment charges under this bill. Suppose one boy says to another, "Hey you sissy, show me your pink panties." It is easy to imagine some school counselor considering that "interfering with the psychological well being" of the kid.
Perhaps you think that a boy saying something like this to another kid SHOULD be cause for disciplinary action. If so, I feel sorry for you. You apparently want us to be a nation of victims.
For almost two decades, in an effort to rid the schools of "gender bias," the public school establishment has been defining typical boy behavior as cause for discipline. A great book on the subject by well known feminist Christina Hoff Summers, called The War Against Boys examined all the different ways the feminist movement have made schools hostile to boys.
This is just another example.
Really, isn't it better to let kids figure out a few things by themselves? Sure, there is a time and place in which adult intervention is prudent and necessary when someone behaves badly toward another student in a school. But this bill would result in hair trigger disciplinary proceedings - and perhaps even criminal proceedings - for behavior that is at most, slightly untoward.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Insanity everywhere
Things are getting crazy everywhere. In the news just in the last couple days:
Anti-bullying legislation, HB2599, will be heard next week. The bill will require school districts to have policies defining harrasment, intimidation, bullying and cyberbullying, and procedures and staff in place for investigating complaints and disciplining the offenders.
What is wrong with that? Plenty. Why don't we just issue all the boys pink panties in kindergarten and make them wear them for 12 years?
Kill Connections Academy legislation, SB767 is sponsored by Senator Devlin and Rep. Buckley, at the request of the Oregon Education Association. It would remove the State Board of Education's authority to waive the "50% provision" that requires virtual charter schools to get half their kids from inside the sponsoring district. It wouin ld absolutely, positively result in shutting the doors on the state's largest public school because the teachers union doesn't like the school. THANKS, TEACHERS!
The greenest building ever built is being planned with your tax dollars. This thing will be so green it will manufacture all its own power, and reprocess all its own water. The only problem is it is very, very, very, very expensive. So what? Sam Adams wants Portland to be the green center of the universe, and what better way to show the world our commitment to being green when we will spend, say $1 million to save $10,000 worth of sewage fees. This thing they guess will cost between 12% and 52% more than the highest LEED certification building. What do they care? It's YOUR money!
The Beaverton Round goes round and round again. This is a black hole for money. A disaster from the get go. Response? Expand the project! Widen the urban renewal district around the failure so they can capture a bigger tax increment from the already developed properties, and use the dough to throw into the black hole after the millions already wasted. So typical!
Meanwhile, the stock market was down another 4% today, as anyone with remaining wealth runs and hides from our new president's most recent scheme.
Anti-bullying legislation, HB2599, will be heard next week. The bill will require school districts to have policies defining harrasment, intimidation, bullying and cyberbullying, and procedures and staff in place for investigating complaints and disciplining the offenders.
What is wrong with that? Plenty. Why don't we just issue all the boys pink panties in kindergarten and make them wear them for 12 years?
Kill Connections Academy legislation, SB767 is sponsored by Senator Devlin and Rep. Buckley, at the request of the Oregon Education Association. It would remove the State Board of Education's authority to waive the "50% provision" that requires virtual charter schools to get half their kids from inside the sponsoring district. It wouin ld absolutely, positively result in shutting the doors on the state's largest public school because the teachers union doesn't like the school. THANKS, TEACHERS!
The greenest building ever built is being planned with your tax dollars. This thing will be so green it will manufacture all its own power, and reprocess all its own water. The only problem is it is very, very, very, very expensive. So what? Sam Adams wants Portland to be the green center of the universe, and what better way to show the world our commitment to being green when we will spend, say $1 million to save $10,000 worth of sewage fees. This thing they guess will cost between 12% and 52% more than the highest LEED certification building. What do they care? It's YOUR money!
The Beaverton Round goes round and round again. This is a black hole for money. A disaster from the get go. Response? Expand the project! Widen the urban renewal district around the failure so they can capture a bigger tax increment from the already developed properties, and use the dough to throw into the black hole after the millions already wasted. So typical!
Meanwhile, the stock market was down another 4% today, as anyone with remaining wealth runs and hides from our new president's most recent scheme.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
A defining moment for President Obama
So far, President Obama has governed like a radical lefty. He used the Pelosi-deisgned "stimulus" bill to fund every pent-up lefty wish list item in the cupboard, and his breathtaking budget is itself an expression of a far reaching leftist ideology.
Not what he sold us, is it?
But soon we will get an indication of whether there is a scintilla of independence about the man. Will he stand up for poor minority children in Washington DC, a move sure to anger the left/union base of his party? Or will he toss these kids under the school bus? We will soon know.
As pointed out in the WSJ yesterday, the spending bill the Senate will vote on this week has language in it that will pull the curtain on the Washington DC voucher program, which is used by 2500 children from poor families to escape DC's shameful public school system.
Two kids use these vouchers to attend Sidwell, the school that Obama's own children attend.
Will President Obama lift a finger to save the DC voucher program? No way the Senate Democrats would take him on if he called them out on this. Or will Obama join most every other Democrat politician of the last 50 years and stand blocking the schoolhouse door to prevent low income minority children from entering (while Obama's own kids sit inside.)
If he lets the language stay in the bill, President Obama is revealed as just another hack, willing to sell human souls down the river for advantage with political interest groups.
Any predictions?
Not what he sold us, is it?
But soon we will get an indication of whether there is a scintilla of independence about the man. Will he stand up for poor minority children in Washington DC, a move sure to anger the left/union base of his party? Or will he toss these kids under the school bus? We will soon know.
As pointed out in the WSJ yesterday, the spending bill the Senate will vote on this week has language in it that will pull the curtain on the Washington DC voucher program, which is used by 2500 children from poor families to escape DC's shameful public school system.
Two kids use these vouchers to attend Sidwell, the school that Obama's own children attend.
Will President Obama lift a finger to save the DC voucher program? No way the Senate Democrats would take him on if he called them out on this. Or will Obama join most every other Democrat politician of the last 50 years and stand blocking the schoolhouse door to prevent low income minority children from entering (while Obama's own kids sit inside.)
If he lets the language stay in the bill, President Obama is revealed as just another hack, willing to sell human souls down the river for advantage with political interest groups.
Any predictions?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Why do we even participate in the United Nations?
The United Nations is proposing a binding declaration on "religous blasphemy."
They want member nations to make it illegal to criticize or negatively portray the religous beliefs of others. Any guesses as which religion they have in mind?
Take a look at this Lou Dobbs segment.
Why we don't just tell the UN to find another host nation, I don't know.
They want member nations to make it illegal to criticize or negatively portray the religous beliefs of others. Any guesses as which religion they have in mind?
Take a look at this Lou Dobbs segment.
Why we don't just tell the UN to find another host nation, I don't know.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Clackamas County Sheriff's Office
I had the pleasure yesterday to spend the afternoon in the training center of the Clackamas Country Sheriff, learning about officer-involved shooting procedures and getting a look at some of the "shoot/no-shoot" training programs they put officers through.
First, I have to say that I was incredibly impressed with the quality of the people in the office. We were given training and presentations by a number of people, and to a person they were incredibly knowledgable, professional and just generally high quality people.
Sheriff Roberts, whom I have known for a year or so, has one of the most impressive track records of any executive in the state. In a state where executive and bureaucratic incompetence has become the rule, Sheriff Roberts' operation stands out as the most efficiently organized governmental operations I have seen.
I could go into some detail about the things Roberts and his chief deputy Charlie Bowen have done to make the ClackCo Sheriff's operation a dynamic organization that constantly delivers more bang for the taxpayer dollar. But that isn't the point of this post.
The point is that anybody who has ever criticised the police after a citizen gets hurt or killed in an officer-involved-shooting ought to take a look at some of the training officers are put through.
The "shoot/no-shoot" simulations are amazing. Put the gun in your hand and make that fatal split second decision of whether to use lethal force. Do you reasonably perceive an imminent threat to self or others when an agitated person fishes through his glove box, pulls out a black object and points it at you?
It is impossible to look at this training and not emerge with a greater appreciation of the fact that the shoot/no shoot decision is incredibly complex, and must be made almost instantaneously. Officers are trained to look at and anticipate things that simply don't occur to you unless you have had the training. In the heat of the moment you would be surprised at how much you fail to observe.
In the simulation I did, I didn't even see the perp's gun tucked in the back of his jeans. By the time he pulled it out, and got a shot off, my partner was down and the gun was pointed at me. I killed him, but even then I didn't realize I was shooting with my partner and an uninvolved citizen right in the background, where a through-and-though bullet or a miss could have killed one or both of them.
Next time I hear someone scream about the "injustice" of an officer-involved shooting, I will have a little deeper perspective.
First, I have to say that I was incredibly impressed with the quality of the people in the office. We were given training and presentations by a number of people, and to a person they were incredibly knowledgable, professional and just generally high quality people.
Sheriff Roberts, whom I have known for a year or so, has one of the most impressive track records of any executive in the state. In a state where executive and bureaucratic incompetence has become the rule, Sheriff Roberts' operation stands out as the most efficiently organized governmental operations I have seen.
I could go into some detail about the things Roberts and his chief deputy Charlie Bowen have done to make the ClackCo Sheriff's operation a dynamic organization that constantly delivers more bang for the taxpayer dollar. But that isn't the point of this post.
The point is that anybody who has ever criticised the police after a citizen gets hurt or killed in an officer-involved-shooting ought to take a look at some of the training officers are put through.
The "shoot/no-shoot" simulations are amazing. Put the gun in your hand and make that fatal split second decision of whether to use lethal force. Do you reasonably perceive an imminent threat to self or others when an agitated person fishes through his glove box, pulls out a black object and points it at you?
It is impossible to look at this training and not emerge with a greater appreciation of the fact that the shoot/no shoot decision is incredibly complex, and must be made almost instantaneously. Officers are trained to look at and anticipate things that simply don't occur to you unless you have had the training. In the heat of the moment you would be surprised at how much you fail to observe.
In the simulation I did, I didn't even see the perp's gun tucked in the back of his jeans. By the time he pulled it out, and got a shot off, my partner was down and the gun was pointed at me. I killed him, but even then I didn't realize I was shooting with my partner and an uninvolved citizen right in the background, where a through-and-though bullet or a miss could have killed one or both of them.
Next time I hear someone scream about the "injustice" of an officer-involved shooting, I will have a little deeper perspective.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
This love affair is getting a bit sloppy
Hey - you two! Get a room, will you?
It's one thing when the love affair between the national newspaper press and President Obama glosses over his lack of experience and accomplishments enough to get the guy elected. But it's quite another when they resort to the most obvious lipstick-on-the-pig front-page propagandizing to keep his savior status up-to-date.
President Obama had a big week. He got his spending bill through - the biggest single spending bill in the history of the world. His young administration has been a flurry of activity, figuring out how to deal with all sorts of big problems: the banking mess, mortgage holder bailout, etc.
The markets want nothing to do with it. Every Obama success has been met with another big drop in the indexes. We are at a 12 year low.
Yesterday, Obama turned his focus to .... Deficit Reduction! And the markets plunged again.
So what is the headline and story on the front page of The Funny Paper today? (Story written by the NYT.)
"The markets look to DC and no news is bad news."
Excuse me? THAT's the problem? Not enough news out of DC?
The article tries to tell us that the markets are plunging because Obama doesn't yet have his plan in place to bail out the banks: "Analysts say that the draining cycle of losses, rebounds and more losses would probably continue until the government offered a detailed plan to bail out the banks or the economy showed some signs of stabilization."
In other words: the markets are waiting for the saviour to save us. Poppycock. It couldn't be that the markets are reacting negatively to what Obama has done so far. No, that wouldn't validate the saviour narrative. It has to be that the markets are waiting with baited breath for the saviour to save us.
And I love the whole "analysts say" device. Right, an analyst probably said that. And another analyst probably said:
"The markets are reacting to the growing evidence that the Obama administration is making things up as they go along, with no clear idea of how to deal with the banking crisis. The plunge yesterday was brought on by the abrupt contradiction of calling for a move toward a balanced budget just days after a trillion dollar stimulus bill. Analysts say such a confusing and contradictory shift in rhetoric suggests a lack of a clear organizing principle behind the administration's efforts."
But THAT analyst obviously doesn't buy into the "Obama-as-savior" narrative, so he went unquoted.
It's one thing when the love affair between the national newspaper press and President Obama glosses over his lack of experience and accomplishments enough to get the guy elected. But it's quite another when they resort to the most obvious lipstick-on-the-pig front-page propagandizing to keep his savior status up-to-date.
President Obama had a big week. He got his spending bill through - the biggest single spending bill in the history of the world. His young administration has been a flurry of activity, figuring out how to deal with all sorts of big problems: the banking mess, mortgage holder bailout, etc.
The markets want nothing to do with it. Every Obama success has been met with another big drop in the indexes. We are at a 12 year low.
Yesterday, Obama turned his focus to .... Deficit Reduction! And the markets plunged again.
So what is the headline and story on the front page of The Funny Paper today? (Story written by the NYT.)
"The markets look to DC and no news is bad news."
Excuse me? THAT's the problem? Not enough news out of DC?
The article tries to tell us that the markets are plunging because Obama doesn't yet have his plan in place to bail out the banks: "Analysts say that the draining cycle of losses, rebounds and more losses would probably continue until the government offered a detailed plan to bail out the banks or the economy showed some signs of stabilization."
In other words: the markets are waiting for the saviour to save us. Poppycock. It couldn't be that the markets are reacting negatively to what Obama has done so far. No, that wouldn't validate the saviour narrative. It has to be that the markets are waiting with baited breath for the saviour to save us.
And I love the whole "analysts say" device. Right, an analyst probably said that. And another analyst probably said:
"The markets are reacting to the growing evidence that the Obama administration is making things up as they go along, with no clear idea of how to deal with the banking crisis. The plunge yesterday was brought on by the abrupt contradiction of calling for a move toward a balanced budget just days after a trillion dollar stimulus bill. Analysts say such a confusing and contradictory shift in rhetoric suggests a lack of a clear organizing principle behind the administration's efforts."
But THAT analyst obviously doesn't buy into the "Obama-as-savior" narrative, so he went unquoted.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
This is going to be very interesting
With the revenue forecast yesterday, the game has changed even more than expected. This will be an interesting study in special interest politics to see which group protects itself the most from the shrinking budget.
You see, Oregon's government doesn't know how to shrink. Over the last 25 or so years, despite all the times we read about the budget "crisis," the problem was always that the money didn't grow fast enough to cover the planned growth of the budget.
But the current situation is quite different. They have to make actual cuts - not slow the growth, but actually cut. And it has to start right away.
Here are some numbers. At the end of the 2007 legislative session, the forecast was that the 2007-09 budget general fund resources would be $14.1 billion. The budgets were based on that amount, even though a lot of legislators warned that the economy was headed toward recession and therefore it was likely that actual revenues wouldn't be that high.
Senator Larry George was chief among those warning that the budget adopted in 2007 was going to create a crisis when revenues fell short. He's looking pretty prophetic now, as the estimate for the current biennium which (ends in June) has dropped from $14.1 billion to $13.1 billion.
Which means, in order to balance the current biennium's budget, they have to somehow find a billion dollars in cuts from the current spending trajectory, and do it in the last four months of the biennium.
(I'm getting these numbers from page 101 of the actual economic forecast report released yesterday. They are a bit different than what I remember the general fund forecast numbers that were bandied about at the time, but the point remains the same.)
Cutting a billion out of the last 1/6th of the biennium is not going to be pretty. It would be one thing if they had to spread the billion out over the full two years. But look at it this way: Of the 14 billion they planned to spend, the state would spend about $2.3 billion in the last four months. So they have to figure out how to cut that by a billion - by almost half.
There are reserves they can tap into, but it is still a big problem.
And then there's the problem of the NEXT biennium. When the government plans its budgets, it takes the current budget and "rolls it up," - it assumes this baseline, adds inflation and other factors for things such as increased caseloads for social programs, population increases, etc, and that's what it assumes it needs for the next biennium.
Rolling up a baseline budget of $14.1 resulted in a "current service level" budget for 2009-11 if about $16 billion. That is what the government says it needs to keep things the same. But the forecast says now that 2009-11 revenues are going to actually drop a bit from the new revised 2007-09 level of $13.1 billion. So instead of the $16 billion they say they need, they anticipate having $13.05 in 2009-11.
Yeah, that is a problem. They don't know how to cut. The whole system is built on an assumption of increased budgets. The cost structure of government locks in a need for more money every biennium.
So what happens when the money isn't there? Well, we will see. But you can sure make a few predictions:
1) Screams for tax hikes. Democrats ALWAYS want tax increases. It actually doesn't matter whether baseline revenues are growing or not, one thing has remained the same. Every single biennium since I have paid attention, the Democrat party has wanted some kind of tax hike. Even in the fat times of the 1990's, when biennial budgets grew at a 20% pace, there wasn't enough to go around and they looked for ways to squeeze more out of the economy. So they will surely do it again this time around, and they have the supermajorities to make it happen.
2) Different government constituent groups will turn on each other. Teachers unions, environmental groups, social service advocates, health care advocates - they will get increasingly shrill as they all vie for a bigger share of a shrinking pie, in order to keep their constituents relatively whole. This is the part that will be somewhat fun to watch, in a macabre sort of way.
None of this is good for Oregon. I have read several times recently criticism of conservative opposition to tax hikes. It goes something like this: "Conservatives say that a recession is a bad time to increase taxes. But they also say we don't need a tax increase when times are good. So just WHEN do they think it IS a good time to increase taxes???"
Well, to put it in a word: Almost NEVER!
Why should the government EVER get a larger share of the economy? When the economy is growing, the government revenues will automatically grow along with it (although never as much as the liberals spending wishes.) When the economy is shrinking, the one thing you can do to make sure it shrinks faster is to raise taxes.
The upshot is we really should almost never raise taxes. It is short sighted and self defeating. This is the path Oregon has gone down for two decades, and look at our economy. It is in a shambles. And it is not going to get better.
To some extent the Obama spending bill will alleviate some of the problem for the current crisis. But that only delays the day of reckoning. It just artificially props up government spending in one cycle through a windfall of outside dollars, making the problem worse next time.
And the liberals always accuse business of planning short term!
I don't have any "solution" to Oregon's budget woes. Nobody does, in reality. But I think it behooves everyone to have a grasp of the underlying numbers, which is why I wrote all this down.
You see, Oregon's government doesn't know how to shrink. Over the last 25 or so years, despite all the times we read about the budget "crisis," the problem was always that the money didn't grow fast enough to cover the planned growth of the budget.
But the current situation is quite different. They have to make actual cuts - not slow the growth, but actually cut. And it has to start right away.
Here are some numbers. At the end of the 2007 legislative session, the forecast was that the 2007-09 budget general fund resources would be $14.1 billion. The budgets were based on that amount, even though a lot of legislators warned that the economy was headed toward recession and therefore it was likely that actual revenues wouldn't be that high.
Senator Larry George was chief among those warning that the budget adopted in 2007 was going to create a crisis when revenues fell short. He's looking pretty prophetic now, as the estimate for the current biennium which (ends in June) has dropped from $14.1 billion to $13.1 billion.
Which means, in order to balance the current biennium's budget, they have to somehow find a billion dollars in cuts from the current spending trajectory, and do it in the last four months of the biennium.
(I'm getting these numbers from page 101 of the actual economic forecast report released yesterday. They are a bit different than what I remember the general fund forecast numbers that were bandied about at the time, but the point remains the same.)
Cutting a billion out of the last 1/6th of the biennium is not going to be pretty. It would be one thing if they had to spread the billion out over the full two years. But look at it this way: Of the 14 billion they planned to spend, the state would spend about $2.3 billion in the last four months. So they have to figure out how to cut that by a billion - by almost half.
There are reserves they can tap into, but it is still a big problem.
And then there's the problem of the NEXT biennium. When the government plans its budgets, it takes the current budget and "rolls it up," - it assumes this baseline, adds inflation and other factors for things such as increased caseloads for social programs, population increases, etc, and that's what it assumes it needs for the next biennium.
Rolling up a baseline budget of $14.1 resulted in a "current service level" budget for 2009-11 if about $16 billion. That is what the government says it needs to keep things the same. But the forecast says now that 2009-11 revenues are going to actually drop a bit from the new revised 2007-09 level of $13.1 billion. So instead of the $16 billion they say they need, they anticipate having $13.05 in 2009-11.
Yeah, that is a problem. They don't know how to cut. The whole system is built on an assumption of increased budgets. The cost structure of government locks in a need for more money every biennium.
So what happens when the money isn't there? Well, we will see. But you can sure make a few predictions:
1) Screams for tax hikes. Democrats ALWAYS want tax increases. It actually doesn't matter whether baseline revenues are growing or not, one thing has remained the same. Every single biennium since I have paid attention, the Democrat party has wanted some kind of tax hike. Even in the fat times of the 1990's, when biennial budgets grew at a 20% pace, there wasn't enough to go around and they looked for ways to squeeze more out of the economy. So they will surely do it again this time around, and they have the supermajorities to make it happen.
2) Different government constituent groups will turn on each other. Teachers unions, environmental groups, social service advocates, health care advocates - they will get increasingly shrill as they all vie for a bigger share of a shrinking pie, in order to keep their constituents relatively whole. This is the part that will be somewhat fun to watch, in a macabre sort of way.
None of this is good for Oregon. I have read several times recently criticism of conservative opposition to tax hikes. It goes something like this: "Conservatives say that a recession is a bad time to increase taxes. But they also say we don't need a tax increase when times are good. So just WHEN do they think it IS a good time to increase taxes???"
Well, to put it in a word: Almost NEVER!
Why should the government EVER get a larger share of the economy? When the economy is growing, the government revenues will automatically grow along with it (although never as much as the liberals spending wishes.) When the economy is shrinking, the one thing you can do to make sure it shrinks faster is to raise taxes.
The upshot is we really should almost never raise taxes. It is short sighted and self defeating. This is the path Oregon has gone down for two decades, and look at our economy. It is in a shambles. And it is not going to get better.
To some extent the Obama spending bill will alleviate some of the problem for the current crisis. But that only delays the day of reckoning. It just artificially props up government spending in one cycle through a windfall of outside dollars, making the problem worse next time.
And the liberals always accuse business of planning short term!
I don't have any "solution" to Oregon's budget woes. Nobody does, in reality. But I think it behooves everyone to have a grasp of the underlying numbers, which is why I wrote all this down.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Jack Bogdanski at his best
Check out this highly entertaining and scathingly funny satire of how the new "Major League" soccer PGE Park remodel is going to unfold, over at Bojack.org.
This is Jack at his best. He is very talented. He and I have tangled over a few things, not the least of which is his inexplicable obsession with the Sarah Palin conspiracy theory. But this is worth the read.
One of the best things I have read in months! I would post a congratulations on his site but I am banned!
This is Jack at his best. He is very talented. He and I have tangled over a few things, not the least of which is his inexplicable obsession with the Sarah Palin conspiracy theory. But this is worth the read.
One of the best things I have read in months! I would post a congratulations on his site but I am banned!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Another couple of sad ironies
Did you see that Geert Wilders, the Dutch guy who made the short film "Fitna," which showed the violence of the words of the Koran and the deeds of the Islamic fundamentalists - was barred from entering the UK to give a speech at the House of Lords.
Why was he stopped at Heathrow and turned back? Because his presence threatened "public security in the U.K," according to the Home Office.
Meaning, of course, that Muslims would become violent if Wilders was allowed to speak.
So, the fear is that Muslims would demonstrate their outrage about being characterized as a violent religion by becoming violent.
I think I understand.
Elsewhere, as reported on NWRepublican :
NEW YORK (Feb. 16) -- The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said. Muzzammil Hassan has been charged with murder in the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.
These people are REALLY off message.
Why was he stopped at Heathrow and turned back? Because his presence threatened "public security in the U.K," according to the Home Office.
Meaning, of course, that Muslims would become violent if Wilders was allowed to speak.
So, the fear is that Muslims would demonstrate their outrage about being characterized as a violent religion by becoming violent.
I think I understand.
Elsewhere, as reported on NWRepublican :
NEW YORK (Feb. 16) -- The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said. Muzzammil Hassan has been charged with murder in the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.
These people are REALLY off message.
Can you lose what you don't have?
The Funny Paper reports today that Metro's auditor, Suzanne Flynn, took a look at Metro's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, and found it lacking.
It seems they are spending the vast majority of their "sustainability efforts" (read: money) on projects that have little impact on CO2 reduction, while leaving all sorts of low hanging fruit on the vine.
The Auditor said that their poor performance, Metro "risks losing credibility in the region." Was that a laugh line?
I've already heard some commentary that Metro is being hypocritical - scolding us all for our carbon footprint while not reducing its own. But I don't think this is quite right. Metro is trying to reduce its carbon emissions, but they are just going about it wrong. Spending the bulk of their resources on efforts that yield little, and ignoring efforts that could yield much.
So they aren't hypocrites. They are INCOMPETENT.
But give them a break. This is the way they have operated for years on end. Consider: for years on end Metro has spent up to half its transportation funds on systems that 3% of travellers use. So why should we be surprised that they also misallocate funds for greenhouse gas reduction?
In other news...
Funny Paper ironic juxtaposition of the day: In the story about Randy Leonard's building code hit squad Commissioner Dan Saltzman gives the effort high praise. The article reads:
"This is the model of bureaus working together," Saltzman said. "There are other areas of the city that would benefit from that approach."
Then, in the very next sentence of the story:
"Nevertheless, Saltzman said he has no idea how the team works."
Huh? You really can't make this stuff up.
It seems they are spending the vast majority of their "sustainability efforts" (read: money) on projects that have little impact on CO2 reduction, while leaving all sorts of low hanging fruit on the vine.
The Auditor said that their poor performance, Metro "risks losing credibility in the region." Was that a laugh line?
I've already heard some commentary that Metro is being hypocritical - scolding us all for our carbon footprint while not reducing its own. But I don't think this is quite right. Metro is trying to reduce its carbon emissions, but they are just going about it wrong. Spending the bulk of their resources on efforts that yield little, and ignoring efforts that could yield much.
So they aren't hypocrites. They are INCOMPETENT.
But give them a break. This is the way they have operated for years on end. Consider: for years on end Metro has spent up to half its transportation funds on systems that 3% of travellers use. So why should we be surprised that they also misallocate funds for greenhouse gas reduction?
In other news...
Funny Paper ironic juxtaposition of the day: In the story about Randy Leonard's building code hit squad Commissioner Dan Saltzman gives the effort high praise. The article reads:
"This is the model of bureaus working together," Saltzman said. "There are other areas of the city that would benefit from that approach."
Then, in the very next sentence of the story:
"Nevertheless, Saltzman said he has no idea how the team works."
Huh? You really can't make this stuff up.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
An interesting conspiracy theory
If the basis for this theory wasn't a US Congressman's interview on C-Span, I wouldn't make too much of it. I'm not big on conspiracy theories.
As it stands, there are a lot more questions than answers. But it is interesting. Exactly how unusual is it to get $550 billion withdrawn from money market accounts in a couple hours? Was it thousands of accounts or was it fewer big accounts?
As the Congressman describes it, it was pretty cataclysmic. Would anyone actually be ablet to coordinate something like this? Or was it just widespread panic that happened all at once in turbulent times?
Interesting. Sure seems that nobody is trying to give us any answers though.
As it stands, there are a lot more questions than answers. But it is interesting. Exactly how unusual is it to get $550 billion withdrawn from money market accounts in a couple hours? Was it thousands of accounts or was it fewer big accounts?
As the Congressman describes it, it was pretty cataclysmic. Would anyone actually be ablet to coordinate something like this? Or was it just widespread panic that happened all at once in turbulent times?
Interesting. Sure seems that nobody is trying to give us any answers though.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Democrat job killers
I couldn't believe it. I was down at the Capitol yesterday and ducked into the House Land Use Committee hearing where they were voting on HB2375.
I heard the tail end of discussion, and watched the vote. The intent of the bill was basically to kill an existing fireworks business that had existed for almost two decades, employing ten people year round and hundreds during fireworks season. It had to be killed because the company was using land designated as "exclusive farm use."
The company was granted a formal exemption back in 2003. This bill removed the exemption. Bye bye jobs.
Unbelievable. In this economy, the Democrats swerve off the road to run over a small business because it didn't use its land as they thought it should be used. Never mind that the business had a legislatively granted exemption - they just changed the rules, revoked the exemption. Sorry!
Even better: Rep. Mitch Greenlick, one of the biggest socialists in the legislature, was a "yes" vote in the committee to kill the business. But in 2003, he actually voted to grant the exemption!
What a prick. I'm sorry - in this economy, you'd think the Democrats might want to avoid going out of their way to kill jobs. You'd think they would be looking to loosen the abstract land-use regulations that have mis-zoned so much land in Oregon.
And you'd think they might realize what their action says to other businesses that are already in Oregon or that might try to grow here. The Democrats might just change the rules in the middle of the game, and put you out of business.
Rep. Mary Nolan is the chair of the committee. An West Portland urban legislator in charge of the land use committee. God help us.
I heard the tail end of discussion, and watched the vote. The intent of the bill was basically to kill an existing fireworks business that had existed for almost two decades, employing ten people year round and hundreds during fireworks season. It had to be killed because the company was using land designated as "exclusive farm use."
The company was granted a formal exemption back in 2003. This bill removed the exemption. Bye bye jobs.
Unbelievable. In this economy, the Democrats swerve off the road to run over a small business because it didn't use its land as they thought it should be used. Never mind that the business had a legislatively granted exemption - they just changed the rules, revoked the exemption. Sorry!
Even better: Rep. Mitch Greenlick, one of the biggest socialists in the legislature, was a "yes" vote in the committee to kill the business. But in 2003, he actually voted to grant the exemption!
What a prick. I'm sorry - in this economy, you'd think the Democrats might want to avoid going out of their way to kill jobs. You'd think they would be looking to loosen the abstract land-use regulations that have mis-zoned so much land in Oregon.
And you'd think they might realize what their action says to other businesses that are already in Oregon or that might try to grow here. The Democrats might just change the rules in the middle of the game, and put you out of business.
Rep. Mary Nolan is the chair of the committee. An West Portland urban legislator in charge of the land use committee. God help us.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Replicating insanity
So the Governor announced yesterday to great fanfare that Oregon was going to get a whole bunch of the federal stimulus money that has been earmarked for "sustainability" projects.
He said we would wow the country, and "showcase to the world our expertise in green planning and green development." Among the big ideas he has planned, according to The Funny Paper, is to "take the solar lighting project at the intersection of Interstate 5 and 205, and replicate it all around the state.
Great idea! The electricity generated by that project costs about 60 cents per kilowatt hour. We pay PGE about 8 cents. By all means, lets show the world how smart we are by replicating this idiocy all over the place.
Other laugh-out-loud lines in TFP today: the lead editorial supports the idea of putting a minor league baseball stadium in the Rose Quarter. It's needed to revitalize the embarrassing dead zone in the Quarter. The planners dreamed about a robust and vital retail and night-scene around the Rose Garden, but it never materialized. Quote:
"That was nine years ago. Today, the place remains a dead zone - the most conspicuous failure of planning in a city that normally does the job well."
Huh? What about Cascade Station? South Waterfront? The shameful state of the transportation system? If anything, the Rose Garden is a success when compared to these other hugely expensive planning failures. At least it is busy 42 nights a year - more than you can say for South Waterfront. And at least it was mostly done with private dollars.
The Funny Paper can't admit it, though, because it has been the biggest cheerleader for these disasters all along. You won't see much criticism of Portland planning, especially South Waterfront. Do I really have to point out again that Bob Caldwell's wife is the Commissar of Propaganda at OHSU?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama's first press conference
President Obama held his first press conference yesterday to talk about the stimulus package. I listened to almost the whole thing, mostly because every radio station ran it.
Here's what I didn't know about Barack Obama: he is incredibly long-winded. He only took 13 questions in the hour, mostly because he went on and on and on in his answers, sounding like he was giving a campaign speech. His answer to the very first question lasted over ten minutes!
He claimed that the package was without a single "earmark." Laughable! The whole thing is one giant earmark.
Here's what I didn't know about Barack Obama: he is incredibly long-winded. He only took 13 questions in the hour, mostly because he went on and on and on in his answers, sounding like he was giving a campaign speech. His answer to the very first question lasted over ten minutes!
He claimed that the package was without a single "earmark." Laughable! The whole thing is one giant earmark.
Many of his answers were standard-issue demagoguery, which was disappointing. Talking about the stimulus, he'd say things like: "They question why we have money to build schools. I was in a school in South Carolina that was built in 1860 and was so run down that...."
That's not a policy statement, it is just campaign style demagoguery, and it was disappointing.
The saddest part of this whole thing is that President Obama blew a wonderful opportunity to live up to the rhetoric of his campaign. Leaving aside the question of whether this kind of stimulus is good or bad for the economy - that is debatable, and will be debated for a long long time.
But Obama campaigned saying he was going to change how Washington operated, that he was different, that the politics of fear was over. So the first thing he does is hand off the architecture of a trillion dollar stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi! What did the think she was going to do with it?
Then he tries to scare us into accepting this toxic waste dump of ridiculous spending programs, a good bit of which will just go directly to the federal government baseline, which will have to be rolled up year after year, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions in future commitments.
Had Obama told Pelosi "if you send me a package with a bunch of crap in it, I will veto it," he would have gained so much credibility with the American people. He blew it. Now he has this pig he has to try and put lipstick on (which what his press conference was for) and everybody knows that the Democrats just used the crisis to pass off all their spending wet dreams, and Obama went along.
So the New Politics lasted about two weeks.
The saddest part of this whole thing is that President Obama blew a wonderful opportunity to live up to the rhetoric of his campaign. Leaving aside the question of whether this kind of stimulus is good or bad for the economy - that is debatable, and will be debated for a long long time.
But Obama campaigned saying he was going to change how Washington operated, that he was different, that the politics of fear was over. So the first thing he does is hand off the architecture of a trillion dollar stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi! What did the think she was going to do with it?
Then he tries to scare us into accepting this toxic waste dump of ridiculous spending programs, a good bit of which will just go directly to the federal government baseline, which will have to be rolled up year after year, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions in future commitments.
Had Obama told Pelosi "if you send me a package with a bunch of crap in it, I will veto it," he would have gained so much credibility with the American people. He blew it. Now he has this pig he has to try and put lipstick on (which what his press conference was for) and everybody knows that the Democrats just used the crisis to pass off all their spending wet dreams, and Obama went along.
So the New Politics lasted about two weeks.
The voters aren't stupid as The Funny Paper thinks
Very interesting. As pointed out on OregonCatalyst, new polls show that the public is increasingly skeptical of the global warming agenda. Not only does concern over global warming rank dead last on the list of issues in a poll done by Rassmussen, but a majority of people in another poll question whether warming is man made to begin with.
This is great news, but you can bet that it will be ignored by Ted Kulongoski and President Obama, who will shove an economically ruinous Cap & Trade scheme down our throats anyway. In political terms, however, this is good for Republicans, as long as we stay solid in opposing this stupid idea. We can hang the disaster of Cap & Trade right around the necks of all the Democrats who support this idiocy, knowing that the people are on our side.
The fact is, voters just aren't that stupid. They recognize a hidden agenda when they see one.
Ironically, The Funny Paper today once again revealed its arrogance and disdain for the public, in its editorial bashing Measure 57. They wrote something that I thought, when I readit, that they could have easily been talking about Cap & Trade:
"It's tough for voters to think much about costs and economic implications when they are bombarded with campaign rhetoric designed to scare the living daylights out of them..."
They were actually talking about Measure 57, trying to explain why voters bought it. (Because they are stupid.)
And The Funny Paper is convinced that the stupid voters will also buy their crap about global warming, since they have been trying to scare the living daylights out of them for the last decade.
Well, it ain't working. Voters bought Measure 57 because they want the government to do what it is supposed to do - keep us safe. They are rejecting global warming because they know it is just another power/money grab by the ruling class.
But if your point of departure is contempt for voters, you misinterpret both acceptance of M57 and rejection of global warming hysteria. That is where The Funny Paper finds itself now.
Time and again telling us we are stupid. Great way to build readership!
This is great news, but you can bet that it will be ignored by Ted Kulongoski and President Obama, who will shove an economically ruinous Cap & Trade scheme down our throats anyway. In political terms, however, this is good for Republicans, as long as we stay solid in opposing this stupid idea. We can hang the disaster of Cap & Trade right around the necks of all the Democrats who support this idiocy, knowing that the people are on our side.
The fact is, voters just aren't that stupid. They recognize a hidden agenda when they see one.
Ironically, The Funny Paper today once again revealed its arrogance and disdain for the public, in its editorial bashing Measure 57. They wrote something that I thought, when I readit, that they could have easily been talking about Cap & Trade:
"It's tough for voters to think much about costs and economic implications when they are bombarded with campaign rhetoric designed to scare the living daylights out of them..."
They were actually talking about Measure 57, trying to explain why voters bought it. (Because they are stupid.)
And The Funny Paper is convinced that the stupid voters will also buy their crap about global warming, since they have been trying to scare the living daylights out of them for the last decade.
Well, it ain't working. Voters bought Measure 57 because they want the government to do what it is supposed to do - keep us safe. They are rejecting global warming because they know it is just another power/money grab by the ruling class.
But if your point of departure is contempt for voters, you misinterpret both acceptance of M57 and rejection of global warming hysteria. That is where The Funny Paper finds itself now.
Time and again telling us we are stupid. Great way to build readership!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)