Tuesday, January 31, 2006
I'm reduced to this
I've been temporarily (permanently?) banned from Jack Bogdanski's blog. It must have been something I said. But, since I continue to visit it several times a day, and there's always so much going on (things to laugh at or marvel at, or both), I'll have to blog on a blog.
On Monday, Bogdanski came out in favor if Potter's new city income tax.
He cites several factors, but "for the children" (sound familiar?) is the ultimate one.
Or is it something else?
This guy sees crooks around every corner in publicly financed projects (see: The Aerial Tram [rimshot], SoWa in general, and on, and on). He's a bulldog with spin. He accurately perceives the "crooks" behind this tax. So, you'd think he'd (reluctantly, I'd have thought) oppose it. Wrong. On this one, he just rolls over; sorry, "...(he) thinks it's the right thing to do.".
"What's it all mean, KC?"
"Simple, Sam, here's my take:"
I don't think he's a hypocrite
I know he's not fooled by the PRBS from PPS and others.
I'm sure he honestly "cares about kids".
I'm sure he, like most of us, is rightfully pessimistic that the legislature will "save the day".
BUT
I think his aversion to waste tends to diminish when the waste benefits public employees (as opposed to the Homer Willliamses of the world)
I sense in his verbal shrug about the inequity of the tax, especially re "...state government pensioners..." a certain "flexibility" not present for others who avoid their "fair share".
I think he honestly believes the OEA and their political and PR juggernaut are unstoppable.
I think his stated admiration for Potter is affecting his judgement more than he'll admit.
I'm sure - he basically states it - he's willing to "pay the ransom" to make this issue "go away"; knowing full well it'll be back.
Why?
I think he's just too uncomfortable with the thought of what's in store if the tax fails. Real school reform, not just school financing reform, is the likely outcome. It'll be messy, bloody, partisan and prolonged - and he doesn't have the stomach for it.
He's just unable or unwilling to suppress his city-centric, liberal empathy; for government institutions in general, unions, teachers, Tom Potter and, of course, "the kids".
Real school reform is for "the kids" and he knows that too.
It's just too painful to contemplate.
¶ 11:00 AM
I've been temporarily (permanently?) banned from Jack Bogdanski's blog. It must have been something I said. But, since I continue to visit it several times a day, and there's always so much going on (things to laugh at or marvel at, or both), I'll have to blog on a blog.
On Monday, Bogdanski came out in favor if Potter's new city income tax.
He cites several factors, but "for the children" (sound familiar?) is the ultimate one.
Or is it something else?
This guy sees crooks around every corner in publicly financed projects (see: The Aerial Tram [rimshot], SoWa in general, and on, and on). He's a bulldog with spin. He accurately perceives the "crooks" behind this tax. So, you'd think he'd (reluctantly, I'd have thought) oppose it. Wrong. On this one, he just rolls over; sorry, "...(he) thinks it's the right thing to do.".
"What's it all mean, KC?"
"Simple, Sam, here's my take:"
I don't think he's a hypocrite
I know he's not fooled by the PRBS from PPS and others.
I'm sure he honestly "cares about kids".
I'm sure he, like most of us, is rightfully pessimistic that the legislature will "save the day".
BUT
I think his aversion to waste tends to diminish when the waste benefits public employees (as opposed to the Homer Willliamses of the world)
I sense in his verbal shrug about the inequity of the tax, especially re "...state government pensioners..." a certain "flexibility" not present for others who avoid their "fair share".
I think he honestly believes the OEA and their political and PR juggernaut are unstoppable.
I think his stated admiration for Potter is affecting his judgement more than he'll admit.
I'm sure - he basically states it - he's willing to "pay the ransom" to make this issue "go away"; knowing full well it'll be back.
Why?
I think he's just too uncomfortable with the thought of what's in store if the tax fails. Real school reform, not just school financing reform, is the likely outcome. It'll be messy, bloody, partisan and prolonged - and he doesn't have the stomach for it.
He's just unable or unwilling to suppress his city-centric, liberal empathy; for government institutions in general, unions, teachers, Tom Potter and, of course, "the kids".
Real school reform is for "the kids" and he knows that too.
It's just too painful to contemplate.
¶ 11:00 AM
