ricky's ragg
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
ASK MITCH
Don't bother asking your representative about how HB2614 works.
Here's why:
To: REP Greenlick
Subject: HB2614
Just exactly how is this bill (law) in the interests of anyone except the two largest political parties and incumbents like yourself? Politics as usual is it? You want to disenfranchise anyone who threatens your "buddy system" and erect roadblocks for independent candidates. More and more Oregon voters are deserting the two established parties. Instead of trying to listen and discern why this may be and address the causes, you and (almost all of your cronies) "circle the wagons" and enact this blatantly unconstitutional law.Ralph Nader showed you for what you really are; scared of a fair, open election process. It's more important for you to preserve your own asses than to allow any fresh air or ideas into the system. Count every vote - HAH! By closing your eyes and ears to the will of a growing percentage of the electorate, you demonstrate your elitist, selfish attitudes yet again. Whatever your motivation, democracy will not be stifled.You just don't get it.
P.S. Take me off your mailing list!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
Would you like an answer from me, or do you simply want to vent?
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 8:29 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
If there's an answer that makes sense, I'd love to hear it!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
If the bill is the one that stops party members from voting in the primary and then signing nominating petitions in the same nominating process, here is what was in my consideration. Anybody who had deserted either of the political parties (as you say, more than a quarter of the voters) won't be affected. Registered Ds vote in the Democratic primary and registered Rs vote in the Republican primary. The theory is that gives them their primary vote. People who aren't a member of either party are also entitled to one "vote" that is signing one petition for a candidate for any single office. That seems fair and gives each person the equivalent of one vote in the primary. It didn't seem fair for a person to vote in the Democratic primary for an office and then vote again by signing a petition for nominating somebody to an office.So the bill isn't intended to disenfranchise anybody who isn't a party member, it's intent is to stop party members from having more than one "vote" in the primary system..
Mitch
ps. Do you still want off my mailing list?
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:22 PM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Maybe I'm misinformed. If I'm registered as R, I can't vote for any R candidates in the primary if I sign a petition for an Independent? Or is it that, If I'm registered as R, and I sign a petition for an Independent, my signature is not counted. What if I favor R's (or D's in a parallel universe) except for the office for which I sign a nominating petition? What about ballot measures? Help!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: HB2614
You will automatically get a ballot in the R primary. I think that disqualifies your signature if you sign a petition to nominate an independent, under the concept that you have already voted. But it might only be if you have returned the ballot and actually voted. ( I don't remember which.) It sounds like you should favor, as I do, the initiative that is on the streets now to create the open primary in Oregon. That approach allows everybody to vote in the primary for all candidates for an office. And the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, whether they are Rs, Ds, Libertarians, or Independents.
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 11:42 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Where's the best place to determine exactly what the effects of this bill will be? If an important bill affecting my voting rights is confusing to you, something's wrong. If there's better legislation or an initiative, why vote for HB2614? It still sounds as if it limits my freedom to support whomever I choose by forcing me into an all or nothing situation. It still effectively keeps independents off the ballot. It still tends for protect the two major parties and incumbents. I suspect that the two latter results were the primary reason for it's introduction and bipartisan support - what other event or urgent public need was addressed? Help me, here. The Nader situation was not created by R's. If it was exploited by R's - well, democracy is messy. But the solution is not less democracy - it's more democracy. Don't you think?
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
I think the effect of the bill is clear. I just don't remember the details and didn't look it up to check. The last time I saw it was 6-7 months ago among dozens of other bills. Democracy is messy. But I really approve of the principle of one person - one vote. And that is what convinced me on this one. And the effect will certainly make it more difficult for independents to get on the ballot, but really not too difficult. Senator Ben Westlund, who is considering a run for governor as an independent told me getting 18,000 independent signatures wouldn't be a barrier. The much more important barrier is the decision of whether an independent could actually win. And you certainly have a choice. You get to choose whether you are a member of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party or an independent. And you can change that back and forth at will by changing your registration. If you decide you are an R you get to vote in the R primary to determine that party's candidates in the General Election. If you want to effect which independent candidates are nominated, become an independent. And, of course, when November comes you get to vote for nominees from several parties.
Mitch
From: stoneguy@comcast.net
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 10:14 PM
To: Rep GreenlickSubject:
Re: HB2614
No, seriously. Should I contact the Elections Division or what? For the record, I too approve of that one person - one vote principle. I just didn't see it compromised by the old system. Until Nader's failed bid, nobody said boo. Too much coincidence for me. I fail to see how restricting who can sign nominating petitions does anything but restrict choice. A vote is a vote - a signature on a nominating petition is NOT a vote. It seems pretty clear to me. If I can't help put my favored candidate on the ballot - I can't vote for him/her either. As for the new system making it more difficult for an independent to get on the ballot, how difficult is too difficult? Who makes that judgement? Ben Westlund's optimism notwithstanding, any reduction in access to the political system is suspect. Especially when it's sponsored by those with the most to lose.Ideally we would all affect which candidates are nominated, regardless of party affiliation. Thanks for the chat.
Well, one way to do that is to support the Open Primary initiative proposal. I certainly do support that, although the leaders of both parties oppose it. I guess that makes it a bi-partisan proposal. And the small parties also oppose it -- a multi-partisan proposal.
Mitch ¶ 1:57 PM 0 comments
Don't bother asking your representative about how HB2614 works.
Here's why:
To: REP Greenlick
Subject: HB2614
Just exactly how is this bill (law) in the interests of anyone except the two largest political parties and incumbents like yourself? Politics as usual is it? You want to disenfranchise anyone who threatens your "buddy system" and erect roadblocks for independent candidates. More and more Oregon voters are deserting the two established parties. Instead of trying to listen and discern why this may be and address the causes, you and (almost all of your cronies) "circle the wagons" and enact this blatantly unconstitutional law.Ralph Nader showed you for what you really are; scared of a fair, open election process. It's more important for you to preserve your own asses than to allow any fresh air or ideas into the system. Count every vote - HAH! By closing your eyes and ears to the will of a growing percentage of the electorate, you demonstrate your elitist, selfish attitudes yet again. Whatever your motivation, democracy will not be stifled.You just don't get it.
P.S. Take me off your mailing list!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
Would you like an answer from me, or do you simply want to vent?
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Fri 1/27/2006 8:29 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
If there's an answer that makes sense, I'd love to hear it!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
If the bill is the one that stops party members from voting in the primary and then signing nominating petitions in the same nominating process, here is what was in my consideration. Anybody who had deserted either of the political parties (as you say, more than a quarter of the voters) won't be affected. Registered Ds vote in the Democratic primary and registered Rs vote in the Republican primary. The theory is that gives them their primary vote. People who aren't a member of either party are also entitled to one "vote" that is signing one petition for a candidate for any single office. That seems fair and gives each person the equivalent of one vote in the primary. It didn't seem fair for a person to vote in the Democratic primary for an office and then vote again by signing a petition for nominating somebody to an office.So the bill isn't intended to disenfranchise anybody who isn't a party member, it's intent is to stop party members from having more than one "vote" in the primary system..
Mitch
ps. Do you still want off my mailing list?
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:22 PM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Maybe I'm misinformed. If I'm registered as R, I can't vote for any R candidates in the primary if I sign a petition for an Independent? Or is it that, If I'm registered as R, and I sign a petition for an Independent, my signature is not counted. What if I favor R's (or D's in a parallel universe) except for the office for which I sign a nominating petition? What about ballot measures? Help!
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: HB2614
You will automatically get a ballot in the R primary. I think that disqualifies your signature if you sign a petition to nominate an independent, under the concept that you have already voted. But it might only be if you have returned the ballot and actually voted. ( I don't remember which.) It sounds like you should favor, as I do, the initiative that is on the streets now to create the open primary in Oregon. That approach allows everybody to vote in the primary for all candidates for an office. And the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, whether they are Rs, Ds, Libertarians, or Independents.
Mitch
From: StoneGuy [mailto:stoneguy@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 11:42 AM
To: Rep Greenlick
Subject: Re: HB2614
Where's the best place to determine exactly what the effects of this bill will be? If an important bill affecting my voting rights is confusing to you, something's wrong. If there's better legislation or an initiative, why vote for HB2614? It still sounds as if it limits my freedom to support whomever I choose by forcing me into an all or nothing situation. It still effectively keeps independents off the ballot. It still tends for protect the two major parties and incumbents. I suspect that the two latter results were the primary reason for it's introduction and bipartisan support - what other event or urgent public need was addressed? Help me, here. The Nader situation was not created by R's. If it was exploited by R's - well, democracy is messy. But the solution is not less democracy - it's more democracy. Don't you think?
From: Rep Greenlick
To: StoneGuy
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: HB2614
I think the effect of the bill is clear. I just don't remember the details and didn't look it up to check. The last time I saw it was 6-7 months ago among dozens of other bills. Democracy is messy. But I really approve of the principle of one person - one vote. And that is what convinced me on this one. And the effect will certainly make it more difficult for independents to get on the ballot, but really not too difficult. Senator Ben Westlund, who is considering a run for governor as an independent told me getting 18,000 independent signatures wouldn't be a barrier. The much more important barrier is the decision of whether an independent could actually win. And you certainly have a choice. You get to choose whether you are a member of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party or an independent. And you can change that back and forth at will by changing your registration. If you decide you are an R you get to vote in the R primary to determine that party's candidates in the General Election. If you want to effect which independent candidates are nominated, become an independent. And, of course, when November comes you get to vote for nominees from several parties.
Mitch
From: stoneguy@comcast.net
Sent: Thu 2/2/2006 10:14 PM
To: Rep GreenlickSubject:
Re: HB2614
No, seriously. Should I contact the Elections Division or what? For the record, I too approve of that one person - one vote principle. I just didn't see it compromised by the old system. Until Nader's failed bid, nobody said boo. Too much coincidence for me. I fail to see how restricting who can sign nominating petitions does anything but restrict choice. A vote is a vote - a signature on a nominating petition is NOT a vote. It seems pretty clear to me. If I can't help put my favored candidate on the ballot - I can't vote for him/her either. As for the new system making it more difficult for an independent to get on the ballot, how difficult is too difficult? Who makes that judgement? Ben Westlund's optimism notwithstanding, any reduction in access to the political system is suspect. Especially when it's sponsored by those with the most to lose.Ideally we would all affect which candidates are nominated, regardless of party affiliation. Thanks for the chat.
Well, one way to do that is to support the Open Primary initiative proposal. I certainly do support that, although the leaders of both parties oppose it. I guess that makes it a bi-partisan proposal. And the small parties also oppose it -- a multi-partisan proposal.
Mitch ¶ 1:57 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
KNOW THINE ENEMY
Confiscatory land use laws and regulations and all the "planning" of the last 30-odd years were perpetrated by a group of people at the cutting edge of public opinion manipulation. The growth of anti-growth can be tied directly to the increasing sophistication of PR means and methods.
Polling, focus groups, all kinds of then "new" tactics were being tested. This group's blatant elitism and skewed view of individual "rights" went nowhere until they learned to use "disinformation" and the media to hide their real intentions and motivations.
They hide because they have to - it's a way of life for them. Responsibility is their boogeyman and they really are scared of it. They are, however, quite responsible for the "mess" we're in now with Measure 37. It will be instructive and amusing now to watch 'em wiggle and squirm to divert attention from their handiwork.
They managed to hijack zoning laws, enact new laws, impose regulations and fees to advance their "agenda". This was done with their characteristic callous disdain for all those affected by their precious "vision". They created the unfair system, which in turn created the inequities, which they are now cynically trying to use to turn property owners against each other. They have no sense of responsibilty - except to themselves. Anything and anyone is fair game to accomplish their goals. The more litigation and discord among neighbors the better.
Their diabolical plan (I hate to think they actually considered this 30 years ago) has left IEDs near all the roads to land use sanity. They need and want CHAOS. It hides their tracks.
They are terrorists.
They foment unrest and confusion.
Everyone is a valid target.
They don't CARE!
Lurking behind their facade of reasonableness - "concern" for the environment, their wish to "preserve" open spaces for "future generations" ? is a cold, calculating bunch of brownshirts whose real goal is to subsume your rights to their purposes. Since you're not as smart or sophisticated as they are, the possibility that you'll exercise your rights threatens them, personally. Their self-image is so fragile and dependent upon constant reinforcement that ANY freedom you retain in the face of their "planning" represents the ultimate threat. Without others to step on, they can't even walk.
These people hide themselves among reasonable folks who have honest and valid concerns about growth and development, but their shrill, strident cries set them apart. They don't want compromise or "fairness",
they want what they WANT.
Instead, remarkably, the court gave what they DESERVED.
Looks as if 1000 Friends is down to 993.
With friends like these...
Now we need to stay on the offensive and publicize the role of 1000 Friends and their ilk in CREATING most of the problems that will follow, and public opinion will drive them back to the margins of the debate.
Where they belong. ¶ 12:36 PM 0 comments
Confiscatory land use laws and regulations and all the "planning" of the last 30-odd years were perpetrated by a group of people at the cutting edge of public opinion manipulation. The growth of anti-growth can be tied directly to the increasing sophistication of PR means and methods.
Polling, focus groups, all kinds of then "new" tactics were being tested. This group's blatant elitism and skewed view of individual "rights" went nowhere until they learned to use "disinformation" and the media to hide their real intentions and motivations.
They hide because they have to - it's a way of life for them. Responsibility is their boogeyman and they really are scared of it. They are, however, quite responsible for the "mess" we're in now with Measure 37. It will be instructive and amusing now to watch 'em wiggle and squirm to divert attention from their handiwork.
They managed to hijack zoning laws, enact new laws, impose regulations and fees to advance their "agenda". This was done with their characteristic callous disdain for all those affected by their precious "vision". They created the unfair system, which in turn created the inequities, which they are now cynically trying to use to turn property owners against each other. They have no sense of responsibilty - except to themselves. Anything and anyone is fair game to accomplish their goals. The more litigation and discord among neighbors the better.
Their diabolical plan (I hate to think they actually considered this 30 years ago) has left IEDs near all the roads to land use sanity. They need and want CHAOS. It hides their tracks.
They are terrorists.
They foment unrest and confusion.
Everyone is a valid target.
They don't CARE!
Lurking behind their facade of reasonableness - "concern" for the environment, their wish to "preserve" open spaces for "future generations" ? is a cold, calculating bunch of brownshirts whose real goal is to subsume your rights to their purposes. Since you're not as smart or sophisticated as they are, the possibility that you'll exercise your rights threatens them, personally. Their self-image is so fragile and dependent upon constant reinforcement that ANY freedom you retain in the face of their "planning" represents the ultimate threat. Without others to step on, they can't even walk.
These people hide themselves among reasonable folks who have honest and valid concerns about growth and development, but their shrill, strident cries set them apart. They don't want compromise or "fairness",
they want what they WANT.
Instead, remarkably, the court gave what they DESERVED.
Looks as if 1000 Friends is down to 993.
With friends like these...
Now we need to stay on the offensive and publicize the role of 1000 Friends and their ilk in CREATING most of the problems that will follow, and public opinion will drive them back to the margins of the debate.
Where they belong. ¶ 12:36 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
MORE VISIONS
For a good laugh read about the two "staff" hired to help with the mayor's "Community Vision Project" here.
Just two average Portlanders.
No axes to grind.
No agendas.
hehehehehehe
With these two as staff, I can envision their vision now:
In 30 years Portland will look like Ecuador with many large Food Banks.
Check out all the usual radical leeches, artists, neighborhood activists, commune supporters, socialists, government employees and dependants, non-profit types, and assorted groupies on the committee here.
Rob Kremer is right.
Private property will be confiscated. We'll all live in thoroughly planned Dignity Villages on the freeways and ride MAX to the Tram and take Tri-Met to the Food Bank. Police functions will be handled by brown-shirted members of Critical Mass and zoobombers - led by Randy Albright. Cars will be converted to planters to grow marijuana for free distribution. City government will be the only employer and health care will be freeeeeeee. (Which will be doable since the prescribed treatment for any illness will be assisted suicide.) Dogs will run loose citywide and be covered by the ESA. Guns will be banned. Planners will plan. Vegans will rule. Randy Leonard will be crucified and become a Messiah-like figure to former firefighters and police who will run wild wearing tatters and rags of their uniforms. Schools will be converted to madrassahs and re-education in the "religion of peace" will be mandatory. Beheadings will be the main social event - taking place at Pioneer Courthouse Square every Friday afternoon near the statue of King Tom - followed by a free concert. The Rose Festival will be run by the GLBT coalition with live sex shows in the Grand Floral Parade - audience participation encouraged.
I can't wait.
¶ 10:41 AM 0 comments
For a good laugh read about the two "staff" hired to help with the mayor's "Community Vision Project" here.
Just two average Portlanders.
No axes to grind.
No agendas.
hehehehehehe
With these two as staff, I can envision their vision now:
In 30 years Portland will look like Ecuador with many large Food Banks.
Check out all the usual radical leeches, artists, neighborhood activists, commune supporters, socialists, government employees and dependants, non-profit types, and assorted groupies on the committee here.
Rob Kremer is right.
Private property will be confiscated. We'll all live in thoroughly planned Dignity Villages on the freeways and ride MAX to the Tram and take Tri-Met to the Food Bank. Police functions will be handled by brown-shirted members of Critical Mass and zoobombers - led by Randy Albright. Cars will be converted to planters to grow marijuana for free distribution. City government will be the only employer and health care will be freeeeeeee. (Which will be doable since the prescribed treatment for any illness will be assisted suicide.) Dogs will run loose citywide and be covered by the ESA. Guns will be banned. Planners will plan. Vegans will rule. Randy Leonard will be crucified and become a Messiah-like figure to former firefighters and police who will run wild wearing tatters and rags of their uniforms. Schools will be converted to madrassahs and re-education in the "religion of peace" will be mandatory. Beheadings will be the main social event - taking place at Pioneer Courthouse Square every Friday afternoon near the statue of King Tom - followed by a free concert. The Rose Festival will be run by the GLBT coalition with live sex shows in the Grand Floral Parade - audience participation encouraged.
I can't wait.
¶ 10:41 AM 0 comments
Sunday, February 19, 2006
CROSS YOUR FINGERS
The Oregon Supreme Court has announced it will hand down its decision on the Measure 37 case next week.
Tuesday, Feb. 21, at 9:00AM to be exact.
I predict 5-2 in favor of reversing James' ridiculous, tortured, politically motivated ruling.
¶ 9:38 AM 0 comments
The Oregon Supreme Court has announced it will hand down its decision on the Measure 37 case next week.
Tuesday, Feb. 21, at 9:00AM to be exact.
I predict 5-2 in favor of reversing James' ridiculous, tortured, politically motivated ruling.
¶ 9:38 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Saturday, February 11, 2006
ONE IDEA
Let's see; as households, we pay for goods and services based on our choices. Even government monopoly services such as water, sewer, building permits, business licenses, parking, fuel taxes, transit fares - even pet licenses. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, are based on decisions we're free to make about whether or not, or the degree to which, we use them. The notion of benefit/cost analysis (to invert the phrase) applies to most decisions made in our dealings in the private sector and many decisions we make about government "goods" and services.
What about schools?
If you're a parent with a child, or children, in PPS, the model doesn't work. One kid? Eight kids?
Your choice.
Leaving aside "school clothes" and "school supplies", which, again, are tied to your choices, you pay the same. Nothing.
Well, you pay taxes, directly or indirectly, but not proportionally.
You say we should tax ourselves more "for the kids"? You think we should pay a city income tax "...whether we like it or not."? You think any talk of school reform, pension and benefit reform, the notion of real teacher contract negotiations is an indication that we "hate schools", "hate kids" or are "selfish"? You think the solution to school funding is, in a word, more?
OK, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Or, more accurately, where your kids are.
How about a sliding scale of tuition for PPS? How about a range from $100.00 to $2000.00 per student per year (no volume discounts, thanks)? Base the per-student annual tuition amount on AGI; $100.00 minimum for the "poorest of the poor". Payable over the course of the school year - think about twelve dollars a month (two packs of smokes or a 12 pack - oops, that was a "mean stereotype"). $2000.00 for households with AGI's over $300K. Tie increases in district costs directly to tuition increases - say 50% of increased costs to be borne by taxpayers in general and 50% by parents. Hell, tie tuition credits to grades or (EEKS!) an objective assessment of classroom teachers' performance.
It's for the kids!!!
Pick your own numbers, the purpose would be to erase the disconnect between cost and benefit. Let's see who really "cares about the children". When the district's lack of any real sense of fiscal responsibility (actually, simply, lack of responsibility) manifests itself in another plaintive cry for "more", we'll see if parents more financially "invested" in the system are so quick to call non-parent taxpayers "selfish". We'll see how well the OEA's BS plays when their demands translate into substantial increases in direct tuition costs - as opposed to increases shared by all the paxpayers in the district.
The system(?), as it now exists, DOES NOT WORK!
The legalized extortion we hear EVERY YEAR, like a broken record, (or a bad CD, for you younger folks :-)) has become intolerable.
Back in the day, I would throw away a broken record.
If I liked it (needed it), I'd replace it with NEW ONE.
What about you?
After all, it's all about choice. ¶ 12:55 PM 0 comments
Let's see; as households, we pay for goods and services based on our choices. Even government monopoly services such as water, sewer, building permits, business licenses, parking, fuel taxes, transit fares - even pet licenses. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, are based on decisions we're free to make about whether or not, or the degree to which, we use them. The notion of benefit/cost analysis (to invert the phrase) applies to most decisions made in our dealings in the private sector and many decisions we make about government "goods" and services.
What about schools?
If you're a parent with a child, or children, in PPS, the model doesn't work. One kid? Eight kids?
Your choice.
Leaving aside "school clothes" and "school supplies", which, again, are tied to your choices, you pay the same. Nothing.
Well, you pay taxes, directly or indirectly, but not proportionally.
You say we should tax ourselves more "for the kids"? You think we should pay a city income tax "...whether we like it or not."? You think any talk of school reform, pension and benefit reform, the notion of real teacher contract negotiations is an indication that we "hate schools", "hate kids" or are "selfish"? You think the solution to school funding is, in a word, more?
OK, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Or, more accurately, where your kids are.
How about a sliding scale of tuition for PPS? How about a range from $100.00 to $2000.00 per student per year (no volume discounts, thanks)? Base the per-student annual tuition amount on AGI; $100.00 minimum for the "poorest of the poor". Payable over the course of the school year - think about twelve dollars a month (two packs of smokes or a 12 pack - oops, that was a "mean stereotype"). $2000.00 for households with AGI's over $300K. Tie increases in district costs directly to tuition increases - say 50% of increased costs to be borne by taxpayers in general and 50% by parents. Hell, tie tuition credits to grades or (EEKS!) an objective assessment of classroom teachers' performance.
It's for the kids!!!
Pick your own numbers, the purpose would be to erase the disconnect between cost and benefit. Let's see who really "cares about the children". When the district's lack of any real sense of fiscal responsibility (actually, simply, lack of responsibility) manifests itself in another plaintive cry for "more", we'll see if parents more financially "invested" in the system are so quick to call non-parent taxpayers "selfish". We'll see how well the OEA's BS plays when their demands translate into substantial increases in direct tuition costs - as opposed to increases shared by all the paxpayers in the district.
The system(?), as it now exists, DOES NOT WORK!
The legalized extortion we hear EVERY YEAR, like a broken record, (or a bad CD, for you younger folks :-)) has become intolerable.
Back in the day, I would throw away a broken record.
If I liked it (needed it), I'd replace it with NEW ONE.
What about you?
After all, it's all about choice. ¶ 12:55 PM 0 comments
Friday, February 10, 2006
I DON'T KNOW NOTHIN'
On Thusday, I laboriously hunt & pecked a post about Dave Lister's candidacy in the race for the Erik Sten's seat on the city council. I've sort of half paid attention to this stuff for years but only in the last few months begun to connect the dots and think about getting more involved politically.
Still, I was pretty (over) confident of my grasp on the city council races.
Nope.
Connect the dots - I didn't even have the right dots.
Since I had mentioned some facts about Lister in the post, I emailed and asked him to check those out for accuracy. I'm soooo glad I did. I learned a couple of lessons: 1) Lister is a courteous, sincere, nice guy. I learned this because Lister gently pointed out in his reply some mistakes I had made. 2) I had, in my arrogance, got the BASIC FACTS of his race WRONG! I mistakenly had as his opponent, besides Sten; Amanda Fritz. She's running against Saltzman - not Sten!
Some people are just that smart.
A glutton for punishment, I've tried it again below.
Cut me to ribbons. ¶ 11:24 AM 4 comments
On Thusday, I laboriously hunt & pecked a post about Dave Lister's candidacy in the race for the Erik Sten's seat on the city council. I've sort of half paid attention to this stuff for years but only in the last few months begun to connect the dots and think about getting more involved politically.
Still, I was pretty (over) confident of my grasp on the city council races.
Nope.
Connect the dots - I didn't even have the right dots.
Since I had mentioned some facts about Lister in the post, I emailed and asked him to check those out for accuracy. I'm soooo glad I did. I learned a couple of lessons: 1) Lister is a courteous, sincere, nice guy. I learned this because Lister gently pointed out in his reply some mistakes I had made. 2) I had, in my arrogance, got the BASIC FACTS of his race WRONG! I mistakenly had as his opponent, besides Sten; Amanda Fritz. She's running against Saltzman - not Sten!
Some people are just that smart.
A glutton for punishment, I've tried it again below.
Cut me to ribbons. ¶ 11:24 AM 4 comments
Thursday, February 09, 2006
A RAY OF HOPE - I HOPE
Dave Lister may be crazy.
Crazy like a fox.
He's not one of "the usual suspects" who run for elective office in the CoP.
He possesses common sense.
He doesn't owe anybody anything (in terms of political favors - read: unions, activists, etc.).
He actually has a successful PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS! He's never worked for a government entity!
He doesn't qualify for PERS.
All this and he's running for City Council (Erik Sten's position)?
What is he thinking?
Read about it here.
He may be a long shot. I don't know. I'm not tapped into that stuff much yet.
His biggest asset, not intended as an insult, (for people who don't know anything else about him yet) is that he's NOT ERIK STEN!
That's a freebie.
However, strategically, this could get interesting.
Another challenger with "name recognition" is State Senator Ginny Burdick. You may know her for the one song she sings loudest - gun control. Although she has not yet officially entered the race, it's just a matter of when she files.
Possibly ideologically conflicted by her new position at PR firm Gard and Gerber, she has decided not to try to qualify for to "free money" - oops, that's "clean money" - oops, that's YOUR MONEY to finance her campaign.
Erik "the money pit" Sten, on the other hand, has announced that he will, indeed, partake of that pot o'gold, thank you very much. If he survives the "primary", his association with the VOE plan will remain. A referral of this measure will have been on the May ballot with all the pro/con arguments aired in gory detail. Who knows which way that will play? If those opposed to VOE prevail, and Lister's still in it, it's all good for him.
A certain number of people who would otherwise support Sten are feeling more than a little miffed at being bypassed by the council (Sten, in particular) in their implementation of the "Voter Owned Elections" (VOE) plan - the "voters" didn't get to vote on it.
Those folks, and more than a few others who "matter" in this town, while perhaps not ideological fellow travelers with Lister, seem to know and respect him and may vote for him out of that respect and/or to express their pique. The latter motivation is petty, but useful for Lister.
Sten will have to spend a good deal of his (excuse me, your) campaign funds on an attempt to secure a majority in the "primary", hoping to avoid a runoff. Crass and calculating as it sounds, that's a perfect scenario for Lister. His entry will further dilute the vote so that the likelihood of either of the others getting 50% or more is practically nil.
If Lister can get into the runoff, he's got some advantages over either of the others
Sten carries a ton of baggage and, with all the talk of city income taxes in the air, will be under increased scrutiny from fiscally conscious folks as a known waster of the public's money, especially since he's going the VOE route.
Burdick will be saddled with some unavoidable and exploitable issues. Primary among them is her long association with political insiders and their cronies in city and state government. Prior to her legislative current legislative gig, to which she was first elected in 1996, she was, from 1987 to 1993, a member and officer of the LCDC - not a favorite of supporters of measure 37. Another plus, (NOT) she was appointed to her position by Neil Goldschmidt. She has served on the board of NARAL and The Nature Conservancy. She also serves on the City of Portland Fire and Police Disability and Pension Fund board. Being a politician, she has a record, she's got ratings, Her 2000 campaign contribution list is here. Some other interesting facts are here and here and here.
She's now Senior Counsel/Public Affairs at Gard and Gerber. Being a lawyer for a large ad/PR agency just ain't what it used to be in these times of generalized mistrust of both lawyers and spin factories. In fact, some would consider it a double whammy. G&G's recent clients include ODOT, OHSU & other popular state agencies - again, her ties to government are inescapable. Here's how much she loves the establishment (all good reads, but check out the "Movin on up" post).
She's a wealthy, West Hills "good old girl".
Add in the fact that she and Sten will have to split the union vote and you never know.
From the personality standpoint, I don't know much about Lister or Burdick. From the little I've heard and read from Lister, it seems that he has a good grasp on what most people consider the important issues and his positions on those issues shouldn't scare anyone but the crazies away. It's likely that the smart play against either of the others would be to stay calm and avuncular (I hope that's the right word).
If he comes through the runoff, whichever of the other "usual suspects" has survived will be feeling the pressure (lack of money, if it's Sten) and may become shrill. Avoiding shrill is key.
I think.
It should play to Lister's strengths.
I hope. ¶ 4:19 PM 0 comments
Dave Lister may be crazy.
Crazy like a fox.
He's not one of "the usual suspects" who run for elective office in the CoP.
He possesses common sense.
He doesn't owe anybody anything (in terms of political favors - read: unions, activists, etc.).
He actually has a successful PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS! He's never worked for a government entity!
He doesn't qualify for PERS.
All this and he's running for City Council (Erik Sten's position)?
What is he thinking?
Read about it here.
He may be a long shot. I don't know. I'm not tapped into that stuff much yet.
His biggest asset, not intended as an insult, (for people who don't know anything else about him yet) is that he's NOT ERIK STEN!
That's a freebie.
However, strategically, this could get interesting.
Another challenger with "name recognition" is State Senator Ginny Burdick. You may know her for the one song she sings loudest - gun control. Although she has not yet officially entered the race, it's just a matter of when she files.
Possibly ideologically conflicted by her new position at PR firm Gard and Gerber, she has decided not to try to qualify for to "free money" - oops, that's "clean money" - oops, that's YOUR MONEY to finance her campaign.
Erik "the money pit" Sten, on the other hand, has announced that he will, indeed, partake of that pot o'gold, thank you very much. If he survives the "primary", his association with the VOE plan will remain. A referral of this measure will have been on the May ballot with all the pro/con arguments aired in gory detail. Who knows which way that will play? If those opposed to VOE prevail, and Lister's still in it, it's all good for him.
A certain number of people who would otherwise support Sten are feeling more than a little miffed at being bypassed by the council (Sten, in particular) in their implementation of the "Voter Owned Elections" (VOE) plan - the "voters" didn't get to vote on it.
Those folks, and more than a few others who "matter" in this town, while perhaps not ideological fellow travelers with Lister, seem to know and respect him and may vote for him out of that respect and/or to express their pique. The latter motivation is petty, but useful for Lister.
Sten will have to spend a good deal of his (excuse me, your) campaign funds on an attempt to secure a majority in the "primary", hoping to avoid a runoff. Crass and calculating as it sounds, that's a perfect scenario for Lister. His entry will further dilute the vote so that the likelihood of either of the others getting 50% or more is practically nil.
If Lister can get into the runoff, he's got some advantages over either of the others
Sten carries a ton of baggage and, with all the talk of city income taxes in the air, will be under increased scrutiny from fiscally conscious folks as a known waster of the public's money, especially since he's going the VOE route.
Burdick will be saddled with some unavoidable and exploitable issues. Primary among them is her long association with political insiders and their cronies in city and state government. Prior to her legislative current legislative gig, to which she was first elected in 1996, she was, from 1987 to 1993, a member and officer of the LCDC - not a favorite of supporters of measure 37. Another plus, (NOT) she was appointed to her position by Neil Goldschmidt. She has served on the board of NARAL and The Nature Conservancy. She also serves on the City of Portland Fire and Police Disability and Pension Fund board. Being a politician, she has a record, she's got ratings, Her 2000 campaign contribution list is here. Some other interesting facts are here and here and here.
She's now Senior Counsel/Public Affairs at Gard and Gerber. Being a lawyer for a large ad/PR agency just ain't what it used to be in these times of generalized mistrust of both lawyers and spin factories. In fact, some would consider it a double whammy. G&G's recent clients include ODOT, OHSU & other popular state agencies - again, her ties to government are inescapable. Here's how much she loves the establishment (all good reads, but check out the "Movin on up" post).
She's a wealthy, West Hills "good old girl".
Add in the fact that she and Sten will have to split the union vote and you never know.
From the personality standpoint, I don't know much about Lister or Burdick. From the little I've heard and read from Lister, it seems that he has a good grasp on what most people consider the important issues and his positions on those issues shouldn't scare anyone but the crazies away. It's likely that the smart play against either of the others would be to stay calm and avuncular (I hope that's the right word).
If he comes through the runoff, whichever of the other "usual suspects" has survived will be feeling the pressure (lack of money, if it's Sten) and may become shrill. Avoiding shrill is key.
I think.
It should play to Lister's strengths.
I hope. ¶ 4:19 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
HOW TO CONTROL THE ARGUMENT
I listened to part of an interview yesterday afternoon on the Tom Parker show on KPAM. Tom, a pretty conservative fellow (from all I hear on his show) had Vicki Phillips on. I must say Tom seemed a little credulous as he listened and reacted to the standard litany (SL) from Phillips about "funding cuts", teacher layoffs, shortened school years, etc. She even brought up my favorite, how administrative costs account for only about 4% of PPS' budget after all the streamlining and "hard work" she and the school board have done.
Near the end of the interview Phillips asserted (I can't quote exactly) that they (she and the school board) "... turned over all the rocks to find cost savings and now there was nothing left to do but ask for more taxes." ("or else", see SL above ).
The most dramatic idea she tossed out other than the SL was closing more schools. Why? Just because there aren't nearly enough kids to warrant keeping about a dozen of them open? That only sounds drastic to Phillips because it might jeopardize her job.
I realized that she and the board had evidently not turned over some of the biggest "rocks" in the system. I realized that, apparently, some rocks were - like cartoons of Muhammed - sacred.
If they ever want to provide a good education "for the kids" and not just placate the OEA by providing a good deal "for the teachers", here are a few "rocks" that the school board had better turn over:
Huge PERS costs - how to reduce them.
PPS historic weakness in contract negotiations. A stunning (in any other milieu) demonstration of the board's lack of backbone and real responsibility to their employers - the taxpayers (not just the special interest groups, and I include parents).
Vouchers/Charter Schools
Privatization
and, scariest of all,
Means tested tuition for public school students.
All these ideas are out there - all proposed by one or more folks with solid credentials in the education field (as opposed to me). The sole reason they aren't seriously considered is the power and PR of the teachers unions; aided and abetted by parent activists who short-sightedly buy into the OEABS. Band-Aids will no longer work. The patient is hemorraging. Major surgery is required.
As for new taxes,
I listened to part of an interview yesterday afternoon on the Tom Parker show on KPAM. Tom, a pretty conservative fellow (from all I hear on his show) had Vicki Phillips on. I must say Tom seemed a little credulous as he listened and reacted to the standard litany (SL) from Phillips about "funding cuts", teacher layoffs, shortened school years, etc. She even brought up my favorite, how administrative costs account for only about 4% of PPS' budget after all the streamlining and "hard work" she and the school board have done.
Near the end of the interview Phillips asserted (I can't quote exactly) that they (she and the school board) "... turned over all the rocks to find cost savings and now there was nothing left to do but ask for more taxes." ("or else", see SL above ).
The most dramatic idea she tossed out other than the SL was closing more schools. Why? Just because there aren't nearly enough kids to warrant keeping about a dozen of them open? That only sounds drastic to Phillips because it might jeopardize her job.
I realized that she and the board had evidently not turned over some of the biggest "rocks" in the system. I realized that, apparently, some rocks were - like cartoons of Muhammed - sacred.
If they ever want to provide a good education "for the kids" and not just placate the OEA by providing a good deal "for the teachers", here are a few "rocks" that the school board had better turn over:
Huge PERS costs - how to reduce them.
PPS historic weakness in contract negotiations. A stunning (in any other milieu) demonstration of the board's lack of backbone and real responsibility to their employers - the taxpayers (not just the special interest groups, and I include parents).
Vouchers/Charter Schools
Privatization
and, scariest of all,
Means tested tuition for public school students.
All these ideas are out there - all proposed by one or more folks with solid credentials in the education field (as opposed to me). The sole reason they aren't seriously considered is the power and PR of the teachers unions; aided and abetted by parent activists who short-sightedly buy into the OEABS. Band-Aids will no longer work. The patient is hemorraging. Major surgery is required.
As for new taxes,
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.
"If you always do what you've always done and expect different results - you're insane.
It's time to employ a different educational paradigm, and a willingness to discuss the dismal state government controlled education is in today is the real test of whether someone cares about this society and its children. ...the consequences of staying on our current path are more than anyone is willing to pay."
Or, like students, forced to pay.
¶ 11:33 AM 0 comments
Thursday, February 02, 2006
I feel special.
When you wonder why all the "issues" on the front burner for city government and the front page of the Oregonian don't coincide with your interests; just remember, your interests aren't "special". Tom Potter wants to spend over a million dollars not for street repair, law enforcement, or to open jail beds. He wants to spend it for a study, or survey, or "blue ribbon panel" to help with "visioning". For the life of me, I would have sworn he was already having visions.
Potter wants to find out how Portlanders see their city looking in 10, 20, 30 years.
What he doesn't seem to want is to know how citizens see their city as it is now.
He apparently believes (or has been led to believe by special interest groups) that this "visioning" thing is of paramount importance. And in this town you'd better cater to your audience - they're watching. They're watching you, and themselves in the mirror. Appearance is everything. It matters less that you do good, and more that you look as if you're doing good.
It's what's expected of the 21st century mayor of a progressive city like Portland.
Who expects it, you ask?
Thanks for asking.
Tom Potter not only doesn't have his own vision for the future of Portland, which one might have reasonably expected from someone who wants to be mayor - he doesn't have a clue as to how it should look today. He's not the only one. Portland's (and many, if not most cities') government is run and staffed by special interests - "lifers" in the "business of government" (I like that phrase. I think it's an oxymoron, though) Their existence is predicated on feeding egos, soothing ruffled feathers and using the art of "quid pro quo" to help maintain the status quo. You ain't gonna get elected if you rock the boat. And once you do, you're all in the same boat. Except that the officers and crew of the Love Boat that is Portland's city government are almost all deaf.
There are two ways to deal with hearing loss; pretend you're not or get a hearing aid. City Hall, in its all-too-obvious vanity, has chosen the former path. And now he wonders "what went wrong" with his income tax proposal. He's mystified. Everybody he "heard" in the process of putting togather the plan screamed the same thing - "more money, more funding, more taxes!".
Now I don't like to scream - most people don't - it's unseemly and tiresome. But in this environment, the screamers are the winners. And the special interest groups are accomplished screamers.
The screamers are bicyclists, environmentalists, dope smokers, GLBT's, Homer Williams (money screams at a pitch beyond the range of normal human hearing but, believe me, it's heard by polititians), public employee and teacher unions, neighborhood associations, disabled people, even those industrious homeless folks at Dignity Village. The attention, dollars and action they command from city government as a result of their decibel level is entirely disproportionate to their numbers. Tyranny of the minority, you say? You are correct, sir! (or madam). Activists of any stripe almost never speak for the majority. Neither does the majority. Which leaves quiet, polite folks at a disadvantage.
Now you may think that is reason to start screaming.
I feel your pain.
I like to think that we're all equal - novel concept, no?. I'd like to think that the wise city fathers realize that they serve the entire population - not just those who scream. I would hope that, knowing that there will always be screamers, city government would be able to discern public opinion from shouted opinion. Members of special interest groups grab the mike, turn up the amp to 11, and fire away. Even deaf people can hear them.
To be really responsible and responsive to all the citizens of Portland, city government needs to devise a method of "reaching out" (God, I hate that phrase) to average citizens. In fact, in this city, it ought to be mandatory. The sample should be random - with no "activists" allowed. The vast majority of just regular folks; who would never think of marching, demonstrating, stopping buses or burning things to make their point, might then begin to feel as if city government has "vision".
Sometimes they only whisper. Should that devalue their message or diminish their ? No. But, unfortunately, it makes them easier to miss in the din.
A citywide effort to determine the priorities of individual residents as opposed to organized groups will require the equivalent of a hearing aid - maybe door-to-door outreach, maybe human beings actually engaging citizens in conversations on dedicated phone lines, maybe both. With all the money city government wastes catering to the wants and whims of the screamers, it might be cheap in the long run. It just might force Potter and Co. to realize the costs of their present course.
Why wouldn't a city government so obviously adrift give it a try. It's just a corollary of campaign finance reform. I don't think it's an insurmountable task - nor should it be expensive.
Unless, of course, they put Erik Sten in charge
¶ 1:23 AM 1 comments
When you wonder why all the "issues" on the front burner for city government and the front page of the Oregonian don't coincide with your interests; just remember, your interests aren't "special". Tom Potter wants to spend over a million dollars not for street repair, law enforcement, or to open jail beds. He wants to spend it for a study, or survey, or "blue ribbon panel" to help with "visioning". For the life of me, I would have sworn he was already having visions.
Potter wants to find out how Portlanders see their city looking in 10, 20, 30 years.
What he doesn't seem to want is to know how citizens see their city as it is now.
He apparently believes (or has been led to believe by special interest groups) that this "visioning" thing is of paramount importance. And in this town you'd better cater to your audience - they're watching. They're watching you, and themselves in the mirror. Appearance is everything. It matters less that you do good, and more that you look as if you're doing good.
It's what's expected of the 21st century mayor of a progressive city like Portland.
Who expects it, you ask?
Thanks for asking.
Tom Potter not only doesn't have his own vision for the future of Portland, which one might have reasonably expected from someone who wants to be mayor - he doesn't have a clue as to how it should look today. He's not the only one. Portland's (and many, if not most cities') government is run and staffed by special interests - "lifers" in the "business of government" (I like that phrase. I think it's an oxymoron, though) Their existence is predicated on feeding egos, soothing ruffled feathers and using the art of "quid pro quo" to help maintain the status quo. You ain't gonna get elected if you rock the boat. And once you do, you're all in the same boat. Except that the officers and crew of the Love Boat that is Portland's city government are almost all deaf.
There are two ways to deal with hearing loss; pretend you're not or get a hearing aid. City Hall, in its all-too-obvious vanity, has chosen the former path. And now he wonders "what went wrong" with his income tax proposal. He's mystified. Everybody he "heard" in the process of putting togather the plan screamed the same thing - "more money, more funding, more taxes!".
Now I don't like to scream - most people don't - it's unseemly and tiresome. But in this environment, the screamers are the winners. And the special interest groups are accomplished screamers.
The screamers are bicyclists, environmentalists, dope smokers, GLBT's, Homer Williams (money screams at a pitch beyond the range of normal human hearing but, believe me, it's heard by polititians), public employee and teacher unions, neighborhood associations, disabled people, even those industrious homeless folks at Dignity Village. The attention, dollars and action they command from city government as a result of their decibel level is entirely disproportionate to their numbers. Tyranny of the minority, you say? You are correct, sir! (or madam). Activists of any stripe almost never speak for the majority. Neither does the majority. Which leaves quiet, polite folks at a disadvantage.
Now you may think that is reason to start screaming.
I feel your pain.
I like to think that we're all equal - novel concept, no?. I'd like to think that the wise city fathers realize that they serve the entire population - not just those who scream. I would hope that, knowing that there will always be screamers, city government would be able to discern public opinion from shouted opinion. Members of special interest groups grab the mike, turn up the amp to 11, and fire away. Even deaf people can hear them.
To be really responsible and responsive to all the citizens of Portland, city government needs to devise a method of "reaching out" (God, I hate that phrase) to average citizens. In fact, in this city, it ought to be mandatory. The sample should be random - with no "activists" allowed. The vast majority of just regular folks; who would never think of marching, demonstrating, stopping buses or burning things to make their point, might then begin to feel as if city government has "vision".
Sometimes they only whisper. Should that devalue their message or diminish their ? No. But, unfortunately, it makes them easier to miss in the din.
A citywide effort to determine the priorities of individual residents as opposed to organized groups will require the equivalent of a hearing aid - maybe door-to-door outreach, maybe human beings actually engaging citizens in conversations on dedicated phone lines, maybe both. With all the money city government wastes catering to the wants and whims of the screamers, it might be cheap in the long run. It just might force Potter and Co. to realize the costs of their present course.
Why wouldn't a city government so obviously adrift give it a try. It's just a corollary of campaign finance reform. I don't think it's an insurmountable task - nor should it be expensive.
Unless, of course, they put Erik Sten in charge
¶ 1:23 AM 1 comments
