Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts archived in Public and Private

0 comments

7:52 AM

April 20, 2010

Security v. Zealotry

Ah, but a fine day to consider the naught but contentious issue of gun control/gun rights.

This topic arose for my consideration after my steadfast refusal to pay service to its controversy because of two recent stories that marked headlines. I have been obstinate in considering this issue in earnest primarily because every ounce of controversy leveled in regards to gun control/gun rights are grossly disproportionate to the effects in real life. When tea partiers and militia members become paranoid “black helicopter” fanatics, and espouse conspiracy theories as their “rational” basis for protest, I am not compelled. When progressive views on the matter, including specifically things like the former handgun bans in DC and Chicago, are painted in the media with broad strokes, I am not compelled. But often a dichotomy that exists on an issue will present itself and thus compels an answer, or at least an opinion.

The first story is not exactly a new one, but a new chapter (for that matter the second story isn’t a new one either). The BBC reports that Somali pirates have hijacked 3 Thai fishing vessels with 77 crew members aboard. In this new chapter, the pirates have pushed their operations farther east of Somalia than in recent history. Piracy on the open seas has a long and entrenched history in our world, so it isn’t like these Somalis are particularly inventive or original, and nor is it true that this threat is new. As such, it appears prudent that self-defense should be encouraged among those wishing to venture upon and make a living off of the sea.

As the hijacking involving US vessels last year highlighted, many of these vessels are sitting ducks (literally) for piracy. So the common sense answer should be one that encourages self-defense, in this case, vessels carrying valuable bounties should arm themselves so as to at the least discourage the act of and increase the dangers of piracy. I know I am not alone in this perception, and I know that this alone won’t make piracy vanish.

Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge the history of US military/naval interventions that were necessary results of piracy, with most recently the much publicized attack on the Maerck Alabama. Of the hundreds of military interventions that the US pursued before the 20th century, many were the result of American ships (aka American goods) being hijacked. Remember the whole “shores of Tripoli” line? That was piracy again, as the fledgling independent America endeavored to stave off the threat of piracy that was previously controlled through bribes to pirate states. To put it another way – we have a history with piracy.

Simply enough, considering the lawless nature of open sea travel even to this day, the right to defend oneself from pirates falls under the umbrella of causes for endorsing the second amendment.

Now onto the second story. This too has a history within America (albeit more contained within the landmass of our nation). And it similarly revolves around perceived threats and contrived scenarios which amplify those threats.

ABC News ran a story Saturday April 17th highlighting the fact that any schmuck can show up to a gun show, which infamously showcase every sort of mechanized assault weapon outside the military, and purchase their weapons of choice without being subject to a background check, permitting or any other public safety measures. This, mind you, was the precise route taken by the mentally ill Virginia Tech student who murdered his brethren in cold blood in 2007.

Without fail, every time a politician attempts to add a layer of control to the way people purchase arms or the amount of arms a person can purchase, gun rights fanatics portray it as an affront to the very foundation of our liberty. Undoubtedly, these folks conjure up images of federal agents barging in their door one day, and them left defenseless because of a liberal gun control law.

But that delusion is precisely that – delusional. Not one single person that I can recall in recent history, at least not a single person who actually has the means to do so (thus worth taking seriously), has ever proposed abolishing the second amendment. But based on the tone and incendiary rhetoric used by gun rights activists and militia members, you’d think that Barack Obama had proposed such action. But he hasn’t.

More to the point though, legislating things like background checks, permitting processes and other public safety measures before one can legally own a firearm does not preclude one from being able to defend themselves or engage in the sport as they so chose. Legislating things like an assault weapons ban does not preclude one from being able to defend themselves, it just precludes them from engaging in the delusion that they are a one-man army.

From a March 26, 2010 federal court ruling on the matter of public safety measures for gun ownership, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina opined:

“While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited,”

But as is typical in our self-interested lawsuit frivolous nation, the plaintiffs who brought this case before Judge Urbina will continue to tie up the appeals system and will continue to argue that the city of Washington DC requiring permitting, fingerprinting and background checks prior to gun ownership is “too burdensome”.

So we’re talking about deadly weapons here. Things that when one is not careful can take another life. A gun weighs a few pounds, made of metal, relies upon a combustion mechanism to make it effective and many people consider it essential to their concept of freedom. Let me make an analogy here, because this isn’t frontier world where savage natives attack and the redcoats are coming, this is 2010 and societies rely upon an indispensable amount of social cohesion and order for them to function.

Many Americans live in an area where they cannot walk or bike or take a bus to accomplish all of the day’s necessary tasks. Thus, they drive. A car for many is an undeniable source of freedom, and in our government’s tacit acknowledgment of this, they even built roads for us to drive on! Without a car, many would be stuck within a small radius of their domicile and their lives would not function precisely the same as they did before. But the right to drive a car is not featured in the bill of rights, one may say, so how does this relate to gun ownership? Good question.

The car weighs hundreds if not thousands of pounds, made of metal mostly, relies upon a combustion mechanism to make it effective and many people consider it essential to their concept of freedom. A car is a deadly weapon, it speeds along a narrow passage at high speeds, and if one is not careful when operating it it can take another life. Thus, there are necessary procedures put in place to ensure that proper use of this dangerous product of modern technology is at least put in check. We have to go through a permitting process, take tests, exhibit our ability to safely operate the machine under the keen eye of a government employee, and in adopting/accepting this as necessary to overall public safety we enter our names, pictures, addresses, mother’s maiden name and identifying information into a government database.

But in doing so are we abrogating our freedom?

Hardly, and any who wish to argue so would quickly realize the foolishness of their logic.

Yet somehow, this common sense logic applied to motor vehicles (in acknowledgment of their propensity to cause great injury, death, havoc and prdoperty damage), does not translate to armed weaponry? Somehow the government’s attempts to privilege public safety over a fool’s right to an unlimited supply of weaponry is endangering our freedom?

Thus the distinction is made, between the zealous pursuits of gun rights fundamentalists and those who earnestly recognize the role of arms within our modern society. As such, it is appalling to see the casual disregard for other people’s sense of safety wielded by those paranoid sorts who form militias, stockpile arms and attempt to subvert the government. Whose interests are really being protected by the media fight to insure that unabated gun ownership and freedom are synonymous? Whose interests are at stake if gun dealers were required to adhere to the same laws that govern the rest of the deadly weapon market? Whose freedoms are abridged when one has to substantiate their identity and prove that they can safely brandish a weapon before purchasing one? Whose fundamental freedoms are in danger when unlimited pursuit of more, bigger, faster, better weapons is not part of our Second Amendment vocabulary?

What is that old saying – follow the money?

0 comments

3:53 PM

March 10, 2010

Students v. Inertia (students not banks)

For the last 2 weeks student riots, protests, and other civil unrest made the pages of several leading publications; the topics receiving the most scorn from students and most attention in the media’s coverage were tuition hikes, funding cuts, and student loan reform. These protests have been focused in California, spreading across nearly every state campus from Berkeley to LA, because of the enormous cuts threatened by the state legislatures as results of massive budget shortfalls.

The economic stimulus package provided California over 36$ billion, more than 2$ billion of which was allocated directly by the Department of Education, yet the state continues to face large enough of budgetary issues to warrant continued underfunding of public school districts and state colleges. With stories like this coming to represent not isolated issues that are a product of a state whose legislature refuses to legislate, but widespread economic instability undermining our nation’s ability to improve our education system, it becomes hard to bow to arguments against a second economic stimulus in favor of reducing national deficits and debt.

For one thing, any solutions to fixing our debt and deficits would not actually remove said debt or deficit for many years, potentially even decades for that staggering debt we have. What remains as a more potent reality though, is that when our economy is producing goods and producing jobs and producing real economic growth, our deficits will fall as a product of increased revenue. The only reason deficit spending remains a valuable option for our federal government in rectifying our national and state economic disparities is specifically because the government has the ability to do so. States have much more difficulty doing so, yet the ensuing year after the first stimulus became law provided copious evidence to suggest that the deficit spending of the federal government has helped economies locally, regionally and nationally. Principled arguments against deficit spending in recessions can be as principled as they like, but while their principle is thriving more Americans would be losing jobs, states would be facing even more dire budgetary shortfalls, public schools would suffer, and unemployment insurance would have dried up last February for millions of Americans. This plight is exactly what the Obama administration staved off with the enactment of the Recovery Act and other assistance given to state and local municipalities, but that plight would be an ensuing reality if principle were allowed to outweigh the constraints of a recession that strangles our economy.

Such is the backdrop to the debate in Washington that will hopefully be passionately advocated for by the Democrats in Congress whose election was secured in no small part due to the involvement of young voters and students – as bailed-out mega banks like JP Morgan, Chase and Sallie Mae are lobbying to get their paws on even more taxpayer money that would otherwise go towards helping students in college and those seeking higher education with the enactment of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221). I’ve written about this in the past, complaining specifically “Where are the Student Groups?“, when not one week after Obama laid out his reforms to help defray the rising cost of college tuition in the State of the Union Address news broke that the largest student lenders were spending millions to lobby Congress to stop HR 3221. They currently receive massive subsidies to provide low-interest loans to students seeking financial aid, and those subsidies would stop as the federal Direct Loan program would be the sole entity to disburse the federal financial aid that some 10 million students originated just last year.

My hopes seem to have been vindicated in these last few weeks though, as national campaigns to pass the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act have been gaining momentum through the media coverage of protests in California and the support of several progressive media outlets. Firedoglake, for one, has originated a petition and a ‘call you Senator’ campaign advocating for student lending reform – they call it “Students not Banks”. Indeed, part of their campaign as well is to urge the Senate to pass this needed reform as somehow attached to the Health Care Reform so as to need only 50+1 votes to secure its passage into law.

The bill, which would decrease direct spending by 13$ billion by 2014, is yet to be introduced on the Senate floor. As such, it sits in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee chaired by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), and there are no scheduled actions regarding the bill at this time. We’ll be checking back later.

If you’ve got the time, or you’ve got the inclination, see if your Senator is on this list of committee members and give them a call.

Democrats by Rank

Tom Harkin (IA)
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Al Franken (MN)
Michael Bennet (CO)

Republicans by Rank

Michael B. Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John McCain (AZ)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK)
Pat Roberts (KS)

0 comments

2:51 PM

March 3, 2010

Free-market economics and public schools don’t mix.

A leading conservative voice for education reform during Bush sr.’s tenure and into the 90s has had a revelation. Diane Ravitch, who served in Bush’s Department of Education, is currently a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and has become a leading figure in the movement against applying market-based logic to education reform and to re-vitalize our public schools. This movement is characterized primarily by a push-back against the absurd logic that propelled No Child Left Behind into “21st century education reform” status under George W. Bush. This logic was supported by a bipartisan Congress in 2001 and dominated the mindset of the previous administrations though it hadn’t resulted in major congressional action until 2002. On the topic of recent attempts to reform our education system, she asserts:

“Accountability, as written into federal law, was not raising standards but dumbing down the schools,” [Ravitch] writes. “The effort to upend American public education and replace it with something that was market-based began to feel too radical for me.”

“Nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect,” she said. “They make sure that all their students study the arts, history, literature, geography, civics, foreign languages, the sciences and other subjects. They do this because this is the way to ensure good education. We’re on the wrong track.”

Her input may continue to bear an increasing influence in Washington as the Obama administration continues its efforts to rectify our ailing public school system and as NCLB faces re-authorization in the coming year. On the issue of NCLB, Ravitch wrote in 2007 that:

Under the law, the states devise their own standards and their own tests. Based on the test results, every school is expected to make “adequate yearly progress” in grades three to eight so as to be on track to meet that goal of universal proficiency by 2014. Schools that do not meet their annual target for every group of students — as defined by race, poverty, language and disability status — are subject to increasingly onerous sanctions written into the federal law.

Schools that fail to meet their target for two consecutive years must offer their students the choice to go to a more successful public school; if they fail the following year, they must provide tutoring to their students. If the students continue to miss their target, the entire teaching and administration staff may be replaced, or the school may be turned over to state control, or it may be converted into a charter school.

Yet these tough sanctions thus far have been ineffective. Federal agencies report that only about 1 percent of eligible students take advantage of switching schools and fewer than 20 percent of eligibles receive extra tutoring.

In inner cities, where academic performance is weakest, only a handful of students move to successful schools because there are very few seats available to them. In rural America, choice is limited by the small number of other schools in the geographic area. Furthermore, neither research nor experience validates any of the “remedies” written into law. There is little evidence that failing schools improve if they are turned over to state control or converted to charter status.

No Child Left Behind can, however, be salvaged if policymakers recognize that they need to reverse the roles of the federal government and the states. In our federal system, each level of government should do what it does best. The federal government is good at collecting and disseminating information. The states and school districts, being closer to the schools, teachers and parents than the federal government, are more likely to be flexible and pragmatic about designing reforms to meet the needs of particular schools.

Her policy recommendations seem to have fallen upon attentive ears, as Education Secretary Arne Duncan seems to have echoed many of Ravitch’s concerns in a recent speech on the re-authorization of ESEA/NCLB:

NCLB helped expand the standards and accountability movement. Today, we expect districts, principals and teachers to take responsibility for the academic performance of their schools and students. We can never let up on holding everyone accountable for student success. That is what we are all striving for.

Until states develop better assessments—which we will support and fund through Race to the Top—we must rely on standardized tests to monitor progress—but this is an important area for reform and an important conversation to have.

I also agree with some NCLB critics: it unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making real progress—it places too much emphasis on absolute test scores rather than student growth—and it is overly prescriptive in some ways while it is too blunt an instrument of reform in others.

But the biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn’t encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when, in fact, they are not…

Yet to divulge working details of the policy transformation, Duncan and Obama have definitely latched onto the concerns emanating from the growing gap between American students and students in many other developed nations. Among the key tenets of the Obama administration’s re-framing of the education debate are the fair, respectable compensation of educators; increased control over reforms for state and local government; metering curriculum to include a wide range of focus areas as opposed to the narrowing to reading and math as supported by NCLB; and a system that ultimately focuses upon long-term success in high school graduation and college graduation:

So today I am calling on all of you to join with us to build a transformative education law that offers every child the education they want and need—a law that recognizes and reinforces the proper role of the federal government to support and drive reform at the state and local level.

Let’s build a law that respects the honored, noble status of educators—who should be valued as skilled professionals rather than mere practitioners and compensated accordingly.

Let us end the culture of blame, self-interest and disrespect that has demeaned the field of education. Instead, let’s encourage, recognize, and reward excellence in teaching and be honest with each other when it is absent.

Let us build a law that demands real accountability tied to growth and gain both in the individual classroom and in the entire school—rather than utopian goals—a law that encourages educators to work with children at every level, the gifted and the struggling—and not just the tiny percent near the middle who can be lifted over mediocre bar of proficiency with minimal effort. That’s not education. That’s game-playing tied to bad tests with the wrong goals.

Let us build a law that discourages a narrowing of curriculum and promotes a well-rounded education that draws children into sciences and history, languages and the arts in order to build a society distinguished by both intellectual and economic prowess. Our children must be allowed to develop their unique skills, interests, and talents. Let’s give them that opportunity.

Let us build a law that brings equity and opportunity to those who are economically disadvantaged, or challenged by disabilities or background—a law that finally responds to King’s inspiring call for equality and justice from the Birmingham jail and the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Let us build an education law that is worthy of a great nation—a law that our children and their children will point to as a decisive moment in America’s history—a law that inspires a new generation of young people to go into teaching—and inspires all America to shoulder responsibility for building a new foundation of growth and possibility.

This about-face is encouraging, to say the least but when coupled with the Obama administration’s strides in moving the debate about America’s public schools towards students and away from politicians, the about-face seems inordinately logical. It seems strange to consider such well-timed initiatives as inordinately logical, but when compared to the top-down imposition of rules, standards and sanctions created under NCLB, it is heartening for politicians and executive officials to be speaking to the concerns of parents and students rather than to the ideologies of isolated think-tankers. Maybe Ravitch isn’t so isolated in that think-tank after all.

0 comments

6:26 PM

February 18, 2010

More on Warrants and Cell Phones

In another installation of the growing disparity between common-place technology and the laws that govern privacy/search & seizure, we see that local police forces are the next institution paving the way for warrantless access to electronic records/data in our increasingly digital world.

These cases revolve around the issue of under whose authority does the decision rest to search one’s smartphone or laptop, particularly if they are placed under arrest. As it stands, there is no law on the books to govern when police can legally access information on one’s phone, so chances are either the judiciary will decide this or legislatures will beat them to it. A San Mateo County judge is set to begin to hear testimony this morning, which may produce some ground rules to ensure the legality of these searches.

In my opinion, this tends to be slightly less contentious of an issue than federal-level warrantless access to electronic records/tracking info and has less potential for damaging abuses, but it still has the propensity to create conflict and abuses have taken place. For more on this issue as it develops and some more context to these cases, check out CNet here.

0 comments

4:00 PM

Public Option : Back from the dead

Senate Democrats, realizing the opportunity to re-engage a cornerstone of Health Care reform, have begun building support for holding an up-or-down vote on the public option using the budget reconciliation process (re: filibuster immune, simple majority).

The campaign began with a letter penned by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo) urging the Democratic leadership to pass the public option with a simple majority vote.

The signatories thus far inlcude (view the full list here) :

Jeff Merkeley (D-Ore) – original co-signer

Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) – original co-signer

Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) – original co-signer

Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Al Franken (D-Minn)

Pat Leahy (D-VT)

Roland Burris (D-Ill)

John Kerry (D-Mass)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Now these 18 senators do not represent enough of the caucus to include the public option in the HCR bill, but there have been numerous more senators who are tenuously voicing their support – including Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Chris Dodd (D-Conn).

These 23 senators are also joined by some 120 members of the House of Representatives, representing a sizable portion of the Congress. If your Congress-person or Senator has not yet signed onto the letter voicing their support for passing the public option, CALL THEM! EMAIL THEM! WRITE THEM!

And don’t forget – the public option was in the Senate bill!

…well, it was until Lieberman and Nelson’s votes became so damn important.

0 comments

12:38 PM

February 17, 2010

Education Reform in the Recession

In October, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced a renewed initiative to reform and critically evaluate the post-graduate programs that certify teachers. In his speech to the Teachers College at Columbia University, Duncan asserts that “by almost any standard, many if not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom…America’s university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary change–not evolutionary tinkering,”.

Within that context, of a Democratic administration that is not going to accept the status-quo in America’s education system, the move by President Obama to offer relief from the crushing costs of college tuition and the debt of student loans reinforces the necessity of reform that makes the system work better for those it is supposed to serve. This relief includes the capping of monthly loan payments at 10% of the borrower’s discretionary income, offering debt forgiveness after 20 years (10 if a career in public service is pursued), and eliminating the federal subsidies given to private lenders for student loans and instead expanding the hugely successful Direct Loan/Pell Grant program

.

Now however, the context has shifted a bit. In a time where 35 out of 50 states have budget shortfalls of over 20%, and nearly 2/3 of the stimulus funds meant to ensure that these exact budget shortfalls would not result in cuts to public school budgets has already been accounted for, there is increased pressure on states to proceed with reforms within this cash-strapped environment. The stimulus funds apportioned to this cause were meant to ensure that public school funding would not be cut, but they also provided an incentive to reform those same public schools in the form of additional federal money.

(source : ProPublica stimulus tracker)

The problem, however, is that many states have proceeded to cut their public school funding while simultaneously accepting billions of dollars in stimulus money.  According to an October report issued by the Department of Education inspector general:

“…some states are using the program to reduce their own funding for public education…states can collect billions of dollars in stimulus funding for education, and still reduce their own overall spending on schools to 2006 levels. The flexibility in the program was designed to let states facing severe budget shortfalls, like California, avoid cuts to their total education funding. But according to the IG, even some states that can afford to spend their money on reform may not end up doing so.”

So now, with budget shortfalls looming, stimulus funds drying up and reform efforts, in general, still being supported many states legislatures have turned their sights on public high schools. We’ve mentioned the proposals by Utah state sen. Chris Buttars that seeks to eliminate the 12th grade and bus service as being entirely antithetical to proactive reform. Alongside proposals such as that, many states have had trouble securing the funds necessary to repair their dilapidated schools as provided for in the stimulus.

But amongst this discord and angst, there remains hope for proactive reform that will benefit students.

The National Center on Education and Economy, with the aid of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is organizing a program that would allow students to begin taking college courses after their sophomore year based upon their performance on a series of exams. This notion of increasing reliance upon standardized testing may bring up bad memories of the utterly failed No Child Left Behind Act, which tied federal funding for school districts to student’s performance on certain tests, but rest assured these two programs should not be considered harmonious.

The effort is seeking to capitalize, in fact, on the 350$ million in stimulus funds designated for improving standardized testing in public school. The new series of exams would be based largely upon successful systems in Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. The purpose of such a reform is clear – to allow students who excel to move forward in their education and make college success more tangible, while providing an opportunity for school districts who perform well to lower their spending on public high schools. As well, this effort seeks to decrease the amount of student who enroll in remedial courses in college and thus decrease the amount of remedial courses that need to be offered by community colleges.

Pilot programs for the NCEE’s new coursework and evaluation standards will begin in the fall of 2011 in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Notice the distinct difference between a proposal such as this, which seeks to provide more opportunities for students, and the proposal by Buttars which seeks to sell-out students by eliminating the 12th grade?

Particularly, Buttar’s proposal benefits only the budget of Utah and supports only the ideologies of anti-public school activists, while casting off the consequences to be carried by students and teachers.

That is not reform, it is not a step forward; it is a step into uncharted territory that threatens the stability of Utah’s public school system upon which more than 96% of the state’s children depend.

0 comments

12:32 PM

February 15, 2010

Victims of the Recession : Utah Schools

Every so often, school districts face budget shortfalls. They either decide then, to hold a referendum or bond measure, or to cut back in order to work with their revenues.  But in this recession, a budget shortfall is no matter of small consequence.

In Utah, the latest attempt to rectify the state’s budgetary woes comes at the apparent expense of students attending public high school. The latest proposal, seeking to lessen the pain of a 700$ million budget shortfall, calls for the elimination of the 12th grade. Rather, it toys with the idea of eliminating the 12th grade, either fully or through an opt-out sort of arrangement.

Sidenote : the legislator who proposed this is none other than State Sen. Chris Buttars, who so callously opined that he considers gays and lesbians “the greatest threat to America going down,”. But moving on from that…

His proposal also calls for the elimination of bus service for high school students.

Seems to me, as a former public high school 12th grade, bus-riding student, that this proposal is impulsive and short-sighted. If Utah sets the precedent that budget shortfalls can be met by hacking away at the public school system, our country will be in trouble. Public school is not an entitlement, not a spending program, not social welfare and not expendable. Proposals such as this one should be called out for what they are – opportunist and disinterested.

I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes the whole-sale cutting of an entire grade has any interest in improving the public school system. Further, I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes this as a means to rectify a budget gap caused by a nationwide recession should be taken seriously as anything but an ideologue.

But then again, it may be too early to see if anyone actually takes this seriously. Things like this make for great controversy and really stir up the pot, but will it solve any problems? No. It will create a whole new slew of problems, the so-called slippery slope of selling-out Utah’s students. Because if 12th grade is dispensable, why not 11th? Why not just do away with free school lunch programs then too? Or what is to stop these partisans from just cutting all funding for school districts in time of budget shortfalls?

One thing is for sure though. I take pride in my state, Oregon’s, ability to prioritize its public schools above their corporate benefactors. We passed a tax increase, the largest one in Oregon’s history, to ensure that our budget shortfalls do not hurt the public school system and its benefactors (ie, children, students everywhere). Our state legislature passed the tax increase last year, as our 2011 budget was hinging upon the increased revenues from this increase, but it was forced to undergo a ballot referendum because of the anti-tax, Nike lobby. Even within that narrative though, common sense and the common good prevailed when a majority of Oregon voters chose their public schools over their measly 10$ minimum corporate tax rate.

0 comments

10:57 AM

Move On, Evan Bayh

So the latest thing to shake up Washington’s frail bones is the news that a conservative blue-dog Democrat from Indiana is not going to seek re-election. Sure, he had an easy 20 point lead over his nearest Republican contender in prospective polls, but the man just has got to be moving along.

What is the problem here though? It seems like from the way people are already reacting to it, that something inconceivable is happening. But really, he is a 2 term Senator – 12 years! Let him go. He has been in Washington too long already.

I’m no fan of political dynasties. Bayh had a certain edge in his pursuit of national politics, as his father was a notable Indiana political figure, which many pundits and pollsters are already saying makes any other Democrat’s chances of winning in Indiana in November slight. But fuck that. For the first time in more than half a century there will not be a single Kennedy in Congress. Yet, we continue to bemoan the electoral downfalls that occur when political dynasties end. The people who comprise these dynasties may indeed be high caliber statesmen and women, worthy of their service to our country, but I refuse to consider the political dynasty as an inherently good characteristic of any government.

There is something to say about political/congressional veterans, those who know how the machine works, in their ability to help grease the gears of legislative agendas. But is that information that cannot be communicated to someone new?

I’m the type of partisan who likes my party’s goals, but lordy do I hate my party’s tendencies. We exalt the virtues of participatory democracy, but somehow that only extends so far. For one thing, why don’t Democrats support Congressional term limits? The logic applies wonderfully to the executive, and the public implicitly accepts that as good for our country. So why does that logic not extend to the Congress?

That is what I mean by how I hate my party’s tendencies. If they ever came out to support term limits for Congress (I have no idea how much/what portion of the public would support this idea – any polls out there?), their whole electoral strategy would be flipped on its head. Political party’s love incumbents. There is no way to hide that fact. But do incumbent politicians do any better for those who elect them than freshmen would?

While I’ve got you on a tangent, I predict that the only way for a Congressional term-limit system to work would be within a public campaign finance system. Maybe that would be the way to get the Dems/Repubs behind this, to ease their purse string concerns over how expensive it would be to elect so many less incumbents. That seems pretty realistic to me though, especially considering how the gridlock and partisanship of Congress has become “common wisdom”.

0 comments

10:29 AM

Big Brother : warrantless tracking

CNET carried a wonderful article this weekend, reporting on a case brought up by the Obama justice department to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the burden of proof required to be shown by government officials in pursuing stored or prospective tracking records of people’s cell phones. These cases are not uncommon, where the electronic records from one’s telecom provider are deemed necessary in furthering an ongoing investigation – this article briefly mentions cases involving drug smuggling over the Mexico-US border and a murder in LA where suspect’s cell phone records led to their apprehension/conviction. The issue, more specifically, in this case was over exactly what burden of proof was required – be it probable cause, or relevancy or more than probable cause. This presents itself as an interesting dilemma in the execution of the coercive powers of the state, as the judiciary has taken up the cause of seeking to resolve the disparity that may exist between the rulings of different judges in so far as how cellular electronic tracking differentiates itself from other investigative methods that require a warrant to be issued from a judge.

In a 2005 case, Magistrate judge James Orenstein issued this opinion in part :

“…it is my understanding based on anecdotal information that magistrate judges in other jurisdictions are being confronted with the same issue but have not yet achieved consensus on how to resolve it. If the government intends to continue seeking authority to obtain cell site location information in aid of its criminal investigations, I urge it to seek appropriate review of this order so that magistrate judges will have more authoritative guidance in determining whether controlling law permits such relief on the basis of the relaxed standard set forth (under federal law), or instead requires adherence to the more exacting standard of probable cause.”

That was 2005, under the Bush DoJ, where the above opinion resulted in the denial of a Patriot Act surveillance request.

In this more recent case, the Obama DoJ sought to appeal a lower court ruling which was perceived by the DoJ to have required more evidence than the statute regulating the government’s obtaining of electronics records requires.  The statute, Title 18, 2703 requires less than probable cause. It requires that “the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation,”.  As such, the district court, whose opinion the Obama DoJ is appealing, asked of the government to provide probable cause.

Thus, the Obama Department of Justice believes that the tracking of individuals through their cell-phone or other electronics should not require probable cause. They believe that despite a clear judicial review of this issue, as alluded to in the 2005 opinion above, the requirements for a court order be at most what is outlined in the statute regulating this issue – if a court demands more, like probable cause, the Obama DoJ will appeal to a higher court. Keep Reading »

0 comments

9:57 PM

February 8, 2010

Victims of the Recession – Schools

Whether it was the recession or the years before the recession, our public schools are not in good shape. The latest from the NYTimes, states are reeling from the exhaustion of stimulus funds, and many face budget shortfalls that translate to budget shortfalls for schools due in large part to decreased tax revenues.

20 states are listed as having already allotted for all 100% of their stimulus funds to be spent during this school year, among those states California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia and Washington (13 others as well!). For some of these states, that fact may mean more cuts to public school budgets; but for Oregon, thanks to the passing of Measures 66 & 67, their budget/stimulus shortfalls will not effect the education of their state’s children.

Oregon is, however, facing an estimated 182$ million budget shortfall even with the tax increases in measure 66 & 67. That will mean, according to the local NPR affiliate broadcast, the curbing of some tax-credit for the state’s green energy program. Ah, the woes of a recession, but in all honesty – it could have been much worse. The next year’s budget for the state of Oregon includes over 900$ million in stimulus funds. We can sacrifice a tax credit.

0 comments

1:18 PM

February 5, 2010

Where are the student groups?

The plan for starting to fix the exorbitant costs of college tuition was laid out by President Obama in his SOTU. It included, most notably in regard to student loans (some 10 million loans were taken out last year while the amount of students who defaulted on their loans increased 30%), “limiting a borrower’s payment to 10% of his/her income and forgiving remaining debt after 20 years” (Whitehouse.gov). Such changes would drastically alter the nature of how the college student (or prospective student) makes decisions about their schooling – I would venture to guess that more would choose to seek advance degrees earlier in life (because with the loan forgiveness clause, no school debt by age 45 is a great incentive).

The House actually passed a bill that includes these exact reforms this past September. To see for yourself what it includes, check out the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act H.R. 3221. The president made a specific point to prod the Senate about catching up to the House’s impressive legislative accomplishments this past year, so all we wait upon for the most progressive education reform in decades to become the law of the land – is the Senate.

Trouble is afoot though. Trouble in the form of lobbyists for the nation’s largest private lenders, including Sallie Mae (who originated 22$ billion in student loans last year). These folks are just looking to protect their “sweet deal” as Arne Duncan calls it. “They’ve had a sweet deal. They’ve had this phenomenal deal that taxpayers have subsidized, and that’s a hard thing to give up.” (NYT 2/4/10)

So where are the student groups and parents who would benefit greatly from this reform? Why aren’t they getting sit-down meetings with Senators who are on the fence? Why aren’t college presidents writing editorials and calling Senators? Where are the teachers unions (who recently claimed huge electoral success in campaigning against big businesses like Nike for tax increases in Oregon)? There isn’t any logical reason for Senators to deny help to the millions of families and students who need it most, especially when there is a plan that does so at great lengths – all at no cost to the taxpayer. The claims made by big lenders that this legislation would cause more jobs to be lost is unfounded as well – the plan calls for incorporating the existing lending centers into an improved and more accessible customer service outlet.

It has been too long that students and families have bore the extra burden of college tuition rates that rise at nearly triple the rate of inflation. I’m calling my Senators.

0 comments

10:07 PM

February 2, 2010

Riding That Train

President Obama, Vice President Biden to Announce $8 Billion for High-Speed Rail Projects Across the Country

Mmm, mmm, mmm, I’m still thinking about those trains. I hear about them from everyone who is so bold to visit Japan or travel Europe, and every time I do I’m left imagining how radical it would be to jump on a train and confidently traverse the US. Somehow I don’t think I’m the first to have that daydream, but man is it a good one. More encouragement, from a White House press release :

The majority of the dollars announced today will go toward developing new, large-scale high-speed rail programs.  This includes projects in Florida, which is receiving up to $1.25 billion to develop a new high-speed rail corridor between Tampa and Orlando with trains running up to 168 miles per hour, and in California, which is receiving up to $2.25 billion for its planned project to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and points in between with trains running up to 220 miles per hour.

I grew up in a city that thrives largely because of the revolutionary potential of the railroad – Barrington, IL – it lies along one of the early northwest lines from Chicago and its railroad station dates from the 1920s. That train is predictably packed every day, shoveling working men and women to/from their suburban lives from/into all corners of the city. All these people benefit from the risky, headstrong investment started in the 1850s.

Now, I live in a city that doesn’t have the railroad enmeshed in its identity – Eugene, OR. Sure, we have a railroad station, a commuter train and there are freight trains. But this infrastructure is a vastly inferior amenity than the railroad is around Chicago. The rail stops in Eugene along the way from Sacramento to Seattle and is party to a beautiful landscape all through Southern Oregon. But I haven’t found a single opportunity to make good use of the train yet (this is terrible for me to realize as I’m now thinking about how essential the train was in Barrington). I say this because the one time I attempted to make a good use of the train, a week long trip from Eugene to San Fransisco with my lovely lady, we were delayed for about 12 hours and the train proved too expensive and unreliable to ride it back (we flew back). To say the least, Eugene and larger Oregon is wasting the potential of the rail.

Below is a segment of the award descriptions and amounts in the “West Region” made up of California and Eugene-Portland-Seattle :

Considering that California is now going to be moving forward with the LA – SF High-Speed Rail, I am a bit dismayed that there isn’t any movement in that direction yet in the Pacific Northwest. An Eugene – Portland line that can reliably ferry larger volumes of commuters would do wonders for the people of the Willamette Valley – and it could easily transfer to the Airport light-rail in Portland. It could even benefit the relationship between Eugene and Corvallis, which have so much to offer each other – currently though, if I am going to get in the car and go 40 minutes anywhere it will be into the mountains or to the ocean. That is a much different situation though, if it is a no-hassle ride on the train for a low-easy fare.

« Older Entries