Is there a bear in the woods?

While we appropriately fight against the evil and expansionist Islamo-Facists, we must not forget to keep an eye on the bear. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2005 by Anders Aslund should provide those who are paying any attention with concern. Further, the violence perpetrated against those who criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his drift away from relations with the West is chronicled in numerous reports from writers of all political and philosophical persuasions. The question is, do our political leaders appropriately recognize this threat and take it seriously? Perhaps it is time to run the old Reagan advertisement to remind them:

Underwriting perversion

I generally don’t engage in promoting boycotts based upon the politics or even social positions of various companies; except, of course, anything associated with the treasonous Jane Fonda.

Having said that, I am now declaring that unless Miller Brewing Company withdraws its support of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair (billed as the "world's largest leather event") I will never wet my palate with a Miller product again. This is not much of a sacrifice on a personal level because my beer of choice comes from Colorado. But, I will resist allowing any of the number of organizations I am involved to purchase Miller products for events, and I will decline the offer of any Miller product and explain my reasons to the generous host.

Miller is the major sponsor of the Folsom Street Fair, and I have written and asked that they withdraw their support. The following story explains my consternation.

California Taxpayers Subsidize Gay Mockery of Last Supper

Organizers of San Francisco’s hedonistic Folsom Street Fair -- sponsored by Miller Brewing, Co. -- have portrayed Christ and His disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement. The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.





Read the full story at Human Events.

UPDATE:
The media relations department at Miller Brewing Company has indicated that the company does not support the offensive poster (above) and that Miller has asked that their logo be removed from the poster immediately. This did not satisfy this consumer, so I submitted an email asking if Miller will remove its corporate funding of this offensive event. I'll keep OAF readers (all several of you) posted about any response I receive from Miller.

Grading the Governor

Working with Senator Dennis Hollingsworth and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, FlashReport (FR) has compiled the FR's 2007 Top Twenty Bills the Governor Should Veto. FR will track the bills and issue a letter grade to the Governor based upon his actions. OAF readers (all several of you) should check in at FR daily and monitor the status of the actions of California’s “post-partisan” Governor. Does anyone wish to hazard a guess on what grade will be earned?

Accountability and school choice are benefits for children

The following story from the San Francisco Chronicle highlights not a failure, but a success in public education; a success that has only been achieved by allowing public charter schools to be opened in spite of huge opposition by the monopolistic “education coalition” (non-charter public school advocates).

Why would one call the closing of two charter schools a success? Simply put, because the failing schools were closed, and the students will be required to find new schools. Ask yourself, when was the last time a traditional non-charter public school required to close due to academic failure? It doesn’t happen; instead, the state calls them “high priority schools” and gives them more money.

As a society we would be better off if we allowed more choice in education and then held schools truly accountable for providing an education to children; charter schools are one positive development toward that goal.

2 Oakland charter schools ordered to shut down
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, September 20, 2007

(09-19) 22:09 PDT Oakland -- A pair of space-themed Oakland charter schools with roughly 80 students between them must shut down because of substandard instruction and low enrollment, the state Board of Education voted Tuesday, upholding a school district decision.

The Space Exploration Academy high school and the Junior Space Exploration Academy middle school had been open just five months when the Oakland Unified School District decided in February to shut them down.

School officials appealed the decision to the state Board of Education. Tuesday's board vote means today will be the last day the schools can operate.

The schools - which offered classes from sixth through tenth grade - had enrolled far fewer than the 200 students promised, according to district documents.

Classes were also in disarray, said administrators who made unscheduled visits last fall.
"The sixth-grade math instructor did not probe for understanding, explain erroneous answers, or engage nonrespondents," according to a report by Liane Zimny, then the head of the district's charter schools, who visited the schools in November with Kimberly Statham, then the state administrator for Oakland schools.

Zimny reported that the ninth-grade had few books and no textbooks. The task list on the blackboard had a misspelled word - "d-e-f-i-n-a-t-l-y" - and instructed students to do work that was far below grade level, such as writing the word "find" four times in cursive, Zimny wrote.

The science lab was also not operating, and "a large, dirty rag was on the floor of the multipurpose room where students ate lunch," she reported.

In all, both schools failed to fulfill 15 of 33 operating conditions, according to district records.

"We're disappointed," said Camron Gorguinpour, the schools' executive director. "I'm particularly concerned that there was little discussion about the actual merits of our school - especially in light of positive test scores that both of our schools received."

The schools enrolled only two grades last school year: sixth and ninth. State records show that of 29 sixth-graders who took the state's English language-arts test in the spring, 17 percent scored at grade level or above. Of the 15 ninth-graders who took the English test, 47 percent scored at grade level or above.

Gorguinpour, who said he is mystified about why the district tried to close the school before the scores were in, had disputed each of the district's allegations in a February memo. He said the administrators were making snap judgments based on insufficient time observing classes and without giving the school enough time to respond to its requests.

Gorguinpour's Web site says he holds bachelor's degrees in physics and astrophysics from UC Berkeley. The site also describes him as president and co-founder of a Berkeley educational nonprofit group called Space Science Outreach and Research, listed in state records as the schools' sponsoring agency.

The schools' Web site says that NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View is "involved in the development and operation of the Space Exploration Academies," promising professional development programs for its teachers.

Gorguinpour appealed the district's February decision to revoke its charter. On Tuesday, the state Board of Education voted 6-0 to uphold the district's decision.

District officials said they will help the Space Exploration Academies' students find other schools to attend.

Make way for Moonbeam

Sacramento Bee columnist, Dan Walters, paints an accurate picture of Attorney General “Moonbeam” Brown today in a column regarding the bogus lawsuit that would assign blame to auto manufacturers for global warming. Walters writes, “Brown, meanwhile, clearly wants to return to the governorship three years hence and will use global warming as his vehicle. That's why, for instance, he's been suing, or threatening to sue, local governments for their alleged failure to consider global warming in their development planning.”

“Cynical? Of course, but classic Jerry Brown, who has always sought to exploit the currently trendy issue, whatever it might be.”

The Walters column highlights the cynical and exploitative actions of now-Treasurer Bill Lockyer and AG Moonbeam – it is really worth a read: Auto suit unmasked as a stunt.

I am not sure which frightens me more, that Moonbeam wants to be Governor again; or, that the people of California would actually elect him to anything.

Post-partisan Schwarzenegger purges all remnants of conservatism that plagued him during his quest for election

He ran as a “blow up the boxes” fiscal conservative, garnering the support of “win at any cost” Republicans, and then:

Led the year of “post-partisan” legislative liberalism, enacted major government regulations on business and promoted nanny-state social liberalism.

Crushed his fellow Republicans during a statewide reelection campaign to ensure “post-partisan” Democrat hegemony in Sacramento.

Proved that he has absolutely no core principles by breaking the one promise that seemed to be believable – embracing tax increases.

Does the following demonstrate political hypocrisy, lack of any principles, political expediency, or all of the above? You be the judge:

Candidate Schwarzenegger
"I feel the people of California have been punished enough. From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet they're taxed. When they go get a coffee they're taxed. When they get in their car they're taxed. When they go to the gas station they're taxed. When they go to lunch they're taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, August 20, 2003

Newly-Elected Governor Schwarzenegger
“A tax increase would be the final nail in California's financial coffin. The people of California did not elect me to destroy jobs and businesses by raising taxes.” Governor Schwarzenegger, State of the State, January 6, 2004

Social and Economic Liberal "post-partisan" Arnold Schwarzenegger
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said he's open to a general tax increase to pay for health care for the uninsured, but will leave it to voters to decide. The governor, who has adamantly opposed proposed tax hikes in the past, told a Capitol news conference, "I never close the door on anything." Sacramento Bee, Governor talks of health care tax 9/18/07.

Hopefully, Republicans in Sacramento read Philip Klein's post-election analysis and will prove to the people of California that genuine Republicans still stand for less government and more freedom.

A Rose is a Rose

The great debate over whether Governor Schwarzenegger’s health insurance mandate includes a tax increase or not is raging at the FlashReport in articles penned by Jon Coupal from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Mike Genest who serves as the Governor’s Finance Director. I commend both columns to the few who actually read this blog:

Dead Parrots and Tax Increases by Jon Coupal; and the less creatively titled

Governor's Health Care Reforms Do Not Include A Tax Increase by Mike Genest.

The clearest statement on the tax issue is articulated by Mr. David Henderson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution in his article Terminator Care published in the Wall Street Journal…

“It [the Governor’s plan] would require employers to provide health insurance; give them the option of paying a tax instead of providing health insurance…”

He [Mr. Schwarzenegger] would require employers with 10 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a 4% tax on all wages covered by Social Security… Gov. Schwarzenegger would throw in a 2% tax on doctors and a 4% tax on hospitals to help fund Medi-Cal, California's name for Medicaid.

I just can’t wait for Mr. Genest’s next column about the personal income tax fee.

Steven Maviglio's Rants Are Laughable

Or… Bipartisan means “Democrat Agenda”

It is really kind of funny that every time Governor Schwarzenegger proposes anything that does not emanate from the agenda of the radical left, Democrat flak Steven Maviglio accuses the Governor of trying to play to the “right wing.”

I refer you to two of his recent rants on the Democrats blog.

The first rant, railing against the idea of making those who receive taxpayer funds through government transfer programs (i.e. welfare) actually play by the rules, makes perfect sense to me; when Democrats promote socialism they mean it… and there darn well better be no rules that might make it difficult. Ok, I’m being a little silly here but two things are true: first, the Governor said he would remove people from the program if they are not following the rules of the program (e.g. participating in job training programs); and second, the Democrats always oppose anything that might result in reducing the welfare state and in doing so they accuse Republicans of trying to starve children or the elderly. So, the first rant made sense – after all, it is from the standard Democrat playbook (you remember, when all else fails accuse them of being “mean spirited.”)

The second rant is the one I don’t fully understand. Since when did the idea of building dams become a “right wing” concept? I’m fairly certain that there was a time when Democrats believed in building infrastructure – even dams. For example; Shasta Dam was built between 1938 and 1945 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) and Gov. Frank Merriam (R); Friant Dam 1939-42, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), Gov. Culbert Olson (D), Folsom Dam 1948-56, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R), Bradbury 1950-53, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R); and the New Melones Dam built 1966-79, President Lyndon Johnson (D), Gov. Pat Brown (D) and Gov. Ronald Reagan (R). It all seems pretty bipartisan to me.

But in 2007 building dams is evidently a “right wing” agenda item. Why, one might wonder, is building dams no longer a bipartisan agenda? The answer is actually simple; because the radical environmentalists are a major special interest in control of the leftwing Democrat party. Why do radial environmentalists hate dams? Well, that is a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say – radical environmentalists hate dams, legislative Democrats hate dams.

Make no mistake, when Steven Maviglio talks about bipartisanship he does not mean an agenda that draws support from both parties; he means an agenda that is put forth by leftwing Democrats and embraced by Governor Schwarzenegger. Mr. Maviglio’s rants about Governor Schwarzenegger “veering” right (in the midst of the Governor’s proposal to raise taxes and socialize healthcare) is a bit laughable.

Indulge a little digression and “funning” for a moment…

Perhaps Republicans should accuse Democrats of being “mean spirited” for opposing the construction of dams for several reasons: (1) Democrats are just being mean to retirees who like to fish – fewer dams means fewer reservoirs; (2) Democrats are damaging the environment – all those folks in the city who like water recreation (e.g. water skiing) have to drive excessive miles to reach the current reservoirs – more fossil fuels burned hurts the environment; (3) by preventing the expansion of environmentally friendly hydroelectric power Democrats are driving up the cost of electricity thereby hurting the neediest in California – pretty soon children of single mothers will be homeless and shoeless; and, (4) ultimately, by denying the development of additional water storage, Democrats are trying to dehydrate older people and young children which is a serious health risk – pretty soon dehydrated people will start dropping like flies in Walmart stores all over California.

O.K., I admit, this list is a little over the edge, but I’m just trying to keep the discourse on public policy in the same spirit as promoted by the leftwing Democrats.

The Politics of the Bizarre

Vice Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee Jim Battin posted on Flash Report today making the case for Senate Republicans to stop the appointment Joe Nunez, CTA lobbyist and Arnold Schwarzenegger antagonist, to the State Board of Education. Senator Battin’s post can be read here.

Making the case for Senator Battin is the California Democrat Party who posted the following on their own website:

Arnold's Own Appointee Presses Charges: The Sacramento Bee reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently reappointed Joe Nuñez to the State Board of Education. One day later, Nuñez courageously announced that he is "filing a five-page complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against Schwarzenegger and the governor's old campaign vehicle, the California Recovery Team." The complain demands that "the FPPC investigate and file a civil suit against Schwarzenegger and the California Recovery Team over what the alliance charged were 'blatant violations' of the Political Reform Act" - violations outlined in the 3rd District Court of Appeal's rulings. Nuñez urged the FPPC "to depose Gov. Schwarzenegger and his political consultants" to find out if there was "an overall plan by his campaign to hide from the press and the public the true nature of his committee's expenditures."

The appointment (actually, reappointment) of Joe Nunez to the State Board of Education by Governor Schwarzenegger caused Dan Weintraub to comment:

This is the equivalent of George Bush appointing Michael Moore as his ambassador to Iraq. Either Schwarzenegger has figured out a very creative way to shore up his relationship with the CTA or he has very strange judgment in appointments. And given the Nunez quote in today's press release, it doesn't look as if the governor's guy is building many bridges. Bizarre.

Chalk this up as just one more example of a rudderless and drifting vessel – in this case it appears to be one completely bereft of any political common sense.

RIP President Gerald Ford

"My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age," Mrs. Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband's office in Rancho Mirage. "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."

Read the full story from AP here.

Mr. Mayor's LAUSD Powergrab is Tossed

Judge tosses out mayor's takeover of L.A. schools
A law giving Villaraigosa control over some campuses violates state Constitution, jurist says.
By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin
Times Staff Writers

December 22, 2006

A Superior Court judge Thursday struck down legislation that gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District, a stunning setback to his plans for assuming direct control of dozens of Los Angeles schools.

Judge Dzintra Janavs said the law, which would have taken effect Jan. 1, violated multiple provisions of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter. She ordered public officials "to refrain from enforcing or implementing" any part of Assembly Bill 1381, which codified Villaraigosa's powers.

The full story is here.

The best thing to do at this point would be to break up the LAUSD using a mechanism like AB 2071 proposed by Assemblyman Keith Richman last year. If the Mayor is sincere about wanting to affect schools or implement reforms in a high profile way, he could work with the district to establish charter schools – taking a high school and all of its feeder schools. Such a proposal would not have to mean that unions are “out of luck” because a charter could include a provision to honor the UTLA union contract within all of the charters; having said that, if I were Mayor Villaraigosa I would want my charter to be non-union. Such a plan, however, would not allow the Mayor to control the hiring of the Superintendent and therefore would reduce his influence over $19 billion dollars in school construction contracts.

Dan Walters is a Bigot?

More on the antics of Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, the Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee…


Dan Walters: Dymally's epithet an honor
By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The official stationery of the U.S. House of Representatives has yellowed with age, but the angry words of the letter still leap from the page.

Then-Congressman Mervyn Dymally sent the missive to this columnist in 1992 in response to a column about those retiring from California political office that year, listing Dymally among those who wouldn't "be found in the political hall of fame."

"I would have thought that time would have tempered your bigotry," Dymally wrote. "But I am told that hatefulness is a sickness, so you are to be forgiven.

The full story is a must read.

Digging Deeper

The first rule in trying to dig out of a hole… stop digging.

Dymally regrets using 'racist' label
The assemblyman was attacking a colleague probing his issuance of badges to supporters.
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
December 20, 2006

Five days after he called a fellow lawmaker "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years," Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) expressed remorse.In a four-paragraph statement to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), Dymally, an African American, said, "I have been around long enough to know that you do not mix your personal feelings with public policy. I deeply regret my statement about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, and it is my hope that this is now behind us."

So, to understand it correctly… personally, Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally believes Democrat Assemblyman Hector De La Torre is a racist; however, Mr. Dymally regrets having said it out loud and thereby injecting the accusation into "public policy". No where in the story is there any indication that Assemblyman Dymally apologized to Assemblyman De La Torre or that Mr. Dymally retracted his accusation that Mr. De La Torre is a racist.

Assembly Democrats seem to have a real problem on their hands. I wonder why this subject has not been mentioned in the leftwing Democrat blog, The California Majority Report, which regularly comments on internal Republican matters?

A Little Parody...

... always bears a little truth (unfortunately).




Zucker Takes on James Baker
David Zucker's Iraq Study Group ad from CrockettFilms.

This "Diversity Moment" brought to you by Reuters

Groups offer Web festival sacrifice
Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:34 AM ET

KARACHI (Reuters) - Religious organizations in Pakistan are using the Internet to help Muslims in Western countries buy and sacrifice animals for an annual festival. (Full story linked above.)

OAF: I can't wait to see PETA's response to this activity, if they respond. Can the radical left bring itself to criticize Muslims? (You didn't actually think I'd link to the nutcases at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals did you?)

Merry Christmas

As we all jostle around this year preparing to exchange gifts with those we love and sometimes with others (the white elephant type) let us not forget the reason for exchanging gifts this time of year. With all of the media discussion about “the war on Christmas” and the reports about the success or failure of retail outlets “during the season”, I can’t help but pray that at some point everyone will stop – take a deep breath – and rejoice in the wonder that is Christmas. Christmas - the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of Mary, Son of God, teacher and Savior.

Below is the historical accounting of the birth of Jesus as told by Luke, the beloved physician. I chose Luke because of his careful historical approach and because he endeavored to present Jesus as the Universal Savior, the compassionate healer and teacher.

This passage is from the New King James Version of the Bible; for anyone interested in reading further (or in another translation) I recommend Biblegateway.com.

Luke Chapter 2

Christ Born of Mary
1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Glory in the Highest
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “ Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. 17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. 18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.

As you hustle around and prepare for all of the worldly celebration of Christmas, take a moment to contemplate the historical birth of Jesus, and give thanks for our savior.

Merry Christmas.

A Glaring Contradiction

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally is embroiled in a ridiculous controversy over the issuing of “badges” to some of his friends and evidently campaign contributors (see previous post). In reading the stories surrounding this incident and comparing them to another incident from 2004, I couldn’t help but notice a real contradiction between Mr. Dymally’s words, his actions and well… his words. You be the judge.

Mr. Dymally’s response to law enforcement’s objection to the use of a “badge” by Mr. Dymally’s friend in an attempt to get out of a DUI arrest:

"The possession of these badges is not an illegal act," he said. "If it is, then arrest everybody. Arrest some white people too."

Mr. Dymally’s reaction to the call by Speaker Nuñez to investigate the use of "badges":

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

Mr. Dymally’s comment after he cancelled a press conference to call for the resignation of Education Secretary Richard Riordan for bizarre comments Mr. Riordan made about a little girl (the press conference was cancelled after Mr. Dymally learned the little girl was white and not black).

Dymally now says he didn't approve the press conference: "I'm one of those black politicians who doesn't think about race."

So, in your opinion: a glaring contradiction or not?

Shameful!

Head of badge investigation a 'racist,' Dymally says
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff WriterDecember 15, 2006

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

(I guess Mr. Dymally never "encountered" Democrat Senator Robert Byrd during his tenure in the House of Representatives.)

For more background on this issue, read:

Nuñez wants use of badges probed
The Assembly speaker acts after lawmaker Mervyn Dymally attracts notice by issuing the official-looking shields to supporters.
By Dan Morain and Evelyn Larrubia, Times Staff WritersDecember 13, 2006

Man held in DUI had badge issued by Dymally, police say
By Evelyn Larrubia and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers December 5, 2006

Schwarzenegger v. Schwarzenegger

Bill Saracino pens an excellent column for the California Political Review proposing a debate between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arnold Schwarzenegger - the article is a must read.

In his missive Mr. Saracino suggests that he may have been naive by supporting candidate Schwarzenegger (who claimed to be a Milton Friedman fiscal conservative). On the contrary, Mr. Saracino is anything but naive - he is a seasoned and skilled political observer and campaign consultant. His support for candidate Schwarzenegger was not born of naiveté, it was instead based upon the time-honored code of accepting a man at his word (which speaks to the better nature of Bill Saracino). Mr. Saracino underestimated the guile of Arnold Schwarzenegger and for doing that once he cannot be faulted; to do it again would be naiveté.

Reading Mr. Saracino's article reminded me of a commentary posted on OAF Blog a little over one year ago; it is worth reading again: On Governor Schwarzenegger - A Ship Without a Rudder. Interestingly, after Governor Schwarzenegger devastated all of the conservative Republican candidates seeking statewide office the question remains; who will take up the mantle of standard bearer for California Republicans?

Promoting Mediocrity

Citing Stress, School Stops Publishing Honor Roll
December 12, 2006

NEEDHAM, Mass. -- A Massachusetts school's decision has brought about mixed feelings from the community.

Needham High School has abandoned its long-standing practice of publishing the names of students who make the honor roll in the local newspaper.

Principal Paul Richards said a key reason for stopping the practice is its contribution to students' stress level in "this high-expectations-high-achievement culture."

The full story is here.


Why Not Elimitate Winners Altogether?
What next? Will schools no longer award medals to the winner of the track and field event for fear that someone might have hurt feelings? How about a new policy where every wrestler in a weight bracket gets a medal – the same medal – we wouldn’t want anyone to know that one wrester “won” the tournament.

It's Better to Recognize a Diversity of Talents
Perhaps some of the children making the honor roll at Needham High School are scholars and not athletes. Will the school no longer recognize successful athletes in order to make those who are not athletically-inclined feel less pressure to succeed in athletics? Did it ever occur to anyone that having one’s name printed in the newspaper as a member of the honor roll might be the only positive public recognition some of those children receive for their academic success?

A Better Proposal
Needham High School should follow the Loni Hancock model which proposed redefining the level of academic achievemnet neccessary to desginate a student as "proficient" in California in order to allow more students to be; well, "proficient." Under the Hancock model, all students in Needham High School could be "honor students."

A.G.-Elect Leaves Oakland “In the Dust”

From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Mattier & Ross:

Police Dept. dusting dilemma
Oakland fingerprint unit has been closed for 7 months due to lack of funds and staff

Read the full story here.


Perhaps the Oakland police department can send its fingerprint work to the California Attorney General’s office so that Jerry Brown can finally help with the crime epidemic he left behind as Mayor.

Intelligence Problem

Prolific Blogger Bill Bradley, New West Notes, on Speaker-elect Pelosi’s Intelligence Problem:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an intelligence problem. Her pick for the crucial chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes, turned out not to know basic facts about Al Qaeda, facts that most well-informed newspaper readers would know.

Read Bill Bradley’s full post here.

OAF Blog has already expressed great concern (read: here) that national security might be compromised by Speaker-elect Pelosi's decision to engage in petty personal politics – Bill Bradley seems to confirm those fears.

Political Reformers? Prove It!

Nationally, Democrats are attempting to seize the political high ground as the party of political reform. Given the decadence of Congressional Republicans during their tenure, Democrats have been presented with a magnificent opportunity to make their case. I ultimately would like to see Republicans recapture the majority, but for the sake of the nation I wish Democrats well - if only for the hope that moral integrity returns to Washington. I am not confident that it will (there is too much at stake given the size and scope of the federal government - see more on my thoughts here). But, as an eternal optimist I remain hopeful. (Those who know me are laughing out loud).

True Political Reform – Impartial Redistricting
In California Democrats have been presented with an opportunity to demonstrate that they are committed to ethics and political reform, and they can do this with the help of Republicans. Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 on Monday, the opening day of the biennial legislative session. ACA 4 provides for an independent citizens commission to draw the boundaries for California’s Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts thereby taking the process out of the hands of state legislators who, by definition, suffer a conflict of interest when drawing their own district boundaries.

The Governor, with whom Democrats have enjoyed great “bi-partisanship”, held a press conference on Tuesday to call for reform of the redistricting process, and introduce his own impartial redistricting proposal. “We must bring competition back into the political process to guarantee that our elected leaders represent the full diversity of California and the will of the people,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This is exactly the kind of political reform I promised the people of California when I became Governor three years ago. I said that we will bring the trust back to government and make our democracy strong. Last year, we came very close to getting redistricting reform done so this year I know we can do it.”

In a speech three years ago (prior to being elected Governor) Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “reapportionment of state assembly and state senate seats should be done fairly so that no political party uses the process to distort democracy and electoral districts should be drawn for the benefit of the voters, not political intrigue and advantage.”

Political Reformers? Prove It!
Given that legislative Republicans have made impartial redistricting one of their top priorities in California, and given that the “bi-partisan” Governor has advanced a similar proposal, it is time for Democrats to prove that they are truthfully committed to political reform. Redistricting affects state legislative seats and congressional seats. As a Californian, Speaker-elect Pelosi has both a personal interest and a broader political interest in how districts are drawn in the Golden State. Embracing ACA 4 or the Governor’s proposal would demonstrate Representative Pelosi’s commitment to political reform; her commitment to fair elections. It is time for Speaker-elect Pelosi to call Speaker Villaraigosa and insist that impartial redistricting be placed before the voters of California with the full support of Democrats.

To do anything less means that even with all the lip-service about political reform, Speaker-elect Pelosi and California Democrats are no different than former Congressman Tom DeLay.

News on Legislative Republican Infighting

It seems the best place to find internal news and gossip about legislative Republicans in California is from the Democrats at the Majority Report.

Perhaps some Democrat would be kind enough to share their dirty laundry to Republicans so they can then put it on display for the rest of California. Maybe the folks at the California Republican Assembly could spice up their blog with such information.

A Good Op-Ed from Sunny San Diego

The San Diego Union-Tribune published this excellent op-ed today, just two days after OAF Blog wrote on the same subject with a very similar headline. Hmm, I wonder if the editors of the Union-Tribune read OAF Blog?

Reforms must precede windfall for education
UNION-TRIBUNE
December 3, 2006

...Elizabeth Hill, the state's respected, neutral legislative analyst, recently issued a five-year budget forecast. The news for schools was staggering: Taxpayers are about to hand an extra $6 billion to educators.

...Parents should get vouchers to spend at private or public schools, thus ensuring healthy competition that would slash wasteful administration. Good teachers should get bonus pay, mediocre teachers should be reassigned, and bad teachers should find new careers. Districts must stop covering up horrendous drop-out rates.

Voters have decided to invest in their children. Sacramento must not fail them.

School Reform Must Come First – Choice is the Best Answer

The following story from Inside Bay Area.com chronicles the hopes of California Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell that an independent study carried out by researchers mostly from Stanford University will divine how much “it costs to educate a student.” Mr. O’Connell and other members of the public education spending lobby are hoping that the “Getting Down to Facts” study will be the catalyst by which state legislators are duped into believing that throwing more money into the current public school system will result in better educated students.

Here is an excerpt from the story (please honor the writer by clicking on the headline and reading the full article):

O'Connell searches for the true cost of education
California superintendent hopes $2.6 million study drives funding of state's schools
By Grace Rauh, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
Article Last Updated:12/01/2006 02:56:56 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO — For years it has been a rhetorical question. But for the first time this spring, Californians may finally get an answer. Exactly how much does it cost to properly educate a child?

"We actually asked what is the actual cost to educate a student," O'Connell told the crowd. "I hope that (the answer) really drives the discussions in Sacramento."

… The $2.6 million study responsible for uncovering this elusive answer was funded by four foundations and led by Stanford University. O'Connell, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders commissioned the research and the results should be released in two to three months.

"I hope it's a benchmark," O'Connell said after his speech, from the floor of an education trade show taking place alongside the conference. "I hope it's more than a study that is placed on the shelf. I hope it drives education funding."

… California voters support spending more money on public schools, but only if there is greater accountability over how that funding is dispensed, according to a new statewide poll released Thursday by Children Now, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Oakland.

… "There's not a big divide in the electorate in terms of making major changes in education," said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now. "They are saying loud and clear that the system is unacceptable and we need major change in California."

For Lempert, the key to the polling results is the realization that voters want education reform and financial accountability. They are saying, "Let's do both. Let's do them together. Let's get them done," he said.


Mr. Lempert is correct, and the polling (some of which I have seen) is correct; voters do want major changes in education and they want the system to improve. The answer, however, cannot be more taxpayer funds coupled with window-dressing reforms to “make finance more transparent” or “hold schools accountable.”

For example, when Proposition 98 was passed, it contained an accountability tool for schools to make taxpayers more aware of how schools use money and how students are performing (that’s one way the spending lobby sold Prop. 98 to voters). The tool contained in Prop. 98 is the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) – you know that all important document you have read and studied to determine the success of schools in your area. If you haven’t read one, you can find it here. Good luck in finding any meaningful accountability. How many failing schools have been shut down due to the imformation on the SARC?

Legislators – and probably this task will fall on Republicans (Democrats are too beholden to the California Teachers Association, the teachers union) - should use the call for additional spending to foster meaningful education reform in California. They should instist that meaningful reform must be enacted before any additional taxpayer funds are dumped into the public school monopoly.

The first and most meaningful reform would be to provide parents with a choice on where they send their child to school. If, as the “Getting Down to Facts” study has been advertised, researchers can determine “the actual cost to educate a student” then quantifying an opportunity scholarship (or school voucher) should be easy. Meaningful reform would attach the “actual cost of educating a student” to each student who would then have the option to take that money and spend it at a traditional public school, a chartered public school, a private school, or even a home school. Any school that receives funds through an opportunity scholarship should agree to be judged through a value-added analysis of student performance on core academic subjects (reading language arts and math) as a means to qualify to receive those funds. Beyond the basics, schools could specialize in classical liberal arts, vocational education, college preparation, fine arts, etc. Schools that succeed in educating students would flourish and those who don’t would be weeded out through analysis of student performance and the marketplace.

Without meaningful reform, more money will not improve education in California.

Pelosi to Harman: Jane you ignorant...

Pelosi chooses Reyes to run intel panel
Speaker passes over committee's senior Democrat Harman

MSNBC posts the story(linked above) of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi’s snubbing of fellow Californian Jane Harman by choosing Texas Representative Silvestre Reyes to Chair the House Intelligence Committee (OK, stop the snickering – I know it’s an oxymoron).

Rep. Harman is too Conservative?
Much of the speculation about why Representative Pelosi chose to dump a fellow Californian and – dare I say – woman from the important assignment of chairing the House Intelligence Committee centers on the idea that Harman is too conservative or too close to the Bush administration on military issues, and specifically Iraq. Is Representative Harman too conservative for Representative Pelosi? Could that be the reason? Let’s compare Representative Harman to Ms. Pelosi's choice, Representative Reyes.

Interest Group Ratings
American Conservative Union lifetime rating:
Harman 30% - Reyes 27%
Americans for Democratic Action (liberal) for 2005:
Harman 70% - Reyes 80%
American Security Council 2003-04 (focus on nat’l security):
Harman 40% - Reyes 50%

109th Congress Key National Security Votes
S. 3930 – Military Commissions Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 5825 – Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act;
Harman No / Reyes: No
H.R. 6061 – Secure Fence Act;
Harman No / Reyes No
H.Res. 861 – A Resolution pledging support for the war in Iraq;
Harman: No / Reyes No
H.R. 4437 – Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 2863 – Ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of detainees;
Harman: Yes / Reyes: Yes

By interest group and key votes comparisons there appears to be little difference between Ms. Harman and Mr. Reyes. So, if they are evenly aligned on issues of national security and both semi-moderate Democrats why did Ms. Pelosi actually choose Rep. Reyes over Rep. Harman? Probably a more personal issue; some speculate it really boils down to jealousy over the level of recognition Jane Harman has in California over Ms. Pelosi. Democrats won’t talk about this issue because, according to the L.A. times, “…the split is so toxic that Democrats in California and Washington won't go near it.”

Security Should not be Compromised for Petty Reasons
I am not deeply involved in the area of national security and intelligence and therefore I concede that my knowledge is minimal in this area. But, given the similarities in their interest group ratings and key votes I am not confident that national security has been damaged by choosing Representative Reyes over Representative Harman. (The damage was done on Election Day which gave Ms. Pelosi the option to name committee chairs for the 110th Congress).

My concern, more than anything, is that national security should not be held captive by petty matters of personality conflicts or partisan gamesmanship.

For example, the rejection by Democrats to confirm John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. By all accounts, Ambassador Bolton has been doing a great job; and yet Democrats are still arguing that he is just not warm and fuzzy enough for their taste.

Congress must return to a day when politics stops at the border. A day when Democrats and Republicans joined together to defend America, and they did so without regard to how it might affect their electoral or personal fortunes. As a nation, we need to honor and promote statesmen and reject those who would use their position of power to carry out personal vendettas or allow the prospect of political gain to trump the need to further our nation’s security.

Whatever Ms. Pelosi’s reasons are for snubbing Representative Harman, they should be spelled out for America. We should be reassured that she did not make a decision about our nation’s security based upon petty personal reasons.

In LAUSD… As Much As Things Change, They Stay the Same

I’m a fan of The Who, and have always felt the need to turn up the volume for Won’t Get Fooled Again. When I read the Howard Blume article, L.A. mayor, new schools chief on the same page in the Times today I felt the urge to pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday… Well, you get the idea.

Howard Blume reports in the article that recently hired LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a press conference after the first of their regularly scheduled weekly meetings – a good idea (the meetings, not the press conference) that could have been accomplished without the Mayor’s LAUSD “takeover” bill, (bearing the lofty title:) The Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006. Reportedly, the Superintendent and the Mayor are simpatico on their education agenda which includes (long pause for affect) more taxpayer funds for LAUSD, oh yeah… and more accountability for the district (which in California means additional taxpayer funds and the horrible experience of being labeled a “high priority” school).

Will there be any real accountability? According to Howard Blume, Superintendent Brewer tipped his hand on this front by continuing to “soft-pedal earlier remarks about his willingness to fire bad teachers.” In fact, according to the Times reporter the Superintendent, “talked of "embracing" teachers by giving them necessary training, due process and even rewards and community sponsored incentives, such as coupons and free classroom supplies. When pressed several times on how long ineffective teachers would be given to improve, he declined to say.”

I’m not one for firing people for the sake of firing, but there needs to be less coddling and more cajoling if LAUSD is going to change its culture from one of continued failure to one of success. At some point the district will need to use student test data to determine where academic success is occurring and where it isn’t. Where academic failure is systemic, teachers either need to learn how to teach or find a career for which they are better suited. The same level of professional and personal accountability needs to be applied to principals and other administrators. If things do not change, there needs to be accountability for the entire district. Perhaps better options should be explored like breaking LAUSD into smaller more manageable (and more accountable) districts; or better yet, providing parents and students the option to attend better schools by allowing them the choice to escape from the failing government schools.

The modicum of improvement LAUSD has enjoyed in recent years has been most prominently influenced by the adoption of statewide academic standards and standards-aligned testing. Superintendent Romer did a yeoman’s job of implementing policies to improve the delivery of standards-based curriculum, and I suppose Admiral Brewer will do at least as good a job (after all, he is an Admiral). But, anyone who was hoping for a revolution led by Mayor Villaraigosa through the Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006 – well... just crank up The Who, that rockin’ band who emphatically belted out the lyrics, “I'll tip my hat to the new constitution. Take a bow for the new revolution. Smile and grin at the change all around. Pick up my guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then I'll get on my knees and pray. We don't get fooled again.”

Honoring a Hero and a Friend

Pacific Research Institute's Lance Izumi suggests How Arnold can honor Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman wrote eloquently in favor of school choice, and Lance Izumi makes a case for the Governor to honor his self-proclaimed mentor by offering California's students a choice. I could not have said it better.

Unfortunately, I am confident that the Governor will not follow Mr. Izumi's sound advice; it would not comport with Mr. Schwarzenegger's 2006 brand of bipartisanship (i.e. all the Democrats and him). Why wouldn't Democrats favor school choice for students trapped in the state's lowest performing schools? Because unions - specifically the teachers union (the CTA) - abhor school choice. The California Teachers Assocation instead favors propping up the government school monopoly rather than helping students learn. I sincerely hope Governor Schwarzenegger proves my assumption wrong, it would be a wonderful surprise and an incredible opportunity for students stuck in failing government schools.

Declining Enrollment – Government Schools Need to Adjust Accordingly

Government School Monopolies – Insulated from the Marketplace
Today, the Sacramento Bee carried a story by Peter Hecht about declining enrollment in California schools. The way public schools deal with declining enrollment demonstrates just how insulated the government school monopolies are from the reality of the marketplace. Most businesses, when faced with declining customers, adjust and do so quickly or face the reality of going out of business. Government schools, on the other hand, are given a year of “cushion” and then seek other ways to avoid dealing with market realities.

For the uninitiated, to fully understand the year of “cushion;” a quick “primer” in funding might be useful. School districts receive funding based upon average daily attendance (ADA). Their revenue limit (basic funding) is based upon the number of students who actually show up for school each year (some may remember the days before ADA when schools were funded based upon enrollment rather than attendance and they were not nearly so concerned about whether your child actually showed up for school each day). School districts that experience declining enrollment are provided a one year “cushion” by allowing them to choose to accept their revenue limit calculated on the current year ADA or the previous year ADA; this allows the school district one full year to make needed programmatic changes to adjust serving fewer customers.

The declining enrollment “cushion” was originally designed to accommodate school districts that suffered sudden and unanticipated enrollment losses caused, for example, by the closing of a military base in the area served by the school district. When declining enrollment is caused by changing demographics in a community it is supposed to be recognized by the district, anticipated and addressed in long-term planning. Some school districts have done this well, others (like San Juan Unified School District) have instead operated with their proverbial head in a hole. When a business makes such a dramatic error in planning it either makes drastic changes or it goes out of business. When government school monopolies make such errors they declare a “crisis” and appeal to lawmakers for a bailout.

An Opportunity Missed - Or... An Opportunity Enhanced?
This year the Legislature passed SB 1133 (Torlakson) which was the “settlement” of the lawsuit filed by the California Teachers Association (CTA) against Governor Schwarzenegger to “recover” $2.9 billion the CTA argued was owed to schools (based upon an agreement between the CTA and the Governor in 2004). SB 1133 was written by the CTA and spends the entire $2.9 billion on an experiment called the “Quality Education Investment Act of 2006” – in short, the $2.9 billion (ostensibly "taken" from all schools) will be spent over seven years in approximately 600 schools to reduce class sizes and provide professional development. To accommodate the class size reduction approximately 2,500 teachers must be hired – when the one-time funding runs out in seven years there will once again be a “crisis” that requires more money.

It would have been wiser and more equitable to use the $2.9 billion in “settlement” funds to address issues like declining enrollment in all schools rather than establish ongoing, expensive programs for 600 (out of nearly 10,000 schools) with one-time funds. Ironically, SB 1133 creates a need to hire more teachers at a time when overall enrollment is declining – could the government schools have enjoyed a less market-driven reality?

[An aside, SB 1133 represents the “dream child” of the CTA – establishing new jobs through class size reduction which means more dues payers which allows more funding for the CTA to play in political campaigns. The ability of the CTA to be an influential financier of political campaigns ensures that more money will be doled out to mitigate the ravages of declining enrollment and other marketplace inconveniences. While this does not help taxpayers, it is a boon to government school monopolies.]

Questions to Ask
When your school district declares it is a “district in crisis” because it is losing funding based upon declining enrollment ask a couple of questions. First, what caused the declining enrollment? Was it a sudden change or was it due to changing demographics? If the latter is the case, what has the school district done in anticipation of the declining enrollment? How many new schools were built in the district despite projections of declining enrollment? Is the school district acting rationally to anticipate future enrollment growth (for example, leasing out closed facilities rather than selling them)? Ultimately, if the marketplace demands reduced operations; why should the school district be insulated from making needed adjustments?

The Story by Peter Hecht can be read here.