Last Monday the SAISD Board had another "workshop" session. Everyone, myself included, took a deep breath of relief that the major portion of the bond passed, and the sentiment seemed clear to move forward with it so as to use the money while it was still worth something. On that topic, thank you voters. I did not support the bond and the tax levy it required lightly. This was money the district needs.
Now that we have had a week to bask in success, I have one word to discomfit all: Fieldhouse!
We've all watched as the new library progressed from a vague idea to a reality at little cost to taxpayers. Grants, bequests, donations, this is going to become a reality with the only significant public "expense" being the gift of the building itself. In that the city had discovered it had no real use for it, that cost us nothing.
Now compare this to the Bobcat Stadium Fieldhouse. Granted, the existing facility is in need of repair, BUT...
We were told this could be accomplished with a relatively minor contribution from SAISD, matching grants, donations, etc. Then the donations fell short, SAISD ponied up some more money to get the matching grant. Then the cost inflated, but keeping the eye on the ball, SAISD decided to pick up a little more of the tab, all for a good cause, of course.
Now I confess, I was concentrating on the bond, some of this slipped by me. Cut to the chase, SAISD is on the verge of deciding to spend something on the order of $5-6 million on a fieldhouse.
We are being told this has huge potential for "economic development", a shiny new fieldhouse will bring in so many sports events we will be hard put to count the money. Folks, I am a football fan from hell, I love the game, but I learned long ago to cast a gimlet eye on public finance of sports stadiums. Much as I am a Cowboys fan, had I lived in the Metroplex, I'd have fought public finance of their new facility tooth and nail.
If this project is really going to bring in all this money, where are the people who will directly benefit? Assuming all this fever dream comes to pass, the direct beneficiaries would be hotels, restaurants and retail stores. The contribution from the hotel occupancy tax? ZERO! The contribution from local retailers? ZERO! The voluntary donations from local sports fans? Not quite, but close enough to zero as to make no difference. The interest shown by our local half cent sales tax development corporation, decidedly ZERO!
ASU, which also uses our high school stadium, is in way better shape financially than SAISD. They currently get use of the facility for $25k a year. By any standard, this is a sweetheart deal for ASU. Their contribution to the fieldhouse fund? Not to overuse a trite term, but, ZERO!
Folks, I was happy to spend my time and effort in support of the bond. Virtually all of that money will be spent on projects necessary to good education. Much as I love the game, in times when people are sweating the next paycheck, I don't really care if high school football is played by the lights of the fans' car headlights on a cow pasture. If the fans want better, send Stormy Kimry a check. That's what library "fans" did.
This whole sloppy exercise brings to light some glaring deficiencies in SAISD process. First we have this idea of every other meeting being a "pre-agenda" workshop. One result is that we only have one meeting a month that actually "counts". Seems SAISD believes only the "real" meetings have to be recorded for the public access channel. They are wrong, but Conchoinfo will attempt to correct that, and offer our record online.
Had last Monday's "workshop" been available, the early call for an "executive session" would be available to the public. Early on the agenda was the purchase of a property on Cottonwood adjacent to Central. Now mind you, I support the decision to buy it, this is a good property at a reasonable price. After a motion had been made to approve it {Wait a minute; I thought this was a "pre-agenda workshop", why is real business being effectively moved?} Trustee Archer requested an executive session. President Layman was reluctant, the owners were in attendance, we don't want to keep them waiting. Archer insisted; he agreed, the purchase was a done deal, but he wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. A brief executive session was called.
The intent of the legislation allowing executive sessions for carefully defined puposes was to allow a gov't body private negotiation room before bringing a final deal up to a public vote. The executive session exception to open meetings rules was NOT to have a private snout-counting session and avoid the possible embarrassment of a rogue member actually dissenting.
I have seen this pursuit of unanimity more often than I am comfortable with. Something close to this, a requirement for a second before a Trustee could put an item on the agenda, led to Terry Bader's resignation. Where is it written that an overriding concern of a governing body should be unanimity? City Council manages to rock along with 5/2, even 4/3 decisions, they are still decisions. It is almost as if SAISD has adopted a circle-the-wagons, us against them attitude. Why I don't know. The voters may have turned down the last bond issue, but the last Board election was cancelled due to lack of opposition.
I hold that a governing body's motivation should be transparency of process. It is easier to get the voter's consent when they are convinced everything is open and above board. Editing recordings and casual resort to closed sessions is not the best path to voter trust.
This digression into process aside, we deserve a better rationale for an athletic expenditure of this amount than has been provided. This is a larger sum than most individual campuses will receive from the bond. "Bobcat Pride" can take a back seat to economic reality in my never-to-be-humble opinion. If our economic development prospects from this are all that rosy, go sell stock in it to those who will benefit from it, don't dump another load on the taxpayers.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Is the Board on board with the Bond?
Open letter to SAISD Board:
Is this Board on board the good ship School Bond? I'm seriously starting to wonder.
When I was in opposition to the last bond, I always 'fessed up, I knew the district needed that amount of money, but I could not go along with the direction of that bond. Closing, consolidating and moving elementary schools out of their neighbohoods, moving Central across town, I knew that was not what the voters wanted. The voters agreed with that assessment, 2/1.
I suggested, and offered published material from people who had more experience than any of us, that a critical element to passing a school bond was "polling, polling, and polling". in short, before we formulate a package, find out what the community wants and how much the voters will be willing to spend. Then track response and either amend the bond or target voters as needed. As I reminded Board, most of whom were not on deck for the last sucessful bond in '96, that bond had to be amended between presentation and passage.
Then, again referring to those successful bonds, select an election date where your bond is the headliner. Last November, with no candidates running would have been great. Last May, even with a hot Police Chief race, the bond would have gotten at least second billing.
As it is, the bond is almost lost in the political noise. Every office from tax assessor to President is up, we are so awash in political ads the voters start to tune them out, vast sums are being spent and one has to scream to be heard at all. The SAISD response; not nearly what was put out for the failed bond. No newspaper insert, a few 5x10 newspaper ads, a little radio from the PAC, I'm told there is some TV, but I haven't seen it, and I am a solid political junkie.
Most voters assume this is the last bond with a fresh coat of paint. The message that this bond is 180 degrees from the last is not getting out there. I was discussing election preparations with my Democrat compatriot in this precinct and the bond came up. This is someone with enough political motivation to serve on election days, and she was under the impression we were selling the same Edsel we put out 18 months ago! It only took me 10 minutes to convince her to vote for the bond, and talk to her friends, but she had been under the misapprehension this was the last bond redux.
There is no polling, but my political antennae tell me we are at this moment going to lose by over 10%, possibly a replay of last bond. The promised "media blitz" is underwhelming to say the least. More effort was put into the last bond at this point in the election run-up than has been this time, and we are lost in the background noise this time. Last bond, the only competition for attention was a mayoral race so pre-determined that Lown won every precinct in town, his challenger's neighborhood included.
Another bit of my advice the Board discounted; If we are to have a good chance, get the message out before early voting. THIS IS NOT THE LAST BOND! It is a dead-lock certainty this election will set turnout records. IF SAISD gets its message on high enough volume to be heard, over 2,000 voters have already voted and can't change their minds. I'm holding with a turnout over/under of 36,000, 40% of whom will have already voted by Nov. 4.
It pains me to say this, but this bond is all but dead. Without a serious effort by SAISD and the www.lovekidsfixschools.com PAC, I could safely order a funeral wreath without fear of wasting the money. I have shown up and offered my promotion as a former opponent to as many presentations as my job allowed. I wouldn't use all the fingers on one hand to count the Board members I have seen at these meetings.
If there is any prayer of passage, it will be in your collective AND individual full-throated support to every elective demographic you have a connection to. Inflation has already reduced the physical results of a $150 million bond by at least 10% from last Nov., and that figure isn't going to improve as it ages.
The last bond that failed was the first ever to go down in SAISD. The voters are not uncaring, but at least on this bond, too many are un-informed or mis-informed They confuse this bond with the failed measure and most of the fault for that lies with SAISD Board. Last bond, SAISD pushed the envelope as to "informational" advertizing. Well, we don't have to fret that this time, nobody is likely to accuse you of crossing the line in your enthuisasm.
Editorial letters and comments of late show that many voters do not understand that A) SAISD and City of San Angelo are distinct governmental entities; and B) this bond is diametrically opposite of that which we defeated 18 months ago. A&B are points that must be made to the voters. Quickly folks, we are "burning daylight".
That 18 month gap between losing and new issue is regrettable and expensive. A point that I have tried to hammer home, this bond is not just "for the children", a trite phrase too many politicians have used. We cannot have a first-rate city with a second-rate school system. Quality schools are every bit as important to a city's prospects as the streets you drive on or the pipes your water comes through.
This is truly a "pay me now or pay me later" moment, and paying later will not be the less expensive option.
Is this Board on board the good ship School Bond? I'm seriously starting to wonder.
When I was in opposition to the last bond, I always 'fessed up, I knew the district needed that amount of money, but I could not go along with the direction of that bond. Closing, consolidating and moving elementary schools out of their neighbohoods, moving Central across town, I knew that was not what the voters wanted. The voters agreed with that assessment, 2/1.
I suggested, and offered published material from people who had more experience than any of us, that a critical element to passing a school bond was "polling, polling, and polling". in short, before we formulate a package, find out what the community wants and how much the voters will be willing to spend. Then track response and either amend the bond or target voters as needed. As I reminded Board, most of whom were not on deck for the last sucessful bond in '96, that bond had to be amended between presentation and passage.
Then, again referring to those successful bonds, select an election date where your bond is the headliner. Last November, with no candidates running would have been great. Last May, even with a hot Police Chief race, the bond would have gotten at least second billing.
As it is, the bond is almost lost in the political noise. Every office from tax assessor to President is up, we are so awash in political ads the voters start to tune them out, vast sums are being spent and one has to scream to be heard at all. The SAISD response; not nearly what was put out for the failed bond. No newspaper insert, a few 5x10 newspaper ads, a little radio from the PAC, I'm told there is some TV, but I haven't seen it, and I am a solid political junkie.
Most voters assume this is the last bond with a fresh coat of paint. The message that this bond is 180 degrees from the last is not getting out there. I was discussing election preparations with my Democrat compatriot in this precinct and the bond came up. This is someone with enough political motivation to serve on election days, and she was under the impression we were selling the same Edsel we put out 18 months ago! It only took me 10 minutes to convince her to vote for the bond, and talk to her friends, but she had been under the misapprehension this was the last bond redux.
There is no polling, but my political antennae tell me we are at this moment going to lose by over 10%, possibly a replay of last bond. The promised "media blitz" is underwhelming to say the least. More effort was put into the last bond at this point in the election run-up than has been this time, and we are lost in the background noise this time. Last bond, the only competition for attention was a mayoral race so pre-determined that Lown won every precinct in town, his challenger's neighborhood included.
Another bit of my advice the Board discounted; If we are to have a good chance, get the message out before early voting. THIS IS NOT THE LAST BOND! It is a dead-lock certainty this election will set turnout records. IF SAISD gets its message on high enough volume to be heard, over 2,000 voters have already voted and can't change their minds. I'm holding with a turnout over/under of 36,000, 40% of whom will have already voted by Nov. 4.
It pains me to say this, but this bond is all but dead. Without a serious effort by SAISD and the www.lovekidsfixschools.com PAC, I could safely order a funeral wreath without fear of wasting the money. I have shown up and offered my promotion as a former opponent to as many presentations as my job allowed. I wouldn't use all the fingers on one hand to count the Board members I have seen at these meetings.
If there is any prayer of passage, it will be in your collective AND individual full-throated support to every elective demographic you have a connection to. Inflation has already reduced the physical results of a $150 million bond by at least 10% from last Nov., and that figure isn't going to improve as it ages.
The last bond that failed was the first ever to go down in SAISD. The voters are not uncaring, but at least on this bond, too many are un-informed or mis-informed They confuse this bond with the failed measure and most of the fault for that lies with SAISD Board. Last bond, SAISD pushed the envelope as to "informational" advertizing. Well, we don't have to fret that this time, nobody is likely to accuse you of crossing the line in your enthuisasm.
Editorial letters and comments of late show that many voters do not understand that A) SAISD and City of San Angelo are distinct governmental entities; and B) this bond is diametrically opposite of that which we defeated 18 months ago. A&B are points that must be made to the voters. Quickly folks, we are "burning daylight".
That 18 month gap between losing and new issue is regrettable and expensive. A point that I have tried to hammer home, this bond is not just "for the children", a trite phrase too many politicians have used. We cannot have a first-rate city with a second-rate school system. Quality schools are every bit as important to a city's prospects as the streets you drive on or the pipes your water comes through.
This is truly a "pay me now or pay me later" moment, and paying later will not be the less expensive option.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Surprising San Angelo and FLDS
A few years back, a billboard on Knickerbocker greeted Mathis Field visitors with the "Surprising San Angelo" slogan. We might think about reviving that slogan, it is inarguably true.
This past week, we had an early AM, thankfully minor, tornado or two. As it happened, CNN national feed beat the local alert system on the report by a few minutes. That is not a slap at the local system, we just happened to have in town a hundred or so of the hungriest news hounds on the planet covering the FLDS sect story. Given the time of day (OK, night), the CNN crew might well have been making their way home from Fat Boss Bar when they personally encountered this remarkably fast moving storm. Don't know that, pure speculation, but...
The Standard-Times is really doing a pretty good job, but they are running out of front page space. Had someone told me last May that the next SAISD Bond proposal would be buried under more urgent news, I'd have told them straight up to activate the third brain cell, no way. Oops!, would have lost that dollars-to-donuts bet. BTW, yours truly will be truly busy Monday, SAISD will hear a second presentation of the bond Committee and at 7:00 PM the ASU College Republicans will host another police chief candidate forum in CJ Davidson Center. With luck, I can catch most of both. Conchoinfo does have limited staff.
S-T has done a remarkable job of reporting this FLDS mess, but I have a few points worth mentioning. Using the term "sect" in the paper instead of "cult" was a good starting point. More on that point later.
Before I wander afield in general speculation, let me make clear; I support the idea of prosecuting any genuine statutory, even more vigorously any forcible rape arising from this investigation. Freedom of religion has limits. The Supreme Court may allow a Santeria believer to sacrifice a chicken to his God, but human sacrifice, be it mortal or rape, is clearly out of bounds. Christian Scientists are allowed to refuse medical treatment and die in good faith, but they may not withhold it from their underage children.
When FLDS bought the Eldorado property, a lot of people went into panic mode, not without reason. The history of this group in Colorado City, Az. or Hilsdale, Utah was scary. There, they had registered voters, put people on ballot, and in essence, they were the city gov't and police force. Had FLDS tried this in Schleicher County, with its limited number of voting age eligible, they probably could have owned Eldorado, politically. One of "Prophet" Jeff's policies was to withdraw from, rather than engage in, local affairs. Where the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City had attracted enough attention that the states took over, Jeffs counseled the FLDS that flying "under the radar" would be more effective for the sect's interests than an overt takeover.
I am a little concerned that the breadth of the warrants issued might exceed the scope justified by a slightly shaky, second hand report, recanted in the last phone call to a non-gov't agency by a 16 year old as yet unproduced. Note here; law enforcement from two states have interviewed the alleged offender and chosen not to make an arrest as yet. Fortunately or not, Texas Statute gives Child Protective Services standing here that nearly no other criminal investigating unit gets. If this were an old-fashioned drug-trafficking case, it would take a high pockets Miami lawyer about two minutes to shred the warrant and the subsequent "fruit of the poisonous tree", effectively dumping a week long investigation in the nearest bar ditch. If one is curious, the warrant application is here.
As has been reported, State Rep. Hildebrand (Kerrville) put forth several legislative changes in response to FLDS. The most important was the change in the age at which a marriage can be "blessed" by the state from 14 to 16. There was also an "anti-polygamy" law which has yet to be tested in the real world.
To me, the most under-appreciated player in this drama is Schleicher Co. Sheriff David Doran. By approaching the FLDS leaders non-confrontationaly, he at least got their ear. Thanks to Doran and his connections, FLDS elders cannot claim ignorance of the change in statute: also thanks to Sheriff Doran, this raid did NOT turn into a Waco, Branch Davidian armed stand-off. Should it come to pass that the authorities over-reacted, at least everybody will be alive to hear that judicial determination. If Sheriff Doran comes off as "Andy of Mayberry", well look back at that TV series and its stress on common sense: good ol' boy Andy Taylor was hardly an idiot.
FLDS is one of the original spin-offs from the Utah statehood/Mormon agreement to ban polygamy. The Mormons disavowed polygamy in 1890 and Utah was given statehood in 1896. FLDS is not the only polygamist sect out there, they just get the headlines. Most of the 40-50,000 polygamists tracing back to some sect of Mormon belief escape official attention by drawing a bright line at age 18. Once past the age of legal consent, "spiritual unions" escape most polygamy/bigamy laws by not sanctioning with state license. In the eyes of the law, they are no different from any unwed "shack-up" relationship.
My "Let's take a deep breath" moment on this comes to considering the application of the legal changes not to this sect, but to society at large. We all know that there are an unfortunately large number of under 16 girls in Texas who somehow manage to produce babies each year, completely unrelated to FLDS, virgin birth, or anything remotely religious. If it is society's will that these children be consigned to illegitimacy, something the 14-with-parental-consent law sought to avoid, well, bastardy isn't the social burden it was in my youth, so be it. Do we intend to go after the fathers of these children as criminals?
I grant that FLDS has demonstrated a pattern of forced under-age marriage beyond anything society should tolerate in the name of religious freedom going back to the 1890 schism from the Mormon Church. I am afraid the tools we craft in haste to go after FLDS will turn into an instrument of prosecutorial discretion which could later be used against individuals or groups which simply happen to be out of favor.
I recall the 70's when a few states dusted off the old, long dormant laws prohibiting unwed cohabitation. They were almost always used against "Hippies", mixed-race relationships, or whomever the local law thought to be "subversive". We saw police raiding large houses, counting noses, counting bedrooms, checking whose clothes hung in which closets, and busting unwed adults for sleeping in the same bed. As I recall, the passion for this sort of suppression weakened about the time the Governor's daughter was charged along with the Mayor's son, but perhaps you see where I'm going.
We need to take whatever time is needed and craft laws that are directed to the act we want to abolish, not suppression of a religion most of us find to be "weird". By definition, any religion, being a belief in something supernatural, requires a "suspension of disbelief". Typically, if it is our religion, we call it "Faith" and hold it in high esteem; if it is someone else's religion, we pity the poor brainwashed fool. When Thomas Jefferson forced into reality the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the most notable "cult" protected by it was some new-fangled bunch of deranged Protestants known as "Baptists".
Take the following thought experiment. The majority of us are Christian, so assume we are describing our belief to someone of average intelligence and good moral character, but he is from the other side of the world and knows nearly nothing about Christian doctrine. After you have thoroughly befuddled him with the mystery of the Trinity and the duality of Christ's manhood/Godhood, throw in an explanation of a core Christian doctrine, the Miracle of Transubstantiation. Just for fun, explain that while taking Communion. Assuming he believes you, don't be shocked if he becomes physically ill watching you (from his point of view) drink blood and indulge in cannibalism.
I am not mocking my own religion, I am making the point that to a non-believer, ANY religion is horsefeathers. Civic law needs to rest on non-discriminatory legal precedent, not anyone's Holy Book. To do otherwise invites another generation, using another Holy Book, to turn the tables on us.
This past week, we had an early AM, thankfully minor, tornado or two. As it happened, CNN national feed beat the local alert system on the report by a few minutes. That is not a slap at the local system, we just happened to have in town a hundred or so of the hungriest news hounds on the planet covering the FLDS sect story. Given the time of day (OK, night), the CNN crew might well have been making their way home from Fat Boss Bar when they personally encountered this remarkably fast moving storm. Don't know that, pure speculation, but...
The Standard-Times is really doing a pretty good job, but they are running out of front page space. Had someone told me last May that the next SAISD Bond proposal would be buried under more urgent news, I'd have told them straight up to activate the third brain cell, no way. Oops!, would have lost that dollars-to-donuts bet. BTW, yours truly will be truly busy Monday, SAISD will hear a second presentation of the bond Committee and at 7:00 PM the ASU College Republicans will host another police chief candidate forum in CJ Davidson Center. With luck, I can catch most of both. Conchoinfo does have limited staff.
S-T has done a remarkable job of reporting this FLDS mess, but I have a few points worth mentioning. Using the term "sect" in the paper instead of "cult" was a good starting point. More on that point later.
Before I wander afield in general speculation, let me make clear; I support the idea of prosecuting any genuine statutory, even more vigorously any forcible rape arising from this investigation. Freedom of religion has limits. The Supreme Court may allow a Santeria believer to sacrifice a chicken to his God, but human sacrifice, be it mortal or rape, is clearly out of bounds. Christian Scientists are allowed to refuse medical treatment and die in good faith, but they may not withhold it from their underage children.
When FLDS bought the Eldorado property, a lot of people went into panic mode, not without reason. The history of this group in Colorado City, Az. or Hilsdale, Utah was scary. There, they had registered voters, put people on ballot, and in essence, they were the city gov't and police force. Had FLDS tried this in Schleicher County, with its limited number of voting age eligible, they probably could have owned Eldorado, politically. One of "Prophet" Jeff's policies was to withdraw from, rather than engage in, local affairs. Where the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City had attracted enough attention that the states took over, Jeffs counseled the FLDS that flying "under the radar" would be more effective for the sect's interests than an overt takeover.
I am a little concerned that the breadth of the warrants issued might exceed the scope justified by a slightly shaky, second hand report, recanted in the last phone call to a non-gov't agency by a 16 year old as yet unproduced. Note here; law enforcement from two states have interviewed the alleged offender and chosen not to make an arrest as yet. Fortunately or not, Texas Statute gives Child Protective Services standing here that nearly no other criminal investigating unit gets. If this were an old-fashioned drug-trafficking case, it would take a high pockets Miami lawyer about two minutes to shred the warrant and the subsequent "fruit of the poisonous tree", effectively dumping a week long investigation in the nearest bar ditch. If one is curious, the warrant application is here.
As has been reported, State Rep. Hildebrand (Kerrville) put forth several legislative changes in response to FLDS. The most important was the change in the age at which a marriage can be "blessed" by the state from 14 to 16. There was also an "anti-polygamy" law which has yet to be tested in the real world.
To me, the most under-appreciated player in this drama is Schleicher Co. Sheriff David Doran. By approaching the FLDS leaders non-confrontationaly, he at least got their ear. Thanks to Doran and his connections, FLDS elders cannot claim ignorance of the change in statute: also thanks to Sheriff Doran, this raid did NOT turn into a Waco, Branch Davidian armed stand-off. Should it come to pass that the authorities over-reacted, at least everybody will be alive to hear that judicial determination. If Sheriff Doran comes off as "Andy of Mayberry", well look back at that TV series and its stress on common sense: good ol' boy Andy Taylor was hardly an idiot.
FLDS is one of the original spin-offs from the Utah statehood/Mormon agreement to ban polygamy. The Mormons disavowed polygamy in 1890 and Utah was given statehood in 1896. FLDS is not the only polygamist sect out there, they just get the headlines. Most of the 40-50,000 polygamists tracing back to some sect of Mormon belief escape official attention by drawing a bright line at age 18. Once past the age of legal consent, "spiritual unions" escape most polygamy/bigamy laws by not sanctioning with state license. In the eyes of the law, they are no different from any unwed "shack-up" relationship.
My "Let's take a deep breath" moment on this comes to considering the application of the legal changes not to this sect, but to society at large. We all know that there are an unfortunately large number of under 16 girls in Texas who somehow manage to produce babies each year, completely unrelated to FLDS, virgin birth, or anything remotely religious. If it is society's will that these children be consigned to illegitimacy, something the 14-with-parental-consent law sought to avoid, well, bastardy isn't the social burden it was in my youth, so be it. Do we intend to go after the fathers of these children as criminals?
I grant that FLDS has demonstrated a pattern of forced under-age marriage beyond anything society should tolerate in the name of religious freedom going back to the 1890 schism from the Mormon Church. I am afraid the tools we craft in haste to go after FLDS will turn into an instrument of prosecutorial discretion which could later be used against individuals or groups which simply happen to be out of favor.
I recall the 70's when a few states dusted off the old, long dormant laws prohibiting unwed cohabitation. They were almost always used against "Hippies", mixed-race relationships, or whomever the local law thought to be "subversive". We saw police raiding large houses, counting noses, counting bedrooms, checking whose clothes hung in which closets, and busting unwed adults for sleeping in the same bed. As I recall, the passion for this sort of suppression weakened about the time the Governor's daughter was charged along with the Mayor's son, but perhaps you see where I'm going.
We need to take whatever time is needed and craft laws that are directed to the act we want to abolish, not suppression of a religion most of us find to be "weird". By definition, any religion, being a belief in something supernatural, requires a "suspension of disbelief". Typically, if it is our religion, we call it "Faith" and hold it in high esteem; if it is someone else's religion, we pity the poor brainwashed fool. When Thomas Jefferson forced into reality the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the most notable "cult" protected by it was some new-fangled bunch of deranged Protestants known as "Baptists".
Take the following thought experiment. The majority of us are Christian, so assume we are describing our belief to someone of average intelligence and good moral character, but he is from the other side of the world and knows nearly nothing about Christian doctrine. After you have thoroughly befuddled him with the mystery of the Trinity and the duality of Christ's manhood/Godhood, throw in an explanation of a core Christian doctrine, the Miracle of Transubstantiation. Just for fun, explain that while taking Communion. Assuming he believes you, don't be shocked if he becomes physically ill watching you (from his point of view) drink blood and indulge in cannibalism.
I am not mocking my own religion, I am making the point that to a non-believer, ANY religion is horsefeathers. Civic law needs to rest on non-discriminatory legal precedent, not anyone's Holy Book. To do otherwise invites another generation, using another Holy Book, to turn the tables on us.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Open Thread on the School Bond
Please share your thoughts on the school bond and related issues here. All comments are welcome.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Energy Moguls and Deceptive Loqutions
I happened to see an article in the Standard Times written by the president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Alex Mills, and was motivated to respond to this clearly deceptive propaganda piece.
The article implied that interest in renewable energy (i.e wind, solar, etc.) is a waste of time, that any funding to this sector of the industry was a waste of tax dollars, and that we should just stick to the old tried and true standards, oil and gas. Whereas the allocation of tax revenue to corporate interests has the tendency to inspire a ceaseless chain of corrupt activity, I would argue that the government should not steal ANY money from taxpayers to maintain corporate welfare; whether it be for wind farms, for nuclear power plants owned by foreign companies, or handouts to the oil and gas industry.
Here are some of the major components of THE 2005 ENERGY BILL as it relates to the oil and gas industry:
Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.
Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15).
Sections 1325-6
Allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.
Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.
Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the
Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore
Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in
Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based
Also, in
This is an enormous and unseen liability of the oil and gas industry that we must start paying attention to. An oilman might argue that there are all kinds of permits required for them to do business, but what is not mentioned is that these permits are virtually NEVER denied. If you have concerns about our future water supply, PLEASE investigate further here: http://salon.glenrose.net/searchresults.asp?test=%22injection%22
So, rather than creating an illusion of a free market -the smoke and mirrors of federal subsidies-wouldn't it be best to put an end to ALL handouts to energy producers and allow the consumer and taxpayer really decide where to get their power?
If the playing field truly were leveled we would likely begin to see many consumers absolving themselves from the tyranny of the energy cartels and producing their own energy...
This is where wind and solar do become a viable option. These technologies may not be practical, or even desirable, solutions for huge commercial producers (this is the real problem for the energy corporations). Renewables work best on a small scale. But (especially in
Most importantly, let’s be aware of the grand illusion is created in the media when these issues are polarized and we believe that the Democrats are going to save the earth with green technology or the Republicans are going to save humanity by wiping out the middle east and stealing their oil.
It’s high time we realize that none of these "leaders" are working for you or me - and whether it's a wind farm or an oil well, the same people are making most of the money.
Yes, Cheveron owns a whole bunch of those wind farms... When they make money on wind, the kickbacks go to the Democrats, and when they make money on oil, the kickbacks go to the Republicans!
It is clear to any attentive observer that the emergence of solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and all technologies falling under the current "green" trend is being carefully controlled in the market place. As we watch this drama unfold please be aware that solar power was invented over 5 decades ago, the original Tesla car over 70 years ago, and my great grandmother ran her ice box off an old windmill and some golf cart batteries. So, come on, why are we going backwards here? How much longer will we allow ourselves to be duped?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Information Freedom
You have probably heard this verse "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)." This is one of the reasons we are doing ConchoInfo.org. Easy access to information is necessary to get at the truth. Easy access to the truth is absolutely necessary for freedom to flourish.
Much of the research on any issue is done over the internet today. You can wake up at 3:00 am and check out the facts on that idea you just had. No need to wait until the library opens the next morning. No reason to trek through the cold and spend hours searching the stacks.
The Standard Times, our major local news paper, used to have their complete archive on line back to 1996 for free. This was a great service for politically active or just interested individuals. Use it to research who said what about the sales tax or tennis court or proposed prison. It was quick and easy.
Some time this year, the paper changed their web presence and services. They added some blog like capabilities so readers can comment on articles right there, and they are occasionally publishing these comments like they used to run Speak Your Mind, a great way to get reader feed back.
They also changed their Archives. If you use the basic search, you get any article from the first of the year. Any article older than that requires you to search their archive separately. The titles and first paragraph comes up, but if you click for the full article you are redirected to a site ran by newsbank.com. You will be presented with a price list that starts with $2.95 for a single article, and ranges up to $1995.00 for a one year, 1000 article max annual subscription (they do have a $995 plan that allows 500 articles a year.) Talk about sticker shock.
If you go directly to newsbank, you can save yourself considerable money. It still costs $2.95 if you just want a single article, but if you sign up as a researcher or free lance writer (not sure about other plans) you can get 50 articles a month for $19.95, which they will bill monthly. This access also allows access to a number of papers that are signed up for their news library service. Still a bit high, but affordable.
I understand that print media such as newspapers are facing financial challenges. They are struggling to make money off their articles, etc.. A reasonable charge for past articles, if you can't figure out how to pay for views through advertising, is also reasonable but lets be reasonable. The New York Times has free registration which allows access to current news and a significant part of their articles. They have a full access service called times select that is only $7.95 per month or $49.95 a year. It is hard for me to swallow that Standard Times articles cost that much more than articles from the premier American paper.
In a way, I find this a step backwards. It limits article access to those with deep pockets. NewsBank seems to be archiving a lot of regional and small town papers. With that number of papers they could charge a more modest fee and actually make more money.
Much of the research on any issue is done over the internet today. You can wake up at 3:00 am and check out the facts on that idea you just had. No need to wait until the library opens the next morning. No reason to trek through the cold and spend hours searching the stacks.
The Standard Times, our major local news paper, used to have their complete archive on line back to 1996 for free. This was a great service for politically active or just interested individuals. Use it to research who said what about the sales tax or tennis court or proposed prison. It was quick and easy.
Some time this year, the paper changed their web presence and services. They added some blog like capabilities so readers can comment on articles right there, and they are occasionally publishing these comments like they used to run Speak Your Mind, a great way to get reader feed back.
They also changed their Archives. If you use the basic search, you get any article from the first of the year. Any article older than that requires you to search their archive separately. The titles and first paragraph comes up, but if you click for the full article you are redirected to a site ran by newsbank.com. You will be presented with a price list that starts with $2.95 for a single article, and ranges up to $1995.00 for a one year, 1000 article max annual subscription (they do have a $995 plan that allows 500 articles a year.) Talk about sticker shock.
If you go directly to newsbank, you can save yourself considerable money. It still costs $2.95 if you just want a single article, but if you sign up as a researcher or free lance writer (not sure about other plans) you can get 50 articles a month for $19.95, which they will bill monthly. This access also allows access to a number of papers that are signed up for their news library service. Still a bit high, but affordable.
I understand that print media such as newspapers are facing financial challenges. They are struggling to make money off their articles, etc.. A reasonable charge for past articles, if you can't figure out how to pay for views through advertising, is also reasonable but lets be reasonable. The New York Times has free registration which allows access to current news and a significant part of their articles. They have a full access service called times select that is only $7.95 per month or $49.95 a year. It is hard for me to swallow that Standard Times articles cost that much more than articles from the premier American paper.
In a way, I find this a step backwards. It limits article access to those with deep pockets. NewsBank seems to be archiving a lot of regional and small town papers. With that number of papers they could charge a more modest fee and actually make more money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)