Desultory Thoughts

Let’s be honest, this presidential election is nothing but an image war.  The new, sleek and beautiful vs. the old, gruff and ugly.  Of all the people out there who tell polsters they’re votiing for Obama, how many actually know anything about his past?  Sure, there’ve been the laughable, easily snopes-debunked anti-Obama emails started by Hillary staffers and forwarded like a virus by baby boomers.

But there’s also the whitewashed, “nothing to see here” image portrayed by the Obama campaign and his foot soldiers, the mainstream media.

One thing that’s bugged me ever since I read about it during the ‘04 Democratic Convention is Obama’s “friendly” (that word comes from the Obama campaign, not me) relationship with unapologetic homegrown terrorist William Ayers.

The following is an ad produced by the American Issues Project, which Obama’s lawyers are hastily attempting to silence.  Check it out.  Do some googling.  Be careful, though.  Stories at left-wing blogs, the Washington Post, and New York Times conveniently leave out the little part about Obama’s pilgrimage to Ayers’ house.  Make sure you include that in your google search.

What I don’t like about this ad:  It’s a classic negative political ad, complete with spooky music and the familiar political ad voice.  Still, the ad’s claims are valid and the ad itself is effective.

What I like about this ad:  References to each claim made are listed below the claims, so you can check them out yourself.  Nice.

Do you know enough?

I’ve been planning a big Obama post now for a while, but haven’t yet found time to organize my thoughts into a thorough, coherent post. When I do it, I want to do it right. It’s no news to anybody at this point (well, except maybe Hillary) that Obama’s coronation as the Democrat nominee for president is inevitable, so sometime in the next few weeks I’ll have a lot to say about His Highness.

In the meantime, I thought I’d make one observation about the conservative vs. liberal personality- at least when it comes to Internet media.

I’ll be perfectly honest- when it comes to the blogosphere, the Left all but has the market cornered. For every decent conservative blog in cyberspace, there are several hard-hitting liberal blogs. Lately I’ve filled my spare time commenting on a host of them (because let’s face it, it’s much more convenient to react to somebody’s content than create your own- plus stirring up pots in the Left wing of the blogosphere fills my soul with delight).

Liberals pride themselves on their influence and organization when it comes to the Web. I’ll hand it to them, they’ve utilized the Web very wisely in recent years. But outside the arena of ideas (where we eat their lunch every day), the huge difference between liberals and conservatives on the Web is the former’s utter inability to laugh at themselves and the latter’s irreverent sense of humor (this is also true in the world of stand-up comedy. Other than Mark Marin, I can’t think of a single liberal comedian that’s ever truly made me laugh). The fact that we can laugh at both ourselves and them is a long-term advantage.

What sparked this post was a comment Obama made the other day at a speech in Beaverton, Oregon:

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

57 states, huh? Impressive indeed!

Now of course I give the guy a break. He’s got to be exhausted, and when all you do is talk all day you’re bound to say something dumb.

But don’t throw conservatives a softball and expect them not to hit it out of the park.

Suitably Flip has produced and is now selling the official Barack Obama 57 state lapel pin!

This pin is even funnier now that Barack has apparently started wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin, after dismissing the practice earlier in the campaign as “a substitute for true patriotism.”

The more I learn about Barack Obama, the more I’m convinced that Hillary would make a much better president. But one thing’s for sure, conservatives in cyberspace will have just as much fun flaming him as we’ve had flaming her.

In 2007 a funny thing happened.  People began expressing their opinion on education issues like never before.  (I have no study to back that up, it’s just something I noticed and as I’ve talked to others they have noticed it too.)  It probably had a lot to do with the great voucher debate, but I saw more than just a discussion about vouchers.  I saw a lot of talk about making our public schools better.  I read many voucher debates, but I also read why public schools were good and how they could become better.  My kids attend public school so of course I want them to be the best they can be, we all want that. We all discussed that in 2007.  Somehow that discussion is no longer taking place; it died with the vouchers.  Or did it?  Has blogging about issues in education really gone out of style?  Is it no longer popular?

Yes, this year is an election year.  It would seem that many of the blogs have shifted gears and are talking about the candidates now, but isn’t there still room to talk about and put into action our plans to make education for children in Utah better?  Or did we all just blog about it back then because it was the latest craze?

I don’t think so!  I think that everyone that wrote about it last year can continue to write about it this year!  And they will write because they care!  And they care because they’re outstanding human beings that want to make a difference, not just hear themselves talk.

I was curious to see just how dead the subject had become so I went back to many of the blogs that I read during the voucher debate (not all of them because it took me several weeks just to get to where I am now)  to see how many of you have continued to keep education issues on your front page from time to time.  It would seem that my suspicions are correct because most blogs that wrote about vouchers in 2007 haven’t written one education-based post since last November.  The issues are still there, they’re just not being talked about in the blogosphere anymore.

Utah Educatiton Issues is a blog that, even in title, has determined to keep education on the front page.  It’s written by a teacher and recently has blogged quite a bit about candidates and parties, but continues to keep issues like class size reduction in the mix.  Many of you have participated in the comments there and if we’re serious about making education better the discussion (and more importantly the action) needs to continue.   Which brings up a possible answer to my question; perhaps we haven’t had time for blogging but we’ve been out there fighting hard to make education better.  Why don’t we take an hour and let others know what we’ve done to improve education this month?  By sharing these experiences we can inspire others to do the same.  We can continue to keep the debate alive!

I am not beyond reproach.  I could have posted my experience in participating in public comment at the State Board of Education in April, or attending a “What Counts?” meeting organized by the Tooele County School District Board and giving input as to how they can do better and what they should focus on.  I could (and should) blog more about my involvement with the PTA and our efforts to reduce class size and improve the education of all children in Utah.  Why aren’t we all doing this more?

In hopes that it will get people talking again, I’d like to call a few people out on this.  As bloggers we’re all quite aware of who is linking to us and why and I’m pretty sure that’s how you might have ended up reading this post, but that’s the idea.  Now that you’re here, defend yourself, won’t you?  Tell us all why you cared about education last year but this year you’ve fallen silent.  Express your awesome opinions once again!  Make a commitment today to keep education issues on your front page.  If you’re a political blog, talk about the candidates’ commitment to education.  Don’t permanently die and never post again when you did so much for us last year!  There are a few of you that continue to talk about education and we all thank you!

I hope 2008 will be another banner year for making a difference for our children.  We’d all give up our lives for our children if it ever came to that.  Let’s do them one better and give up our time and energy for them while they’re young and when it counts the most!  Commit today to write at least one post a month on an education related issue.  We can do this!  We have to do this!  If you don’t have a blog, participate in the comments!  We can all make a difference by working together!  I’ve overused exclamation points in this paragraph so it’s time to end!  NOW!

I think it’s important to stay on top of important issues that might have an effect on our children. Many times this can be easily accomplished just by staying informed. State School Board Chairman Kim Burningham (who has recently announced that he will step down from his Chairman position but will continue to serve on the State School Board) was kind enough to send out an email to let us know that two such issues would be discussed at an Education Interim Committee meeting. I was unable to attend in person (they didn’t have time for public input anyhow) but I did take the time to listen to the audio. The following is a fairly detailed synopsis of the discussion regarding legislation that would effect the State School Board.

During an Education Interim Committee meeting on November 14, 2007, modifications to the State Board of Education were discussed. These modifications would expand the membership of the State Board of Education from 15 members to 29 members whose districts would then be identical to the State Senate districts and also would change the election procedures to a non-partisan board to a partisan board.

The question to the committee was, “Is there a sponsor for this bill?”

The answer was, “Right now it belongs to the Committee.”

More confusion: “Who do we address the questions to? Who is going to answer the questions?”

The answer - even more confusion: “The Wizard of Oz.”

“Let’s pull the curtain back then!”

They finally determined that Senator Stephenson and Dee Larsen (Associate General Counsel) would be able to answer questions regarding the proposed legislation.

Representative Holdaway asked, “Why are we doing this, number one? Number two, in my mind and in many people’s minds this system is not broken.”

Representative Wimmer’s answer (paraphrased): This dates back to the 2006 election. My wife will kill me for this, but I’m going to use her as an example. With the advent of early voting some people voted several weeks prior to the election day. Finding information about State School Board candidates was nearly impossible because they didn’t hold town hall meetings, that we could see. My wife ended up not voting for a State School Board member because she couldn’t find any information. This bill will make the school board members, who do a good job, and puts them through the process where they will make them more visible. As they go through this process there is much more initiative on their part to hold town hall meetings, to hold debates, to hold Meet the Candidate events so the people can see, so that this will shine a light for the public. I don’t see this as anything but good. They are not required in any way shape or form, to pick a political party. What it does is bring it to the people; bring it to the grass roots level where the citizens will be able to shine a light on the candidates and have more of a view of who they are going to vote for. That’s my reason and purpose for it.

Senator Jones then made a comment (paraphrased): I interview people for a living. People really don’t know who their school board members are and sometimes don’t even know who their Governor is. What the public is clamoring for right now is less partisanship, not more. And in my view this does nothing to improve the current system; nothing whatsoever. And in fact, I think it makes it worse because it would include so much more partisanship in the process. It would be incredibly unfortunate for a very capable person to campaign and have people vote against her just because she has Republican behind her name.

Rep. Hughes asked (paraphrased): How many people are aware of the process we have now? How many people are aware that we have a selection committee? That is a partisan selection committee. You have members of the business coalition and members of the education community and they’re coming together as a committee to decide who gets to put their name on a ballot. We can live and die by that process but I don’t know that everyone is going to see that process as being nonpartisan and free of politics. I think we have a process in place that I think could be revisited. He continued to explain that he thinks that the convention process is a great way to elect officials. Anyone that has to go through that kind of refiners fire make a candidate a better public servant. He thinks that the size of the school board districts are too big for people to have one-on-one conversations with constituents; the numbers are too big. This will help bring the process to the people and have them be more a part of who their State School Board members will be.

Senator Stephenson (paraphrased): I agree with this concept. It would elevate the stature of the State School Board. At the same time I realize that anything we pass in the coming session would not have an effect for the 2008 general session because the process is already in place. Should we consider this legislation in the coming session or put it on the interim study list for the 2008 interim and have a thorough hearing process and then bring it back in the 2009 session so that it would be implemented in time for the 2010 legislature. I don’t think it could currently take affect in the 2008 legislature.

Rep. Wimmer concluded (paraphrased): I’m tremendously supportive of what Senator Stephensen said. This is an issue that cannot go away. That’s the way I view it. I’ve received some emails that accuse me of being a partisan hack in this issue. This has zero to do with partisanship. This has everything to do with shining the light on those who represent us. I’ll bet that less than one half of one percent of the citizens can name their school board members. I understand that most of our citizens can’t name us, but those who go to the caucuses can, those who go to convention can, those who are involved in the processes can; they know who we are and they help dictate the government. Right now our state school board members are way too far away from the people they represent. Being that it could not take effect until 2010 I have no problem with Senator Stephens’ suggestion.

A motion was made to have the item formerly placed on the interim study list and that they direct staff to make sure that that happens.

The motion was not recognized but it was the general consensus that this bill would be studied further and brought up in a future legislative session (not 2008).

Representative Wimmer believes that this issue cannot go away, so we’ll certainly see this revisited in the future.

Stay tuned for a synopsis of the second issue that was discussed that could have an effect on our children.

Before the committee met I wrote a letter to my representative (James Gowans) who sits on the committee and argued that a partisan State School Board would not be in the best interest of our children.  I’m fairly certain he agrees, although I have not received a response to my email.  This is an issue I’ll certainly continue to follow.

Tonight was the first night that I was seen on TV speaking out against vouchers. Appearing in a commercial about such a hotly contested issue is not something to take lightly. I’m already getting a lot of phone calls, mostly from people who can’t believe they saw me on TV. Frankly, I can’t believe it either. But I did it because I truly believe that House Bill 148 has major flaws and loopholes.

I know by now “flaws and loopholes” sounds like rhetoric; and it would be if I didn’t know what the flaws and loopholes were. Hundreds of articles in as many blogs and newspapers have been written to identify these flaws and loopholes. I would like to concentrate on the two biggest, but before you read further I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with what exactly House Bill 148 [le.utah.gov] says. The following posts from Accountability First do a great job of breaking down the legal lingo.

1. So, what does House Bill 148 say?
2. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 2)?
3. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 3)?
4. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 4)?

Now that you’re more informed, which is the only way you can really make a good decision anyway, please read on for what I and others perceive to be the flaws and loopholes.

• Very Little Accountability
  • Private schools do not have to be accredited, and they can employ teachers without a college degree or a state license. Furthermore, voucher schools aren’t subject to any performance audit requirements, can discriminate based on religion or ability to pay and aren’t required to dismiss teachers for criminal conduct. [source: Utahns for Public Schools]
    • Supporting articles:
      • How many Mark Twains have we had?
      • Where is the accountability?
      • Teachers in New Ad Explain How Referendum 1 Fails Utah Families
• Does Not Help Most Children
  • With more than 96% of Utah children currently attending a public school, why are we diverting so much money to private schools where there are far fewer children in that category to be helped? Why aren’t we putting the money (and all this effort that we put into fighting for/against vouchers, for goodness sakes) into the public school system to make it better?When talking about money we have to look at the long term, not just the next five years where the districts are held “harmless”. What about when all private school students apply for vouchers in 18 years when the program is completely phased in? That’s when the damage is really done and that’s when it’s probably too late. That’s why the fight is happening now, before the “experiment” goes horribly wrong.By now, hopefully you realize that the way pro-voucher ads describe the money by using Oreo cookies is over-simplified. They look at the classroom and only consider the first five years. They don’t take into account the fixed costs that schools incur; the cost of the school, electricity, the half empty bus that still costs the same to drive and fill with gas, etc. It also doesn’t help that many low-income families couldn’t afford a private school even with a full $3000 “scholarship”. Especially if there is more than one student in the household.I recently attended a Legislative Convention where vouchers were a topic of discussion and a parent that was in attendance admitted that she sent one of her children to a private school and the other to a public school because she couldn’t afford to send both to a private school. However, despite the burden, she admitted that it was her choice (yes, we all have the choice) and as such also her obligation to incur the cost. Why aren’t more people as reasonable?
    • Supporting articles:
      • Is this realistic for Utah families?
      • Who exactly is supposed to benefit from vouchers?
      • Average tuition at Utah’s private schools is $4,520

There are more flaws and loopholes, but those are the biggest ones. I haven’t written anything tonight that 100 other bloggers haven’t already written. Nothing original about this, more of a summary if anything. But the last reason I choose not to support vouchers is not only because of the plain information and facts that are laid out before me, helping me see that it is indeed flawed, but all the other individuals and organizations that are advocating on behalf of our children and hoping Referendum 1 is voted down on November 6.

The latest happens to be one of our wonderful Representatives here in the Tooele area, Rhonda Menlove, who I admire and respect. An article was published today in the Tooele Transcript Bulletin that she authored and it reads as follows:

Utah voters have the unique opportunity to vote either for or against a referendum that would OK the use of state tax dollars to fund vouchers for school-age students to attend private schools.

Ironically, this would be the richest private school voucher program in the nation. In Utah, we pay the lowest amount in the nation per student to fund our public schools. We already have an underfunded public education system and an underfunded charter school system. Now we are being asked to start a new private education system, which will also be competing for tax dollars.

Much has been said about whether or not vouchers would save or cost local school districts. The answer depends upon the number of students who leave. This is a very important issue. However, the larger issue relates to whether or not this will cost taxpayers more. It will.

The state of Utah has two tax funds — the education fund and the general fund. Pro-voucher supporters are proud to say that vouchers will not take money from the education fund. That is true for now. Tax dollars that you pay will be taken from the general fund to pay for the vouchers. It is important to understand that all government functions outside of education are supported by tax dollars from the general fund. These services include transportation, highway patrol officers, senior citizen meals and programs, state agencies, parks and recreation, health and human services — just to mention a few.

The voucher program will grow each year by millions of dollars. Just think what those dollars could be spent on and how much we already invest in a public education system available for all students and funded by tax-payers. My vote is to use our tax dollars to improve what we have and not to start a new private education system. If parents want another choice, that is their option, but they, not the taxpayers, must pay for that choice.

In addition, there are very few private school options in Tooele County. If we choose to spend our tax dollars to send students to private schools, the bulk of the money will be spent along the Wasatch front, not in our county.

More than 95 percent of Utah’s school children attend public schools. We already have a state-funded education system for all students.

I was elected to be a steward of your tax dollars and to use them wisely. I take that job seriously. I will be voting against Referendum 1. I can’t tell you how to vote, but I strongly encourage you to cast your vote so your voice will be heard.