The Citizens United Supreme Court case and unions

On a Facebook thread recently, I argued that the recent Supreme Court decree on campaign finance reform benefitted corporations a lot more than unions, and implied that unions opposed the decision.

Looks like I was wrong. Mea Culpa, especially to Nathan.

That said, I think it was really, really dumb of unions – any unions – to support Citizens United in this case.  At the link, Lindsay Beyerstein does a good job offering an explanation of the thinking of the AFL-CIO, but I want to make a point or two that I’ve not seen brought up yet:

1) Unions will never, ever have as much money avilable to influence politicians as corporations do.  It just isn’t going to happen, not given the relative sources of income and nature of the two groups.  My guess is that the AFL-CIO wanted to retain or increase their own financial ability in this area, but given the massive amount by which they are outgunned, it seems like a really bad trade-off.

2) The removal of donations from politics will do more to elect pro-labor candidates than allowing unions to donate ever will.  (In other words, let’s talk full public financing.)

The second point is the one I think will be most controversial.  It stems pretty directly from the first, though.  I have two main reasons for thinking this:

A) Unions are organized groups of people – and I am operating under the assumption that the more money is removed from politics, the more volunteers will matter.  And unions, and the left in general, can turn out volunteers far more effectively than corporations.

B) The removal of corporate money from politics will do a lot to enable the election of pro-labor candidates.  Progressives tend not to have much money – or, more specifically, not a lot compared to candidates backed by corporations and corporate PACs.  Leveling the financial playing field – well, lowering the cost of running – should tilt the scales in favor of progressive candidates who might actually be responsive to the people that elect them.  (A novel idea, I know.)

In short, I think the AFL-CIO was being too shortsighted in pursuing their self-interest here, and that they should never have supported what is clearly a *very* conservative position in this case.  They would benefit more in the long run from heading in the opposite direction.

Lebanon Express comes out against M66 & 67 with a very poorly written and reasoned editorial

This is one of the worst editorials I’ve seen in the Lebanon Express in a long time.  Consider:

Oregon already has high income taxes. Oregon is one of five states without a sales tax, instead counting on the majority of Oregon taxpayer’s 9 percent income tax to shoulder the burden.

Right – Oregon has high income taxes because it has no sales tax, which the editorial notes. So why make it sound like Oregon’s high income tax is a reason not to vote for Measures 66 & 67, or is inherently a problem* at all?  A more relevant number would be the overall tax burden of Oregon compared to other states, or better yet, the ratio of taxes to services compared to other states.

According to the Tax Foundation, a DC-based nonprofit that doesn’t particularly like taxes, Oregon’s tax burden has dropped from 10th-highest in the nation in 1977 to 26th in 2008.  In other words, Oregon’s tax burden is close to the median and has been dropping steadily for 30 years.

Thirty seconds on Google allowed me to find this information.  What was stopping the editorial writer from the doing the same?  Implying that Oregon’s high income taxes are a reason not to increase the marginal income tax rate on the highest earners is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

Next, the editorial buys hook, line and sinker the line that the two measures will cost jobs:

“Which brings us to this question: How many more jobs would you like to see disappear?”

But wait!  The very next line:

The song and dance is the same for the proponents as it has been: Pass this measure or police officers, teachers, and other public servants will suffer.

Note the “song and dance” bit – I am halfway tempted to check the Voter’s Pamphlet for this line, because it’s so hackneyed and clearly designed to imply that dozens of state legislators and Oregon officials are all lying when they say that.  That’s a big claim to make, Express.  You sure you want to accuse them all of lying?

Also, you know what police officers, teachers, and public servants are?  EMPLOYEES.  With PAYCHECKS.  So which is it, Express?  Do public employee jobs count as jobs or not?

It’s not entirely clear from the editorial (another strike against it – it was almost as incoherent as some of Hering’s work) where the Express comes down on this question; however, at least it doesn’t flat-out dismiss public employees as so many opponents of the measures do.

Welders, electricians, truck drivers, mill workers and many others were laid off as unemployment topped 16 percent, just for Linn County. Our county’s unemployment levels are significantly above both state and federal levels.

True.  Including this information in this editorial only makes sense if you buy that the passage of these measures will cost more private sector jobs than they will retain public sector jobs or lead to the creation of more private sector jobs.  And for those of you out there who are shouting “A-ha!” because you’ve heard that economists estimate that 70,000 jobs will be lost if these pass, check this out:

These estimates were not subjected to peer review — at least not voluntarily. When examined by nationally recognized experts on state and local public finance at the Brookings Institution, the result was a scathing report concluding that the analyses were “without merit.”

Yup.  The 70,000 estimate is not valid, and the refusal of the people who made the estimate to subject their work to peer review suggests they knew that – which means this is a political calculation, nothing more.  Also?  I found that op-ed in another 30 seconds on Google and it’s from a local paper, the Eugene Register-Guard.

Continuing with the lousy-reasoning-and-jobs theme:

“And while the proposed Measure 66 eliminates taxes on the first $2,400 a person drew in unemployment for 2009, benefiting the person in that line, it certainly won’t help them find a job in 2010 if the measure passes.”

No shit?  Really?  Last time I checked, this wasn’t ever part of a jobs-creation package. This was a tax increase designed to keep the state from having to cut too much from the budget as part of a balanced budget package that included tax increases, tiny tax cuts, federal stimulus money, and $2 billion in cuts to state government.  These measures will *preserve* some public jobs, but aren’t designed to create private-sector jobs.  That’s not the point.   I hope the editorial writer actually understands the distinction.

That said, in Linn County, creating jobs is certainly important.  Perhaps the Express could write future editorials with ideas on how to do that rather than trash the only thing on the table that stands a chance of preserving some jobs as is? The editorial, as written, ignores the political realities of Oregon politics to an astounding degree – the Leg isn’t going to re-craft a budget in the upcoming special session if these measures fail.  Rightly or wrongly, they are not going to – and they have been saying as much for months.  Implying that some sort of protest/no-new-taxes vote will change that is really, really out of touch with reality.  Politics has never worked that way – if Oregon voters want something specific done, they need to advocate for it, not against something else.

The editorial contains one more giant, gaping lack of logic/grasp of reality:

The song was the same for the failed Measure 28 in 2003, which wove the tale of a $544.6 million deficit in the state’s budget. Measure 30 in 2004 was the follow-up to Measure 28 and it also failed with the same threats held overhead: Pass the bill to raise $802.7 million in revenue, or else.

Yet somehow, Oregon survived. Legislators can only cry wolf so many times and expect to be heard.

This is the worst part of the editorial (and that says something).  It brushes off any and all cuts and damage done as the result of previous budget shortfalls with a simple “Oregon survived.” In polite terms, this is a strawman:  No one has argued that Oregon will cease to exist as a state if Measures 66 & 67 fail.  People have argued that services will be cut and people will be severely impacted, up to and including death  – and instead of addressing those claims, which are narrow and backed up with both evidence and experts, all the Express can offer is a proverbial shrug of the shoulders.

In less polite terms, this is about the single most weasel-like thing I’ve ever seen in an Express editorial.  To casually dismiss state cuts as “crying wolf” given the overwhelming number of people who will be affected by the failure of these measures – well, I like the Express staff, so I’ll refrain from the using the words I really want to use.

There is another element to the end of the editorial that I want to draw attention to:

We are aware cuts will have to be made if the measures don’t pass. We just hope legislators use a scalpel rather than a hatchet, and start in their own offices before they head into our classrooms.

I have trouble believing this made it into print, for the following two reasons:

1) It’s incredibly naive.  Does the editorial’s author really think that state legislators either a) have $733 million left to cut in their own offices without hitting up public services, or b) would choose to do so even if they did?  Anyone who has been paying any attention to state politics will know the answers are no and no.

2) Without some evidence, on what grounds can the editorial actually claim that a “scalpel and not a hatchet” is the way to go?  We’re talking about $733 million dollars here – this is a few zeroes away from being within sight of scalpel territory.  This is a throwaway line that sounds good and makes me want to check if it was from the Voters Pamphlet again; it sounds good and means nothing constructive.

The bottom line is that while I am shocked the Express would come out against the measures, I am even more shocked they would be taken in by a bunch of crappy arguments – and then write an equally crappy editorial based on those crappy arguments.

This is one time they really needed to get it right.  It’s unfortunate they got it so wrong.

*Yeah yeah yeah – no one likes paying taxes, I get it.  That attitude is stupid and shortsighted when it goes beyond grumbling, and anyone who seriously thinks taxes are inherently problematic and doesn’t have a proposed way to replace all the public goods and services they provide can grow up, STFU, or both.  The anti-tax fervor that people seemed to be caught up in is completely juvenile.

VISA screws people, corporate exec fails to see it happening anywhere else

“What we witnessed was truly a perverse form of competition,” said Ronald Congemi, the former chief executive of Star Systems, one of the regional PIN-based networks that has struggled to compete with Visa. “They competed on the basis of raising prices. What other industry do you know that gets away with that?”

Off the top of my head?  Cable TV, Internet, and cell phone providers.  Especially cell phone companies.   I’m sure there are many others – large companies love that kind of environment, where there is a captive audience.  That’s not perverse; that’s the American Way.

Update:  Headline fixed.  Sorry about that.

Xmas Oops

This is a textbook example of blind Christian privilege:

School Board members Mike Martin and Russ McUne said Thursday they felt Finch had overreacted.

“There were 18 songs on the program, of which one has a sacred theme to it and 17 don’t. Really, the complaint should go the other way: The program was too darned secular,” said Martin, who was in the audience. “To change that program for one person is almost a violation of everyone else’s rights.”

I’m all of a sudden less comfortable with Martin on the school board, if this is his understanding of things.  It’s a public school program.  It should be secular.  End of story.  And I can all but guarantee that while there might have only been one person who said something, there were others in the audience who did precisely to avoid comments like Martin’s, which is not exactly what I’d call ‘welcoming’ to non-Christians.

Note:  I don’t have any issue with people spontaneously choosing to sing a song.  That’s their right.  But that’s also very different than having it be sponsored by the school.  Martin, as a board member, should know better, regardless of his personal beliefs.

A bit scarier than that, though, is the idea that rights are determined by majority.  That’s dangerous – and in case it’s not obvious why, what would happen if a majority decided that all entrances into the school had to include steps?  Anyone with limited mobility would be excluded – but “to change the entrances for one person is almost a violation of everyone else’s rights,” by Martin’s logic.  (And if you think this example doesn’t work, say so and I’ll bring one up that includes race.)

I hope the Superintendent makes a point of having a friendly conversation with Martin regarding why, regardless of what Martin thinks in private, this kind of thing doesn’t help the district.

Health Insurance Reform

I’ve been following the twisted, repulsive politics of health insurance reform pretty closely, and as cynical as I might be, I am still pretty down about just how bad-faith the politics of all of this have been.  (And yes, I’m looking at Joe Lieberman.)  There have been a couple of things I’ve read that stuck with me.  For example, from No More Mister Nice Blog, a look at how the so-called left could have negotiated for health insurance reform:

As far as we know they agreed to use Congress and the Bill Making process as a bargaining chip to be bargained *away* instead of as a threat to induce compliance. What I mean is that they offered to squelch real reform–drug reimportation, the public option, etc…etc…etc… in return for a promise of funds to be disbursed later instead of pushing for the most drastically radical bill they could get and then backing off it. Similarly, Obama and Rahm preferred to keep the grassroots quiet as a gift to the deal making process, instead of using populism as a tool to force the best bargain. Instead of activating their own voters and pressuring Pharmaetc with popular rage and populist demands O and R told the most progressive members of the coalition–MoveOn for example and the Unions, to keep their mouths shut.

The whole post isn’t that long and well worth reading.  There’s an old cliche about FDR telling his political supporters that they had to make him pass the New Deal.  He wanted to, but he had to be seen as responding to political pressure.  I think HCR (or HIR) could have been the same way – Obama, as the link above notes, could have presented himself as the moderate choice in comparison to the ‘crazy’ left, and used that position to suggest that he had to support certain positions.  But he didn’t.  And as a result – well, you know.  Instead, the Democrats chose to actually punch the hippies.

The second bit that caught my eye was this, from Ezra Klein, who has looked at the policy and politics of HCR pretty intensely:

My sense is that the Obama administration attempted a low-risk political strategy for itself. By eschewing any strong commitment to the public option, they made it easier to sacrifice something that they always figured they’d probably have to lose. It’s telling that in all the coverage of the death of the public option, you haven’t seen stories saying “Obama administration dealt huge defeat in Senate.”

But in doing so, they betrayed a bond that the left thought it had with the young administration. And that’s made this a much higher-risk strategy for the bill, and thus for the White House, too. If the Obama administration had been firmer on the public option and only let it go after grueling negotiations that ended with a concrete agreement on the bill, it’s possible the administration would have had a better case to make to progressives.

This is interesting because while the common response has been some sort of “progressives really should have known Obama better,” I think that is actually kind of wrong on this.  The politics he’s employed over HCR seem really disconnected to the rhetoric employed by Candidate Obama.  Second, fairly or unfairly, I agree with Klein:  He’s destroyed a lot of trust.  He’ll pay for that, as will down-ticket democrats in 2010.

But more than either of those has been the unforgiveable display from Lieberman.  His transparent attempt to hurt his political opponents has resulted in changes to the bill that are estimated to save less lives.  The fact that this isn’t seen as crossing some sort of line – well, what more is there to say?

Faculty furlough days: what a mess

“If the faculty had voted against [taking furlough days], it would have been a signal to the voters that faculty here, and by extension higher education in general, isn’t taking the problems of the state seriously,” said Bill Lunch, chairman of the political science department.

One can always count on Bill Lunch to provide the very definition of conventional wisdom.  The problem is framing it this way – either vote for the specific motion, or suffer.  That’s clearly a false choice, and the faculty who shut down debate on alternatives did themselves and their colleagues a tremendous disservice yesterday when they used that argument to end debate.

Will changing demographics automatically change politics?

I hear this claim made quite a bit:

Political scientists have marveled at the distinctive attitudes of “millennials,” born roughly between 1982 and 2003. (Thus, a single generation seems to encompass both my daughter and many of my co-workers!) They are characterized above all by tolerance but also by cooperation, liberal political views, and respect for public institutions. They form the basis not just for the Obama Democratic coalition but for the hope of a progressive politics in the future.

That’s all fine and good, but I think there’s some assumptions that have been inserted in there between the demographics of so-called Millenials and some kind of progressive future:

First, that this group will maintain their progressive personal politics.

Second, that they will enter public politics.

And third – and probably most important – that the simple equation progressive people + politics = progressive politics works.  I don’t think it does; look at the influence of money on politics.  Look at the disproportionate influence of both Southerners and movement conservatives on politics.  Look at, in other words, the structural factors that affect US electoral politics now, and tell me exactly changing demographics alone is supposed to magically lead to a progressive future.  I’m just not buying it.

I do buy, however, that it’s likely, and will be incremental, and will be viciously opposed by money and hate the entire way, but will ultimately happen: MLK’s ‘long arc of history bends towards justice’ and all that.  But that’s not the same thing.  I’ve only ever seen this claim made in a very simplified form, and in that form, I think it’s far less a given – as many people take it to be – and far more of a possibility.

GT editorial on OSU’s expansion

I can’t quite decide if I like this piece or not.  On the one hand, there are parts I like:

We’d also urge OSU officials to make this process as transparent and public as possible. If we’re talking about the possible elimination of programs – and it’s clear that we are – the only thing that could be worse than a decision that’s perceived by the public as being overly hasty would be a decision that the public believes was made entirely behind closed doors.

And we encourage OSU to reach beyond the borders of campus in soliciting public participation. … The community would appreciate having a chance to weigh in.

We know – goodness, how we know – that encouraging wide public participation brings with it the potential of adding unexpected bumps to the road. In the long run, though, it makes for a much smoother ride.

Then there are parts that I think could have connected the dots a bit better.  Two parts, specifically.  The first:

If you’ve become accustomed to the pace at which Oregon State University typically tackles big initiatives – let’s be generous and call it, well, carefully paced and deliberative – the speed at which the university is approaching its “OSU 2025″ overhaul will be a shock to the system.

So why is OSU moving so fast?  This is the answer hinted at by OSU and picked up by the GT:

These are, potentially, huge decisions to be making on a short timeline. But OSU officials believe this process needs to move quickly – and the continuing erosion of state funding has just added urgency to the effort.

There are two assumptions being made here that I want to pull out, because I think they are important to understanding what’s actually happening.

1.  The reorganization will save money. Will the reorganization actually save money?  For example, how does adding a new layer of bureaucracy in the Division structure save money?  So far, the Business Centers are not saving any money, and when pressed, OSU administrators have backed off the initial claim that saving money was the point.  They’ve also presented remarkably little evidence or plans as to exactly how the changes will save money.

2.  The reorganization has to happen now because of the budget situation. What is the real connection between the reorganization and the budget crisis?  In other words, is the reorganization even intended to save money in the first place, or is there something else going on?  The reorganization has clearly been in the works since before the budget crisis, which makes the claim – almost always danced around by Ray, Randhawa and Faculty Senate President Paul Doescher – that the reorganization is necessary as a response to the budget crisis highly suspect, if not outright crap.  I happen to think the reorganization is motivated by other things and that no one is talking about what those other things might be.  I really wish the GT would let Bennett Hall loose on this angle.

University administrators are using the budget situation as cover for the changes – changes are not necessarily designed to save money, but are happening for some other purpose that OSU is not being very forthcoming about.

As far as the GT’s editorial is concerned, like I said at the beginning, I was pleased by some parts and less pleased by others.  There are some very shaky assumptions being made in the claims put forth by university administrators, and no one is taking a critical, public look at them.  I would love it if the GT did so.

The Corvallis Gazette-Times and customer relations

A few days ago, I received an email from two people who work with Mid-Valley Voice, part of the website for the local papers:

This weekend we learned that MidValley Voice user account information was accessible for several days.

A list of usernames, passwords and email addresses was available in an obscure network known primarily to product testers working for our vendor, who partners with us to operate the MidValley Voice network.

After learning of the security problem, our partner immediately secured the account information. Further investigation leads us to believe that exposure was very limited, primarily by our registered users who may have searched for their own names in Google. We have received no word from customers that any accounts were compromised.

As a precaution, we suggest changing your MidValley Voice password and monitoring the e-mail account associated with our network for any problems.

Needless to say, this is annoying,  It happens, but it’s annoying.  From there, though, things went oddly south.  First, the link that had been included in the email was broken.  Considering this went out to all MVV subscribers, that’s rough.

Second, I went online to the MVV site and started to look around for a way to simply delete my entire account.  I’d rather do that and start over – I only really have an account because one is required – than simply change my password, given the nature of the problem.  I could not figure out how to delete my account.  Assuming I might have just missed it, but realizing there probably wasn’t actually a way to delete my own account (and that being a rather significant failure on the part of whoever put MVV together), I emailed the two people who had signed the email that went out to MVV subscribers.  My email:

[Name] or [Name],

Can you please let me know how to simply delete my entire account?  Given the email that just went out about passwords, I would prefer to do that.

Thanks,

Dennis Dugan

A few hours later I got this response:

Your account has been removed. – [Name]

That was the entirety of the response.  Note that I didn’t ask to have my account deleted, exactly; I asked how I could delete my own account.  This only made me suspicious there really was no way for a user to delete their own account, i.e. control their own information.  Since I had two accounts on MVV that I wanted deleted, I sent a second email:

In that case, can you also remove the account associated with [email address] (as you can see, it’s also me) and, if such a way exists, let me know how users can shut down their own accounts?

Thanks,

Dennis

Three minutes later, I got this response:

That account has been removed as well.

Helpful, sort of, but not quite what I was looking for.  In fact, at this point I began to wonder if they were intentionally ignoring the question, though I also want to stop and acknowledge that the person who was responding to me was probably having one hell of a day just trying to fix things.  Even so, I think, it would not have been too hard to address my question.

Bearing in mind all email correspondence after my initial email had been between myself and one of the two people I had emailed, later that evening I got this email from the second of the two:

Did [Name] get back to you on this?

I replied:

He deleted the accounts I requested.  He did not explain if users have the ability to delete their own accounts.

I then got the following email:

We’re not sure about that ourselves, if I understood [Name] correctly. We’ll know more from our vendor tomorrow.

This is the sort of non-definitive answer I was OK with.  I had kind of figured the answer was probably “no,” and at least “we don’t know.”  That’s life – I was more annoyed with the fact that the first person had just ignored the question entirely.  But in any case, it was getting to be late in the evening at this point, so I just kind of put it out of my head.  Sure, it’s annoying when that sort of thing happens, but it does, etc etc.

Then a friend of mine, who had asked for their account to be deleted as well, got the following email – note that I have included more of the email thread because it contains some email that went between the two people who had sent out the original email notifying users of the security breach:

I’ve removed your account.

-[Name]

—–Original Message—–
From: [Name]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
To: [Name]

Subject: FW: Removal of Mid-Valley Voice Account

Another one I just came across. [emphasis added]

—–Original Message—–
From: [Friend]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009
To: [Name]
Subject: Removal of Mid-Valley Voice Account

Can you please remove my Mid-Valley Voice account?… I will re-register at a later date, but I was not able to delete my account.
This entire situation is very frustrating.

Thank you.
[Friend]

At this point I just started laughing, because not only was I not only not the only person who had the problem of not being able to delete their own account, but the line left in the email correspondence sent to said friend of mine sounded like the two people were annoyed with the users who had requested their accounts be deleted after the company had leaked the password and other information.

This just kind of compounds the underlying problem, which is that users don’t have the ability to delete their own accounts.  Add in staff who display a tone of annoyance at users, and, well, it’s just terrible customer relations that made a bad situation worse.

The funny thing about all of this, though, is that I don’t actually place much blame on the two staff in question for the problem (note that I have not mentioned their names, though they will certainly be able to recognize their own email correspondence).  First, as I mentioned, they are undertrained in this area.  Second, they are overworked.  Third – and probably most importantly – they are under pressure from above to do things a certain way that may have led to the security breach in the first place.  And fourth, I bet at least one of them was having really bad day in trying to deal with this, and probably chose to do what they could in the moment – and I appreciate the speed in which that happened.

None of this excuses the terrible customer relations, but I think it goes a long way towards explaining them.  It would be better if the parent company a) actually hired people who were formally trained in this kind of web work, rather than rely on a converted reporter, and b) hired enough staff to do this right.  Oh, and also c) get some decent software that allows for user control over account creation and deletion, but that’s oddly almost not worth mentioning – I don’t actually expect Lee Enterprises, the parent company, to allow their staff to do something like that.

I’ve never really liked the MVV site.  It’s always struck me as too little too late in the world of social media platforms, and more designed to generate ad revenue than anything else.  I do acknowledge, though – and again – that this is not necessarily the fault of any local staff, but the result of bad corporate policy.  That’s what needs to change, the local staff’s crankiness notwithstanding.

I am normally not in favor of punitive justice…

…but I’m having an awfully hard time not thinking this is a good idea:

A civil trial is under way in the case of an Oregon State University fraternity member who shot a homeless man.

On Oct. 14, 2006, Dennis Sanderson, 41, was shot in the leg with a .22-caliber rifle behind the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity house at 331 N.W. 26th St.

A fraternity member, Josh Grimes, pleaded guilty in March 2007 to unlawful use of a weapon and third-degree assaults, both felonies. In September 2007, Sanderson filed a civil lawsuit against Grimes and the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity. Sanderson is seeking payment for medical expenses and pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages.

The one caveat I have with this is that I used to know Cameron Krebs, who was the fraternity president at the time, and I got along with him pretty well.  But that’s about the only caveat.  What happened was disgusting, as were a lot of the reactions either downplaying the incident or trying to put distance between the fraternity and the shooting.  The evidence does not exactly point to Grimes being out of the mainstream of the rest of the frat members:

At least two members admitted to having shot at transients with BB guns in the past. Detectives were convinced at least one AGR member in addition to the shooter knew what had happened. One member took two polygraph tests – and failed them both.

Also, this:

But investigation reports say hewasn’t the only one present during the shooting, and he wasn’t the only one who had shot at transients over the past year.

“Alpha Gamma Rho doesn’t stand for that sort of behavior,” said Josh Wackler, director of chapter development for the national fraternity. “Nor tolerate that sort of behavior.”

Right.  It was a bad attempt at face-saving then, and it stinks now.  I actually think OSU should have banned that fraternity from campus after that incident.  I mean, setting aside how shitty it was for Wackler to hang Grimes out to dry, how would anyone from AGR justify this:

Another fraternity member told police that he was present during the shooting. He told police he was in his room at the fraternity when Grimes went “flying by,” saying to get his gun and go with him. He did get his gun and followed Grimes into another room overlooking the alley. Grimes told him there was a “hobo out there.” A that point Grimes shot and hit Sanderson.

The friend, who has not been charged, told police he didn’t realize at the time the ammunition Grimes used – and which he himself had in his rifle – was so powerful. He thought it was more like a BB gun.

What can I say?  Part of me really hopes AGR gets their clock cleaned in the civil suit.  And I’m a little frustrated that the frat idea as a whole escaped being connected to this, because it was so clearly representative of the mentality of more than one person.

UPDATE Check out this GT story on some of the testimony:

“I don’t accept the premise that there was any culture of animosity toward the homeless,” [AGR Executive Director] Josephson said.

Really?  Seriously?  How does he explain this:

Hayes said a discussion among frat members later revealed that people had shot off BB guns at or near Sanderson.

Hayes also said he didn’t see Sanderson display any signs of a leg injury.

A former cook for the fraternity said she occasionally heard the students shooting BB guns out there windows at leaves or squirrels.

Not only is that evidence that there were multiple incidents involving multiple people, but the implication that shooting at Sanderson was OK as long as they missed him makes me want to throw up.

Sand Ridge rehires administrator who resigned in 2004

From the Lebanon Express:

Sand Ridge Charter Schools have a new principal, but he is no stranger to the two campuses.

John Leon was administrator at the school before, resigning in 2004.

He was hired Sept. 15, said director of operations Mary Northern.

Leon declined an interview with the Lebanon Express.

Interesting that he declined a interview.  I think that’s a bad idea given the better part of the last decade’s history between Sand Ridge and the LCSD.  Also a bad idea given the reason he resigned:

According a 2004 article in the Lebanon Express, Leon resigned amid accusations from parents that he “engaged in inappropriate religious activity with students: preaching, reading Bible verses and crying during religious talks.”

He denied the allegations, but said resigning was in the best interest of the school and himself.

In 2005, the Oregon Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Vickie Fleming, on behalf of Superintendent Susan Castillo, concluded that religious activities ceased when Leon resigned his position on July 23, 2004.

Not definitive, but pretty close.  And now he’s back – in a publicly-funded school.

Not only do I think it would be in Leon’s best interests to grant an interview to the paper, so does the Express.  And on top of that, I think the LCSD School Board might want to start paying closer attention to Sand Ridge again.  Unfortunately, despite the advances made elsewhere in the district in terms of relationships and a renewed focus on students, the decision to re-hire someone who resigned because there was evidence they blatantly undermined the separation of church and state indicates that maybe things haven’t changed as much around Sand Ridge as they should have.

Sprenger should know better on taxes

Two legislative bills have been referred to the ballot for a special election in January 2010.  Both are tax increases – one on individuals and one on corporations.  Both are relatively small increases; the personal income  tax increase is marginal and only applies to people making above $250,000, and the corporate tax reforms, while a bit more complicated, still leave Oregon near the very bottom nationwide in business taxes (see here for more).  Both increases were proposed as part of a package of cuts and other measure designed to craft a workable Oregon budget in light of the faltering economy.  Both are pretty darn progressive.

And yet Sherrie Sprenger opposed both of them.  Check out the logic:

Rep. Sherrie Sprenger (R-Scio) voted no on both tax bills.

“I am very concerned about the negative effects these increases are going to have on small businesses in my districts,” Sprenger said. “Especially in my district, small businesses employ the vast majority of folks.”

Sprenger said she thinks it is a “very real possibility” these taxes would cause layoffs.

Both the governor’s office and the Department of Revenue saw increased budgets, Sprenger said.

Let’s unpack this a bit.  Yes, some small businesses are going to see a tax increase – the new corporate minimum for most corporations is going to be $150 a year.

A year.  Frankly, that’s not a whole lot.  Yeah, it’s a big percent increase from the current minimum of $10, but a $10 minimum corporate tax is completely ridiculous – it hasn’t been changed since 1931.

The other proposed change to corporate taxes is the rate paid on corporate profits made above $250,000.  I don’t know what Sprenger’s definition of a small business is, but I’ll assume she doesn’t include businesses with $250,00 in profit (not sales) as small businesses, then she’s being a bit disingenuous.

Given the tax increases, I want to be charitable and say that the minimum increase is really what Sprenger is referring to when she says she’s worried about the increases.  And even then, you know what?  If Oregon businesses – who are already paying the second-lowest corporate taxes in the nation, on the whole – can’t survive this kind of increase, maybe the problem isn’t the taxes.

There is one more statement from Sprenger that I want to address:

“Just like in our household budgets, the state needs to prioritize and decrease spending before it increases the tax burden,” she said.

This is actually what caught my eye first in the story.  Why?  Because it’s a stupid talking point and she should really know better.  Let me say this really slowly:  The state is not like a household.

Again, for good measure:  The state is not like a household. A household?  Private.  Small.  The first line, financially, of keeping a few people afloat.  The state?  Public.  Large.  The last line, tasked with fundamentally making sure everyone has certain minimum levels of financial and other security (the more original interpretation of the welfare state).  And when times get tough for households – i.e. when the economy is doing so well – the state is supposed to step in and help people survive and recover.  The state can’t do that when it can’t fund basic services like police (funny, since Sprenger used to be a sheriff), hospitals, education and others.  When the state’s short money, it – meaning state legislators – are tasked with figuring out what to do, to either cut spending or raise taxes or try and find another solution.

This time around, the legislators did both.  To cover the shortfalls, cuts were made, stimulus money was received, and tax increases were proposed.  Small, progressive tax increases.  And yet Sprenger wants to forgo those tax increases?  I think that’s bad public policy, but that’s her choice.  What I don’t think is OK is using a false, stupid talking point to do it.  I’m disappointed she is misleading her constituents about the role of the state government, and I hope she doesn’t actually believe what she’s saying, but I’m not sure which is worse.

Somebody Buy Joe Lieberman a Puppy…. and then see what he does with it

From Nate Silver (I also stole the first half the title of the post from 538), a great post on the current state of health insurance reform in the Senate as it pertains to Joe Lieberman:

But while a Nelson or a Lincoln is liable to have a fairly rational set of concerns — basically, they want to ensure they get re-elected — it’s tough to bargain with people like Lieberman who are a little crazy. In certain ways, he resembles nothing so much as one of those rogue, third-bit Middle Eastern dictators that he’s so often carping about, capable of creating great anxiety with relatively little expenditure of resources, and taking equal pleasure in watching his friends and enemies sweat.

Pretty much.  It’s become clear to me that social class trumps party politics when it comes to Lieberman, who should have been excommunicated a long time ago.  Instead, it’s like watching a small child throw successive successful tantrums, except that people’s lives hang in the balance and fergawdsake Obama’s supposed to be more than an idiot.

 

I guess that’s it, then

After the meeting, Faculty Senate President Paul Doescher said the campus is divided about Ray’s vision of the future.

“There are some faculty that are embracing the change, there are some faculty that are skeptical, and there are some that are waiting and watching and debating this change. But ultimately it’s the president’s decision,” Doescher said.

- “OSU unveils bold plan, big changes,” October 9th, 2009

The dark side of OSU’s reorganization

From the Daily Barometer:

Over the course of roughly the last five months, a small group of people have been moving to realign OSU for the future. Whether in the hands of the committee commissioned by President Ray, or in the behind-the-scenes planning of senior administrators and a few select faculty, a vision has been set, and this vision is being moved forward. Perhaps the vision isn’t so specific as “college x goes here” and “department y there,” and perhaps it is far more specific than most of us realize. But from what I have seen, the vision is, in any event, one of radical centralization, and that is a vision we ought not be comfortable with nor acquiesce to.

I cannot express how excited I am by this piece.  I’ve been thinking most of this for years now, as I’ve watched OSU become less democratic and more corporate.  Finally, someone said something.

Read the whole thing.