If I'm honest with myself, I can remember when I grumped about the speed of change.
All for equal rights, but slow down, Dr. King; don't push for so much, so soon. Okay, women, you deserve more rights, more respect, equal opportunity and pay, but back off a little and don't be so assertive.
And what's with all these foreigners taking college classroom spaces in American colleges? My taxes help pay for state schools, so why should a kid from Bangla Desh take that last slot in a course my kids want to take. And why give them a bye on SAT scores or language requirements? Don't we have any immigration laws.
America the Beautiful, I'm Proud to Be An American. God Bless the USA. America First.
Yes, I know all about where the Tea Party folks live, because I came from there.
But I can't help but notice that the young man who saved the life of Congress WOMAN Gabby Giffords was a Mexican American college intern. And the team of doctors at the hospital in Tuscon included a Korean American neurosurgeon.
And the team of medical practitioners on her rehab team in Houston consists of an African American, two Asians, a woman, a Hispanic, and one white male.
The people who put flowers and prayers and candles on the site at the hospital came in all ages, men and women, all colors and nationalities -- Americans and others, too.
Just for good measure, I learned just recently that the heads of corporations like Google, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems and a few others that define modern life are Chinese Americans, Russian Americans, black Americans, white Americans, American Americans.
Guess who helps make America first.
God Bless the USA. I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can grow up a little as I grow older....
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Healthcare from where I sit (in the waiting room)
It is my privilege to have lived long enough, and fully enough, to have developed some close relationships with various medical professionals. That's a positive spin on the situation; I've been spending a lot of time lately in doctor's offices, testing labs, rehab, and rooms full of large machines that buzz, bang and whirl away to look at the mess I've made of my body.
Apparently, I have had a good time with life. Too much of good things, like fine food, and too little of nuisances, like exercise. As I have come to know, it's not the age, it's the mileage.
In any case, I have a great vantage point from which to experience, see, hear and discuss the issues of the day regarding health care in the United States. Empirical knowledge, more than the product of formal research, but then I now know that such is my most fundamental American right -- I don't have to be correct to be entitled to my opinions.
What I have learned is this: The issue is not whether we have good medicine in America, but rather who is in charge of administering it to those who need care.
Generally, conservatives think they are in charge of their medical care, but they are wrong. Liberals think the government is, or should be, in charge of providing medical care, but they miss the point, too. Doctors want to be in charge, but lawyers and insurance companies and the stockholders of every business that earns or spends money on health care is out in front.
Patients are in the back. Doctors are in the middle.
What should be simple is now complicated. What should be complicated is beyond frustrating. Blame some of it on bureaucracy -- and whether it's insurance company bureaucrats or government bureaucrats is a matter of your personal political point of view. Republicans prefer that their insurance companies mess up the paperwork and fail to pay for tests, or dictate what treatments and medicines are permitted. Democrats like to have the government in charge of losing forms, denying coverage, or requiring additional documentation.
When I was a kid, there was one doctor in town and if you got sick, you went to his office and sat in one of about 20 hard, straight-back chairs lining the walls, waiting your turn. No appointments. If you were REALLY sick, the doctor came to see you when he made his daily house calls. Yes, house calls.
He would take your temperature, look up your nose, down your throat, in your ears, and shine a light in your eyes. He'd listen to your chest for lungs and heart function, take your pulse, and send you home with some pills to take to see if things improved. If you were lucky, there was a pharmacy within five miles. If you were rich, you'd get the prescription filled.
Most people didn't have insurance. You paid your bills when you got the money. They knew where you lived.
Okay, that was back in the dark ages. But we survived, and medical care improved. People were offered health insurance as part of their job benefits, and began using credit cards to pay their bills. You called in and got an appointment, which the doctor almost never kept, but you had a general idea when you'd see him. The paperwork increased, so instead of having a nurse to help in the exam room and double as the billing clerk, you saw an increase in the staff required to keep and file records, make reports to insurance companies, the government, deal with pharmaceutical reps, answer phones, make referrals, schedule lab and hospital tests and so on. The old doc and his nurse grew to half a dozen doctors, nurse practitioners, RNs, phlebotomists, and billing clerks.
Things have improved to the point where you now get a recording when you call the doctor's office, asking you to leave your name and number and a message, and they will call you back, probably today. If you're taking out the trash or getting the mail when the call comes in, they leave a message on your machine, and you have to start all over.
In spite of all this, medical care is better than ever. But there's room for improvement. And everybody who has anything to do with it knows it, and is in favor of reforms. Cost controls and efficiencies are needed, because it's getting out of hand. So some people are looking at ways to make some positive changes.
Insurance companies are all for it, so long as they continue to make profits and sell malpractice policies. Lawyers are all for it, so long as they can continue to sue and kick in the clauses in the settlement phases of the malpractice policies that doctors have to pay for. Politicians are all for it, so long as they don't have to vote for changes that will offend lobbyists for insurance companies, the trial lawyers' association, the American Medical Association, The American Association for Retired Persons, conservative political action committees, liberal advocates for free medical care, bankers or -- let's see, who else?
Oh, yeah -- Patients. Folks. The ones who have moved from the waiting rooms of yesteryear to waiting at home for the insurance company to call back and explain why they aren't covering the MRI.
Apparently, I have had a good time with life. Too much of good things, like fine food, and too little of nuisances, like exercise. As I have come to know, it's not the age, it's the mileage.
In any case, I have a great vantage point from which to experience, see, hear and discuss the issues of the day regarding health care in the United States. Empirical knowledge, more than the product of formal research, but then I now know that such is my most fundamental American right -- I don't have to be correct to be entitled to my opinions.
What I have learned is this: The issue is not whether we have good medicine in America, but rather who is in charge of administering it to those who need care.
Generally, conservatives think they are in charge of their medical care, but they are wrong. Liberals think the government is, or should be, in charge of providing medical care, but they miss the point, too. Doctors want to be in charge, but lawyers and insurance companies and the stockholders of every business that earns or spends money on health care is out in front.
Patients are in the back. Doctors are in the middle.
What should be simple is now complicated. What should be complicated is beyond frustrating. Blame some of it on bureaucracy -- and whether it's insurance company bureaucrats or government bureaucrats is a matter of your personal political point of view. Republicans prefer that their insurance companies mess up the paperwork and fail to pay for tests, or dictate what treatments and medicines are permitted. Democrats like to have the government in charge of losing forms, denying coverage, or requiring additional documentation.
When I was a kid, there was one doctor in town and if you got sick, you went to his office and sat in one of about 20 hard, straight-back chairs lining the walls, waiting your turn. No appointments. If you were REALLY sick, the doctor came to see you when he made his daily house calls. Yes, house calls.
He would take your temperature, look up your nose, down your throat, in your ears, and shine a light in your eyes. He'd listen to your chest for lungs and heart function, take your pulse, and send you home with some pills to take to see if things improved. If you were lucky, there was a pharmacy within five miles. If you were rich, you'd get the prescription filled.
Most people didn't have insurance. You paid your bills when you got the money. They knew where you lived.
Okay, that was back in the dark ages. But we survived, and medical care improved. People were offered health insurance as part of their job benefits, and began using credit cards to pay their bills. You called in and got an appointment, which the doctor almost never kept, but you had a general idea when you'd see him. The paperwork increased, so instead of having a nurse to help in the exam room and double as the billing clerk, you saw an increase in the staff required to keep and file records, make reports to insurance companies, the government, deal with pharmaceutical reps, answer phones, make referrals, schedule lab and hospital tests and so on. The old doc and his nurse grew to half a dozen doctors, nurse practitioners, RNs, phlebotomists, and billing clerks.
Things have improved to the point where you now get a recording when you call the doctor's office, asking you to leave your name and number and a message, and they will call you back, probably today. If you're taking out the trash or getting the mail when the call comes in, they leave a message on your machine, and you have to start all over.
In spite of all this, medical care is better than ever. But there's room for improvement. And everybody who has anything to do with it knows it, and is in favor of reforms. Cost controls and efficiencies are needed, because it's getting out of hand. So some people are looking at ways to make some positive changes.
Insurance companies are all for it, so long as they continue to make profits and sell malpractice policies. Lawyers are all for it, so long as they can continue to sue and kick in the clauses in the settlement phases of the malpractice policies that doctors have to pay for. Politicians are all for it, so long as they don't have to vote for changes that will offend lobbyists for insurance companies, the trial lawyers' association, the American Medical Association, The American Association for Retired Persons, conservative political action committees, liberal advocates for free medical care, bankers or -- let's see, who else?
Oh, yeah -- Patients. Folks. The ones who have moved from the waiting rooms of yesteryear to waiting at home for the insurance company to call back and explain why they aren't covering the MRI.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Misperceptions abound on funding
As the county faces a $2 million shortfall in the next budget, those with more opinions than facts are writing in to the comments sections of various news sites to offer suggestions on how to fix it.
One popular misconception -- among the many -- is that the county can take funds from the state designated for, say, roads, and use it to make up the shortfall. That would certainly make it easier for the commissioners, but they can't do it. Certain funds are designated for specific uses, and if not used for that, the cash reverts to the state, feds, or whatever source.
Another misconception is that cutting per diems for the commissioners, or cutting salaried positions will make up the difference. Not enough.
Still another is that any program can be cut, but there are state laws requiring what is called maintenance of effort, meaning that local costs for schools and courts and police protection must produce the standards of service set by previous funding; you can't just gut the program to make the books balance. Those expenses make up 85 percent of all money spent each year. Schools alone require about 52 percent of the revenues the county collects.
There may be some programs to cut, but when I was agonizing over where to find money to avoid tax increases, we could never find enough in any one program. Indeed, it was unlikely to find even one million dollars among all the remaining 15 percent of the expenses to meet the kind of shortage the county faces now.
The $2 million as projected now can and most likely will get worse. Revenues are affected by drops in money collected through permits and fees, income taxes, and falling assessments of residential properties. And the state funding guestimate that budget director Ted Zaleski announced this week is based on Gov. Martin O'Malley's requests. The state legislature was handed the job of finding ways to make up the drop in state income, and they will go where they always go when they need more money -- the taxpayers.
Pensions for teachers is still an issue; just because O'Malley says he does not want to put that expense back on the counties and City of Baltimore does not mean that the legislature will not overrule that with changes in the laws.
In other words, there is at least one more shoe to drop, and if the economy and political games conspire, we could be dealing not with a two-footed monster, but a centipede. Lots of shoes left to fall on us.
A rule of thumb, not exact by any means, is that $1 million is equal to a little over one cent per $100 assessment on your tax bill. For a house assessed at $285,000, that's a tax hike of about $57, if my math is right.
Bottom line, it is unlikely that the county will be able to balance the budget without some kind of tax increase, hike in some fee(s), or draconian cuts to things that residents have come to expect as part of the quality of life in this county.
One popular misconception -- among the many -- is that the county can take funds from the state designated for, say, roads, and use it to make up the shortfall. That would certainly make it easier for the commissioners, but they can't do it. Certain funds are designated for specific uses, and if not used for that, the cash reverts to the state, feds, or whatever source.
Another misconception is that cutting per diems for the commissioners, or cutting salaried positions will make up the difference. Not enough.
Still another is that any program can be cut, but there are state laws requiring what is called maintenance of effort, meaning that local costs for schools and courts and police protection must produce the standards of service set by previous funding; you can't just gut the program to make the books balance. Those expenses make up 85 percent of all money spent each year. Schools alone require about 52 percent of the revenues the county collects.
There may be some programs to cut, but when I was agonizing over where to find money to avoid tax increases, we could never find enough in any one program. Indeed, it was unlikely to find even one million dollars among all the remaining 15 percent of the expenses to meet the kind of shortage the county faces now.
The $2 million as projected now can and most likely will get worse. Revenues are affected by drops in money collected through permits and fees, income taxes, and falling assessments of residential properties. And the state funding guestimate that budget director Ted Zaleski announced this week is based on Gov. Martin O'Malley's requests. The state legislature was handed the job of finding ways to make up the drop in state income, and they will go where they always go when they need more money -- the taxpayers.
Pensions for teachers is still an issue; just because O'Malley says he does not want to put that expense back on the counties and City of Baltimore does not mean that the legislature will not overrule that with changes in the laws.
In other words, there is at least one more shoe to drop, and if the economy and political games conspire, we could be dealing not with a two-footed monster, but a centipede. Lots of shoes left to fall on us.
A rule of thumb, not exact by any means, is that $1 million is equal to a little over one cent per $100 assessment on your tax bill. For a house assessed at $285,000, that's a tax hike of about $57, if my math is right.
Bottom line, it is unlikely that the county will be able to balance the budget without some kind of tax increase, hike in some fee(s), or draconian cuts to things that residents have come to expect as part of the quality of life in this county.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What matters
If it is not the UNITED States of America, it doesn't matter:
It cannot be the Tea Party States of America, or
The GOP states of America, or
The Democrat States of America, or
The conservative states of America, or
The liberal states of America, or
The Christian states or the Jewish or Muslim or Bhuddist or athiestic states, or
The Blue states, or the Red states, or
The NRA states, or
The Move On states, or
The coastal states, or the heartland states, or the Bible Belt states.
It cannot be the North, or the South, or the continental states.
Unless it remains, and reaffirms, the strength of United States, nothing else matters, at least in political terms.
So all of the above have to find a way to accomodate all the others, or we are nothing but an empty promise, a wonderful experiment that in the larger frame was not a treasure for all humanity, but just a glimmer of fool's gold.
It cannot be the Tea Party States of America, or
The GOP states of America, or
The Democrat States of America, or
The conservative states of America, or
The liberal states of America, or
The Christian states or the Jewish or Muslim or Bhuddist or athiestic states, or
The Blue states, or the Red states, or
The NRA states, or
The Move On states, or
The coastal states, or the heartland states, or the Bible Belt states.
It cannot be the North, or the South, or the continental states.
Unless it remains, and reaffirms, the strength of United States, nothing else matters, at least in political terms.
So all of the above have to find a way to accomodate all the others, or we are nothing but an empty promise, a wonderful experiment that in the larger frame was not a treasure for all humanity, but just a glimmer of fool's gold.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Senior social calendar
Joe calls Al: Let's have lunch with Mort.
Al: How about Tuesday?
Joe: I have a colonoscopy Tuesday. How about Friday?
Al: My day to see the diabetes doctor. Next Monday?
Joe: I get my nerve conduction test then. I can make it next Tuesday.
Al: Just checked with Mort. He has an MRI that day. Wednesday"
Joe: Cardiologist.
Al: Thursday?
Joe: Sounds good. But I may be late because I have an appointment with the arthritis doctor.
Al: Okay, but I have a 2 p.m with the foot doctor. Maybe we should hold off until Friday a week?
Joe: Check with Mort.
Al: He's going to check with his ear nose and throat guy to see if he can move his appointment up.
Joe: I have my annual physical Monday two weeks from now. And I have to get blood work done before that, fasting, so breakfast is out.
Al: Maybe the week after that?
Joe: If we're still here.
Al: How about drinks at the Moose tomorrow at 3?
Joe: Bingo!
Everybody has an opinion
I saw this in my readings of the past week, attributed to Stephen Randall, The Los Angeles Times:
"We live in an era in which it is important to have opinions. Not necessarily smart or original ones; almost any opinion will do as long as it's forcefully expressed. We post them on Facebook; we tweet them; we express them in comments on Huffington Post. It wasn't that long ago that opinions were something carefully considered and weighed, so that they'd stand the test of time and reflect well on the author. Thinkers were like gourmet chefs laboring over an elaborate meal they wanted to be perfect. But today, opinions are like Big Macs -- thrown together hastily, served by the billions, and not very good for you."
Al: How about Tuesday?
Joe: I have a colonoscopy Tuesday. How about Friday?
Al: My day to see the diabetes doctor. Next Monday?
Joe: I get my nerve conduction test then. I can make it next Tuesday.
Al: Just checked with Mort. He has an MRI that day. Wednesday"
Joe: Cardiologist.
Al: Thursday?
Joe: Sounds good. But I may be late because I have an appointment with the arthritis doctor.
Al: Okay, but I have a 2 p.m with the foot doctor. Maybe we should hold off until Friday a week?
Joe: Check with Mort.
Al: He's going to check with his ear nose and throat guy to see if he can move his appointment up.
Joe: I have my annual physical Monday two weeks from now. And I have to get blood work done before that, fasting, so breakfast is out.
Al: Maybe the week after that?
Joe: If we're still here.
Al: How about drinks at the Moose tomorrow at 3?
Joe: Bingo!
Everybody has an opinion
I saw this in my readings of the past week, attributed to Stephen Randall, The Los Angeles Times:
"We live in an era in which it is important to have opinions. Not necessarily smart or original ones; almost any opinion will do as long as it's forcefully expressed. We post them on Facebook; we tweet them; we express them in comments on Huffington Post. It wasn't that long ago that opinions were something carefully considered and weighed, so that they'd stand the test of time and reflect well on the author. Thinkers were like gourmet chefs laboring over an elaborate meal they wanted to be perfect. But today, opinions are like Big Macs -- thrown together hastily, served by the billions, and not very good for you."
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Housing bubble, economy, education bubble
Years ago, I got myself in a jam with then-governor William Donald Schaffer by blowing the whistle on colleges like the University of Maryland. Colleges, I said, are in the business of making money, and the best place to find money is in the bank accounts of parents who want their children to get a college degree so they can make more money.
Maybe you've noticed the word "money" comes up a lot. Which is okay. You have to have money to do just about anything, even gather a group of volunteers to give free lunches to the needy, but the lunches, of course, are not free, because food costs money, and somebody has to pay for the food --- Anyway, money is the operative word.
Until, that is, they have your money, and then the message changes. Colleges market the idea that they will give your child/student the credentials they need to make money, but the real idea of any good college is to engage students in learning, life-long learning, for the sake of learning.
Okay. All I was saying, don't take my money as the parent of a student under false pretenses. It's about the kid getting a job in his or her field, of course, and that might require my money, but don't take my money, then tell my kid there's no room in the classes he wants to take because the college has a policy of promoting opportunities for the less fortunate, who are getting some of my money so they can go to college and push my kid out of the courses he needs to graduate.
It might sound complicated, but it's not. It's about money, until it's about social justice or equal opportunity or diversity or whatever. I can even support the ideal, but let me donate separate money for that -- not tuition to a school that won't let my kid take a course because someone from Nepal has registered and they need that profile to meet the diversity objective.
All of which brings me to this point: We all are beginning to get the point that a housing bubble happens when you violate the basic rules of putting too much into something with too small a return. Duh. The economy bubble bursts when you owe more than you can pay.
A bubble is something full of air, without substance or strength, meaning not real, or invalid.
When you think about it, the costs of housing and the economic bubbles are caused by unrealistic expectations. Houses cost too much more than they are worth, simply put. Jobs are lost when someone figures out that salaries are too much, too many, too -- superfluous.
But you have to pay big salaries because money is how we gauge success. So expensive, over-sized houses that we really don't need are on the market, bought in large part by people with college degrees that cost a lot of money.
If you're still with me, let me put it this way before you jump ship: What if we decide to pop all the bubbles?
What if we get an education because we want to be educated, not paid big money?
What if we pay for work according to what it's worth, not according to the degree required to apply for the job?
What if we hire smart people for certain jobs whether they have the questionable credentials of certain college degrees?
I can make a cracker-jack reporter out of a bright, inquisitive and industrious person of any age, gender or nationality, but I can't justify paying today's average reporters with a college degree enough to cover his college loan debt -- assuming he's competent in the first place (an assumption that is too often made just because he has a degree).
If we started with realities instead of marketing, greed, and phony credentials or images as goals, we could avoid a lot of life's bubbles.
Maybe you've noticed the word "money" comes up a lot. Which is okay. You have to have money to do just about anything, even gather a group of volunteers to give free lunches to the needy, but the lunches, of course, are not free, because food costs money, and somebody has to pay for the food --- Anyway, money is the operative word.
Until, that is, they have your money, and then the message changes. Colleges market the idea that they will give your child/student the credentials they need to make money, but the real idea of any good college is to engage students in learning, life-long learning, for the sake of learning.
Okay. All I was saying, don't take my money as the parent of a student under false pretenses. It's about the kid getting a job in his or her field, of course, and that might require my money, but don't take my money, then tell my kid there's no room in the classes he wants to take because the college has a policy of promoting opportunities for the less fortunate, who are getting some of my money so they can go to college and push my kid out of the courses he needs to graduate.
It might sound complicated, but it's not. It's about money, until it's about social justice or equal opportunity or diversity or whatever. I can even support the ideal, but let me donate separate money for that -- not tuition to a school that won't let my kid take a course because someone from Nepal has registered and they need that profile to meet the diversity objective.
All of which brings me to this point: We all are beginning to get the point that a housing bubble happens when you violate the basic rules of putting too much into something with too small a return. Duh. The economy bubble bursts when you owe more than you can pay.
A bubble is something full of air, without substance or strength, meaning not real, or invalid.
When you think about it, the costs of housing and the economic bubbles are caused by unrealistic expectations. Houses cost too much more than they are worth, simply put. Jobs are lost when someone figures out that salaries are too much, too many, too -- superfluous.
But you have to pay big salaries because money is how we gauge success. So expensive, over-sized houses that we really don't need are on the market, bought in large part by people with college degrees that cost a lot of money.
If you're still with me, let me put it this way before you jump ship: What if we decide to pop all the bubbles?
What if we get an education because we want to be educated, not paid big money?
What if we pay for work according to what it's worth, not according to the degree required to apply for the job?
What if we hire smart people for certain jobs whether they have the questionable credentials of certain college degrees?
I can make a cracker-jack reporter out of a bright, inquisitive and industrious person of any age, gender or nationality, but I can't justify paying today's average reporters with a college degree enough to cover his college loan debt -- assuming he's competent in the first place (an assumption that is too often made just because he has a degree).
If we started with realities instead of marketing, greed, and phony credentials or images as goals, we could avoid a lot of life's bubbles.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Maybe we can be like Yemen
If you like to hear both sides -- and more -- on any current issue, a good source is TheWeek.com, or you can subscribe to the magazine. It's of value to me because I need more than just a bumper sticker idea upon which to base my beliefs. I would not say it is the opposite of Fox News, because on any given week, you may find something from Fox included in the collection of columns, editorials, and articles that provide what The Week bills as, "The best of the U.S. and international media."
As I write this, I am aware that the product has already been rejected out of hand by my friends who suspect that media in general, international media in particular, and anything that differs with their preconceived notions of what is American in general is liberal propaganda. They may be right; this magazine requires thinking, with an open mind, which is sort of the definition of liberalism.
But I will risk being infected with new information, or ideas that might go against my gut instincts, because, well, I can. I am blessed to live in an open society, for now, anyway, and I have always taken full advantage of the ability to question. Anyone, from church doctrine to parental wisdom to government decree, is open to examination.
I have always sought answers. As a result, I have infuriated people who think their answer is unassailable. I'm sure some of those people might be considered liberals by others, but they were conservative in defending their dearly held opinions. For instance, I have always questioned why liberal arts universities market their offerings as a means of ensuring higher salaries for graduates with degrees, on the one hand, but then defend some of the sillier degrees they offer as examples of the essential nature of and education, which is not to teach students how to be more productive in the marketplace, but how to think. They get really defensive when they are accused to teaching vulnerable young minds what to think.
The Week's issue for the week of Jan. 21 was filled with discourse about the events in Tuscon; was political rhetoric a factor, what about the gun culture of America, and there was strident dialog pro and con, pretty much as what we've seen in the local media, but by more and pretty well respected sources. There was The New Republic, and then The Wall Street Journal. The Christian Science Monitor was quoted, and so was Slate.com, TheDailyBeast.com, The Washington Post (including conservative writer Charles Krauthammer. Lots of range in the opinions and facts traded about, but not likely anything to change the mind of the average American.
In the poll section, which has the two inches or less that it deserves, the magazine reveals that a CBS poll shows that 57 percent of Americans say the heated rhetoric had nothing to do with the shootings in Tuscon, while 32 percent say it did. Republicans are more likely to say rhetoric was not to blame. Democrats, as usual, were split; 42 percent saying it did, a like number saying it didn't.
William Galston in The New Republic said the real issue is lost in the partisan bickering about who is to blame. Despite showing multiple signs of his instability, it's difficult if not impossible to commit a dangerously delusional adult until after they commit a crime.
But then, what's delusional? William Falk, editor in chief of The Week has an insightful column in which he relates a conversation with some very friendly members of a local gun club. He sees the rationale for owning a weapon for self defense, but why do we need to allow weapons created for military and the police to be sold so easily in America?
"They smiled at my naivete. One day, they explained, we may need weapons with serious firepower to fight the military and the police, in an armed rebellion against the government.....Though not discussed around hostile audiences, the belief that the "right of revolution" is a fundamental tenet shared by tens of thousands of gun enthusiasts..." To them, it's what the Second Amendment is all about.
So, with the support of the National Rifle Association, we can be like Yemen, which according to a news report, has 13 million people and at least 13 million weapons. The government cowers in the capital and the most extreme zealots have the run of the rest of the nation (who would oppose them?), fomenting revolution not only in Yemen, but throughout the world, including terrorist assaults on The United States of America.
None of which matters now to Christina Green. But we have other nine-year-olds to think about.
As I write this, I am aware that the product has already been rejected out of hand by my friends who suspect that media in general, international media in particular, and anything that differs with their preconceived notions of what is American in general is liberal propaganda. They may be right; this magazine requires thinking, with an open mind, which is sort of the definition of liberalism.
But I will risk being infected with new information, or ideas that might go against my gut instincts, because, well, I can. I am blessed to live in an open society, for now, anyway, and I have always taken full advantage of the ability to question. Anyone, from church doctrine to parental wisdom to government decree, is open to examination.
I have always sought answers. As a result, I have infuriated people who think their answer is unassailable. I'm sure some of those people might be considered liberals by others, but they were conservative in defending their dearly held opinions. For instance, I have always questioned why liberal arts universities market their offerings as a means of ensuring higher salaries for graduates with degrees, on the one hand, but then defend some of the sillier degrees they offer as examples of the essential nature of and education, which is not to teach students how to be more productive in the marketplace, but how to think. They get really defensive when they are accused to teaching vulnerable young minds what to think.
The Week's issue for the week of Jan. 21 was filled with discourse about the events in Tuscon; was political rhetoric a factor, what about the gun culture of America, and there was strident dialog pro and con, pretty much as what we've seen in the local media, but by more and pretty well respected sources. There was The New Republic, and then The Wall Street Journal. The Christian Science Monitor was quoted, and so was Slate.com, TheDailyBeast.com, The Washington Post (including conservative writer Charles Krauthammer. Lots of range in the opinions and facts traded about, but not likely anything to change the mind of the average American.
In the poll section, which has the two inches or less that it deserves, the magazine reveals that a CBS poll shows that 57 percent of Americans say the heated rhetoric had nothing to do with the shootings in Tuscon, while 32 percent say it did. Republicans are more likely to say rhetoric was not to blame. Democrats, as usual, were split; 42 percent saying it did, a like number saying it didn't.
William Galston in The New Republic said the real issue is lost in the partisan bickering about who is to blame. Despite showing multiple signs of his instability, it's difficult if not impossible to commit a dangerously delusional adult until after they commit a crime.
But then, what's delusional? William Falk, editor in chief of The Week has an insightful column in which he relates a conversation with some very friendly members of a local gun club. He sees the rationale for owning a weapon for self defense, but why do we need to allow weapons created for military and the police to be sold so easily in America?
"They smiled at my naivete. One day, they explained, we may need weapons with serious firepower to fight the military and the police, in an armed rebellion against the government.....Though not discussed around hostile audiences, the belief that the "right of revolution" is a fundamental tenet shared by tens of thousands of gun enthusiasts..." To them, it's what the Second Amendment is all about.
So, with the support of the National Rifle Association, we can be like Yemen, which according to a news report, has 13 million people and at least 13 million weapons. The government cowers in the capital and the most extreme zealots have the run of the rest of the nation (who would oppose them?), fomenting revolution not only in Yemen, but throughout the world, including terrorist assaults on The United States of America.
None of which matters now to Christina Green. But we have other nine-year-olds to think about.
Friday, January 14, 2011
It may be worse than we thought
As I was winding down my term as a commissioner, I was approached by people from the region and state, as well as locally, who had concerns about what they had been hearing about the new, five-member board of commissioners.
I tried to be as positive as possible. It was my hope that only two of the five were so extreme in their ideologies as to cause long-term problems for the people who live here; at worse, I thought, they would be an embarrassment.
Well, the embarrassment part has already manifested itself, and the deeper concerns expressed by others seems more likely that I had hoped. These five have already shown that they are way too long on political rhetoric, and way too short on considered thought and listening to good advice.
Anyone who ignores the conservative advice of Ted Zaleski, the budget director, on how much bond issue to request is showing off for the masses, not thinking for the long term. Zaleski advised against seeking only $11 million in capability, and suggested keeping options open for up to $20 million -- still a small number when you start taking bids for critical capital costs, which can pop up unexpectedly.
But our uber-conservative commissioners, eager to demonstrate how fiscally responsible they are, ignored one of about six people in the building -- not counting paid consultants -- and proudly called for the lower number. The point is, just because you reserve the larger allowance does not mean you have to spend it. And you save nothing by passing up on the currently low, low repayment rates. If you need to go back and get more later, it will cost the taxpayers more to pay off the bonds.
But false conservatism thrives on short memories and simplistic examples.
Then we have the State of the County appearance with the Chamber of Commerce, during which the five merely dusted off their campaign speeches, with some revisions.
During their campaigns, their position was that the county's situation was in dire straits, the economy in a shambles, the future grim. But after just over a month in office, they proudly asserted that the county is healthy, wealthy and wise.
If you listen for substance, you will not hear any. They have no cost-savings ideas of any significance -- penny and nickle remedies for million dollar challenges brought about by those they call irresponsible and intrusive liberals in Annapolis and Washington. Their strategy is to resist the state and federal mandates. The only way they can do that is to make a show of refusing grants to help pay for certain programs. And the problem is that it saves the local taxpayers nothing; the money has already been assessed and paid by Carroll County taxpayers.
What the commissioners are doing is refusing, on a misguided definition of principle, to go back and accept your share. They hope you'll notice the gesture, but not the consequences. They think they won't share blame for deficiencies in the services in schools, emergency services, road improvements, recreation programs and senior citizen services.
Ah, yes, they are thrifty with money you have already spent, but for which you will not get as much return as your neighbors.
Some of the concerns at the regional level were that we would slide back into the Fortress Carroll mentality of the local government prior to 2002; attempts to erect walls that would keep "those people" out and let "folks like us" come and build their sprawling developments.
Richard Rothschild has used the term "code words" so many times it's beginning to sound like a late-night television commercial for cheap used cars: Lots of noise, red, white and blue balloons, few facts.
He was an ambassador for isolationists in the eyes of of those who got to know him better at the recent Maryland Association of Counties mid-winter conference in a Cambridge resort. His diatribes against sustainability, planning, environmental regulations and government in general may play well to devotees of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but it does not impress serious, thoughtful and professional public servants -- elected and paid staff -- who understand the real challenges of a culture that wants more than it is willing to pay for.
Then there is the illusion created by lack of reporting. How long will the local press continue to ignore the push-back that is already surfacing; comments from members of the planning commission were all but overlooked in the reporting of the "work session" between the commissioners and the planning board, but Commissioner Doug Howard gets away with a "Gee, we had a good dialog" kind of quote attributed to him.
Watch the video of the meeting, and you might have a different take on how members of the legally appointed planning commission charged with developing the master plan view the "dialog" -- not to mention the abuses of the process by the commissioners.
I tried to be as positive as possible. It was my hope that only two of the five were so extreme in their ideologies as to cause long-term problems for the people who live here; at worse, I thought, they would be an embarrassment.
Well, the embarrassment part has already manifested itself, and the deeper concerns expressed by others seems more likely that I had hoped. These five have already shown that they are way too long on political rhetoric, and way too short on considered thought and listening to good advice.
Anyone who ignores the conservative advice of Ted Zaleski, the budget director, on how much bond issue to request is showing off for the masses, not thinking for the long term. Zaleski advised against seeking only $11 million in capability, and suggested keeping options open for up to $20 million -- still a small number when you start taking bids for critical capital costs, which can pop up unexpectedly.
But our uber-conservative commissioners, eager to demonstrate how fiscally responsible they are, ignored one of about six people in the building -- not counting paid consultants -- and proudly called for the lower number. The point is, just because you reserve the larger allowance does not mean you have to spend it. And you save nothing by passing up on the currently low, low repayment rates. If you need to go back and get more later, it will cost the taxpayers more to pay off the bonds.
But false conservatism thrives on short memories and simplistic examples.
Then we have the State of the County appearance with the Chamber of Commerce, during which the five merely dusted off their campaign speeches, with some revisions.
During their campaigns, their position was that the county's situation was in dire straits, the economy in a shambles, the future grim. But after just over a month in office, they proudly asserted that the county is healthy, wealthy and wise.
If you listen for substance, you will not hear any. They have no cost-savings ideas of any significance -- penny and nickle remedies for million dollar challenges brought about by those they call irresponsible and intrusive liberals in Annapolis and Washington. Their strategy is to resist the state and federal mandates. The only way they can do that is to make a show of refusing grants to help pay for certain programs. And the problem is that it saves the local taxpayers nothing; the money has already been assessed and paid by Carroll County taxpayers.
What the commissioners are doing is refusing, on a misguided definition of principle, to go back and accept your share. They hope you'll notice the gesture, but not the consequences. They think they won't share blame for deficiencies in the services in schools, emergency services, road improvements, recreation programs and senior citizen services.
Ah, yes, they are thrifty with money you have already spent, but for which you will not get as much return as your neighbors.
Some of the concerns at the regional level were that we would slide back into the Fortress Carroll mentality of the local government prior to 2002; attempts to erect walls that would keep "those people" out and let "folks like us" come and build their sprawling developments.
Richard Rothschild has used the term "code words" so many times it's beginning to sound like a late-night television commercial for cheap used cars: Lots of noise, red, white and blue balloons, few facts.
He was an ambassador for isolationists in the eyes of of those who got to know him better at the recent Maryland Association of Counties mid-winter conference in a Cambridge resort. His diatribes against sustainability, planning, environmental regulations and government in general may play well to devotees of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but it does not impress serious, thoughtful and professional public servants -- elected and paid staff -- who understand the real challenges of a culture that wants more than it is willing to pay for.
Then there is the illusion created by lack of reporting. How long will the local press continue to ignore the push-back that is already surfacing; comments from members of the planning commission were all but overlooked in the reporting of the "work session" between the commissioners and the planning board, but Commissioner Doug Howard gets away with a "Gee, we had a good dialog" kind of quote attributed to him.
Watch the video of the meeting, and you might have a different take on how members of the legally appointed planning commission charged with developing the master plan view the "dialog" -- not to mention the abuses of the process by the commissioners.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
After Tucson, what is left to debate?
As a lifelong news guy, I have surfed all the coverage of the events in Arizona that I can, and it makes me wonder if we ever learn.
I visited the Murrah Building Memorial in Oklahoma City a couple of years ago, and what really grabbed me then was the carnage visited on Americans -- women, children, older citizens -- by Americans. Two weeks after that bombing, Rush Limbaugh, the hero of the American Right wrote an editorial with the headline, Why I am Not To Blame.
In the days after the shootings at an Arizona shopping center, the Rabid Right is all over Fox news and the talk shows and the internet saying they are not to blame.
Hatred is the fuel for evil deeds, often carried out by people who do not fully understand their own actions.
I support the Constitution; I do not support hate speech to support the Constitution.
I support the right to free speech. I do not support the right to inflame masses by spreading lies and half truths because I am frustrated and angry.
I support the right to own firearms. I will not defend the right to show off automatic weapons at political rallies, or places where our politicians gather to address the public.
I support reason. I do not support the excuses of the hate mongers, after murders of nine year old children, that they bear no responsibility.
I agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people; but if ideas are worth dying for, then it seems to follow that words and ideas also can kill. Use them with as much care as you would a loaded automatic pistol.
I visited the Murrah Building Memorial in Oklahoma City a couple of years ago, and what really grabbed me then was the carnage visited on Americans -- women, children, older citizens -- by Americans. Two weeks after that bombing, Rush Limbaugh, the hero of the American Right wrote an editorial with the headline, Why I am Not To Blame.
In the days after the shootings at an Arizona shopping center, the Rabid Right is all over Fox news and the talk shows and the internet saying they are not to blame.
Hatred is the fuel for evil deeds, often carried out by people who do not fully understand their own actions.
I support the Constitution; I do not support hate speech to support the Constitution.
I support the right to free speech. I do not support the right to inflame masses by spreading lies and half truths because I am frustrated and angry.
I support the right to own firearms. I will not defend the right to show off automatic weapons at political rallies, or places where our politicians gather to address the public.
I support reason. I do not support the excuses of the hate mongers, after murders of nine year old children, that they bear no responsibility.
I agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people; but if ideas are worth dying for, then it seems to follow that words and ideas also can kill. Use them with as much care as you would a loaded automatic pistol.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Should commissioners make policy, or try to run everything?
Look for some significant retooling in the office the Carroll County Commissioners, as the board seeks to put people in place to take orders, rather than advise elected leaders.
This will mark the most significant difference between this board and prior one, which relied on information from senior staff and outside consultants to make policy, then turned the work over to the professionals and county employees.
This new board has been consistently sending signals that it will take charge. Haven Shoemaker, as a candidate, promised to clean house. Richard Rothschild and Robin Frazier have made no secret of their intentions to down-size government and the services the county provides. Doug Howard, despite his difficulties making the Carroll Area Transit work on the funds provided, commented that the five new commissioners have sufficient business skills to divide responsibilities among themselves and run the departments that are now administered by professional directors.
The morale in the county office building is at its lowest since the last time Frazier had an office there, apparently the results of micro-managing and inconsistent signals from the commissioners' office. Word is that Steve Powell, who as chief of staff for the previous board of commissioners was at the top of the chain of command, is now left out of policy meetings held by the commissioners directly with senior staffers.
Part of the chill in the building is that there are those around who remember what happened the last time commissioners tried to run the county by decree, instead of with the input of the people who do the work. Key leaders left the building in the 1990's, some on their own, others pushed out, as then commissioners Donald Dell and Frazier, who served one term, attempted to micro-manage the county. Several employees, competent in lesser positions, were given additional duties because they were willing to salute, take orders, and not challenge what later turned out to be bad decisions.
By the end of the 1990s, the county had been under fire from the state government for failing to keep up with environmental efforts, growth management and planning. Schools were overcrowded, residential housing was out of control and new permits exceeded the allowance under the adequate facilities ordinance. Planning was in shambles and there was a disconnect between county government and the Board of Education, the volunteer fireman's association, and incorporated towns. Economic development efforts were out of sync with modern corporate needs.
The reputation the county government created for itself in those years cost it credibility with neighboring counties, the Baltimore Metropolitan Area Council, and the professions who maintain consistency in state agencies. That made it more difficult to deal with official Annapolis, and to recruit and retain employees. The pay and benefits packages for county employees was among the lowest two or three subdivisions in the state, and some employees had not had raises in five or more years, while others with friends in high places had seen salaries go up disproportionately.
If this new board continues on the path it seems to have chosen, the effect will be like watching amateurs try to keep the dozen or so plates spinning that professional jugglers had been hired to put in place.
This will mark the most significant difference between this board and prior one, which relied on information from senior staff and outside consultants to make policy, then turned the work over to the professionals and county employees.
This new board has been consistently sending signals that it will take charge. Haven Shoemaker, as a candidate, promised to clean house. Richard Rothschild and Robin Frazier have made no secret of their intentions to down-size government and the services the county provides. Doug Howard, despite his difficulties making the Carroll Area Transit work on the funds provided, commented that the five new commissioners have sufficient business skills to divide responsibilities among themselves and run the departments that are now administered by professional directors.
The morale in the county office building is at its lowest since the last time Frazier had an office there, apparently the results of micro-managing and inconsistent signals from the commissioners' office. Word is that Steve Powell, who as chief of staff for the previous board of commissioners was at the top of the chain of command, is now left out of policy meetings held by the commissioners directly with senior staffers.
Part of the chill in the building is that there are those around who remember what happened the last time commissioners tried to run the county by decree, instead of with the input of the people who do the work. Key leaders left the building in the 1990's, some on their own, others pushed out, as then commissioners Donald Dell and Frazier, who served one term, attempted to micro-manage the county. Several employees, competent in lesser positions, were given additional duties because they were willing to salute, take orders, and not challenge what later turned out to be bad decisions.
By the end of the 1990s, the county had been under fire from the state government for failing to keep up with environmental efforts, growth management and planning. Schools were overcrowded, residential housing was out of control and new permits exceeded the allowance under the adequate facilities ordinance. Planning was in shambles and there was a disconnect between county government and the Board of Education, the volunteer fireman's association, and incorporated towns. Economic development efforts were out of sync with modern corporate needs.
The reputation the county government created for itself in those years cost it credibility with neighboring counties, the Baltimore Metropolitan Area Council, and the professions who maintain consistency in state agencies. That made it more difficult to deal with official Annapolis, and to recruit and retain employees. The pay and benefits packages for county employees was among the lowest two or three subdivisions in the state, and some employees had not had raises in five or more years, while others with friends in high places had seen salaries go up disproportionately.
If this new board continues on the path it seems to have chosen, the effect will be like watching amateurs try to keep the dozen or so plates spinning that professional jugglers had been hired to put in place.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
No plan is their idea of a best plan
It appears that the new Carroll County Commissioners not only hated the proposed Pathways plan for managing growth, but they didn't like the 2000 master plan, either.
In fact, it was clear from the recent exchange with staff over the current planning commission's recommendations that the only thing that will make the ultra conservative commissioners happy is essentially no plan at all. Or as little as law allows.
To their consternation, the law requires more planning than they thought when they came into office.
Richard Rothschild in District Four is a strict constitutionalist. He doesn't even like the words used by those who would make a master plan. He says their proposals contain "code words," and "sneaky Pete" terms that have a way of becoming law and taking away the rights of people to do what they want. He dislikes, apparently, words like global, collaborative, cooperative, jointly, preservation, environmental zone, wildlife protection area.
Robin Frazier, too, made comments showing that she would prefer to allow businesses and developers to do what they will with the laws already on the books, and let the future take care of itself.
Two citizens, expressing appreciation for the apparent rejection of the planning and zoning commission's recommendations for managing growth, spoke for the property rights advocates and constitutionalists constituencies. One man said there are two schools of thought about master planning. One is that you try to see what's coming and prepare for it, and the other is deciding what the future should be like and make it happen. The latter, he said, is socialism.
A woman said she came here from Boulder, CO., and had seen the future of Carroll County. Boulder, she said, has been ruined by planning; we don't want a Boulder here.
There was no one in the room who stood up and pointed out that Boulder, a vibrant university town near Denver, has been considered by many to be one of the more desirable communities in America, but there you have it; those who like progressive communities with adequate facilities and managed growth and protected environments did not show up for the meeting.
Maybe they didn't show up for the election, either.
But everyone knows that politics is a pendulum, swinging right and left and never really pausing in the middle. Eight years ago, people who might like Boulder showed up to vote. They voted Frazier and others who expressed views like Rothschild's out of office. They may be back in 2014.
In fact, it was clear from the recent exchange with staff over the current planning commission's recommendations that the only thing that will make the ultra conservative commissioners happy is essentially no plan at all. Or as little as law allows.
To their consternation, the law requires more planning than they thought when they came into office.
Richard Rothschild in District Four is a strict constitutionalist. He doesn't even like the words used by those who would make a master plan. He says their proposals contain "code words," and "sneaky Pete" terms that have a way of becoming law and taking away the rights of people to do what they want. He dislikes, apparently, words like global, collaborative, cooperative, jointly, preservation, environmental zone, wildlife protection area.
Robin Frazier, too, made comments showing that she would prefer to allow businesses and developers to do what they will with the laws already on the books, and let the future take care of itself.
Two citizens, expressing appreciation for the apparent rejection of the planning and zoning commission's recommendations for managing growth, spoke for the property rights advocates and constitutionalists constituencies. One man said there are two schools of thought about master planning. One is that you try to see what's coming and prepare for it, and the other is deciding what the future should be like and make it happen. The latter, he said, is socialism.
A woman said she came here from Boulder, CO., and had seen the future of Carroll County. Boulder, she said, has been ruined by planning; we don't want a Boulder here.
There was no one in the room who stood up and pointed out that Boulder, a vibrant university town near Denver, has been considered by many to be one of the more desirable communities in America, but there you have it; those who like progressive communities with adequate facilities and managed growth and protected environments did not show up for the meeting.
Maybe they didn't show up for the election, either.
But everyone knows that politics is a pendulum, swinging right and left and never really pausing in the middle. Eight years ago, people who might like Boulder showed up to vote. They voted Frazier and others who expressed views like Rothschild's out of office. They may be back in 2014.
Monday, January 3, 2011
It's okay that all five of the new commishes are at a resort
All five new commissioners are suffering through the tedious meetings and fattening meals and posh overindulgence of the Hyatt resort hotel in Cambridge this week, but it's okay.
Well, Robin Frazier might have participated in such rituals when she was commissioner before, but with restraint, I'm sure.
I certainly can't find fault, because I attended such gatherings of the Maryland Association of Counties in my first four to six years as a commissioner. I even went to one National Association of Counties meeting in Phoenix, and two mid-winter meetings, I think, in Washington.
It's good to go and learn. Talk with other commissioners and county council members or executives for a few days. Meet state government people with whom you will be interacting for four years, do a little face to face, because there's time later for watching your back.
Know the terrain. Learn that as conservatives in a state run by moderates and liberals, there will be dues to pay, and crow to eat, and get to understand the games that are played in Annapolis. Meet the governor and his cabinet. Learn to define futility, or put on a happy face and convince yourself and your consituents, if you can, that you will have better luck with the state than the previous 50 or so boards of commissioners from a county that most people in attendance consider an afterthought. It will be Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties who will drive the agenda. Five Carroll County delegates and senators in Annapolis? Who they?
Oh, there will be graciousness and gladhanding and promises of cooperation, but in the end, the best thing you can do as a new commissioner is attend the classes on How Things Work, both the formal ones, scheduled by the Association of Countyies' competent staff, and the informal ones in the cocktail lounges and hospitality rooms after hours.
The formal classes, offered in conjunction with the University of Maryland, familiarize the new elected official and whatever paid staff allowed to attend with the lastest in law, regulations, how to govern; courses on planning and zoning, environmental protection, economic development, parks and recreation, law enforcement, effects of new rules by the federal government -- the list goes on. It takes about two or perhaps three conventions to earn a certificate designating you as a Fellow -- a graduate of the school of governance. Your education will continue, though.
I don't know the cost this year -- you can look it up -- but with gas and other expenses, I'd guess it will run about $8,000 minimum, perhaps a little more.
A lot of money, at first glance, but it's a fair price for the education of commissioners who have a lot to learn. And there's a lot at stake.
How much will it cost the average taxpayer? Less than a movie rental. You've got to save, or spend, a million dollars plus to make a one penny change in the county tax rate.
I do think, if I may indulge in a little Monday morning quarterbacking, that it's important to have one spokesperson for the board attend those meet and greets with influential state people. And it's better to spend money for continuous education for paid county employees who advise the commissioners and run the departments than it is any commissioner who has attended three or more semi-annual conventions.
Well, Robin Frazier might have participated in such rituals when she was commissioner before, but with restraint, I'm sure.
I certainly can't find fault, because I attended such gatherings of the Maryland Association of Counties in my first four to six years as a commissioner. I even went to one National Association of Counties meeting in Phoenix, and two mid-winter meetings, I think, in Washington.
It's good to go and learn. Talk with other commissioners and county council members or executives for a few days. Meet state government people with whom you will be interacting for four years, do a little face to face, because there's time later for watching your back.
Know the terrain. Learn that as conservatives in a state run by moderates and liberals, there will be dues to pay, and crow to eat, and get to understand the games that are played in Annapolis. Meet the governor and his cabinet. Learn to define futility, or put on a happy face and convince yourself and your consituents, if you can, that you will have better luck with the state than the previous 50 or so boards of commissioners from a county that most people in attendance consider an afterthought. It will be Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties who will drive the agenda. Five Carroll County delegates and senators in Annapolis? Who they?
Oh, there will be graciousness and gladhanding and promises of cooperation, but in the end, the best thing you can do as a new commissioner is attend the classes on How Things Work, both the formal ones, scheduled by the Association of Countyies' competent staff, and the informal ones in the cocktail lounges and hospitality rooms after hours.
The formal classes, offered in conjunction with the University of Maryland, familiarize the new elected official and whatever paid staff allowed to attend with the lastest in law, regulations, how to govern; courses on planning and zoning, environmental protection, economic development, parks and recreation, law enforcement, effects of new rules by the federal government -- the list goes on. It takes about two or perhaps three conventions to earn a certificate designating you as a Fellow -- a graduate of the school of governance. Your education will continue, though.
I don't know the cost this year -- you can look it up -- but with gas and other expenses, I'd guess it will run about $8,000 minimum, perhaps a little more.
A lot of money, at first glance, but it's a fair price for the education of commissioners who have a lot to learn. And there's a lot at stake.
How much will it cost the average taxpayer? Less than a movie rental. You've got to save, or spend, a million dollars plus to make a one penny change in the county tax rate.
I do think, if I may indulge in a little Monday morning quarterbacking, that it's important to have one spokesperson for the board attend those meet and greets with influential state people. And it's better to spend money for continuous education for paid county employees who advise the commissioners and run the departments than it is any commissioner who has attended three or more semi-annual conventions.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Things to keep in mind in 2011 -- and beyond
Everything you think you know may be wrong, but you can catch up if you're particular about where you get your information.
Honor is less popular than, well, being popular. Popularity sells, honor almost never does. Popularity is noticed and emulated, honor, not so much. Honor is aloneness, but popularity is just plain loneliness when everybody goes home, and they will.
Be careful about being too proud of a culture that pays one baseball player more than most school systems pay the entire teaching staff, plus administrators, janitors and cafeteria workers.
Health care will work when the people who need it will get as much consideration as lawyers, insurance company executives, big-corporation providers and the politicians who are trying to figure out how to do it all without losing votes.
Despite what you want to believe, judges are not chosen from the best lawyers available.
Everybody complains about the costs of everything, but we have more disposable income than most people in the world. The real gripe of those who have a job, at least, seems to be that there is never enough for what they want, and they tend to forget to be thankful when they have enough for what they need.
The value of freedom of the press will continue to decline the more it is abused. It's tough to be competitive and responsible at the same time. The media can't reconcile the differences between market and relevance.
Truth is worth more, but lies sell better.
George Bernard Shaw said that life isn't about finding yourself; it's about creating yourself.
I think that's a task that should never be put down.....
Honor is less popular than, well, being popular. Popularity sells, honor almost never does. Popularity is noticed and emulated, honor, not so much. Honor is aloneness, but popularity is just plain loneliness when everybody goes home, and they will.
Be careful about being too proud of a culture that pays one baseball player more than most school systems pay the entire teaching staff, plus administrators, janitors and cafeteria workers.
Health care will work when the people who need it will get as much consideration as lawyers, insurance company executives, big-corporation providers and the politicians who are trying to figure out how to do it all without losing votes.
Despite what you want to believe, judges are not chosen from the best lawyers available.
Everybody complains about the costs of everything, but we have more disposable income than most people in the world. The real gripe of those who have a job, at least, seems to be that there is never enough for what they want, and they tend to forget to be thankful when they have enough for what they need.
The value of freedom of the press will continue to decline the more it is abused. It's tough to be competitive and responsible at the same time. The media can't reconcile the differences between market and relevance.
Truth is worth more, but lies sell better.
George Bernard Shaw said that life isn't about finding yourself; it's about creating yourself.
I think that's a task that should never be put down.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)