Friday, February 25, 2011

On school bonds, and the New Selfishness(tm)

My local school district (very small, 1400 students, one each of an elementary school, a middle school and a high school -- we're a ferry-only island so we've got to do this all ourselves) has finally managed to pass a $47.7m bond issue to replace some of the high school's existing classroom buildings with one self-contained classroom building.

I say "self-contained" because the existing high school's classrooms (either built, or last worked-on in the mid-70's although some of the building shells are decades older than that) are currently spread among six free-standing buildings, each with it's own independent heating system, most with only outside entry doors for the classrooms, and only three of which are connected to one another by covered walkways let alone internal hallways.

And it gets better. Most of the glass is still single-paned, some of the buildings don't have their own restrooms, everything's too small, there's major ADA issues all over the place. This is a 1970's high school in 2011.

I ran for school board in 1996 and just narrowly (thank $DIETY) lost to a very effective candidate; at that time people who were eyes-open and who could see what the high school was and was inevitably going to become with the passing of time began to talk about replacing it.

That was the late 1990's.

An active process of discussion, directed toward placing a bond issue before the voters, began in the mid-2000's.

There were meetings, complaints were raised, complaints were addressed, the proposal was cut back, complaints were raised, complaints were addressed, the proposal was cut back, complaints were raised, complaints were addressed, the proposal was cut back...

You get the idea.

You'd think that this would be a slam-dunk, but no.

All that culminated with the actual placing of a bond issue to replace and rework a portion of the high school before the voters in 2009.

It was voted down.

The alleged issues against passage were legion: the economy wasn't right; it was too costly; enrollment was declining, so why bother; poorer households on the Island couldn't afford it; etc etc etc.

One of the most interesting dynamics of the debate was that, as soon as one objection was addressed, the same opponents would come up with another objection.

You could never get the entire list at one time. There was always one more problem.

So the group tasked with developing the proposal held more meetings, complaints were raised, complaints were addressed, the proposal was cut back, complaints were raised, complaints were addressed...

Are we seeing a pattern here?

The well-intentioned, quite intelligent people (I wasn't one of them!) tasked with writing the bond measure bent over backwards again and again, and still there remained a very small, but very vocal groups who were simply not ever going to be swayed.

And they were *very* vocal, as small groups in small communities can be.

So the most recent bond issue went before the voters (again) this year with two components:

Proposition 1 demolishes two high school buildings, builds a new integrated classroom building as a replacement, does other much-needed work at the high school, and does much needed work at both the middle- and elementary schools.

Proposition 2 replaces the grass athletic field and the 1970's-era cinder track (Remember those? No high school track meets have been held at our high school in at least ten years. Other high schools simply refuse to compete here.) with a new synthetic field and track and does some desperately-needed ADA work to the single, un-roofed grandstand.

(Let me say that public athletic facilities (which are actually managed by the local Parks District through an interlocal agreement) are in desperately short supply here -- remember that this is an island -- so the high school athletic field is used by middle school football, and by the local Parks District's youth soccer and lacrosse programs, so it's not like the field sits empty except on Friday nights).

OK.

Election happens; votes are counted (in Washington State this sort of bond issue requires a both a 60% super-majority *and* in our specific case a voter turnout of at least 2,456 to be valid; this of course in Washington where it's a Constitutional requirement that the State legislature fully-fund public education, but don't get me started on that...).

We had 4,370 total votes cast (55.85% of registered voters) so we made the 2,456 vote threshold easily.

Proposition 2 (the athletic field and track) failed:
APPROVED 2426 55.69%
REJECTED 1930 44.31%

Proposition 1 (demolish and construct new high school classrooms) passed:
APPROVED 2626 60.22%
REJECTED 1735 39.78%
by 0.22% which came down to nine votes.

(At this point let me interject an interesting sub-plot: the opponent's official statement in the formal voter's pamphlet contained demonstrably false "data" about the actual costs of construction; within an hour of that pamphlet having been put online I spent 45 minutes trying to figure out how the proponents came up with their figures and couldn't even get close; the editor of the local paper contacted the opponents and asked them to identify their sources and/or their methodologies, and they refused to discuss the issue. The opposing statement was accepted without any validation of any sort by the county elections division).

There were 96 "contested" ballots.

In local-election-speak, "contested" means that the signature on the ballot (this was a mail-in-only election) did not sufficiently match the signature on the voter registration card. There was no suggestion of ACORN subterfuge or anything like that.

So now, the same opponents who have so consistently opposed this measure, and who (I contend) would all be happy as clams if they had won by nine votes are going absolutely ballistic, are claiming that some sort of malfeasance in the counting of the 96 "contested" has occurred, and are threatening to demand a recount.

Which they have to pay for, so we'll see.

To my mind this is part-and-parcel of the New Selfishness(tm).

These are simply people who are really doing quite well, thank you, (the demographics of this island have shifted up-scale significantly in the last decade) but who do not current have kids, will not have kids, and who could care less about the kids who are growing up on this island.

Their entire involvement with the local school district is the frustration they feel when they're held up behind a school bus.

Many, many years ago -- about the time I ran for school board -- there was a saying in popular use:
"It takes an entire village to raise one child."

Today we seem to have devolved to a rather different sentiment:
"You going to raise one child? Don't look at me."

The simple fact is that we all need children, and even if we've raised our own, we need to support those kids who are growing up right now.

That's what I think, anyway.

Apparently other people have different opinions.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Core Issues

"What the Right-wing Assault on Women, Unions, the Environment, Health Care and PBS Is All About"

This is one of the very few, and yet one of the most succinct discussions about what's really been going on in American politics since the 1950's.

Unfortunately, although it gets a few dots down onto the paper it fails to connect them into the larger pattern.

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.
...
Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the Governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement. Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
...
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.


This is all very good, as far as it goes.

I've been proselytized by, and paying close attention to evangelical Christians since the mid-1950's: my maternal uncle and aunt were card-carrying, Southern California right-wing Christian lunatics (they quit the John Birch Society in the late 1950's because it wasn't conservative enough).

There has been a deliberate, determined effort to force the evangelical Christian world view onto America at large for decades.

Not being able to live in a world that includes views other than their own, they full intend to force their views onto every one else.

More later, as this is a Core Issue...

Vocabulary entries, 02/20/2011

"Evangelical"

The OED: adjective, sense 3: "zealous in advocating or supporting a particular cause"

"Christian"

The OED: adjective, sense 1: "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings"

"Theocracy"

The OED: noun: "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god"

Using these words in a sentence:

"Unbeknown to many, the establishment of an evangelical Christian theocracy in the United States of America has been a foundational motivation for much of what the right wing has said and done since the 1950's."

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Vocabulary entry, 02/13/2011

"Zero-sum"

Not a term that I was unfamiliar with, but one which I had not connected to a train of thought I'd been working on.

I had commented on a post at Autonomy For All wherein I had used the awkward phrasing "finite-ist" and "infinite-ist".

"Finite-ists" were those bratty little five-year-olds at birthday parties who were always whining that somebody else's piece of cake was bigger than theirs.

They grow up to be petty, greedy, angry right-wingers: the cake is finite, so if some body's piece gets bigger, theirs, by definition, has to get smaller.

(Compare and contrast with "infinite-ists" -- those kids who didn't care in the least how big everybody's piece of cake was: everybody had some cake, so it was all good.

In the adult world: something good happens to you, and I'm not damaged in the least. In fact I receive joy from the fact).

"Zero-sum" -- one characteristic of the right wing worldview.

Oh yes:

I'm an Open Left refugee...

- bp

Maybe...

...I'll start working on this blog again.

Started it when I was hanging out at DKos; realized what was going on there and refused to become a karma (Sorry: "mojo") whore, and left in May of 2010.

Went back to my day job and never continued with this blog.

As then, the last thing I need to do now is to find one more damned thing to do online...

- bp

Saturday, April 24, 2010

First post!

/* that's a joke... */

- bp