From mbcrui at gmail.com  Fri May  1 07:19:51 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 08:19:51 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
Message-ID: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>

I'm.... speechless

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aowmZkX0TzEE&refer=home
>
> Chrysler?s dissident lenders have on their side the ?absolute 
> priority? bankruptcy rule, which holds that value must be distributed 
> according to the legal priorities of the stakeholders. What riled the 
> group that put out the statement yesterday was that junior creditors 
> -- a workers health-care trust -- would get equity in a new Chrysler 
> entity while the group?s members wouldn?t.
>
> ?Junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior 
> secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full,? the 
> dissidents said in the statement.
>

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From mbcrui at gmail.com  Fri May  1 07:28:16 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 08:28:16 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Filibuster, schmilibuster, the Democrats *will* implode,
	just wait.
Message-ID: <49FAEAE0.1090504@gmail.com>

The one thing you can always count on with the Democratic party is that 
they'll happily shoot themselves in the foot.  I haven't read the bill 
and have no idea if this was a good idea or a bad one, but all y'all 
worried about a filibuster proof Senate?  You can't get a majority of 
the Democrats to agree that the sky is, indeed, sometimes blue.  How are 
you going to get them to agree to overcome a filibuster?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01credit.html?src=twttwt=nytimes
> The mortgage provision garnered only 45 votes in the Senate, falling 
> well short of the 60 votes necessary to break a threatened filibuster 
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> 
> to a measure sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of 
> Illinois, that would give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to 
> modify mortgages. In recent weeks, major banks 
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/investments/brokerage-and-bank-accounts/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> 
> and bank trade associations worked closely with Senate Republicans to 
> stop the measure. *Twelve Democrats joined all the Republicans in 
> voting against it.*
(my emphasis added)

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From jazz at qnet.com  Fri May  1 12:50:39 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (jazz at qnet.com)
Date: Fri,  1 May 2009 10:50:39 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] Filibuster, schmilibuster, the Democrats *will* implode,
	just wait.
In-Reply-To: <49FAEAE0.1090504@gmail.com>
References: <49FAEAE0.1090504@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1241200239.49fb366f2d69d@webmail.qnet.com>

1.  Proof again that money does indeed talk.  Or in this case, allows others to
talk long enough to kill a measure that might let a judge decree that someone
cannot continue to attempt to squeeze more blood from a stone.  Or to at least
take credit for the potential of the blood coming someday, long after the sad
and painful reality of the situation has become clear.  

2.  Maybe this is the reason Democrats always seem to back gun control?

Bill Taylor

Quoting Mary Cruickshank Peed <mbcrui at gmail.com>:

> The one thing you can always count on with the Democratic party is that 
> they'll happily shoot themselves in the foot.  I haven't read the bill 
> and have no idea if this was a good idea or a bad one, but all y'all 
> worried about a filibuster proof Senate?  You can't get a majority of 
> the Democrats to agree that the sky is, indeed, sometimes blue.  How are 
> you going to get them to agree to overcome a filibuster?
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01credit.html?src=twttwt=nytimes
> > The mortgage provision garnered only 45 votes in the Senate, falling 
> > well short of the 60 votes necessary to break a threatened filibuster 
> >
>
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> 
> > to a measure sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of 
> > Illinois, that would give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to 
> > modify mortgages. In recent weeks, major banks 
> >
>
<http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/investments/brokerage-and-bank-accounts/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
> 
> > and bank trade associations worked closely with Senate Republicans to 
> > stop the measure. *Twelve Democrats joined all the Republicans in 
> > voting against it.*
> (my emphasis added)


From sarahksmom at yahoo.com  Fri May  1 13:03:25 2009
From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <853765.10450.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


So, what happens next? Asking for a TRO? Litigation?

Miriam Solon
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." 
--Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra"


--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Mary Cruickshank Peed <mbcrui at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm.... speechless
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aowmZkX0TzEE&refer=home
> >
> > Chrysler?s dissident lenders have on their side the
> ?absolute 
> > priority? bankruptcy rule, which holds that value
> must be distributed 
> > according to the legal priorities of the stakeholders.
> What riled the 
> > group that put out the statement yesterday was that
> junior creditors 
> > -- a workers health-care trust -- would get equity in
> a new Chrysler 
> > entity while the group?s members wouldn?t.
> >
> > ?Junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to
> anything until senior 
> > secured creditors like our investors are repaid in
> full,? the 
> > dissidents said in the statement.
> >
> 
> -- 
> --
> Mary Cruickshank Peed
> 
> 
> We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident,
> bits of a star gone wrong.
>   - Sir Arthur Eddington
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Goglog mailing list
> Goglog at mail.zarquon.net
> http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog


      


From steveg at swhi.net  Fri May  1 13:23:08 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:23:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11670.144.183.224.2.1241202188.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote:

> I'm.... speechless

About what?

     - Steve G



From steveg at swhi.net  Fri May  1 13:25:19 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:25:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Filibuster, schmilibuster, the Democrats *will* implode,
 just wait.
In-Reply-To: <49FAEAE0.1090504@gmail.com>
References: <49FAEAE0.1090504@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23779.144.183.224.2.1241202319.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote:

> worried about a filibuster proof Senate?  You can't get a majority of
> the Democrats to agree that the sky is, indeed, sometimes blue.  How are
> you going to get them to agree to overcome a filibuster?

Oh, they'll all agree to vote party line on some things.  You
just can't figure on it being properly thought-out things.

      - Steve G



From ben at bl.com  Fri May  1 13:37:24 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:37:24 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Iran war soon ?
Message-ID: <p06240800c620f1c27759@[10.19.35.98]>


http://tinyurl.com/cp9ghc

-- 
------------------------------
  ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From steveg at swhi.net  Fri May  1 13:40:09 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:40:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <853765.10450.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <853765.10450.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <41680.144.183.224.2.1241203209.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

sarahksmom wrote:

> So, what happens next? Asking for a TRO? Litigation?

Now they have filed for bankruptcy, so it will be up to the judge.
The holdouts will probably come out better this way *if* there is
enough money to go around.

     - Steve G



From mbcrui at gmail.com  Fri May  1 14:03:53 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:03:53 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <41680.144.183.224.2.1241203209.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <853765.10450.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<41680.144.183.224.2.1241203209.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <49FB4799.9000602@gmail.com>

Steve Gruenwald wrote:
> Now they have filed for bankruptcy, so it will be up to the judge.
> The holdouts will probably come out better this way *if* there is
> enough money to go around.
>   
There isn't and they won't. According to the early scoop, anyway. Any 
judge in Michigan is not going to screw the UAW... I'd be surprised to 
see the dissident secured bond holders come out of this with as much as 
the government was offering...

> Chrysler, the nation?s third-largest carmaker 
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SAARTOTL%3AIND>, yesterday 
> filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after a group of 20 Chrysler secured 
> lenders calling itself the ?Committee of Chrysler Non- Tarp Lenders? 
> rejected an offer by the government that would have paid them $2.25 
> billion on $6.9 billion of debt, or 33 cents on the dollar. The 
> government plans to ask the bankruptcy judge to let it pay the 
> creditors in that group $2 billion, or 29 cents on the dollar to end 
> their claims. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afcJnMfMc2SE&refer=home



-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From mbcrui at gmail.com  Fri May  1 14:22:54 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:22:54 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Souter Retiring, SCOTUS
Message-ID: <49FB4C0E.5070700@gmail.com>

Lots of reports today that David Souter is retiring from the Supreme 
Court, although he hasn't announced anything yet. 

IIRC, he was a compromise candidate between Bush the First and the 
Democratic Senate, and turned out pretty good... I was worried when 
Justice Brennan retired, as he'd been such a stalwart supporter of the 
Right to Privacy, and thought that anyone Bush appointed would hit at 
that, especially at Roe v. Wade... but Souter didn't.  And actually 
voted with the majority on Planned Parenthood V. Casey, which had been 
widely expected to overturn or at least severely limit Roe and because 
of 3 Republican appointed "turncoats" wasn't.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, Bruce Schneier has an interesting bit 
today 
(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/googling_justic.html) on 
Antonin "That Idiot" Scalia.  Just like him to blame the messenger when 
it's his own poorly thought out words and thoughts.  The comments are 
straight on, even though the one guy claims that just because it can be 
done, it shouldn't be.  That's true... fortunately for  That Idiot, this 
time it was just a law school class... not someone stalking him, or 
trying to steal his identity.


-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Sat May  2 20:40:29 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 20:40:29 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>

Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote:
>
>I'm.... speechless
>
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aowmZkX0TzEE&refer=home
>>

What are you surprised by? That the deal was structured
to save as much as possible of the retirees' pension
while screwing other categories of creditors?

Did you notice, by the way, that the deal includes the
U.S. forgiving the $4 billion loan it made to Chrysler?

That's $4 billion taxpayer dollars out the door... for what?

-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Sat May  2 20:57:46 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 20:57:46 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Iran war soon ?
In-Reply-To: <p06240800c620f1c27759@[10.19.35.98]>
References: <p06240800c620f1c27759@[10.19.35.98]>
Message-ID: <a06240806c622a7110095@[192.168.10.102]>

Ben Liberman wrote:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cp9ghc

This is an interesting article.

She has noted a key point: if the Iranian regime gets
nuclear weapons, the most probable danger is _not_ that
they would use them, but that the weapons would make the
Iranian regime untouchable, and the regime would then be
free to attack its neighbors with sabotage, terrorism,
assassinations, bribery, kidnapping, and infiltration.

I think she exaggerates a bit: the Iranian regime, even
with nukes, could not dictate to other countries overtly,
as by vetoing the arrest of their agents. The U.S. would
provide, at least informally, a guarantee against nuclear
attack. The pressure would be at a lower level.

NOTE: I never refer to "Iran" in this context. The enemy is
the mullahs and Revolutionary Guard commanders who control
the government. All evidence I see indicates that most
Iranians hate and despise the regime. I refuse to grant that
regime the designation of acting and speaking for the nation.

Second note: the author of this piece uses special language
to describe Israeli settlements in the West Bank ("our
communities in Judaea and Samaria"). I mention this as a
indicator of her general political position, which may be
relevant in evaluating her essay.
-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From SteveG at swhi.net  Sun May  3 08:31:24 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 08:31:24 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
Message-ID: <DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>


Rich Rostrom says: 

> What are you surprised by?

I'm still wondering that.  There are all kinds of 
possibilities.  

> Did you notice, by the way, that the deal includes the
> U.S. forgiving the $4 billion loan it made to Chrysler?

No, I didn't.  What deal does?  Where do you get this 
information?  

    - Steve G 


From SteveG at swhi.net  Sun May  3 16:19:00 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:19:00 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
Message-ID: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>

I suspect people may find this article interesting.  It's 
on the nature of public support for religion in Germany, 
especially in public schools.  
 
PRO RELI versus PRO ETHIK 
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8445/&ct=ga&cd=hXotvE0wod4&usg=AFQjCNFm6Rqe_K8G5PKD6UhURGA0WXRheQ> 


From bentley at crenelle.com  Mon May  4 03:10:23 2009
From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 01:10:23 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
	<DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>
Message-ID: <p06240805c62452ebd062@[192.168.1.32]>

I'm fuzzy on the recent history of Chrysler. They merged with 
Mercedez Benz, stuff happens, they split up, and Chrysler winds up in 
a world of hurt. How exactly does that happen?

-m

From mbcrui at gmail.com  Mon May  4 08:31:43 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:31:43 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <p06240805c62452ebd062@[192.168.1.32]>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>	<DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>
	<p06240805c62452ebd062@[192.168.1.32]>
Message-ID: <49FEEE3F.8000103@gmail.com>

Michael Brian Bentley wrote:
> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
> I'm fuzzy on the recent history of Chrysler. They merged with 
> Mercedez Benz,
Daimler, not Mercedez. 
>  stuff happens, they split up, and Chrysler winds up in 
> a world of hurt. How exactly does that happen?
>   
Daimler spun off most of their debt to Chrysler.  It happens all the 
time-- Monsanto/Solutia is my own personal experience.

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From mbcrui at gmail.com  Mon May  4 10:25:48 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 11:25:48 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
Message-ID: <49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>

Rich Rostrom wrote:
> What are you surprised by?
Mostly I was surprised that a handful of companies would screw up a deal 
for a mere $250M when we're talking billions.  Apparently they'd rather 
kill the goose than take a lessor amount now.
>  That the deal was structured
> to save as much as possible of the retirees' pension
> while screwing other categories of creditors?
>   
More pensioners vote.
> Did you notice, by the way, that the deal includes the
> U.S. forgiving the $4 billion loan it made to Chrysler?
>   
And where did you get that?

M

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From steveg at swhi.net  Mon May  4 11:10:43 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:10:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]> <49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote:

> Mostly I was surprised that a handful of companies would screw up a deal
> for a mere $250M when we're talking billions.  Apparently they'd rather
> kill the goose than take a lessor amount now.

Actually, if the article is accurate, $250 M was just the
last straw, the last increment they were being asked to give
up.  It could have been any number.  They were dickering
over just how pitiful a percentage they would accept of
their much larger receivable.  What it says is:

> Obama?s team had first offered secured lenders $2 billion
for their $6.9 billion in loans, and then raised the offer
to $2.25 billion. In a game of chicken, the holdouts asked
for $2.5 billion, and Obama?s patience ran out.

If the negotiation had instead gone "will you take $1
billion" and they said "no, we want at least $2.5 billion,"
and the Administration "in a game of chicken" had said "not
a cent over $2.25 billion," would the response be "I was
surprised that the Administration would screw up a deal for
a mere $250M when we're talking billions"?  After all, big
as the bankers are, I would assume $250 million is a bigger
share of their investors' total equity than of the
Government's.

And remember, the Administration is gambling a loan, which
it keeps saying it expects will be repaid - IOW, they are
gambling a risk of losing $250 million or some part of it,
not the actual cash.  The bakers were being asked to settle
for *definitely never* receiving that $250 million, in
addition to *never* receiving an additional most of the rest
of their $6.9 billion in loans.

> More pensioners vote.

But that is something only the Administration would care
about, and only if it is putting politics ahead of the
recovery of the industry.  The pensioners are not the people
who can get the company back on its feet.  And even
politically, I'm not sure it's *meaningfully* true.
Pensioners do not give or steer nearly as much to political
campaigns as big bankers.

Yes, not screwing the pensioners is a reasonable factor to
consider, but it's only one factor, and ultimately it all
just comes down to dickering over a price.  Whatever the
bottom line figure is that the Government would have to pay
to keep the company afloat, that is the amount that it has
at risk and others don't (or as to which others have less of
a risk).  If it means the pensioners have to settle for a
marginally lower payout, that may or may not actually reduce
the amount of taxpayer liability, depending on whether there
is a settlement with the pensioners or the gap may have to
come out of the PBGC.

Overall, I don't see it as *clearly* any more or less
reasonable for the bankers to say "enough is enough, there
is only so far we can bargain away our stockholders'
financial interests" than, for instance, for the pensioners -
or the Government, to the extent it is representing their
interests - to say "no, they bargained for 75% of pay for
life and they're going to get it."  Everyone has been
gambling huge amounts of money and power for huge expected
returns for decades - including the employees and their
unions - and I see no way of parsing out who should have to
take how much of a hit when the imaginary equity account has
to be reconciled with reality.

      - Steve G



From jazz at qnet.com  Mon May  4 11:15:23 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:15:23 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] The Art of War
Message-ID: <200905041616.n44GGRun010417@mail.zarquon.net>

For those of you that care about such things, History Channel last 
night had a nice 2 hour show on Sun Tzu's Art of War.  Several 
experts commenting on how the principles in the book could be 
compared to several wars throughout time.  US based examples 
primarily, US Civil War, Vietnam, WW2.

There will probably be a torrent sometime soon.  And History.com will 
probably list the repeat times and have a DVD for sale.

Do your best not to think of the US in Iraq while watching this 
video.  Really, it would be better if you didn't focus on that topic.

Bill Taylor


From jazz at qnet.com  Mon May  4 11:25:26 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:25:26 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
	<49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
	<18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <200905041626.n44GQ22d011618@mail.zarquon.net>

At 11:10 5/4/2009 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

>Overall, I don't see it as *clearly* any more or less
>reasonable for the bankers to say "enough is enough, there
>is only so far we can bargain away our stockholders'
>financial interests" than, for instance, for the pensioners -
>or the Government, to the extent it is representing their
>interests - to say "no, they bargained for 75% of pay for
>life and they're going to get it."  Everyone has been
>gambling huge amounts of money and power for huge expected
>returns for decades - including the employees and their
>unions - and I see no way of parsing out who should have to
>take how much of a hit when the imaginary equity account has
>to be reconciled with reality.

Another reason to take the pension accounts out of the company 
entirely.  It would be one thing if the pensioners WANTED to reinvest 
their future in the company.  It is another to say the company is 
going to pay your pension out of cash reserves, assuming they have 
any when the time comes.

That money should be a separate company.  Or at least an insulated 
operating account. I'm sure no one thinks of themselves as a thief 
here.  But when the pension account starts to look like just one more 
checking account to keep the company afloat, you have arrived at the 
bottom of the slippery slope.

Bill Taylor


From steveg at swhi.net  Mon May  4 11:41:41 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:41:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <200905041626.n44GQ22d011618@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]> <49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
	<18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<200905041626.n44GQ22d011618@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <59612.144.183.224.2.1241455301.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

Bill Taylor wrote:

> Another reason to take the pension accounts out of the company
> entirely.  It would be one thing if the pensioners WANTED to reinvest
> their future in the company.  It is another to say the company is
> going to pay your pension out of cash reserves, assuming they have
> any when the time comes.

I'm not sure what you mean.  AFAIK it's a defined-benefit
plan, which means it has to be in a trusteed fund.  Assuming
that the plan and the plan sponsor (the employer itself)
have been underestimating its funding needs as compared to
the current financial situation - like most employers and
most pension funds - yes, Chrysler has some distinct exposure
for the shortfall; but if the large bulk of the money needed
has not been out of the company and in a separate, protected
fund for decades, I'll be very surprised.

Bankruptcy will be a way to place limits on the employer's
potential liability *over and above* what is already in the
fund.

       - Steve G



From jazz at qnet.com  Mon May  4 11:55:03 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 09:55:03 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <59612.144.183.224.2.1241455301.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
	<49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
	<18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<200905041626.n44GQ22d011618@mail.zarquon.net>
	<59612.144.183.224.2.1241455301.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <200905041655.n44Gtt8X014990@mail.zarquon.net>

At 11:41 5/4/2009 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote:
>Replies are directed to the list.
>If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
>____________________________________________________________
>Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> > Another reason to take the pension accounts out of the company
> > entirely.  It would be one thing if the pensioners WANTED to reinvest
> > their future in the company.  It is another to say the company is
> > going to pay your pension out of cash reserves, assuming they have
> > any when the time comes.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean.  AFAIK it's a defined-benefit
>plan, which means it has to be in a trusteed fund.  Assuming
>that the plan and the plan sponsor (the employer itself)
>have been underestimating its funding needs as compared to
>the current financial situation - like most employers and
>most pension funds - yes, Chrysler has some distinct exposure
>for the shortfall; but if the large bulk of the money needed
>has not been out of the company and in a separate, protected
>fund for decades, I'll be very surprised.

Yes, that is the situation I mean.

It isn't that the fund has no money at all.  Only that it really 
depends on a large amount of money still in Chrysler.  Chrysler knows 
it has a large liability hanging out there, but until it has to 
actually pay up, it can treat the money as if it is available.

Defined benefit of course has problems in its own right, but under 
funding it right up front just screws it up from the start.

Bill Taylor


From steveg at swhi.net  Mon May  4 11:57:09 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:57:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <59612.144.183.224.2.1241455301.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]> <49FF08FC.8020509@gmail.com>
	<18095.144.183.224.2.1241453443.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<200905041626.n44GQ22d011618@mail.zarquon.net>
	<59612.144.183.224.2.1241455301.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <55832.144.183.224.2.1241456229.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

I wrote:

> Assuming
> that the plan and the plan sponsor (the employer itself)
> have been underestimating its funding needs as compared to
> the current financial situation - like most employers and
> most pension funds - yes, Chrysler has some distinct exposure
> for the shortfall

BTW, I should mention that as a result of a law passed three
years ago, most employers now have less freedom to make
their own (conservative, risky, good or bad) estimates of
funding needs, and have to use Government-prescribed rates
instead.  For most companies, this has meant they have had
to either put many millions more into their funds in the
past year than their actuaries said was really necessary, or
terminate the plans.  I have not tried to research it, but I
strongly suspect this was one of the factors that
contributed to the bankruptcy.

     - Steve G



From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Tue May  5 19:48:19 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 19:48:19 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
In-Reply-To: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>
References: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>
Message-ID: <FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-May-03 , at 16:19, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

> I suspect people may find this article interesting.  It's
> on the nature of public support for religion in Germany,
> especially in public schools.
>
> PRO RELI versus PRO ETHIK
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/ 
> article/articleview/8445/ 
> &ct=ga&cd=hXotvE0wod4&usg=AFQjCNFm6Rqe_K8G5PKD6UhURGA0WXRheQ>


I would think the best answer, since the religious classes are still  
offered, would be to allow parents to transfer their kids to a  
religion class as a substitute for the ethics class. But then, I  
don't live there, and have no idea of the nuances.

Mark Hagerman




From SteveG at swhi.net  Tue May  5 21:00:35 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:00:35 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
In-Reply-To: <FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>
References: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>
	<FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>


Mark Hagerman says: 

> I would think the best answer, since the religious classes are still  
> offered, would be to allow parents to transfer their kids to a  
> religion class as a substitute for the ethics class. 

The protestors led by this Lehmann wanted to be sure that as 
many people as possible got a sectarian religious education, 
*rather than* the mandated ethics class.  As I read it, what 
you're saying is to give the protestors what they wanted.  

The Government had chosen to ensure that those who 
specifically wanted a sectarian class could get it (at least 
in the mainstream religions), but that *all* students got a 
course that taught understanding and tolerance of various 
groups.  By doing this, aside from the chance that the 
ethics education itself might actually help, they were 
reducing the extent to which the state supports religious 
divisiveness, and to which it labels minority members so 
that they can become victims.  In a country with the 
longstanding and sometimes extreme problems Germany has had 
with intolerance of minority religions, this seems like a 
valid goal.  

    - Steve G 


From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Tue May  5 21:39:23 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:39:23 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
In-Reply-To: <9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>
References: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>
	<FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>
	<9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>
Message-ID: <F5592AB3-0410-49AE-8F25-8CF17B026A78@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-May-05 , at 21:00, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Mark Hagerman says:
>
>> I would think the best answer, since the religious classes are still
>> offered, would be to allow parents to transfer their kids to a
>> religion class as a substitute for the ethics class.
>
> The protestors led by this Lehmann wanted to be sure that as
> many people as possible got a sectarian religious education,
> *rather than* the mandated ethics class.  As I read it, what
> you're saying is to give the protestors what they wanted.
>
> <snip>
>     - Steve G


Perhaps I misread your original post. I thought what Lehmann et al  
wanted was to require all religiously-identified students to use the  
religious classes instead of the ethics class.

What I suggested was to give parents a choice in how their kids spend  
those 'x' hours per week. As I said, though, I don't pretend to know  
the best answer for Germany; however, if a parallel situation existed  
here, that's what I would want...a choice.

One of the things I really dislike about the U.S. system for public  
schools is that parents have to pony up for the gov't schools even if  
they don't use them. The German situation charges in kids' time, not  
money, but it seems to me the principle is similar.

Mark Hagerman




From sarahksmom at yahoo.com  Wed May  6 01:23:20 2009
From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in Germany)
In-Reply-To: <F5592AB3-0410-49AE-8F25-8CF17B026A78@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


There was an episode of "The Lone Ranger" that dealt with an elderly, childless widow who objected to paying school taxes. LR convinced her of the merits of a free, compulsory public education as a crime prevention measure. I think the argument still holds.

Granting a tax credit for parochial or private school creates a gap in funding and essentially turns public schools into underfunded private schools, with the cost spread out over a smaller paying population.

Miriam Solon
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." 
--Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra"


--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Mark Hagerman <mhagerman at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> From: Mark Hagerman <mhagerman at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
> To: "The Demagogue Dialogue Mailing List" <goglog at mail.zarquon.net>
> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 9:39 PM
> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the
> To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
> On 2009-May-05 , at 21:00, Steve Gruenwald wrote:
> 
> > Replies are directed to the list.
> > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit
> the To: line!
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Mark Hagerman says:
> >
> >> I would think the best answer, since the religious
> classes are still
> >> offered, would be to allow parents to transfer
> their kids to a
> >> religion class as a substitute for the ethics
> class.
> >
> > The protestors led by this Lehmann wanted to be sure
> that as
> > many people as possible got a sectarian religious
> education,
> > *rather than* the mandated ethics class.  As I read
> it, what
> > you're saying is to give the protestors what they
> wanted.
> >
> > <snip>
> >     - Steve G
> 
> 
> Perhaps I misread your original post. I thought what
> Lehmann et al  
> wanted was to require all religiously-identified students
> to use the  
> religious classes instead of the ethics class.
> 
> What I suggested was to give parents a choice in how their
> kids spend  
> those 'x' hours per week. As I said, though, I
> don't pretend to know  
> the best answer for Germany; however, if a parallel
> situation existed  
> here, that's what I would want...a choice.
> 
> One of the things I really dislike about the U.S. system
> for public  
> schools is that parents have to pony up for the gov't
> schools even if  
> they don't use them. The German situation charges in
> kids' time, not  
> money, but it seems to me the principle is similar.
> 
> Mark Hagerman
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Goglog mailing list
> Goglog at mail.zarquon.net
> http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog


      

From ignatz at dminet.com  Wed May  6 08:08:57 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:08:57 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion
	in	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <F5592AB3-0410-49AE-8F25-8CF17B026A78@worldnet.att.net>
	<361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090506130857.GA16486@dminet.com>

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:23:20PM -0700, sarahksmom wrote:
> There was an episode of "The Lone Ranger" that dealt with an elderly,
> childless widow who objected to paying school taxes. LR convinced her of
> the merits of a free, compulsory public education as a crime prevention
> measure. I think the argument still holds.

I think there's far more to it than just that.  To a greater extent than
any other country in the world, we live in a heterogeneous, polyglot
society that didn't exist at all 250 years ago.  Yes, there are countries
in Europe with several indigenous ethnic groups and languages; but we are
*constructed* of immigrants (and, yes, American native tribes, but they
haven't really had significant input to the synthesis of the society.)
Immigrants from every country imaginable, with wildy differing languages,
cultures, religions, and social structures.  The base of our culture
is nominally English, but none of these immigrants (except those from
England and UK countries) shared that common base.

Public schools, with a reasonably consistent curriculum, are the only
common training ground to at least graft on an understanding of our
culture and to provide a base level of common experience.  (In many
countries, the dominant religion is also part of this base--doesn't work
in our country.  Too many religions from too many places; the Founding
Fathers were wise to keep it out of the government.)

Of course, this is breaking down.  Public schools *should* demand
students learn English; instead, we're providing multi-lingual classrooms.
(Mostly bi-lingual, but there are areas where languages other than Spanish
are incorporated.)  This is, simply, wrong.  It permits continuation of
segregation and insular neighborhoods.

The push for private schools, in many cases, isn't for quality of
education--it's because some parents don't want their children exposed to
concepts and beliefs other than those they approve.  Ok, they can do that
if they want (as itchy as it makes me feeel)--but it's their choice,
they should pay for it.  They still should have to pay to support the
common ground of public schools.  (And all private schools should be
required to at least meet standards in terms of core subjects--math,
science, etc.  But that's another topic.)

> Granting a tax credit for parochial or private school creates a gap
> in funding and essentially turns public schools into underfunded private
> schools, with the cost spread out over a smaller paying population.

Yes.  It shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Cheers,
--
	Dave "Blunt before coffee" Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Wed May  6 10:08:18 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
	Germany)
Message-ID: <691163.63226.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Dave,

I think this is a great argument in favor of public
schools.  Sure, I think there are a lot of benefits to public 
schools, crime reduction, a literate population produces more,
etc etc.  But cultures rely on common ground, and given the degree
of synthesis in American culture, having a place to provide a common
framework is critical to national cohesion.

>
> Public schools, with a reasonably consistent curriculum,
> are the only common training ground to at least graft on an
> understanding of our culture and to provide a base level of common
> experience.?

Janet


      


From steveg at swhi.net  Wed May  6 15:09:15 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:09:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion
 in	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <20090506130857.GA16486@dminet.com>
References: <F5592AB3-0410-49AE-8F25-8CF17B026A78@worldnet.att.net>
	<361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<20090506130857.GA16486@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <27194.144.183.224.2.1241640555.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Dave Ihnat wrote:

> I think there's far more to it than just that.

- and I agree with all of it, but add comments here and
there:

> Public schools, with a reasonably consistent curriculum, are the only
> common training ground to at least graft on an understanding of our
> culture

- to the very limited extent that you can get agreement on
what is "our culture."  "Our civic order" might be a more
practicable target.

> (Too many religions from too many places; the Founding
> Fathers were wise to keep it out of the government.)

To a large extent this is now true in Germany too, but they
did not start from that premise and (not as individuals but
as a large country) are slow to accept it.

> Public schools *should* demand
> students learn English; instead, we're providing multi-lingual classrooms.

I believe there is finally a *fairly* consistent trend away
from this, among educators.

And I would suggest that *parents* should demand of schools
that their children be taught English.  Something is wrong
where they don't.

> The push for private schools, in many cases, isn't for quality of
> education--it's because some parents don't want their children exposed to
> concepts and beliefs other than those they approve.

Very true, "in many cases."  But note that the same is true
on a larger scale as well; think of most of the issues that
are debated as "states' rights" issues.  This nation has a
longstanding ambivalence about what rights (a) states,
(b) parents, and lately (c) ethnic groups have to self-
determination, including deciding for themselves what is
"the culture."

         - Steve G



From steveg at swhi.net  Wed May  6 15:24:18 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:24:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
 Germany)
In-Reply-To: <691163.63226.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <691163.63226.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <55783.144.183.224.2.1241641458.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Janet Plato wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I think this is a great argument in favor of public
> schools.  <snip> cultures rely on common ground, and given the degree
> of synthesis in American culture, having a place to provide a common
> framework is critical to national cohesion.

Agreed, but IMO the more basic issue (which Dave and Miriam
both also alluded to, at least indirectly) is that our
society (like most modern societies) considers education to
be a need that society as a whole owes its youth, as much as
it owes its people police protection, defense against
invasion, a court system, and a small handful of other things.

That being so, if you look at the whole range of options you
inevitably come to realize that the only rational way of
ensuring that all who legitimately need it can get it is by
universal public funding and broad-based management of
schools.

Note that this argument necessarily leads to the question of
*how much* education is a public need that society has to
provide.  Some nations have decided that it includes college,
but generally only as to those whose advanced education will
most clearly benefit the society.  Therefore, in Italy, for
instance, college entrance is highly competitive; but if you
qualify, it's free.  This would not work here, unless we
first dumped the prevailing view that almost everyone should
go to college instead of learning what they really need to
before then.

     - Steve G



From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Wed May  6 15:39:19 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:39:19 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
In-Reply-To: <9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>
References: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>
	<FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>
	<9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>
Message-ID: <a06240800c627a1685ddc@[192.168.10.102]>

Steve G wrote:

>In a country with the
>longstanding and sometimes extreme problems Germany has had
>with intolerance of minority religions, this seems like a
>valid goal.

Germany does _not_ have a history of intolerance of minority
religions. Germany has had peaceful religious pluralism for
three centuries: the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed
churches co-existing peacefully. During this period, minor
religions (Baptists, Jews) were also tolerated.

The great outbreak of violent persecution and mass murder
for which Germany became infamous was driven by _ethnic_
hatred. The persecutors were largely irreligious, and
selected their victims by ancestry, regardless of current
religious affiliation. The victims were accused of secular
crimes against the German people, not of any religious
crime, and of being biological degeneracy, not impiety,
blasphemy, or heresy.
-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Wed May  6 15:54:35 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:54:35 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
 Germany)
In-Reply-To: <27194.144.183.224.2.1241640555.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <F5592AB3-0410-49AE-8F25-8CF17B026A78@worldnet.att.net>
	<361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<20090506130857.GA16486@dminet.com>
	<27194.144.183.224.2.1241640555.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <a06240801c627a60c7466@[192.168.10.102]>

Steve G wrote:

>Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
>>  I think there's far more to it than just that.
>
>- and I agree with all of it, but add comments here and
>there:
>
>>  Public schools, with a reasonably consistent curriculum, are the only
>>  common training ground to at least graft on an understanding of our
>>  culture
>
>- to the very limited extent that you can get agreement on
>what is "our culture."  "Our civic order" might be a more
>practicable target.

There is evidence that many "educators" do not share the
culture of most Americans, and see it as their mission to
alter that culture in "progressive" directions.

>>  Public schools *should* demand students learn
>>  English; instead, we're providing multi-lingual classrooms.
>
>I believe there is finally a *fairly* consistent trend away
>from this, among educators.

I would like to believe that. What I understand to be the
case is that students are steered into "bilingual" classes.
Schools receive extra funds for these classes, and "bilingual"
teaching positions can be given to people with no particular
qualifications except knowledge of the other language, at the
whim of the controlling school authority.

>And I would suggest that *parents* should demand of schools
>that their children be taught English.  Something is wrong
>where they don't.

My understanding is that in many cases, children with
"hispanic" surnames are often placed in "bilingual"
classes even when they are fluent in English, or speak
no Spanish, and even over the objections of their
parents.

>... ethnic groups have to self-determination,
>including deciding for themselves what is
>"the culture."

Or more precisely, professional ethnic activists
declaring what "the culture" of their group is,
and taking control of the process through "ethnic
studies" departments at universities, and "community
organizations" funded by foundation grants and
government grants.
-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Wed May  6 17:44:56 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:44:56 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8B994964-383A-44EC-BE12-074E596183B2@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-May-06 , at 01:23, sarahksmom wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Granting a tax credit for parochial or private school creates a gap  
> in funding and essentially turns public schools into underfunded  
> private schools, with the cost spread out over a smaller paying  
> population.


This topic is taking on a life of its own, so I'll confine my  
commentary to the above.

Fewer students in the public schools means less need for teachers,  
buildings, administrators, et al. All of this leads to lower costs. I  
see no reason why the parents of those still in the public schools  
shouldn't bear the decreased burden of funding them; their cost per  
pupil is the same. Parents who want a good education for their kids  
(by whatever definition of "good" they adopt) should likewise pay for  
their own kids. Certainly, the paying population is smaller, but the  
costs are also smaller, in direct proportion.

I'm not an advocate of parochial schools, though neither do I oppose  
them. I think a separation between school and church is a good idea.  
I also think such a separation between school and state is good,  
because governments too often use the schools as indoctrination  
centers for government propaganda. My ideal would be a private,  
secular school concentrating on fundamental skills (reading, writing  
and 'rithmetic, as it were), with that share of my tax dollars  
currently going to the public schools returned to me so I could  
afford to have Michael educated properly.

Finally, it's my opinion that such a paradigm would benefit the  
public schools...competition would make them more efficient.

Mark Hagerman




From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Thu May  7 02:23:10 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 02:23:10 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Prosperity Is Just Around The Corner?
Message-ID: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>


Several important officials have issued pronouncements
asserting that the current economic slump has "bottomed out"
and that "recovery" is expected later this year.

I don't believe it.

Do you?

My chief reason for disagreeing is that _enormous_ amounts
of money have been ladled out over the last few months,
much of it in  haste or for political reasons; and Congress
recently appropriated another _enormous_ amount of money
to be ladled out for political reasons.

Some of this money was newly created by the Federal
Reserve, which _doubled_ the monetary base in the last
four months of 2009. Other chunks of it will be borrowed
by the Treasury. (The ratio of government deficit to GDP
is going to climb to levels unheard of since WW II.)

What this means is that an _enormous_ amount of purchasing
power is being awarded by political fiat. Since the actual
productivity of the U.S. has not changed much, that means an
_enormous_ transfer of wealth from the productive parts of
society to politically connected parasites - from useful
things to politically correct boondoggles.

That added burden is going to make the U.S. economy grind
down, as its functional parts are decapitalized. I expect
this to start soon.

That, and some runaway inflation, and spiking interest
rates.

For which there will be compensation - for politically
favored groups, and everyone else gets screwed.

IMHO, it's going to be ugly.

And I don't know that it will _ever_ get better. There is
very little history of a society purging itself of this
kind of corruption. Particular interests are always more
determined to protect and extend their goodies more than
the general public is to Do Anything about them.

Over the last century, few boondoggles and ripoffs have been
abolished; it's just that advances in technology and the
growth of the healthy economy have outrun the parasites.

Now it looks like the parasites are overwhelming the
organism. As the economy founders, more and more
individuals and groups will turn to grabbing a piece for
themselves, just to survive. Eurosclerosis, only worse.
-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com  Thu May  7 01:36:10 2009
From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 01:36:10 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Chrysler bankruptcy
In-Reply-To: <DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>
References: <49FAE8E7.8060202@gmail.com>
	<a06240805c622a5118888@[192.168.10.102]>
	<DCE6BFFE503E4E8F96AD42AF2633CF19@StevePC>
Message-ID: <a06240805c6283051dce2@[192.168.10.102]>

Steve G wrote:
>Rich Rostrom says:
>
>>  What are you surprised by?
>
>I'm still wondering that.  There are all kinds of
>possibilities.
>
>>  Did you notice, by the way, that the deal includes the
>>  U.S. forgiving the $4 billion loan it made to Chrysler?
>
>No, I didn't.  What deal does?

The deal by which Chrysler is bankrupted
and then given to Fiat to manage, with
various creditors getting equity.

>  Where do you get this information?

I saw a discussion of this last week, but could not trace
down the Web page. That however is now moot, as this has
has now been openly reported. See:

"Chrysler won't repay bailout money"
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/index.htm

"Money quote":

   Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo
   of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury
   would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to
   Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush
   administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and
   the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by
   the Obama administration to fund Chrysler's
   operations during bankruptcy...

   An Obama administration official confirmed Tuesday
   that Chrysler won't be repaying the loans...

   "The reality now is that the face value [of the $4
   billion bridge loan] will be written off in the
   bankruptcy process," said the official...
-- 
| Rich Rostrom            rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com     |
|                                                          |
| A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable   |
| if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe                 |

From steveg at swhi.net  Wed May  6 20:44:03 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:44:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
Message-ID: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Two messages I sent in haven't shown up.  This is a test.


From steveg at swhi.net  Wed May  6 17:28:29 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:28:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
 Germany)
Message-ID: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

Rich Rostrom wrote:

> There is evidence that many "educators" do not share the
> culture of most Americans, and see it as their mission to
> alter that culture in "progressive" directions.

What evidence is that?  Is it different from the evidence
that people in general have their own idea of what "the
culture" is or should be?  And what enables you to say what
is "the culture of most Americans," that educators do not
share?  (Unless, of course, "the culture" you refer to means
"ignorant."  In that case I would agree that most educators
see it as their mission to make progress away from it.)

> My understanding is that in many cases, children with
> "hispanic" surnames are often placed in "bilingual"
> classes even when they are fluent in English, or speak
> no Spanish, and even over the objections of their
> parents.

And just where do you get this understanding?  I will
suggest it to the various teachers in my family, but not
with a straight face.

> Or more precisely, professional ethnic activists
> declaring what "the culture" of their group is,

No, not more precisely.  There are such people, but what I
said was "This nation has a longstanding ambivalence about
what rights . . . ethnic groups have."  I would challenge
you to support the idea that this nation has a longstanding
ambivalence about what rights "professional ethnic activists"
have regarding self-determination.

     - Steve G





From steveg at swhi.net  Wed May  6 17:16:54 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Religion in Germany
In-Reply-To: <a06240800c627a1685ddc@[192.168.10.102]>
References: <09DF1986B8A44D35AB93BCA6434ADCE1@StevePC>      
	<FB892D05-D5D7-4115-9237-65B501F89D89@worldnet.att.net>      
	<9ACADAAF4F5546B1816A90D01953744C@StevePC>      
	<a06240800c627a1685ddc@[192.168.10.102]>
Message-ID: <21979.144.183.224.2.1241648214.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Rich Rostrom wrote:

> Germany does _not_ have a history of intolerance of minority
> religions.  Germany has had peaceful religious pluralism for
> three centuries: the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed
> churches co-existing peacefully.  During this period, minor
> religions (Baptists, Jews) were also tolerated.

Germany has a long - although of course variable - history
of intolerance of minority religions.  They are far from
alone in this, but they are very conscious of it.  Educated
Germans know that anti-semitism became a mainstream
philosophy (again) with Martin Luther's "On the Jews and
Their Lies," and never really died down after that.  Yes,
there have been significant Government policies of tolerance
at some periods, but that does not reflect general attitudes.

You can also go back further than Luther, to the Crusades
and even to Charlemagne - and the point is that educated
Germans consciously *do* look back to this history when
debating public policy.  They know that the checkered truce
between the groups between the Thirty Years War (between
Catholics and Protestants) and the 1930's was at best a
respite, only a truce between the *dominant Christian* sects,
and never consistently exempted the minority groups.

The Volkist movement that started in the early 19th century
announced strong policies against Jews and other minorities
"unless they prove that they are anxious to develop within
themselves a *Christian*-German spirit."  There were pogroms
against Jews in Germany in 1819.  In 1869 they were allowed
to be citizens for the first time, but this led to nothing
like general acceptance.  In 1871 August Rohling pulished
Der Talmudjude, specifically arguing that the Talmud (a
religious and philosophical text) legitimized immoral and
dishonest behavior.  (I believe it was used as evidence in
the Tisza-Eszl?r trial in Hungary, in 1881, in which 15 Jews
were put on trial for ritual murder of a Christian girl to
use her blood.)  The word Antisemitism was coined there in
1873 by Wilhelm Marr, as the title of a specific movement
(although for him it may have had mainly racial connotations).
Around the same time, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Paderborn
officially endorsed the "blood libel."

The Holocaust was driven by hatred that mingled ethnic and
religious aspects, sometimes quite deliberately.  Dr. Walter
Gross, in his major speech introducing Rassenpolitik in 1934,
made the strategy and the linkage clear:

>     People are different.
> They not only speak different languages and look different:
*no, they are different in the depths of their hearts and
natures, and in their abilities for good and evil.*  In the
past people believed that these differences were accidental,
the result of climate or civilization, and that one could
overcome these differences and create a unified man in a
unified state in which all would be equally happy.  We have
learned that such ideas are false.

Rassenhygiene and Rassenpolitik were primarily "eugenic" and
targeted the disabled as well as the socially and ethnically
disfavored.  But they were not the only major forces.  If
you read the cartoons and books about the Jews at the time
you can't separate the two aspects.  Look up such works as
"Trust No Fox on his Green Heath and No Jew on his Oath," by
Elwira Bauer, or the works of Julius Streicher; there are
mixed references to Jewish morality, physical appearance,
intelligence, and religious practice.  The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion were not about racial issues, and Hitler used
them for all they were worth.

And modern Germans are quite aware that the majority
religious orders (as groups, although with significant
exceptions) did nothing to prevent the mass slaughters of
the Holocaust, and that their disinterest was partially
based on a feeling that it would not be such a bad thing if
other religions should be wiped out.  Other religious
minorities, such as Jehovah's Witnesses - most of them
ethnic Germans - were also sent to the concentration camps,
where they were labeled with purple triangles.

In any event, intolerance of religious minorities that is
fed by ethnic intolerance is just as much intolerance of
religious minorities as if it were fed only by religious
doctrine.

> The victims were accused of secular
> crimes against the German people, not of any religious
> crime,

You're mistaken:  it was both.  See above regarding the
"blood libel."  And are you under the impression that most
religious intolerance involves any central accusation of
"religious crime"?  I don't know where you would get that
idea.

The burning of synagogues on Kristallnacht was not an ethnic
attack.  Hitler preached his own version of Christianity
(mixed with his own version of Teutonic paganism) as a
master religion, and railed against Catholics (good "Aryan"
Catholics included) as well as atheists and various minority
religions.  He established an "Aryan Christian church" and
displayed copies of Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies."
This was largely a political strategy at heart but operated
through religion.

In any event, I gather you have not been to Germany or
listened to many Germans.  Ask them if they think they have
a history of intolerance of religious minority groups, and a
current serious problem with it.  (Yes, ethnic also.)  When
I've been on tour there they made no bones about saying it
was and is a serious concern.  I suspect their current
policies on public school education have more to do with
what they think of their history than what anyone over here
thinks of it.

    - Steve G



From ignatz at dminet.com  Thu May  7 08:47:37 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:47:37 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion
	in	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <8B994964-383A-44EC-BE12-074E596183B2@worldnet.att.net>
References: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<8B994964-383A-44EC-BE12-074E596183B2@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <20090507134737.GB17736@dminet.com>

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 05:44:56PM -0500, Mark Hagerman wrote:
> Fewer students in the public schools means less need for teachers,  
> buildings, administrators, et al. All of this leads to lower costs.

It doesn't work that way.  First, classes currently are overloaded--it
would take quite a lot of decrease to actually need reduction in
teachers.  Secondly, the administrative overhead is (or should be, in a
properly run system) fairly flat once you're over a certain number of
students in the system--and if the number of students falls enough to
actually impact this, the system has collapsed.  Finally, you don't
adjust infrastructure except for significant, long-term and sustained
changes in the student population.

Totally ignoring the much more overriding issue that this isn't a simple
matter of business--there are needs for a public school system that go
far beyond simple dollars and cents.

> I see no reason why the parents of those still in the public schools  
> shouldn't bear the decreased burden of funding them; their cost per  
> pupil is the same.

Flawed due to the reasons mentioned above--you can't use cost per pupil,
since infrastructure doesn't scale per student.

> Parents who want a good education for their kids (by whatever
> definition of "good" they adopt) should likewise pay for their own
> kids. Certainly, the paying population is smaller, but the costs are
> also smaller, in direct proportion.

Yes.  But in addition to maintaining payment for the public school system.
It's a societal obligation; if they choose not to use it, they don't
get out of the obligation.  That way lies collapse of society--people
without a driver licenses could argue they shouldn't pay taxes for
road construction and maintenance; those who don't make use of parks or
municipal swimming pools could arge the same; and so on.

If you're part of a society, you partake of its services and you pay
your share.  If you want to leave the society, leave the country.

> I'm not an advocate of parochial schools, though neither do I oppose  
> them.

I don't oppose them--Sean attended parochial school for kindergarten
through the first grade.  But I do oppose them not having to meet common
requirements for subjects they teach.  And I definitely had problems
with the religious indoctrination--not bad in the early grades, but
it's persistent and pernicious as time goes on; it's the main reason we
put him in the public system (well, that, and a discussion I had with a
"science teacher" about evolution...).  And it's not particularly virulent
for the Catholic church; I'm loath to think what it's like for, say,
a fundamentalist or hard-core evangelist school.  (And I was raised by
evanelists--I know what that mindset can be like.)  Or how about a school
run by white supremacists?  It doesn't stop, once you open the floodgate.

We can't stop these--nor should we; no matter how I may feel about some
of these beliefs, it's still (ostensibly) a free country.  But they
still should do this on their own dime, and still should contribute to
the obligations of their resident society.

> I think a separation between school and church is a good idea.  
> I also think such a separation between school and state is good,  
> because governments too often use the schools as indoctrination  
> centers for government propaganda.

That may be true to some degree--the "War on Drugs" comes to mind--but
it's even worse in closed, targeted parochial schools.

> My ideal would be a private, secular school concentrating on
> fundamental skills (reading, writing and 'rithmetic, as it were), ...

What?  And neglect the vital issue of the state of your child's soul?
Or fail to inform him/her of how much better his ethnic group is than
others?  But still, that would be your choice...

> ...with that share of my tax dollars currently going to the public
> schools returned to me so I could afford to have Michael educated
> properly.

Sorry, no joy on that one.  You want something different, you pay for
it.  But for all the reasons I've enumerated elsewhere, a public school
system--one adequately funded--is critical to the survival of the United
States, and paying for it is an unalterable obligation.

> Finally, it's my opinion that such a paradigm would benefit the  
> public schools...competition would make them more efficient.

No; sensible, intelligent and hard-nosed oversight and management would
do that.  Without changing the system, pulling money from them would
engender (some would say just hasten) their decay and collapse.  I've
seen what the best of the public school system can accomplish--Lincoln
Elementary in Chicago is far better than many of the so-called "magnet
schools", and its success derived from an intelligent, dedicated
principal who provided direction, involved parents, and an aggressive
and active parent organization that contributed funds and time.  There's
no reason many other schools couldn't do the same thing, if parents were
to consider school part of their parenting obligation, and not a daycare
center.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From par at richinn.com  Thu May  7 09:17:29 2009
From: par at richinn.com (par at richinn.com)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 08:17:29 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>

Quoting Steve Gruenwald <steveg at swhi.net>:
>
> Two messages I sent in haven't shown up.  This is a test.
>
I see them. but they came in after the test.

Pete


From steveg at swhi.net  Thu May  7 09:53:41 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:53:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
 Germany)
In-Reply-To: <8B994964-383A-44EC-BE12-074E596183B2@worldnet.att.net>
References: <361551.39137.qm@web58705.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<8B994964-383A-44EC-BE12-074E596183B2@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <31262.144.183.224.2.1241708021.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Mark Hagerman wrote:

> Fewer students in the public schools means less need for teachers,
> buildings, administrators, et al. All of this leads to lower costs. I
> see no reason why the parents of those still in the public schools
> shouldn't bear the decreased burden of funding them; their cost per
> pupil is the same.

That is obviously false and flies in the face of both
economic principle and fact.  It leads to *higher* cost per
pupil.  Surely you have heard of the concept of economies of
scale.  (It also leads inevitably to lower quality of
education, but apparently that won't bother you.)

> I also think such a separation between school and state is good,
> because governments too often use the schools as indoctrination
> centers for government propaganda.

Please provide examples.  And if by chance you can, explain
why equal or greater amounts of "propaganda" would be left
out the private schools.

> Finally, it's my opinion that such a paradigm would benefit the
> public schools...competition would make them more efficient.

And do you have any evidence to support that?  Specifically,
any evidence from a society in which tax dollars for public
schools do not include the entire tax base?  Or, for that
matter, examples of other publicly funded resources that have
become more efficient when faced with private competition?
Have you found a single public school administrator, who
actually runs a budget and hires teachers, who agrees with
you?

> My ideal would be a private,
> secular school concentrating on fundamental skills (reading, writing
> and 'rithmetic, as it were), with that share of my tax dollars
> currently going to the public schools returned to me so I could
> afford to have Michael educated properly.

In other words, you believe in (a) education only for those
with significant disposable income and (b) the child's right
to good education being wholly dependent on the will,
understanding, and resources of the parents.

I am thankful that most of the world disagrees.  If it did
not, I hate to think what our world would be like.

    - Steve G



From steveg at swhi.net  Thu May  7 10:15:37 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:15:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Prosperity Is Just Around The Corner?
In-Reply-To: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>
References: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>
Message-ID: <56735.144.183.224.2.1241709337.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Rich Rostrom wrote:

> Several important officials have issued pronouncements
> asserting that the current economic slump has "bottomed out"
> and that "recovery" is expected later this year.
>
> I don't believe it.

[etc.]

You seem to be saying two entirely different things here and
assuming a connection.

(a) The economy is not getting healthier, because the
stimulus planning will not sufficiently stimulate real, new,
sustainable productivity, but only temporary stimulation of
cash flow.

(b) The stimulus plan is corrupt, and involves mainly
compensating the politically connected rather than actually
trying to help the economy.

(a) is a rational argument.  I don't know that I agree with
a specific conclusion (it's one thing to say "this will have
limited long-term effect" and quite another to say "this is
a complete waste"), but it is subject to rational analysis.

(b) seems to be based on nothing but "because they're
Democrats, I assume all these people are crooks, and will use
purely political rather than economic factors in doing their
planning."  That is not rational.  Up to a point politics is
involved in everything that requires high-level policy
decisions in Government, regardless of party, regardless of
Administration, but your implication is that *this current*
plan is designed for political benefit and others wouldn't
be.  I challenge you to support that.  If you can clearly
segregate what you consider "purely political reasons" from
"economic arguments that I disagree with," maybe you'd be
making a meaningful argument.

> That added burden is going to make the U.S. economy grind
> down, as its functional parts are decapitalized.

And where do you see any sign of anyone allowing or
encouraging this to happen?  Is the Chrysler bailout, which
you also decry, a good example of Government policies to
shift money to the politically connected (all those Democrat
CEO's, bankers and insurers) at the expense of industrial
capitalization?

> Now it looks like the parasites are overwhelming the
> organism.

Now?  Now, not over the past eight (and more generally the
past 50) years?

> Eurosclerosis, only worse.

Please use English.

     - Steve G




From steveg at swhi.net  Thu May  7 10:23:37 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:23:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>
Message-ID: <54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>

par at richinn.com wrote:

>> Two messages I sent in haven't shown up.  This is a test.
>>
> I see them. but they came in after the test.

But they were sent several hours earlier.  And in the meanwhile
I got two notices, after four and after eight hours, that my
mail system was trying to send them to zarquon.net and getting no
response.  This did not happen with tests sent from the same
mailbox to other addresses.  The problem was at the zarquon.net
end.

     - Steve G



From andyp at zarquon.net  Thu May  7 18:32:44 2009
From: andyp at zarquon.net (Andy Peed)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:32:44 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>	<20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>
	<54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <4A036F9C.1020002@zarquon.net>

Steve Gruenwald wrote:
>
> But they were sent several hours earlier.  And in the meanwhile
> I got two notices, after four and after eight hours, that my
> mail system was trying to send them to zarquon.net and getting no
> response.  This did not happen with tests sent from the same
> mailbox to other addresses.  The problem was at the zarquon.net
> end.
>   
Zarquon has been having issues over the past day or so. I'm not entirely 
sure what the nature of them is; I haven't had a chance to touch base 
with Dave, or dig into them in detail. Since I'm not seeing anything 
unusual in the automatic reports, I'm hoping that it's Shannon resolving 
the reverse DNS lookup issues upstream of us.


From SteveG at swhi.net  Thu May  7 19:47:31 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 19:47:31 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC>


Rich Rostrom wrote: 

> My understanding is that in many cases, children with
> "hispanic" surnames are often placed in "bilingual"
> classes even when they are fluent in English, or speak
> no Spanish, and even over the objections of their
> parents.

I wrote: 

> And just where do you get this understanding?  I will
> suggest it to the various teachers in my family, but not
> with a straight face.

It turns out there is a germ of truth in this.  My wife has 
heard of instances (not "many cases") in which students 
whose first language is Spanish (not merely "'hispanic' 
surnames") and have some conversational English (not "fluent 
in English" and emphatically not "speak no Spanish") are 
placed in bilingual classes.  The reason is that linguistics 
specialists find that children who have picked up some level 
of comfort in conversational English, but have not learned 
their academic subjects taught in English, get better 
results in the long run if they get the academics taught 
first in the language they know better, while learning 
English separately from the academics, and then later, when 
they are really fluent enough make a complete transition to 
English.  

Obviously this has nothing to do with wanting to keep 
Hispanic students speaking Spanish but rather getting them 
educated properly in both English and the basic academic 
subjects.  

Sometimes the parents do object - because, not being 
linguists or educators themselves, they feel instinctively 
(or based on the mainstream media) that immersion in English 
is obviously the better way to go.  The news media may 
easily have misrepresented this, either negligently or 
because it's more exciting to think these educators are 
idiots who don't care about their students succeeding, but 
rather prefer to do things that make no sense except some 
obscure political kind of sense.  

    - Steve G 


From ignatz at dminet.com  Thu May  7 20:14:38 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:14:38 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <4A036F9C.1020002@zarquon.net>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>
	<54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<4A036F9C.1020002@zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <20090508011438.GA8538@dminet.com>

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 07:32:44PM -0400, Andrew Peed wrote:
> Zarquon has been having issues over the past day or so. I'm not entirely 
> sure what the nature of them is; I haven't had a chance to touch base 
> with Dave, or dig into them in detail. Since I'm not seeing anything 
> unusual in the automatic reports, I'm hoping that it's Shannon resolving 
> the reverse DNS lookup issues upstream of us.

Simply put, we had two DNS resolvers.  One had gone off-line
permanently, but had never been removed/reset to the new one.

Once that change was effected, some configuration issues arose with the
new one.  These were subsequently fixed, and by now changes should have
promulgated through the 'Net.

If anyone sees issues from this point on, let us know.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  7 22:26:10 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:26:10 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC>
References: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC>
Message-ID: <6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-May-07 , at 19:47, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

> It turns out there is a germ of truth in this.  My wife has
> heard of instances (not "many cases") in which students
> whose first language is Spanish (not merely "'hispanic'
> surnames") and have some conversational English (not "fluent
> in English" and emphatically not "speak no Spanish") are
> placed in bilingual classes.  The reason is that linguistics
> <snip>


I have read a report of a California student with an Hispanic  
surname, whose first & only language was English, being forced into  
"bilingual" classes, which turned out to be Spanish-only, except for  
a short period of ESL instruction each day.

Caveats:

1. That, at least, is how I remember the article; the nature of human  
memory being what it is, I could be wrong.

2. I don't know where I read the story, so I can't (for now)  
substantiate it. I'll try to find it.

Mark Hagerman




From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  7 22:48:32 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:48:32 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
References: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC>
	<6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <93894D10-2463-4526-A7F4-C3D84B67AEE4@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-May-07 , at 22:26, Mark Hagerman wrote:

> I'll try to find it.
>
> Mark Hagerman


  Found it. It's from the January 1998 issue of Reason magazine:  
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30492.html

Excerpt:

Exhibit A: 7-year-old Tony, a third-generation American who speaks  
English like a kid who grew up in Ames, Iowa, or Manhattan, Kansas.  
Favorite TV show: Sesame Street. A member of the Children's Book of  
the Month Club. And here's the acid test: A recent visitor to Tony's  
home heard him playing by himself in his bedroom, barking English  
commands to his GI Joes. In other words, there's no earthly reason  
for Tony to be in a TBE class.
But Tony doesn't live in Iowa or Kansas. And to the officials in his  
school district in the Southern California city of Hawthorne, there  
was only one relevant factor: his last name, Velasquez. When he  
started first grade in 1995, they put him in TBE. The school did  
notify his mother Ericka, who offered no objection. She heard the  
word bilingual and figured it meant he was in a class where he would  
study both Spanish and English. Ericka and her husband speak both  
languages and wanted to make sure Tony did, too. But after a few  
weeks, she began to have doubts.

----------

By the way, TBE stands for "transitional bilingual education".

Mark Hagerman


From sarahksmom at yahoo.com  Fri May  8 07:27:22 2009
From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <550935.49029.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Mark Hagerman <mhagerman at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I have read a report of a California student with an Hispanic  
> surname, whose first & only language was English, being forced into  
> "bilingual" classes...
> 
> Caveats:
> 
> 1. That, at least, is how I remember the article... I could be wrong.
> 
> 2. I don't know where I read the story... I'll try to find it.

I heard of this only once in Chicago. It was a family I knew. The mother was not Latina and the dad was from Puerto Rico. He spoke English with a very heavy accent and was hard to understand. The son only spoke English but understood Spanish. He got stuck in bilingual because he had behavioral problems that his teachers wrongly attributed to lack of English proficiency. I think he may have been borderline autistic or with auditory discrimination problems, but they weren't handing out those kinds of diagnoses in those days (1976). It was compounded by the fact that the dad was the one who showed up to parent teacher conferences, rather than the mom, because she couldn't take off from work. IIRC, after a semester-long battle, they got him put back in English classes, but he still had behavioral issues, and I don't know if those were ever addressed sufficiently.

Miriam Solon
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." 
--Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra"


      

From andyp at zarquon.net  Fri May  8 08:09:15 2009
From: andyp at zarquon.net (Andy Peed)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 09:09:15 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <20090508011438.GA8538@dminet.com>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>	<20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>	<54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>	<4A036F9C.1020002@zarquon.net>
	<20090508011438.GA8538@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <4A042EFB.4010301@zarquon.net>

Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Simply put, we had two DNS resolvers.  One had gone off-line
> permanently, but had never been removed/reset to the new one.
Well... you weren't the Dave I was talking about, but that's not too far 
off from what happened upstream of us.
So if you want to take the blame, far be it from me to stop you. :)

-- Andy


From par at richinn.com  Fri May  8 08:27:46 2009
From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:27:46 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <550935.49029.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
	<550935.49029.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090508080642.02c6b2b8@richinn.com>

At 07:27 AM 5/8/2009, sarahksmom wrote:
>--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Mark Hagerman <mhagerman at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I have read a report of a California student with an Hispanic
> > surname, whose first & only language was English, being forced into
> > "bilingual" classes...
> >
> > Caveats:
> >
> > 1. That, at least, is how I remember the article... I could be wrong.
> >
> > 2. I don't know where I read the story... I'll try to find it.
>
>I heard of this only once in Chicago. It was a family I knew. The 
>mother was not Latina and the dad was from Puerto Rico. He spoke 
>English with a very heavy accent and was hard to understand. The son 
>only spoke English but understood Spanish. He got stuck in bilingual 
>because he had behavioral problems that his teachers wrongly 
>attributed to lack of English proficiency. I think he may have been 
>borderline autistic or with auditory discrimination problems, but 
>they weren't handing out those kinds of diagnoses in those days 
>(1976). It was compounded by the fact that the dad was the one who 
>showed up to parent teacher conferences, rather than the mom, 
>because she couldn't take off from work. IIRC, after a semester-long 
>battle, they got him put back in English classes, but he still had 
>behavioral issues, and I don't know if those were ever addressed sufficiently.
I have heard of this a couple times.

Case 1:  Family is from Guatamala.  Guatamalian Spanish is closer to 
Spain Spanish than Mexican Spanish.  He spoke and understood English 
a little and was learning English not Spanish.  But he was put in a 
bilingual class with Mexican Spanish and English so he did not 
comprehend either language.  He is in college now and speaks almost 
no spanish.  His parents speak English unless forced to speak Spanish 
by others.

Case 2:  A kid in Elsbeth's daycare started kindergarten this 
year.  He speaks not a single word of Spanish.  His parents only talk 
to him in English.  His grandparents speak Spanish and English.  So 
the school insisted he had to go in the bilingual class.  I am not 
sure how this was supposed to help him.

Bilingual classes are good if they help the kids move into the main 
stream.  We have a friend that teaches bilingual kindergarten.  The 
bilingual teachers are always told how far behind their kids are.  Of 
course logic is lost on the administrators.  The bilingual class 
meets the same amount of time as the English only but they have to 
spend extra time on Eglish class taking away from other things.  Then 
when the student gets proficient in English and isn't being delayed 
by that extra work, they move them to the English only class leaving 
only the slower ones in the bilingual class.  Of course the bilingual 
doesn't compare to the English only.

Peter Richardson 


From ignatz at dminet.com  Fri May  8 08:37:07 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:37:07 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Testing, testing . . .
In-Reply-To: <4A042EFB.4010301@zarquon.net>
References: <1952.24.1.114.110.1241660643.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<20090507081729.35lqc05tdc8c8s8o@richinn.com>
	<54861.144.183.224.2.1241709817.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
	<4A036F9C.1020002@zarquon.net> <20090508011438.GA8538@dminet.com>
	<4A042EFB.4010301@zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <20090508133707.GD32335@dminet.com>

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:09:15AM -0400, Andrew Peed wrote:
> Well... you weren't the Dave I was talking about, but that's not too far 
> off from what happened upstream of us.

Ah.  Well, I think I was the one that started yelping about the problem,
so I thought it was me.

> So if you want to take the blame, far be it from me to stop you. :)

That's what consultants are for.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From ben at bl.com  Fri May  8 14:07:54 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:07:54 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
 Germany)
In-Reply-To: <691163.63226.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <691163.63226.qm@web33707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <p06240800c62a32094d23@[10.19.35.98]>

At 8:08 AM -0700 5/6/09, Janet Plato wrote:
>Dave,
>
>I think this is a great argument in favor of public
>schools.  Sure, I think there are a lot of benefits to public
>schools, crime reduction, a literate population produces more,
>etc etc.  But cultures rely on common ground, and given the degree
>of synthesis in American culture, having a place to provide a common
>framework is critical to national cohesion.
>
>>
>> Public schools, with a reasonably consistent curriculum,
>> are the only common training ground to at least graft on an
>> understanding of our culture and to provide a base level of common
> > experience. 

I would also like to see some form of compulsory public service, either local or national, weather it be military, peace corps, hospice service, (fill in the blank), as a further homogenizer.  I found the draft to be an excellent vehicle for breaking down culturally induced prejudices and it helped to keep the miltary a bit more honest.

-- 
------------------------------
 ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From sarahksmom at yahoo.com  Fri May  8 15:12:31 2009
From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] National service (was Who pays for public education?)
In-Reply-To: <p06240800c62a32094d23@[10.19.35.98]>
Message-ID: <901683.47472.qm@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Ben Liberman <ben at bl.com> wrote:

> I would also like to see some form of compulsory public
> service, either local or national, weather it be military,
> peace corps, hospice service, (fill in the blank), as a
> further homogenizer.  I found the draft to be an excellent
> vehicle for breaking down culturally induced prejudices and
> it helped to keep the miltary a bit more honest.

How much more honest? Weren't deferments heavily skewed toward the affluent and Caucasian during the Vietnam war? Whether it succeeded or not, wasn't one of the stated aims of the all-volunteer military to make the ranks more diverse and less skewed toward traditional poor and non-white cannon fodder?

I agree that some sort of compulsory national service might meet the goal you think it would, barring the jiggering of placements to favor the affluent (GWB's stint in the National Guard) and shaft the not-so-well-off (more than half of the service personnel deaths noted in Iraq and Afghanistan in the news on Wednesday were of Latinos, and almost all of them were from economically depressed areas), and corruption that seems to be inevitable wherever government contracts are to be let. If there were a way to avoid these pitfalls, it would be a great idea. I'm not being sarcastic.

BTW, I wonder if the breaking down the prejudice thing was a little bit overstated, especially as it affected Asian American G.I.s in Vietnam and Korea. I was very close to a Nisei draftee who had a lot of hair-raising stories to share about catching extra hell from both sides. His older brother served in Korea, and had even worse horror stories, considering how much residual hatred there was for the Japanese among Koreans on both sides, and among his own fellow troops. I wonder if anybody who looks Middle Eastern or Afghan in the U.S. military catches more crap than those who don't--from both sides.

Miriam Solon
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." 
--Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra"


      

From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Fri May  8 15:14:45 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion in
	Germany)
Message-ID: <316093.96560.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Ben Liberman <ben at bl.com> wrote:
> I would also like to see some form of compulsory public
> service, either local or national, weather it be military,
> peace corps, hospice service, (fill in the blank), as a
> further homogenizer.  I found the draft to be an
> excellent vehicle for breaking down culturally induced
> prejudices and it helped to keep the miltary a bit more
> honest.
> 

  I would like to see compulsory service of some sort, but I have
serious reservations of our ability as a nation to agree on how to
implement it.

 - In my limited experience, I think the military does a great job
   of forcing people to work together, learning to be a team and 
   so forth, but we do not need that many people in the military.

 - I think a civilian conservation corp or some similiar program
   could easily absorb our entire youth for a year or two doing
   real, useful projects as long as we had professional cadres of
   folks running it.  But I question whether any useful civics would
   come out of it unless we did formal indoctrination and neither
   the left nor the right would ever agree on any indoctrination.
   The military can do it, because it serves a practical purpose
   within the scope of their mission.  You have to work together or
   people die.

 - I think we'd get better citizens to be sure, but not civics lessons.

 - I think it could also perform international outreach, but then again, 
   I think we would see benefits but not civics per se.  I also think
   exposure to other cultures would be good for our children.  There is
   more than one way to do anything.  Ours is sometimes better, but 
   sometimes not.

 - I think the folks who rail on small government and government waste
   would never allow the level of oversight required to use this as a
   tool to make better citizens.  Both the left and right would be
   horrified and think this is Hitlerjugend II, albeit for differing
   reasons.

  If you've ever taught interns you find out quickly they are energetic
and enthusiatic, but need a lot of direction, and without a lot of
training and organization in place you never get anything useful out
of them until they are ready to leave.  I can take student labor
and have them do useful work if I am prepared to either spend a lot
of my time on each one, or spend a lot of time making training materials
on the tasks I want them to do, and then let them kind of go at it.

  Without a lot of organization this would never fly, and I never see
the citizenry as a whole agreeing on a direction for any massive program
of this nature.

Janet


      

From mbcrui at gmail.com  Fri May  8 16:19:01 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 17:19:01 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] Prosperity Is Just Around The Corner?
In-Reply-To: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>
References: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>
Message-ID: <4A04A1C5.6010905@gmail.com>

Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Several important officials have issued pronouncements
> asserting that the current economic slump has "bottomed out"
> and that "recovery" is expected later this year.
>
> I don't believe it.
>
> Do you?
>   
No.  But then, I live in Michigan.


-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From SteveG at swhi.net  Fri May  8 16:49:01 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:49:01 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
References: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC>
	<6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <1457041262574A448A3BB71AC7069EE2@StevePC>


Mark Hagerman says: 

> I have read a report of a California student with an Hispanic  
> surname, whose first & only language was English, being forced into  
> "bilingual" classes, which turned out to be Spanish-only, except for  
> a short period of ESL instruction each day.

If so, that's clearly stupid.  What it has to do with 
any general policy issue, I don't know.  

    - Steve G 


From SteveG at swhi.net  Fri May  8 20:54:41 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 20:54:41 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education?
In-Reply-To: <1457041262574A448A3BB71AC7069EE2@StevePC>
References: <11029.144.183.224.2.1241648909.squirrel@www.swhi.net><4507BE824F3F41E48183024B281744F7@StevePC><6429D79C-90F2-475A-B877-A7606FDA1CD7@worldnet.att.net>
	<1457041262574A448A3BB71AC7069EE2@StevePC>
Message-ID: <C06E3C34A6FB43B6AC44C24367ABD5CB@StevePC>


I wrote: 

> > I have read a report of a California student with an Hispanic  
> > surname, whose first & only language was English, being 
> forced into  
> > "bilingual" classes, which turned out to be Spanish-only, 
> except for  
> > a short period of ESL instruction each day.
> 
> If so, that's clearly stupid.  What it has to do with 
> any general policy issue, I don't know.  

And I checked with my daughter-in-law the speech (and early 
childhood/special ed.) teacher.  She says no way would that 
be a matter of intentional policy anywhere she's heard of.  
In the districts she has worked in, it would never be done 
(a) if it was not actually believed that Spanish was the 
child's first and primary language, nor (b) over the parents' 
objection.  

She mentions that it could happen by mistake, because 
typically when new students arrive in a district, one of the 
questions the parents answer is "what is the primary 
language spoken at home," rather than anything more 
subjective like "is the child fluent in English?"  Also, 
what she and my wife both say they've seen happen a couple 
of times is that (a) the parent who comes in for meetings 
clearly speaks primarily Spanish, (b) Spanish is identified 
as the primary language spoken at home, and (c) the child is 
in fact having problems with English.  But sometimes it 
turns out, after putting the child in bilingual and/or ESL, 
that the reason the child is having problems with English is 
not because he/she is better in Spanish but because he/she 
has problems with language in general.  

In any event, this whole issue seems to have no point.  I 
see nothing in it but "here and there in the nation's public 
schools some people have made some dumb mistakes."  Of 
course they have.  With well over 3 million elementary and 
middle school teachers alone (not counting administrators, 
special staff, etc.) in the US, nothing else it to be 
expected.  The fact that some mistakes are made - even 
egregious ones - has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
underlying policy of public funding of schools.  

If we start counting up how many and how egregious the 
mistakes are that are made by the public and the private 
schools on a per capita basis I have no reason to believe 
the private schools would fare any better.  Why would you 
use the example of bilingual classes as making some 
important point?  Only because it can be made to seem like 
some obscure leftist or "politically correct" policy.  If 
you want to illustrate that there is something wrong with a 
school system, I'd think you'd also want to count instances 
of incompetent teaching, intentional teaching of bad 
information for religious reasons, physical abuse as 
"discipline," hazing, overt racism or other bias, sexual 
victimization by school staff, denial of food or health care, 
etc., etc.  

*If you could* add all this up - not that I really believe 
it is possible to do so at all accurately, in view of the 
highly variable degrees of accountability and public access 
to data - I rather suspect a higher percentage of *serious* 
problems would be found to come from private schools - and 
it *still* would not say much about the underlying policy 
issues.  

     - Steve G 


From bentley at crenelle.com  Sun May 10 16:00:49 2009
From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:00:49 -0700
Subject: [Goglog] Prosperity Is Just Around The Corner?
In-Reply-To: <4A04A1C5.6010905@gmail.com>
References: <a06240806c62831df3a27@[192.168.10.102]>
	<4A04A1C5.6010905@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240801c62ce923b94b@[192.168.1.32]>

I may be misunderstanding some of the numbers. As I understand it, 
there were at least 12 trillion dollars in circulation. Adding one to 
three trillion to that number is inflationary, depending on where the 
new capital is applied. If you're really good at it, the inflation is 
delayed.

Doing nothing would have been extremely deflationary.

I'm not worried about the capital insertion. I'm very concerned about 
how long the additional money stays in circulation. The financial 
sector needed a warm boot, mortgages need unsnarling, and Michigan 
needs an industrial makeover, but bad stuff will happen down the road 
if the currency base stays too large.

Are things starting to return to normal? Yes, some things are. 
Unfortunately, what had been normal is no longer a good place to be. 
Under normalcy, oil prices shoot up.

We're not going to see as lively a real estate market across the 
board either, tho specific areas are going to continue to be 
energetic because people in those areas are crazed.

Right now, in real estate, the key is to buy new house now, sell old 
house much later. Is this normal? I wouldn't think it is.

From drsulak at zarquon.net  Mon May 11 09:27:56 2009
From: drsulak at zarquon.net (Dale Sulak)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:27:56 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Who pays for public education? (was Religion
	in	Germany)
In-Reply-To: <316093.96560.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <316093.96560.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4A0835EC.2030809@zarquon.net>

I went to two Catholic grade schools, and one public high school.

I can only speak with regards to my experiences.

First, we have to be careful with any monetary efficiency statements.  
The teachers and other school employees were substantially underpaid.  
They served because they believed it was important to their parish 
community *and* they were in a financial position to be able to 
contribute.  Plus, due to the demand, class sizes were 35, with 
occasional larger gusts.

Second, it was understood this was a choice, sometimes a hard one.  But 
we didn't feel cheated or felt we should be getting tax dollars.  It's 
hard for me to explain - should we feel cheated if we are providing a 
free meals program?  Outreach to the old, who do not have any family to 
look in on them?

Third, even if *ding* public money, whether direct, tax credit, or 
deduction could be transferred, it takes a long time to ramp up.  We did 
look into expanding the school, but at best, it would be four years 
before another student could be added.

Finally, not everyone is in a position to take advantage of 
private/parochial schools, either due to their location, beliefs, or 
financial situation.

Dale.

From ben at bl.com  Tue May 12 02:06:20 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 02:06:20 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Interview With Economist James K. Galbraith
Message-ID: <p06240804c62ed042818c@[206.126.254.152]>


http://www.truthout.org/050609J

-- 
------------------------------
  ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From ben at bl.com  Thu May 21 01:12:34 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 01:12:34 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Climate Wars CBC program
Message-ID: <p06240803c63aa09a4901@[10.19.35.98]>


Some very interesting stuff on the global political, social, 
economic, etc. changes that seem to be in the not-too-distant future.

Well worth the listen.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html

In the fuels section, it sounds like we are headed for geothermal to 
replace coal and nuclear, and algae based biodiesel to take us 
completely away from petroleum as a fuel.

-- 
------------------------------
  ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From steveg at swhi.net  Fri May 22 12:03:59 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:03:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] If you can't beat 'em . . .
Message-ID: <51537.144.183.224.2.1243011839.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


. . . don't let them feel good about winning.

<http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905170342>

      - Steve G



From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 09:51:29 2009
From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] If you can't beat 'em . . .
Message-ID: <408025.46809.qm@web33706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Steve,

--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Steve Gruenwald <steveg at swhi.net> wrote:
> 
> . . . don't let them feel good about winning.
> 
> <http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905170342>
> 
> ? ? ? - Steve G
> 

This gets funnier every time I read it,

Janet


      


From embates at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 12:00:39 2009
From: embates at yahoo.com (Eric Bates)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] SCOTUS: Sonia Sotomayor
Message-ID: <309509.18120.qm@web110711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


So what do our resident legal eagles think about PBO's pick?

 Eric M. Bates CCIE #6560
Lake Orion, MI 48359


http://ebgraphics.imagekind.com
http://www.mypltb.com
http://www.ebgraphics.net


From sarahksmom at yahoo.com  Tue May 26 12:26:59 2009
From: sarahksmom at yahoo.com (sarahksmom at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Goglog] SCOTUS: Sonia Sotomayor
Message-ID: <575514.75180.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


--- On Tue, 5/26/09, Eric Bates <embates at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So what do our resident legal eagles think about PBO's
> pick?

I'm not a legal eagle, so I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I think she's impressive professionally and personally. I'm just wondering why NPR thinks there's going to be anything like a sustained opposition in the Senate. Slow news day?

She might even get along okay with Alitto, since he's a huge baseball fan.

Miriam Solon
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise." 
--Shakyamuni Buddha, "Lankavatara Sutra"




      


From steveg at swhi.net  Tue May 26 13:06:31 2009
From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:06:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Goglog] SCOTUS: Sonia Sotomayor
In-Reply-To: <309509.18120.qm@web110711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <309509.18120.qm@web110711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <42479.144.183.224.2.1243361191.squirrel@www.swhi.net>


Eric Bates wrote:

> So what do our resident legal eagles think about PBO's pick?

Dunno yet.  I have not spent any effort on the various
potential picks and I have no previous knowledge of her.

One odd tidbit I picked up somewhere:  on the issue of
whether (if confirmed) she will be the first Hispanic SCt
justice.  The one other contender is Benjamin Cardozo, who
served from 1932 to 1938.  His name is Portuguese, and he
was a Sephardic Jew.  OTOH, (a) his Portuguese ancestry was
a long time ago and uncertain, (b) and it's not certain that
Portuguese is properly considered "hispanic," and (c) Jews
of Portugal are not especially likely to be actually of
Portuguese descent.

He didn't look particularly Portuguese - nor Semitic, FTM.

      - Steve G



From mbcrui at gmail.com  Tue May 26 18:44:58 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:44:58 -0400
Subject: [Goglog] SCOTUS: Sonia Sotomayor
In-Reply-To: <42479.144.183.224.2.1243361191.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
References: <309509.18120.qm@web110711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<42479.144.183.224.2.1243361191.squirrel@www.swhi.net>
Message-ID: <4A1C7EFA.6000305@gmail.com>

Steve Gruenwald wrote:
>
> One odd tidbit I picked up somewhere:  on the issue of
> whether (if confirmed) she will be the first Hispanic SCt
> justice.  
I've been hearing the first hispanic woman. (or first Latina)


-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington