Friday, April 9, 2010

Republican forum: no, no, no and no

The OC Reg’s political guy, Martin Wisckol, reported on a “forum” held today by four Republicans, including our own trustee Don Wagner, who seek to be the GOP candidate for the 70th Assembly District race:

GOP Assembly candidates say 'No'

According to Wisckol, the “GOP primary in 70th Assembly District race to replace outgoing incumbent Chuck DeVore is the county's hottest June legislative race….”

Sounds exciting. Wisckol asked ‘em how sending a Republican would even matter in the Democratic-dominated state legislature. A massive two-thirds majority is necessary for budget approval, and so the Dems need a few Republican votes to pass their proposal.

All four candidates agreed “that the first step is to not be one of the few to help Democrats.”

How hot.

Don’s shining moment came when he offered another raison d'être for a Republican in Sacramento:
…Wagner…suggested finding populist issues and turning them into bills – even though Democrats would reject them. ¶ "We don't win the vote, but we take those issues back to some of these districts that aren't so gerrymandered," he said, meaning the tactic might help win Republicans a few more seats. The only specific issue he mentioned of being worthy of such an effort was oil drilling.
Oil drilling.

Wisckol, it seems, is easily amused:
I was amused [he said] by an exchange that began when Wagner said that his college district had a larger budget than that of the cities of Irvine or Tustin. [JerryAmante later noted that he was chairman of Orange County Transportation Authority, which had a way bigger budget than the college district. That left Wagner with the eventual comeback that Amante wasn't elected to OCTA (cities send representatives to serve on the board, which then selects its chairman).
I wonder if Wisckol is suicidal. I’d be.

California's "Day of the Rat Bastard"

UH-OH. STATE PENSIONS MASSIVELY UNDERFUNDED. You know me. I’m just useless about fiscal/financial issues. (I don’t have any significant debts, though.)

But I noticed an alarming article in this morning’s OC Reg:

State pensions massively underfunded, Stanford study concludes
The amount of money California will owe its public retirees – but won’t have – is $55.4 billion, according to official figures. ¶ Surprise. That number is a product of smoke and mirrors, according to an analysis out of Stanford University this week, and the realshortfall is nearly eight times as great – more than $425 billion….
Surely some readers know what to make of all of this, especially as it concerns denizens of the SOCCCD (we're with STRS). Right? Let us know.

Governor Reagan was on hand for the opening

of Saddleback College (above)

COMING SOON: RONALD REAGAN DAY. The always-uninspiring Chris Emami of Red County reports progress in an attempt to create a California “Ronald Reagan Day.”

Senate Passes George Runner's Ronald Reagan Day Bill
Yesterday, the State Senate unanimously passed SB 944 (Runner), which is a bill proposed by Senator George Runner to establish February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day. The bill does not create a state holiday, but rather a state day of special significance. In other words, nobody would get the day off, but schools would be encouraged — but not required — to teach students about Ronald Reagan.
Emami notes that, if approved, RR Day will “be the third day of special significance dedicated to an individual person”; plus, the state has two or three other "days":

• April 21 ~ John Muir Day.
• May 22 ~ Harvey Milk Day
• March 30 ~ Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day
• April 6 ~ California Poppy Day
• Second Wednesday in May ~ the Day of the Teacher

Wow, RR doesn't seem to fit with this group at all.

If this thing passes, Feb. 6, 2011 will be the first RR Day. I plan to teach all about 'im.

As you know, the SOCCCD is on the cutting edge, RR-celebration-wise. We already have a “Ronald Reagan” BoT meeting room with big golden letters—R O N A L D R E A G A N—and about fifty American flags.

CELEBRATING THE CAREER OF DR. MATHUR. Have you given any thought to the upcoming Balboa Bay Club celebration of Raghu P. Mathur? What do you make of it?

Here are some arguably curious aspects of this celebration/announcement:

• Despite the nature of Mathur’s career—as far as I know, it has been almost entirely at public institutions (he’s been employed by the SOCCCD since the 70s)—the public, including district employees, are not invited. It is by invitation only.
• The celebration’s venue is none other than the Balboa Bay Club, a symbol of Orange County wealth and exclusivity (and of, I guess, saunas with pious, conservative, and ambitious young men, some of whom end up serving time for pedophilia)
• As far as I know, the “invitation” was an email sent from the “Office of the Chancellor.”

Naturally, it's none of my business if a bunch of Fuentean r*t b*stards want to hang out together at the BBC to "celebrate" the career of Goo. Hey, if they want to eat sh*t together, that's OK by me too. But why send out the invite from the Chancellor's office? Why send out invitations in a manner that guarantees that everyone in the district will know that it is for the select few?: "Yeah, we'll be at the BBC, smoking expensive cigars, and YOU are not invited!"

I think you'd have to be a dolt not to see this invite as a big "FU" to denizens of the district.

At the BBC: may Raghu receive a poinsettia that is immediately snatched by some hard-working stiff who got her job, not through corruption or cronyism, but because she looked pretty damned competent compared to the competition. May he lurch forward to snatch back those posies, only to lose his balance and, with arms and legs akimbo, fall upon Tom and then tumble onto some dogsh*t. Splat.

—Well, no. Just let him go away and then stay there.

From DISSENT the BLOG

"To deny...reality will make us a cult"

The Video That Ended a Career (Inside Higher Ed)
When it comes to incriminating videos these days, the one of Bruce K. Waltke might seem pretty tame. It shows the noted evangelical scholar of the Old Testament talking about scholarship, faith and evolution. What was incriminating? He not only endorsed evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.

"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was – until this week – a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)

The statements so upset officials of the seminary that Waltke had to ask the BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes the idea that science and faith need not be incompatible, to remove it from its Web site (which the foundation did) and to post a clarification. The video was shot during a BioLogos workshop. But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.

Waltke is a big enough name in evangelical theology that the incident is prompting considerable soul-searching. On the one hand, his public endorsement of the view that believing in evolution and being a person of faith are not incompatible was significant for those who, like the BioLogos Foundation, support such a view. Waltke's scholarly and religious credentials in Christian theology were too strong for him to be dismissed easily.

But the fact that his seminary did dismiss him is viewed as a sign of just how difficult it may be for scholars at some institutions to raise issues involving science that are not 100 percent consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible….(continued)

Texas: revisionist history


From the latest edition of the “Skeptic’s Dictionary” newsletter:

"Righting" History

Most of you have probably heard by now that Republicans on the State Board of Education in Texas are rewriting history for the state's children because, they say, history has a liberal bias. No longer will students study the Bill of Rights and learn why the framers did not want the state to meddle in the religious lives of its citizens. Now they will learn that the framers didn't want separation of church and state at all. The students of Texas will also learn that Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin had an important influence on political revolutions from 1750 to the present, but Thomas Jefferson won't be mentioned in that context. Texans will also be required to learn about the importance of Phyllis Shlafly and the Heritage Foundation.

Steven Thomma notes that the school board in Texas isn't the only one "righting" American history. Former House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said recently that the people who settled Jamestown in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them. Historians must have been smoking illegal agricultural products, then, because they've been telling us that Jamestown was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London. "It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States."

Armey also advised people to read the Federalist Papers if they want to find out what's driving the tea party movement. "The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers," Armey said.

The Federalist Papers were written largely by Alexander Hamilton, an advocate of a strong central government.

An admirer of British political systems, Hamilton was a nationalist who emphasized strong central government and successfully argued that the implied powers of the Constitution could be used to fund the national debt, assume state debts, and create the government-owned Bank of the United States. These programs were funded primarily by a tariff on imports and a highly controversial whiskey tax.*

Armey called those who disagreed with his view of Hamilton "ill informed."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is one of several prominent conservatives claiming that Franklin D. Roosevelt caused the Great Depression. "FDR took office in the midst of a recession," Bachmann told the Conservative Political Action Conference. "He decided to choose massive government spending and the creation of monstrous bureaucracies. Do we detect a Democrat pattern here in all of this? He took what was a manageable recession and turned it into a 10-year depression."

Thomma writes: "The facts show that the country was in something far worse than a "manageable recession" in March 1933 when Roosevelt took office. Stocks had lost 90 percent of their value since the crash of 1929. Thousands of banks had failed. Unemployment reached an all-time high of 24.9 percent just before Roosevelt was inaugurated."

Even Joe McCarthy is being rehabilitated by the right. Phyllis Schlafly, whom Texas schoolchildren now must study, asserts: "Almost everything about McCarthy in current history books is a lie and will have to be revised."

Ann Coulter agrees: "Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis."….

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...