Well, here's an interesting item I just discovered: The Swanton School District has routinely placed a levy on the ballot under their umbrella for the Swanton Park & Recreation system. It looks like this has been going on for several generations, and I'll lay you odds that the average voter doesn't realize that this particular 0.4-mil "recreation levy" is strictly for the park system and sports programs in Swanton, Ohio.
Those people go to great lengths to support their school system. Wonder what they'd think if they realized that $58K annually was being lost because of this set up? I seem to remember that district being in dire financial straits just a few years ago . . . I'll bet that $58,000 per year would have been real helpful.
I haven't found anyone who knows how the whole thing started, but don't you find it interesting that it has never been publicly challenged? Maybe the Public was blissfully unaware before now - but this week's Swanton Enterprise (the poor cousin to our Fulton Co. Expositor) had a front page article that included this tidbit of information.
Here's another thing. In these small towns, most folks are related either by blood or by marriage. Swanton is no exception. Old family names out there are very heavily represented in local politics. With this much cash being funneled through the school system to the parks, it sure makes you wonder just whose palm is getting greased by allowing the school district to lose out on so much money.
Why was this issue not addressed before they decided to implement an income tax on district residents? Oh the hue and cry of looming financial ruin back then! Bus routes eliminated! Programs slashed! Libraries closed! Tearful pleas to "save our school!" and signs popping up in yards like dandelions, begging voters to pass that income tax tevy OR ELSE !!
It sure was scary - but nary a word about the many thousands of dollars being funneled to the recreation system. Why was that??
I think former school board members, park board members, and others owe a huge explanation to their constituents - an explanation that gives the reasons it was necessary to cheat their school district out of $58,000 annually AND made it critical to pass an income tax levy to help make up the loss.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I'm In the Wrong Business
With sage nodding of heads and somber stroking of beards, a new study out of Michigan State University has declared that: (drumroll, please) HOUSEHOLDS WITH MULTIPLE OCCUPANTS SHARING UTILITIES USE LESS WATER AND ENERGY THAN HOUSEHOLDS WITH SINGLE OCCUPANTS !!
Actually, the paper itself spoke of married households versus divorced households. In a five-year cross-cultural study of 12 countries around the globe, the authors found that married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use.
I believe the appropriate response here should be: duh !!
The Washington Post, ABC, The Sun (UK), Queensland Courier-Mail, Hindustan Times, and many others have breathless articles discussing the findings of Jiangua “Jack” Liu, senior author of the study, and his associate Eunice Yu. Even Citizen Link of Focus on the Family had an article on the subject, gleefully proclaiming that God's directives on marriage are now somehow vindicated by these study results.
What I wanna know is: why is my tax money helping to pay for this? The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.
I mean, come on, people! What am I missing?? Was there a doubt that a married couple shared water and energy at a lesser rate than two individuals living separately?
Is this the best we can expect from our colleges, our government and the media?
Seriously. I'm in the wrong business, when there is money to be made producing "studies" such as this one.
Actually, the paper itself spoke of married households versus divorced households. In a five-year cross-cultural study of 12 countries around the globe, the authors found that married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use.
I believe the appropriate response here should be: duh !!
The Washington Post, ABC, The Sun (UK), Queensland Courier-Mail, Hindustan Times, and many others have breathless articles discussing the findings of Jiangua “Jack” Liu, senior author of the study, and his associate Eunice Yu. Even Citizen Link of Focus on the Family had an article on the subject, gleefully proclaiming that God's directives on marriage are now somehow vindicated by these study results.
What I wanna know is: why is my tax money helping to pay for this? The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.
I mean, come on, people! What am I missing?? Was there a doubt that a married couple shared water and energy at a lesser rate than two individuals living separately?
Is this the best we can expect from our colleges, our government and the media?
Seriously. I'm in the wrong business, when there is money to be made producing "studies" such as this one.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Madness from Toledo City Council
Whoa - I don't know about you, but my head is still spinning over the recent action by Toledo City Council in their Speedy Gonzalez actions on the Domestic Partner Registry. As the Toledo Blade pointed out, Council's normal mode of operation - especially on potentially controversial subjects - is to take a good long time to hash things over before taking a vote.
Not so this time! No siree - Equality Toledo board member/Toledo City Council member Joe McNamara presented the registry subject at a meeting of Council and one week later, a vote was taken. Only 2 members of Council (both Republicans) had the cojones to vote "no" on the measure. Carty was only too happy to sign his name to it and then simper about being a "Christian" and how the registry will be so great for Toledo.
I'm not sure what planet he's from, but anyone who can read has seen any one of the innumerable studies done over the past few decades that clearly show Society operates best when children are raised by their married biological parents. It doesn't matter what demographic quirk you want to throw into the mix - the result is the same. Regardless of religious convictions or the lack thereof; no matter from what ethnicity or culture the subjects studied hail; no matter what income levels, country of origin, or toothpaste brand - the results are always the same.
In addition, these same studies have listed ad nauseum the many negative results that Society must address when this ideal situation is short-circuited by absent fathers, single mothers, living-together-without-marriage partners, gay partners raising children, etc. The list is as long as your arm and mine put together - all bad.
How can anyone living in the good ol' US of A buying groceries with the ubiquitous magazine stand at the check-out claim ignorance of this? It's everywhere! You can't escape it! And yet some would have you believe that this tacit support for a Domestic Partner Registry is going to be "good for Toledo" ??
Balderdash.
Make no mistake: this was rammed through Council quickly to avoid public debate. The deal was done before residents even knew it was on the table. Most are still reeling, and frantically trying to figure out how to un-do what Council has done. How can a group of 10 people dictate morality for a city of 300,000?
Carty gave a statement that said, in part, that his office had received feedback equally for and against the issue, and that he had responded to every email received. In this he proves to be a liar, as both of my two emails went unacknowledged. What about yours?
Understand: the issue is about what is best for the community, and studies conducted by folks with more PhDs than I, have proven - over and over again - that what is best for the children is what is best for society. It's pretty simple, really.
So what do we do now? Have we any legal recourse? Attorneys have been contacted, and we'll have our answer soon. But even if there is no legal ground on which to fight, surely public outrage would have an effect. If the majority of residents would make their voice collectively heard, Council would have to listen. Businessmen and women, leaders of the community, and citizens of Toledo need to speak up! We cannot afford to let this go by unopposed - too much is at stake.
Not so this time! No siree - Equality Toledo board member/Toledo City Council member Joe McNamara presented the registry subject at a meeting of Council and one week later, a vote was taken. Only 2 members of Council (both Republicans) had the cojones to vote "no" on the measure. Carty was only too happy to sign his name to it and then simper about being a "Christian" and how the registry will be so great for Toledo.
I'm not sure what planet he's from, but anyone who can read has seen any one of the innumerable studies done over the past few decades that clearly show Society operates best when children are raised by their married biological parents. It doesn't matter what demographic quirk you want to throw into the mix - the result is the same. Regardless of religious convictions or the lack thereof; no matter from what ethnicity or culture the subjects studied hail; no matter what income levels, country of origin, or toothpaste brand - the results are always the same.
In addition, these same studies have listed ad nauseum the many negative results that Society must address when this ideal situation is short-circuited by absent fathers, single mothers, living-together-without-marriage partners, gay partners raising children, etc. The list is as long as your arm and mine put together - all bad.
How can anyone living in the good ol' US of A buying groceries with the ubiquitous magazine stand at the check-out claim ignorance of this? It's everywhere! You can't escape it! And yet some would have you believe that this tacit support for a Domestic Partner Registry is going to be "good for Toledo" ??
Balderdash.
Make no mistake: this was rammed through Council quickly to avoid public debate. The deal was done before residents even knew it was on the table. Most are still reeling, and frantically trying to figure out how to un-do what Council has done. How can a group of 10 people dictate morality for a city of 300,000?
Carty gave a statement that said, in part, that his office had received feedback equally for and against the issue, and that he had responded to every email received. In this he proves to be a liar, as both of my two emails went unacknowledged. What about yours?
Understand: the issue is about what is best for the community, and studies conducted by folks with more PhDs than I, have proven - over and over again - that what is best for the children is what is best for society. It's pretty simple, really.
So what do we do now? Have we any legal recourse? Attorneys have been contacted, and we'll have our answer soon. But even if there is no legal ground on which to fight, surely public outrage would have an effect. If the majority of residents would make their voice collectively heard, Council would have to listen. Businessmen and women, leaders of the community, and citizens of Toledo need to speak up! We cannot afford to let this go by unopposed - too much is at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)