In a comment, Bradley reacted to a plausible interpretation of my last post on the cost of vouchers to public it. It was a plausible interpretation of what I said but not what I meant.
Here's what I meant...
Suppose little Jimmy's parents choose to send him to private school next year. Rightfully so, as you point out, Jimmy's public school allotment no longer goes to the public school. That's the way it should be.
But the problem for me is that $500-$3000 of your tax money also follows Jimmy to private school. That's $500-$3000 coming out of tax revenue and into education but not into public education.
I am calling that a cost to public education because that's $500-$3000 that our legislature decided to spend on education (instead of transportation, infrastructure, public safety etc.) but which did not go to public education.
The central question for me is still this: if we can find and extra $40 ish million a year (that's cost to tax payer minus savings to public ed. using the numbers for the 13th year in the Voter Information Guide) to spend on education, then is subsidizing private schools really the right way to spend it?
For a state with the lowest per-pupil spending in the nation already, I think that the answer is no.
If you look at educational outcomes (in terms of % of population with a HS degree for example), no other state in the union spends less on education per capita and gets better results. Imagine what we could do if we were closer to the national average.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Why do vouchers cost public schools money?
My neighbor and I were carpooling home the other day and talking about vouchers. He was surprised, I think, that vouchers will cost public schools money. I knew that they would (from the voter's guide) but couldn't explain why.
I re-read the voter's guide and here's why.
When a student's parents choose to send that student to private school on a voucher, some of that student's oreo stack (ie dollars) remain in the public school. But some go to the private school. Sure. We've seen the ads we know this.
The catch is that the oreo stack only stays in the public school for 5 years. After 5 years, the oreos just go back into the general fund, or something. Maybe they get dunked in milk?
5 years is a long time in school years for a child. But, in the end, the money still goes away.
I re-read the voter's guide and here's why.
When a student's parents choose to send that student to private school on a voucher, some of that student's oreo stack (ie dollars) remain in the public school. But some go to the private school. Sure. We've seen the ads we know this.
The catch is that the oreo stack only stays in the public school for 5 years. After 5 years, the oreos just go back into the general fund, or something. Maybe they get dunked in milk?
5 years is a long time in school years for a child. But, in the end, the money still goes away.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Other People Question Spending Tax Money on Vouchers
The KSL Editorial Board says "Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer? We think not!"
And Green Jello says "I believe providing more accessibility to private schools would also provide another great option for students who need a non-traditional approach to their education needs if it could be done without creating an additional drain from Utah's taxpayers and from the already underfunded public schools system. However, referendum 1 doesn't succeed in this point. After the 13th year and beyond it would be a drain on the public coffers, and I'm afraid it would be viewed as nothing more than another entitlement program."
I agree with both. Pramahaphil over at Green Jello is even an accountant. I am not very good at accounting, so reading the numbers in the Voter's Guide was all I could handle. Pramahaphil read the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, probably enjoyed it, and reached a similar conclusion to mine.
And Green Jello says "I believe providing more accessibility to private schools would also provide another great option for students who need a non-traditional approach to their education needs if it could be done without creating an additional drain from Utah's taxpayers and from the already underfunded public schools system. However, referendum 1 doesn't succeed in this point. After the 13th year and beyond it would be a drain on the public coffers, and I'm afraid it would be viewed as nothing more than another entitlement program."
I agree with both. Pramahaphil over at Green Jello is even an accountant. I am not very good at accounting, so reading the numbers in the Voter's Guide was all I could handle. Pramahaphil read the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, probably enjoyed it, and reached a similar conclusion to mine.
Cycling Moab with 4 Year Olds
We took the girls down to Moab for the weekend and they were dying to ride their bikes in Moab, just like Daddy did with the Scouts a year ago. So we packed up their bikes and headed to Sand Flats by the Slickrock Trail. And we biked at the Rotary Park down the hill off the road to Sand Flats.
They had a great time. Megan is a pretty good biker for a 4 year old and Ashley is a little more apprehensive so far.
The Rotary Park is a fun green shady oasis in town.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Faculty are anti college sports?
[Salt Lake Tribune - Monson: Professors show their annoyance with college athletics]
Monson's citing a reputable study, so he's probably on the right track. But I wasn't surveyed in the study and I just want to go on record as saying that as a college professor myself, I love college sports. In my department, lunch conversations alternate between football and "other stuff" almost all of fall semester.
Then again, in our department, Computer Science, we don't see players from marque sports like football and basketball. I've had a men's diving diver and a women's tennis player. Both were good students and seemed to enjoy the challenge of doing both school and sports.
I suppose that if I were in an, um, easy major like the humanities or public broadcasting, that I might see more marquee sports players in my classes. Ok, easy is probably the wrong word. Let's go with "less time consuming."
If you know any football or basketball players or cheerleaders in a technical major, I'd love to know who they are. So far, I know 0.
I should add that I knew a Utah scholarship football player and met a BYU scholaship basketball player. Both starters. Both very smart impressive people. Seriously. Just don't have a lot of time for demanding majors.
Monson's citing a reputable study, so he's probably on the right track. But I wasn't surveyed in the study and I just want to go on record as saying that as a college professor myself, I love college sports. In my department, lunch conversations alternate between football and "other stuff" almost all of fall semester.
Then again, in our department, Computer Science, we don't see players from marque sports like football and basketball. I've had a men's diving diver and a women's tennis player. Both were good students and seemed to enjoy the challenge of doing both school and sports.
I suppose that if I were in an, um, easy major like the humanities or public broadcasting, that I might see more marquee sports players in my classes. Ok, easy is probably the wrong word. Let's go with "less time consuming."
If you know any football or basketball players or cheerleaders in a technical major, I'd love to know who they are. So far, I know 0.
I should add that I knew a Utah scholarship football player and met a BYU scholaship basketball player. Both starters. Both very smart impressive people. Seriously. Just don't have a lot of time for demanding majors.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Input needed on field work test sites
In the lab, we are preparing a proposal to a build the technology for capturing the shape, color and reflectance of rock formations using consumer hardware. This technology will allow the general public to virtually visit remote sites and create an archive of fragile rock formations before they are damaged by vandalism or natural causes.
We are looking for a field work test site somewhere in the desert. This will be a place we can visit to test our ideas. We need a place with the following characteristics:
1. Within 2.5 hours of Provo, Utah.
2. Includes a cool looking rock formation. Need to be able to walk around the entire rock formation.
3. Low elevation. We want year-round access.
4. Is between 1 and 2 miles from the closest road. This is negotiable though.
We are thinking of using the Conquistadors near Little Holes Canyon near the Grand Canyon of the San Rafael River, see picture above. The problem with the Conquistadors is that they are next to a 50 foot cliff with loose rock. Safe enough, but safer would be better.
We are also thinking of using the first Pinnacle (following Steve Allen's guidebook) in Pinnacle Canyon off the Tidwell Draw North Road.
Got any other ideas?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Budget Numbers on Vouchers
After reading comments left here and elsewhere, I decided to go do some studying to find the cost of vouchers to the Utah taxpayer. As you might guess, it all depends on which assumptions you make. I'll use the Impartial Analysis in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
In the end though, the question is: If vouchers create an additional tax-payer burden, are vouchers the best way to spend that money?
More specifically: What if we spent the extra cost (if any) of vouchers on teacher raises?
Let's say that there are 30,000 teachers in Utah. (There were about 21,000 in 1999). In the first year, vouchers may only cost the tax payer an extra $3.1 M. Using that number, we could give all teachers about a $100 raise. Not that exciting, but a nice way to say "thanks" to the people who teach our children. The other estimate gives vouchers a $6.0 M net savings to the tax payer. Teachers would need to take a $200 pay cut to fund vouchers the first year. Not that appealing if you are making a teacher salary and if you are trying to actually hire teachers.
It's a lot more interesting in the 13th year (when vouchers are fully phased in). In the 13th year, vouchers cost the taxpayer either an extra $60 M or an extra $43 M depending on which numbers you believe. So the question is: should we use that extra $51.5 M (I used the average) to subsidize private schools or should we use it for public schools? If we use it for public schools, I vote we put it all in teacher raises. Let's say we have 40,000 teachers in 13 years (I made that number up), then we could give all of them a $1287.50 raise. In 2020 dollars, an extra $1287.50 per year won't be a ton of money, but every little bit helps--especially if house prices continue to rise and you want to buy a house.
Vouchers may save money in the first year. But after 13 years, when everyone thinks of them as an entitlement (which is why it's odd that conservative Republicans support them so passionately), they are going to cost additional money. If we are going to spend additional money on education, and I think we should, then let's spend it on making public education better.
And that's why I'll still vote no on vouchers.
In the end though, the question is: If vouchers create an additional tax-payer burden, are vouchers the best way to spend that money?
More specifically: What if we spent the extra cost (if any) of vouchers on teacher raises?
Let's say that there are 30,000 teachers in Utah. (There were about 21,000 in 1999). In the first year, vouchers may only cost the tax payer an extra $3.1 M. Using that number, we could give all teachers about a $100 raise. Not that exciting, but a nice way to say "thanks" to the people who teach our children. The other estimate gives vouchers a $6.0 M net savings to the tax payer. Teachers would need to take a $200 pay cut to fund vouchers the first year. Not that appealing if you are making a teacher salary and if you are trying to actually hire teachers.
It's a lot more interesting in the 13th year (when vouchers are fully phased in). In the 13th year, vouchers cost the taxpayer either an extra $60 M or an extra $43 M depending on which numbers you believe. So the question is: should we use that extra $51.5 M (I used the average) to subsidize private schools or should we use it for public schools? If we use it for public schools, I vote we put it all in teacher raises. Let's say we have 40,000 teachers in 13 years (I made that number up), then we could give all of them a $1287.50 raise. In 2020 dollars, an extra $1287.50 per year won't be a ton of money, but every little bit helps--especially if house prices continue to rise and you want to buy a house.
Vouchers may save money in the first year. But after 13 years, when everyone thinks of them as an entitlement (which is why it's odd that conservative Republicans support them so passionately), they are going to cost additional money. If we are going to spend additional money on education, and I think we should, then let's spend it on making public education better.
And that's why I'll still vote no on vouchers.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Loading a helicopter with 1 skid on the ground
Apparently that's what it took to get these guys out of Grand Staircase Escalante. I saw it happen once on Timpanogos above the Timponooke Basin just below the saddle. It was impressive even from a distance.
[Salt Lake Tribune - Three hikers plucked from wilderness cliff in daring helicopter rescue: "The helicopter flew in this morning, landing one skid on a ledge and opening the door for the three men to jump inside."]
[Salt Lake Tribune - Three hikers plucked from wilderness cliff in daring helicopter rescue: "The helicopter flew in this morning, landing one skid on a ledge and opening the door for the three men to jump inside."]
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Secret 18 Mile Loop in North Orem
One of the pending comments was curious about the 18 mile roadie loop I mentioned in a post about the dangers of riding the Provo River Parkway in clueless foot traffic. Since I am sitting in my living room in my new cold weather cycling jacket and not riding my bike (due to rain), I thought I'd take a minute to post that route.
It goes something like this:
Get on 2000 North in Orem, head west. Turn left at the stop sign just before the dump. Head south for a while. At the next stoplight (next to a park, I think it's 400 South), turn left. Ride west to 400 east. At 400 east, turn left again. Head north for a while. Turn left on 2000 north for another 18 mile loop.
One of my woodbadge tickets was to ride the Alpine Loop, which I did two weeks ago. That was my first time all the way around. It's pointless. The climb up Provo Canyon, then to Sundance, Aspen Grove and the Summit is great. The descent down the Sundance side is way fun. But the drop down the AF side is not so fun and the ensuing ride through Cedar Hills, AF, PG, Lindon is even less fun.
It goes something like this:
Get on 2000 North in Orem, head west. Turn left at the stop sign just before the dump. Head south for a while. At the next stoplight (next to a park, I think it's 400 South), turn left. Ride west to 400 east. At 400 east, turn left again. Head north for a while. Turn left on 2000 north for another 18 mile loop.
One of my woodbadge tickets was to ride the Alpine Loop, which I did two weeks ago. That was my first time all the way around. It's pointless. The climb up Provo Canyon, then to Sundance, Aspen Grove and the Summit is great. The descent down the Sundance side is way fun. But the drop down the AF side is not so fun and the ensuing ride through Cedar Hills, AF, PG, Lindon is even less fun.
Moderating comments, oops
It turns out that there were 25 comments waiting to be moderated here at Utahania. I took a long summer off from many things, including blogging. But the good news is that I got continuing faculty status (BYU equivalent of tenure), taught computer graphics for the first time, published my first paper in computer graphics, took the scouts to camp, the kids on a vacation or two and even went to family woodbadge.
Anyway, at some point in that process, the blog set itself to have comments moderated. I guess that actually sending me email when a comment needed to be moderated was too much? At any rate, I am now caught up.
20 out of 25 were great comments that I wish had been out there in the community. I even agreed with some of them :) . The other 5 were, or appeared to be, unrelated spam.
Sorry about that, I'll stay more on top of that now that I know there's a silent queue of pending comments.
Anyway, at some point in that process, the blog set itself to have comments moderated. I guess that actually sending me email when a comment needed to be moderated was too much? At any rate, I am now caught up.
20 out of 25 were great comments that I wish had been out there in the community. I even agreed with some of them :) . The other 5 were, or appeared to be, unrelated spam.
Sorry about that, I'll stay more on top of that now that I know there's a silent queue of pending comments.
Why I oppose vouchers
As much as it kills me to be on the same side of an issue as the UEA, I am going to have to vote against vouchers. I have two primary reasons.
First, I am a fiscal conservative. While I do support parents' choice in education, I don't think that the government should spend your tax money to help parents choose private school. Similarly, I don't support using your tax money to help parents have a choice, for example, in what kind of car they drive. Just to be clear though, I do think that your tax money should be spent to provide education to all children for free. Public ed has problems. However, I think many of them can be blamed on the UEA (sorry UEA). Tenure in 3 years? That's crazy. Stretch that out to 6 or 7.
Every person I know who supports vouchers and hates their local elementary school (n=2) simply has a bad principal. If it weren't so hard to fire a bad principal, then public ed would be a better place. It's easier to fire a college football coach than it is to fire a principal. What's wrong with that?
Second, voucher proponents have made a big deal out of the following arguement "vouchers aren't bad for public ed because a student who leaves on a voucher leaves behind the money spent to educate that student." Apparently, the legislature found some money in the general fund that can be used to pay for vouchers without taking money out of public ed. If we have the political will to take money out of the general fund and spend it on vouchers, then why don't we take that same money and use it on public ed? The Utah Senators and Reps. that I've met are pretty smart. They have to understand this arguement against vouchers. So why don't they support using that money for public ed but do want to use it for vouchers? That's an easy one: UEA again. Legislators are reluctant to throw more money at public ed because they aren't happy with how it's going to be spent.
Dawn: hope that helps you get through class next time!
First, I am a fiscal conservative. While I do support parents' choice in education, I don't think that the government should spend your tax money to help parents choose private school. Similarly, I don't support using your tax money to help parents have a choice, for example, in what kind of car they drive. Just to be clear though, I do think that your tax money should be spent to provide education to all children for free. Public ed has problems. However, I think many of them can be blamed on the UEA (sorry UEA). Tenure in 3 years? That's crazy. Stretch that out to 6 or 7.
Every person I know who supports vouchers and hates their local elementary school (n=2) simply has a bad principal. If it weren't so hard to fire a bad principal, then public ed would be a better place. It's easier to fire a college football coach than it is to fire a principal. What's wrong with that?
Second, voucher proponents have made a big deal out of the following arguement "vouchers aren't bad for public ed because a student who leaves on a voucher leaves behind the money spent to educate that student." Apparently, the legislature found some money in the general fund that can be used to pay for vouchers without taking money out of public ed. If we have the political will to take money out of the general fund and spend it on vouchers, then why don't we take that same money and use it on public ed? The Utah Senators and Reps. that I've met are pretty smart. They have to understand this arguement against vouchers. So why don't they support using that money for public ed but do want to use it for vouchers? That's an easy one: UEA again. Legislators are reluctant to throw more money at public ed because they aren't happy with how it's going to be spent.
Dawn: hope that helps you get through class next time!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Memo to DesNews: Paper Ballots are not Ludite
Last Thursday's editorial in the Deseret News painted me, and people like me, who want voter verifiable paper audit trails as being afraid of technology. That's funny because I love technology and have made it a major part of my career.
Back in '04, many Computer Science professors at the U and BYU got together to ensure that our legislature understood the difficulties of getting electronic voting right. I was one of those professors and still believe that a voter-verifiable paper audit trail is important in establishing the legitimacy of an electronic election. Not because of public perception, but because it's just too easy to get electronic voting wrong.
Phil's post, Phil Windley's Technometria | Saying Yes to Paper Ballots, reminded me that I needed to say something about this.
Back in '04, many Computer Science professors at the U and BYU got together to ensure that our legislature understood the difficulties of getting electronic voting right. I was one of those professors and still believe that a voter-verifiable paper audit trail is important in establishing the legitimacy of an electronic election. Not because of public perception, but because it's just too easy to get electronic voting wrong.
Phil's post, Phil Windley's Technometria | Saying Yes to Paper Ballots, reminded me that I needed to say something about this.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Welcoming the New Utah County Democrats
The New Utah County Democrats were elected as the party leadership last night. Welcome! It's good to have a viable second party in our county.
They say, on their website, "even our moderate Republican friends and neighbors are now grumbling about how out of touch their own party is to the needs and opinions of real Utahns."
Exactly correct. As a moderate Republican, I was dismayed by statements at my party's convention last week. We are very close to "Republican means anti public education" That's an extreme position I don't agree with. (Not just the "Satan's role in immigration" thing but also just about everyone's statements on education and vouchers).
A viable second party in our county will pull the Republican far right back towards the middle. They won't like it, but it will be good for our state.
The other way to pull the county Republican party back to the middle is to get moderates elected as delegates and then as party leadership. Unfortunately, moderates tend to be uninvolved other than voting every 2 or 4 years in November.
They say, on their website, "even our moderate Republican friends and neighbors are now grumbling about how out of touch their own party is to the needs and opinions of real Utahns."
Exactly correct. As a moderate Republican, I was dismayed by statements at my party's convention last week. We are very close to "Republican means anti public education" That's an extreme position I don't agree with. (Not just the "Satan's role in immigration" thing but also just about everyone's statements on education and vouchers).
A viable second party in our county will pull the Republican far right back towards the middle. They won't like it, but it will be good for our state.
The other way to pull the county Republican party back to the middle is to get moderates elected as delegates and then as party leadership. Unfortunately, moderates tend to be uninvolved other than voting every 2 or 4 years in November.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
War Criminal?
Memo to those who call President Bush a war criminal:
It's a serious thing to call a sitting president of the United States a war criminal during a time of war. Unless you are correct, it borders on treason.
If you really believe that he's a war criminal, then you should be doing more than leaving comments on blogs, writing blog entries, holding rallies and debating radio talk show hosts for charity.
You should be presenting a case to Congress and the UN to help you get a war criminal out of the Oval Office. You should be prepared to see it through until Bush and Cheney are imprisoned, probably for life.
If you commitment to Bush/Cheney as war criminals isn't that deep, then let's all continue to oppose/support the war but let's tone down the rhetoric a little.
It's a serious thing to call a sitting president of the United States a war criminal during a time of war. Unless you are correct, it borders on treason.
If you really believe that he's a war criminal, then you should be doing more than leaving comments on blogs, writing blog entries, holding rallies and debating radio talk show hosts for charity.
You should be presenting a case to Congress and the UN to help you get a war criminal out of the Oval Office. You should be prepared to see it through until Bush and Cheney are imprisoned, probably for life.
If you commitment to Bush/Cheney as war criminals isn't that deep, then let's all continue to oppose/support the war but let's tone down the rhetoric a little.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Usage rules for incite versus insight
The BYU newsnet today has the following headline: BYU NewsNet - Speakers to Share Incite at Women's Conference.
I think that they meant "insight" but "incite" is much more interesting especially if you watched "The Mormons" documentary and listened to the bits about women in the church as described by a former Church member.
I think that they meant "insight" but "incite" is much more interesting especially if you watched "The Mormons" documentary and listened to the bits about women in the church as described by a former Church member.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Mormons
The Mormons documentary wasn't too bad. The first night was far better than the second. Ken Verdoia did an excellent job of speaking about LDS history in a way that I think non-Mormon people will relate too while remaining correct and positive. I was extremely impressed with Ken's pieces.
I think anti-Mormons will be disapointed with the coverage and I think that some Mormons will be as well. That means that they probably got it about right.
Elder Oaks' on Mountain Meadows was good. I thought they made Will Bagely look pretty dumb. They let him say "Brigham Young ordered it" but didn't let him give any justification. I guess you just have read his book if you want to find out how he formed his opinion.
The bit on dancing in the middle was odd but fun. Both my sister (in Boise ID) and brother (in Seattle WA) had their spouse turn to them in that part and say "but you can't even dance!" My wife was asleep by then.
The second night was pretty slow and less balanced. The disaffected intellectuals got lots of air time to comment on the state of the church generally.
Mormon intellectuals are fine. The problem is that one can't actively advocate positions that oppose the LDS Church _and_ remain a member of the LDS Church. People are free to oppose the LDS Church, you just can't be a member while you do it. It's neither complicated nor oppressive. I am probably over simplifying the situation, but if you oppose the LDS Church and don't believe it's fundamental claims or positions, then why do you care if you remain a member or not? I am sure it's more difficult than that because Toscana seemed to sincerely struggle with the actions of others, her decisions and their consequences.
I think anti-Mormons will be disapointed with the coverage and I think that some Mormons will be as well. That means that they probably got it about right.
Elder Oaks' on Mountain Meadows was good. I thought they made Will Bagely look pretty dumb. They let him say "Brigham Young ordered it" but didn't let him give any justification. I guess you just have read his book if you want to find out how he formed his opinion.
The bit on dancing in the middle was odd but fun. Both my sister (in Boise ID) and brother (in Seattle WA) had their spouse turn to them in that part and say "but you can't even dance!" My wife was asleep by then.
The second night was pretty slow and less balanced. The disaffected intellectuals got lots of air time to comment on the state of the church generally.
Mormon intellectuals are fine. The problem is that one can't actively advocate positions that oppose the LDS Church _and_ remain a member of the LDS Church. People are free to oppose the LDS Church, you just can't be a member while you do it. It's neither complicated nor oppressive. I am probably over simplifying the situation, but if you oppose the LDS Church and don't believe it's fundamental claims or positions, then why do you care if you remain a member or not? I am sure it's more difficult than that because Toscana seemed to sincerely struggle with the actions of others, her decisions and their consequences.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Utah County Republican Convention
Fortunately the resolution on Satan's involvement in illegal immigration failed. There wasn't a quorum so it was all moot. Even so, it would have failed in a straight up vote. The wording on "close the borders" may have passed if there was a quorum needed to suspend the rules and remove the Satanic part.
I was extremely pleased to hear Stephen Sandstrom talk about immigration. He said, more or less, that his first year in the House taught him that immigrants are people too with desires, goals and feelings. That's progress.
The debate on vouchers in our Senate District Caucus was fascinating. John Valentine is our senator and gave a great inside scoop. I had an interesting discussing with the State or County PTA President afterwards.
The good news is that I've finally come to a position I agree with on public/private education. Stay tuned...
I was extremely pleased to hear Stephen Sandstrom talk about immigration. He said, more or less, that his first year in the House taught him that immigrants are people too with desires, goals and feelings. That's progress.
The debate on vouchers in our Senate District Caucus was fascinating. John Valentine is our senator and gave a great inside scoop. I had an interesting discussing with the State or County PTA President afterwards.
The good news is that I've finally come to a position I agree with on public/private education. Stay tuned...
Ralph Nader at UVSC (for BYU, sort of)
I didn't attend the alternative commencement. I draw the line at one commencement a month. Even if the guy who gave Bush the presidency is speaking.
One of my colleagues did go and the comment I got from him was "you should have heard his ideas on health care." So it's just as well I didn't go.
It's interesting that the alternative event was far more political than the official one. Politicizing graduation was one of the original complaints with the Cheney invitation.
Unfortunately, news reports suggest that Nader did not follow Mike's first law of graduation speaking, which is, be short, be uplifting and sit down.
Serious kudos to the students who arranged it. It strengthens my hope in the future of our democracy.
One of my colleagues did go and the comment I got from him was "you should have heard his ideas on health care." So it's just as well I didn't go.
It's interesting that the alternative event was far more political than the official one. Politicizing graduation was one of the original complaints with the Cheney invitation.
Unfortunately, news reports suggest that Nader did not follow Mike's first law of graduation speaking, which is, be short, be uplifting and sit down.
Serious kudos to the students who arranged it. It strengthens my hope in the future of our democracy.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
VP Cheney at BYU
Being a BYU professor has very few perks. There is no annual bonus. The Christmas present is a book. Although I love the books, seriously, you aren't going to remodel the living room with a book. When I retire, I hope I have a collection of about 30 of them. I already had a copy of the book, it was an LDS triple combination, we got last year. The gift was bound in a very fancy Italian leather. I digress.
But today the perk was a short line to get in commencement and a second row seat. See blurry picture to the right.
Graduation today was excellent. Completely non-partisan. Even the 9 protesters at the gates of campus on my way home from the Marriott (3 pro 6 against) seemed silly and trite. It was a fine occasion. The VP seemed touched to get his honorary degree and I thought it was an appropriate gesture for a guy who's been in government service since 1976.
I hope the graduates all enjoyed the talk. The VP obeyed Mike's first law of graduation speaking. Which is: nobody really came to hear you talk. Keep it short and meaningful then sit down.
Satan?
[deseretnews.com | County GOP delegate links illegal immigration to Satan]
I got this resolution in the mail as part of my packet for the county convention on Saturday. I can't decide if I should stick around to vote against it or just let the lack of a quorum kill it naturally.
I got this resolution in the mail as part of my packet for the county convention on Saturday. I can't decide if I should stick around to vote against it or just let the lack of a quorum kill it naturally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
