. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
"It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall" "I heard ten thousand whisperin' and nobody listenin'" --From Bob Dylan's "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
What are we to make of Joe Stack's deliberately flying his plane at high speed into the Austin, Texas, offices of the IRS? (Photo credit: Alberto Martinez/Associated Press).
I think it was a predictable and inevitable act, and that there are more to come.
Because that sentence, and all that follow, will be emotionally laden for many, I want to make very clear at the outset what I am not saying.
(1) I am not advocating violence; I keep a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King on my office wall to remind me of his, and my, conviction that the non-violent path to social and political reform is not only more moral, it is also more effective.
(2) It is not my belief that Joe Stack was in any way "justified" in reacting as he did.
(3) I am not trivializing "terrorism." I recognize that (a) there is a difference between violent acts by Americans against Americans and (b) violent acts against Americans, here or abroad, by those of other countries. I believe what we tend to label as "terrorism" when it involves those from elsewhere is a real and serious threat that should be neither minimized nor trivialized.
So, with at least a few of the necessary qualifiers out of the way, here are some of my reactions to yesterday's events.
Predictable, inevitable, and replicable
The reason I think what Stack did was predictable is because I predicted it.
The reference to the "Golden Rule" was, of course, to the line that "she who has the gold makes the rules," leading into a discussion of the growing income disparity and its potential consequences.
I am not a conspiratorial theorist, nor am I charging that anyone truly desires to turn the United States into a third world country, in which the top 1% of super rich rule over a 90% in abject poverty. All I would observe is that what is happening -- as a result of what will be spelled out in this series -- is not that different from what would be happening if that were the goal of government officials and the ruling elite. . . .
I recall reading many years ago -- where it was I would have no way of recalling now -- that there is a rough mathematical formula for predicting the point at which a growing income disparity will ultimately produce a revolution.
No, I don't think we're yet there in the United States.
Some say that to think and speak this way is to foment "class warfare." Indeed, even Warren Buffett, of all people, has been questioned and criticized for pointing out that his secretary pays a larger percentage of her income to the IRS than Buffett does. But as I went on in that piece to quote Warren Buffett,
Those who refuse to acknowledge what's happening in America can charge those who do with being "elitist," or fomenting "class warfare." But that does little to assuage the anger of those on the losing side of this warfare.
And when that anger is permitted to seethe long enough the news from elsewhere can serve as a reminder of the limits that ultimately come to constrain the greed of oppressive governments and the super rich elite.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
You will recall that 234 years ago this year another American, indeed 56 signers, expressed if not identical, at least analogous anger:
[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the colonists] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
[Over two dozen examples are set forth.]
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
And for a commentary about today's "oppressions" of democracy, aired tonight on PBS, see "Justice for Sale,"Bill Moyers' Journal, PBS, February 19, 2010.
"Throughout his [Stack's] letter he repeated his disdain for "rich, incompetent cronies the government continued to bail out with 'HIS MONEY.' In a seven-page suicide letter left on his Web site, The Smoking Gun, Stack raged against the IRS, stating “I have had all I can stand.” . . . Near the end of his letter, he wrote, “Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” Shea Yarborough, "Pilot: 'I Have Had All I Can Stand,'"[University of] North Texas Daily, February 19, 2010, p. 1.
“I knew Joe had a hang-up with the I.R.S. on account of them breaking him, taking his savings away,” said Jack Cook, the stepfather of Mr. Stack’s wife . . .. “This is a shock to me that he would do something like this,” Mr. Cook said. “But you get your anger up, you do it.” Michael Brick, "Man Crashes Plane Into Texas IRS Office,"New York Times, February 19, 2010, p. A14.
When is domestic, criminal, violence and property destruction "terrorism"?
Words make a difference -- including the choice between "criminal acts" and "terrorism."
DHS officials explicitly warned against the potential emergence of terrorist groups or "lone wolf extremists" in a report issued in April. The report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," found that while no specific threat existed, there was the potential for violence from extremists concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increased federal power and restrictions on firearms.
Joe Stack is not the only American to engage in violence which, had it been done by a member of al Qaeda, would have been characterized as "terrorism."
Timothy McVeigh
The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995 when American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh, with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.Motivated by the federal government's handling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh's attack was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the Waco Siege.
In 1971, he [Kaczynski] moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he began to learn survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient. He decided to start a bombing campaign after watching the wilderness around his home being destroyed by development. From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23. Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised "to desist from terrorism" if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto. In his Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.
An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones [Iraq or Afghanistan according to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)] killed 13 people and wounded 30 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in central Texas, military officials said. . . . Fox News quoted a retired Army colonel, Terry Lee, as saying that Major Hasan, with whom he worked, had voiced hope that President Obama would pull American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, had argued with military colleagues who supported the wars and had tried to prevent his own deployment.
Now, not every angry American is going to fly a private plane into a government building. For starters, very few Americans have private planes. But as the President has observed, above, and as the Tea Party movement confirms, there are a lot of angry Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, third party members, and independents -- who are looking to do something, even if it's just to vote the incumbents out of office. See, "Tea Party Nation," and "National Tea Party Convention." It is inevitable that at least for an increasing number of them, that "something" will take the form of what Timothy McVeigh, Theodore Kaczinski and Nidal Malick Hasan did earlier, and Joe Stack did yesterday, February 18, 2010.
In one sense, it makes little difference how we define words like "criminal" and "terrorist." We can define words however we please, although effective communication will require some basic level of agreement regarding those definitions.
But in another sense we have much to learn from the definitions and their implications.
(1) Whatever we call it, we clearly have a significant risk of damage being done by Americans to Americans and their property. To the extent we wish to minimize such risks we cannot limit our concern to tracking those who come from abroad.
(2) The more Americans who feel oppressed, ignored, and abused by their government, the greater is the likelihood of such damage. This includes the transfer of taxpayers' money to some of the wealthiest Americans, the growing gap in wealth between the richest and the rest of us, and the increasing obscenity of the response of elected officials to campaign contributions, while ignoring constituents.
(3) What Kaczinski, McVeigh, Hasan and Stack have in common is that each felt it worthwhile to craft an explanation for their actions, and that each of their explanations involved complaints about the United States or other American governments and societal conditions. Those they killed were, almost exclusively, persons they did not personally know and with whom they had not interacted in any way. Their targets were symbols of the core of their complaints.
(4) Such attacks are, in this sense, distinguishable from those who kill a former lover or spouse, the member of another gang or competing drug ring, someone who gets in the way during a robbery, or one's fellow high school students or McDonald's employees. The actions of Kaczinski, McVeigh, Hasan and Stack were not actions that can be entirely explained by saying "they just snapped." There may have been some "final straw" that moved them to action, but there was clearly an anti-government anger driving them as well.
(5) What are we to make of those whose initial reaction to Joe Stack's attack was to reassure us that it was "criminal" and not "terrorism"? By contrast, questions have been raised about Hasan's attack on fellow members of the military as possibly "terrorism." Had Stack been Muslim, and had this Texan recently returned from Pakistan, would Homeland Security have been so quick to reassure us his actions were not "terrorism"? Blowing up buildings (McVeigh) or flying planes into them (Stack) have certainly qualified as "terrorism" on other occasions. Why not now? Do we have more sympathy for, do we more easily identify with, fellow Americans who engage in such violence than with those who come from abroad and do the same things?
(6) Whether football or foreign wars, the more you can understand about the thinking of your opponent the better. If it is easier for us to relate to those Americans whose anti-American government anger has prompted them to violent action, perhaps that can help us to understand how the anti-American government anger of al Qaeda and militant Taliban members abroad has motivated them to action. (As I've already said, I'm not justifying "terrorism" by either Americans or others, only that understanding what produces it may help us to fight it on both fronts.)
(7) There has recently been discussion regarding the propriety of prosecuting terrorists from abroad as "criminals" in federal courts, or "enemy combatants" in military tribunals. The identification of what Stark did as "criminal," notwithstanding the similarity of strategy to what was done on 9/11, may be relevant in this context as well.
(8) Finally, in thinking about our "war on terrorism," some have suggested that it might be more effective to conceptualize our challenge as less in the nature of traditional "war" (e.g., against a "nation," with uniformed military, and front lines) and as something more likely to be defeated if characterized as "criminal" in nature. The latter would suggest a police, diplomatic and intelligence approach -- along with development, removing the poverty and other causes, and "winning hearts and minds" -- as, indeed, many of our best generals have suggested.
Full Text of Joe Stack "Explanation"
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done. The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age. The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on. In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706. For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. (a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: (d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986. Note: • "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship. • "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop. • "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you. Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a s*** about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings. By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a f*** about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies. To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy f*** up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of s*** at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
January 9, 2008, 5:30 p.m.; January 10, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
Volvos and Violence
For years -- and probably well over 100,000 miles -- I drove a 1963 Volvo that had nearly 200,000 miles on it when I bought it from a friend for $300 in the 1970s.
The engine was fine and would be running still, but for the rust that caused my mechanic to finally refuse to continue work on it out of concern for my safety.
I sanded. I painted. It never helped much, and any superficial improvements quickly vanished.
Because the rust was not on the surface. It was from within.
Having served on the school board, I have sufficient confidence in the ICCSD administration and board to believe that they will acquire and apply, if not the most expensive, certainly an adequate variety of good quality duct tape and paint to the violence in our two conventional high schools, City and West: more and brighter lighting, video cameras, ID badges, and locks on the doors.
This is commendable. Besides they have to "do something" -- and what it looks like they are going to do is to take these conventional and widely advocated steps that are unlikely to generate much opposition, along with the possibility of armed guards, metal detectors, and locking up those students who misbehave.
But none of these approaches will do anything to even slow, let alone stop, the increasing internal "rust" in our conventional high schools that take the form of violence.
The fact is, we have deliberately created these rusting high schools. We knew what we were doing. We were told one of the consequences would be increased violence. Why did we do it anyway? For a lot of reasons -- including a desire to maintain a record of winning football teams.
And what is it I'm talking about?
I'm talking about the fact that, handed $40 million by taxpayers, the ICCSD Administration and Board decided to spend it to make our two conventional high schools even larger rather than build more, smaller high schools. The data is overwhelming that, as high schools increase in size above about 600 students there is a related increase not only in violence but in dropouts, absences, alcohol and drug abuse, bullying, graffiti, teen pregnancy, and other behavior we find disturbing -- not to mention, often, a decline in academic performance.
They are behaviors, not incidentally, involving and affecting all socio-economic classes.
It's not always true that "you get what you pay for" (as Consumer Reports has been pointing out for 70 years). But this is one instance in which it is. We paid $40 million, we increased the size of our high schools notwithstanding the warnings that we were buying increased levels of violence, and we got what we paid for.
But I do wish the Board and Administration would give more attention to building schools that won't rust from the inside, and less to the duct tape and paint.
Iowa City's reactions so far are normal and conventional: "What we need are police in the high schools, "zero-tolerance" policies, maybe metal detectors and video cameras in the halls -- but definitely a get-tough attitude."
My view is that such proposals only address symptoms, not underlying causes.
So, rather than reconstruct what I've already written (and probably not as well), I'm simply reprinting that blog entry from July 2007 and column from August 2001.
But not before sharing a quote from, and link to, an excellent article my research also uncovered. It reviews the literature regarding the impact of school size upon a whole range of qualities of education (and comes complete with dozens of citations to research and data). This small excerpt from that paper addresses only the relationship of school size to levels of violence:
Vandalism and violence are additional elements of the processes of schools. The level of violence in our schools was a public concern long before the 1998 Columbine High School shootings. A recent report of the Departments of Education and Justice (Kaufman, Chen, Choy, Ruddy, Miller, Fleury, Chandler, Rand, Klaus, & Planty, 2000) portrays the degree to which one can expect to see higher incidences of violence against both students and teachers as school size increases. Michael Klonsky, of the Small Schools Workshop, commented on the findings (2000) on the Workshop'’s national listserve:
According to the study, incidents of violence and crime increase dramatically in schools with 1,000 or more students as compared with those of 300 or less. In urban schools with less than 300 students, for example, 3.9% of the schools reported serious violent incidents compared with 32.9% of schools over 1,000 students. In other words, if we keep building big schools, we are increasing the chance of a Littleton [Columbine’s city]-type incident by nearly 10 times.
In short, we (school boards in general and Iowa City's in particular) have deliberately chosen to build, and to expand in size, high schools that we knew, or should have known, would be more violent. Now we are beginning to pay the price for those choices.
This became an issue when I was serving as a member of the ICCSD School Board. The Board was proposing a $40 million bond issue (ultimately passed). I tried to impress on all who would but listen the kinds of research and data that Tom Gregory amasses in his paper.
As high schools increase in size, so do absences and numbers of drop outs; alcohol and other drug abuse; graffiti and property damage; bullying, fights and violence; sexual harassment and teen pregnancy. Most studies also support one's intuition that smaller schools produce smarter students -- greater interest in learning and academic achievement as well as higher percentages of students participating in extra-curricular activities.
(The related, so-called "schools within schools" approach, which we're trying at West, tends to be much less effective than separate small schools.)
To me, it was a no-brainer: You need room for more high school students? Don't expand the size of schools that are already too large. Put your money into more, smaller high schools.
But "local control of schools" means that no school district is compelled to apply "best practices" in its schools. And Iowa City followed the lead of the vast majority of the nation's school districts that have ignored the experts' advice regarding the benefits of smaller high schools. The nostalgia of sending one's children to the high school one attended, the self interest of administrators and teachers, coupled with the passion for winning football teams has been too much for most boards (including ours) to overcome.
And so we are left with the two large and conventional high schools we've paid millions to expand (plus our smaller, more successful (by these standards) alternative high school, Tate) -- and a growing concern about the increasing levels of violence that have resulted, though to the surprise of no one who's read the literature.
All that follows, then, is from my earlier blog entry (which included the op ed column on the subject):
# # #
In School: There Are Alternatives to Calling the Police [July 2, 2007]
"The number of police calls to area schools has increased sharply in recent years, according to the Sixth Judicial District Juvenile Delinquency Annual Statistical Report.
The report, which includes Johnson County, shows that police responded to 563 complaints within the Iowa City School District."
The column that follows was published in 2001. My commentary about today's school news, and why I thought of this old column in that connection, follows the column.
Smaller Schools Are Better Nicholas Johnson Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Opinion," August 28, 2001, p. 9A (available online here)
What do these prestigious organizations have in common?
Annenberg Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Center for Collaborative Education, Center for School Change, Gates Foundation, Harvard’s Change Leadership Group, Open Society Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Smaller Learning Communities Program.
Give up?
Each believes smaller is better. Not smaller class sizes. Smaller high schools of 400 to 600 students each.
Many are willing to bet millions of dollars they’re right; $200 million from Gates alone. They have enough data to prove it that, says one, “it seems morally questionable not to act on it.”
In New York’s worst school district, an East Harlem secondary school is one of the city’s best. It graduates 90 percent. And it’s reduced violence without metal detectors. How?
Former Secretary of Education Richard Riley asked top security experts how to improve school safety. Question: Was their top recommendation metal detectors, more police in hallways, or video monitors? Answer: None of the above. It was smaller schools.
I graduated from University High School with 40 classmates in 1952. Then seven percent of high schools had over 1,000 students. Today two-thirds of all high school students attend such schools – including ours.
Smaller schools reduce students’ estrangement. They nurture a sense of belonging. And safety is only one of the benefits.
Smaller schools have better attendance rates, fewer dropouts, more academic achievement and extracurricular participation, more college-bound. Students feel closer bonds with teachers. Teachers with each other.
There are dozens of proposals for improving high schools. Even summaries require something closer to 650 volumes than 650 words. But smaller size is a good beginning.
John Carver says most school boards are incompetent groups of competent people along a continuum from micro-managing at one end to rubber-stamping at the other. All such boards can hope for is to do the wrong things better.
Competent and caring high school teachers confront a comparable dilemma. The system processes 150 students a day along a conveyor belt through their classrooms. They must function with a curriculum and classrooms designed to produce the assembly line workers of a bygone industrial age.
It is not teachers’ fault that, like board members, all they can hope for is to do the wrong things better.
They may be the best source of ideas on how to fix this system, but all the community’s stakeholders must have ownership. And decisions have to come from school boards and administrators.
Our superintendent, Lane Plugge, now chairs Iowa’s Urban Education Network. It’s just stepped up to the plate with a new book-length report titled Redefinition of High School – one of the 650 volumes anyone who cares about these issues ought to read.
The individual authors of its 12 chapters each focus on an issue. Waterloo’s superintendent, Arlis Swartzendruber, cites our school board’s contribution to concepts of board governance. Our own Pam Ehly and Bill Dutton propose “instructional strategies” that if read, understood and implemented would solve many high schools’ problems.
Many chapters note the value of smaller schools.
We’re not about to tear down City and West High and build eight new high schools of 400 each. So how can we gain similar benefits? It’s called “schools within schools.” Four teams of teachers in each. Four “schools” of students with their own portion of a building.
Athletic and music groups continue to draw from all four. Theaters and cafeterias are shared. It’s a best-of-all-possible-worlds win-win. Shared facilities and administration mean lower costs. Smaller schools produce better relationships and climate – and more learning.
Dr. Plugge has thrown an added starter into the board’s consideration of boundaries and educational opportunities: a redefinition, and possible physical redesign, of our high schools.
Architects need to know if clients want a cathedral or a tractor barn. So we’ve begun the process of redefinition.
Now every district stakeholder needs to participate in planning what will, hopefully, include the benefit of smaller schools. _______________
Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site www.nicholasjohnson.org.
# # #
The Answer is Blowing in the Cyberspace As the organizations cited in this column have concluded, the data is pretty convincing -- and support one's natural intuition -- that as high school size increases above an optimum (around 650 students) there is an increase in bullying, vandalism, teen pregnancy, graffiti, fights, alcohol and drug abuse, absenteeism and dropouts. It only makes sense.
Is manageable size a cure-all? Of course not. But it stands to reason that where a student is known by name by teachers and classmates alike, where adult mentoring becomes logistically possible, where everyone can participate in student activities (rather than just an athletically or musically gifted elite), that social constraints, rather than the presence of police officers, can be a major factor in controlling behavior.
As any regular reader of this blog knows, I'm a big fan of the Internet. It provides public access to orders of magnitude more material than most towns' public libraries can offer their patrons (in hard copy). It permits much more flexible and through searching than hard copy reference works. And it retrieves the material at orders of magnitude faster speeds.
Are there drawbacks? Of course. We don't do a very good job of training students (or ourselves) in effective Google searching techniques, so Internet research experiences are sometimes more frustrating and less fruitful than they could be. And just as everything in hard copy books needs to be verified and confirmed, so sorting through the Internet's content -- open as it is to submissions by anyone -- requires even greater sophistication by users.
During the three years I served on the local school board I wrote a column every two weeks for the Press-Citizen. The column above is one of them. (Links to the full collection can be found here.) Although I had first hand knowledge as a student in the University of Iowa's experimental schools (University Elementary and University High School in a building now called "North Hall") I never attended a College of Education. So I spent a lot of time surfing the Internet while looking for ideas for the columns.
And what I discovered was a variation on Ralph Nader's observation that, "This country has more problems than it deserves and more solutions than it applies." I finally concluded that, with 15,000 school districts in this country, it was likely that there was no problem confronting any given one of them that had not formerly been confronted by another school district (1) identified, (2) addressed, (3) resolved, and (4) written up and made available on the Internet.
When we were considering the $40 million bond issue I noted that the need for that money and additional buildings (at that time) could have been avoided by applying the concept of "cluster schools" for our elementary schools. (Such an approach would also have eliminated, or radically reduced, the problem of disparity in class size.) Had we followed the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year for our high schools we could have instantaneously eliminated all of their "overcrowding" and any need for expansion. I noted at the same time the advantages, if additional high school space was to be created anyway, of building high schools for 650 rather than expanding the populations in the two conventional high schools we had. (Tate was deliberately designed for fewer students.)
With "local control of schools" school administrators, parents and taxpayers have the legal and political right to ignore such advice. If they are willing to pay $40 million for the privilege -- and the result is not otherwise criminal or illegal -- they can do whatever they want with their money. And I support local control of schools -- even when it results in plans and policies more driven by their impact on our competitive athletic teams' records than the entire student body's academic records. That's the stakeholders' right.
But there are consequences to those decisions that go well beyond their financial costs.
And our district's school board and administration now confront many comparable decisions as they are coming into the millions of additional dollars to be provided by our local 20% hike in sales taxes.
Prevention is almost always cheaper and more satisfactory than treatment.
Call the cops if you must.
But it seems to me that once you've let things get to the point that you need an Iraq-like surge of additional police in your school it's already too late. You've already lost that battle.
I'm reminded of a story told about a corporate CEO years ago -- it may have been Alfred Sloan at General Motors. After a brief discussion with a group of his vice presidents regarding a major challenge confronting the company he said, "Well, gentlemen, I see we're all in agreement. That probably means we don't understand the problem. I suggest we think about it some more and meet again in a couple of weeks."
In this case, the Regents are going to meet again in a month.
It's the Mission of Higher Education -- Not the Naming of Buildings
The Regents seem to recognize that the "building naming" issue goes far beyond the mere matter of turning Regents' campus buildings into one of the best advertising buys available to for-profit businesses anywhere, the gift that goes on giving forever: billboards for corporations that will last as long as a building stands.
The Regents are face-to-face with an issue no less significant than the proper role of higher education today in general, and for the Regents' universities in Iowa in particular.
Once the province of religion, with a primary purpose of training ministers, these colleges were followed by land grant universities envisioned to (among other things) assist the agricultural industry.
Once institutions enabling the perpetuation of the socio-economic status of America's elite families, they were expanded to offer opportunity for all -- though still funded by the state, and as close to "free" as possible for students (a goal continued with the GI-Bill following World War II).
Today state funding provides only a small fraction of the cost of running "public universities" that are, in almost every way, the full equivalent of "private universities" -- including the student loan debt that further enriches banks, and impoverishes students, once they graduate (if they do). Once seen as a means to enrich the qualify of one's life over a lifetime other than in a monetary way -- with a greater appreciation of art, music, literature, languages, and a fuller understanding of nature and the products of science that fill our lives -- today a university education is increasingly pursued as (because, in part, it has been advertised as) a way to increase one's income over the course of a lifetime.
Increasingly, higher education is coming to be "corporatized."
Buildings that used to bear the names of ancient scholars now bear the names of donors -- as do faculty and auditorium "chairs," rooms, wings, and even entire colleges.
Facilities are provided for start-up corporations.
Faculty are expected to raise their own salaries from grants -- often, in effect, utilizing university resources and their own talents to increase the bottom line of for-profit corporations, doing research at bargain-basement rates that, but for the lack of state funding, they might not choose to be doing at all.
Universities contribute to the creation of an economy and society in which our very best artists (writers, musicians, graphic artists) are producing the advertising that manipulates consumer demand, and our very best scientists and engineers are paid from defense appropriations to create ever-more-efficient deadly weapons of war.
As I've pointed out in discussing these issues earlier, the primary problem (if such it be) comes from a university's solicitation and acceptance of the money in the first place. Putting the name on the building merely advertises to the world that we're for sale. But what we sold was sold when we took the money -- "with no strings attached."
So that's the issue confronting the Regents -- an issue in which the "naming controversy" is well buried within a substantial pile of more fundamental concerns.
I have my preferences, obviously, but my primary concern is the elimination of hypocrisy.
If our primary role in the 21st Century is to be an "economic engine," if we are simply recognizing our relationship as that of a "subsidiary corporation" in a world that is little more than the Fortune 500, so be it. Let's declare that's the case and do the best possible job we can of pursuing that path, and making those contributions.
Not incidentally, if that's what we decide we are, the controversy surrounding the naming of buildings for our corporate partners and masters thereby becomes a trivial issue to be quickly resolved.
But it's unseemly, in my view, to pretend and advertise that we're here for the students, that we're trying to enrich their lives, that we're committed to the pursuit of a "liberal arts and sciences education," when that's not the case. That's all.
I'd rather we first figure out, and then just declare, what we truly are -- and then start much more aggressively "haggling over price." It's Not About Guns
As for more academic armaments on campus, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker: "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."
In our case, "whatever is the security issue, weapons are not the answer."
The Regents are also entitled to some praise for wanting to give this one a little more time and investigation as well.
The matter is highlighted by this morning's Press-Citizen.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoons always put the matter most suscinctly, but there is also an excellent column on the editorial page. David Morris, "Guns Aren't Safe Solution,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 20, 2007, p. A7.
What's the greatest security concern on the campus at the moment? The fact that the Iowa City police -- armed or unarmed -- have so far (despite their best efforts) been unable to bring a halt to what is now a string of 30 women assaulted on the streets of Iowa City at night.
There are a number of lessons here.
1. As someone commented in an earlier blog here, the primary risk to the security of students occurs on the streets of Iowa City, not the campus of the University.
2. This, in turn, opens a can of worms about the relationship between the campus police and the Iowa City police. One of the arguments offered by proponents of arming the campus police is that they are responsible for patrolling many areas of Iowa City besides the campus, and that they are sometimes called upon by the Iowa City police to help out. Who made those decisions and why?
3. Thankfully, if I've read all the newspaper reports correctly, every woman attacked was able to defend herself and send the attacker running. Thus, it would seem that (a) this is a matter for the Iowa City police, not the campus police, (b) they are armed, (c) but being armed would not seem to be necessary in this instance, and (d) in any event, armed or unarmed, they have been unable to find and arrest the attacker or protect the women.
4. Thus, as Bob Patton illustrates, and I've discussed at length in other blog entries here (see, e.g., "Politics and Psychology," linked below), arming the campus police is little more than an irrelevant "security blanket," a decision being made at the wrong time (a response to Virginia Tech) for the wrong reasons, that (like our invasion of Iraq) is as likely to decrease rather than increase our security.
As Regent Rose Vasquez observed, under any rational benefit-cost analysis one has to acknowledge that arming campus police has the usual equation backwards: there are virtually no benefits to arming campus police (in saved injury and death of students), while on the other hand there are risks of significant cost (in lost lives). So why are we doing this? My best analysis remains Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
[As Radio Iowa reports:
Rose Vasquez of Des Moines says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
This week the Regents seemed to be 7-to-1 in favor of more weapons on campus, but they were unanimous that "campus security" was a much bigger and more complex issue than merely supplying more guns.
Even as to the guns, as I noted earlier,
"the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
Finally, I put to the students once again . . .
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police and national guard soldiers to protect their campuses from whatever the administrators may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from the evening of September 17, demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of merely exercising his First Amendment right in asking former John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to physical violence and the threat (or actual use) of a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
Not incidentally, why did this story -- which received widespread national distribution and has been all over the blogosphere, and is certainly related to the current campus BIG STORIES receive nary a mention in the Press-Citizen? (The Gazette at least carried the AP story, with a picture of Meyer. Associated Press, "University of Florida investigating police Tasering of student at forum,"The Gazette, September 19, 2007, p. A5.)
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results can be both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the deadly weapons necessary to control unruly students.
September 18, 2007, 11:45 a.m., 7:30 p.m. -- Additions (bottom of page) of video of campus police Taser incident Sept. 17 and Kent State Massacre in 1970!!
TIFs, Tiffs, and Sullivan
Rod Sullivan for Supervisor
Every once in awhile a public official comes along who is so outstanding in every way that it is hard for citizen-taxpayers to even fully understand, let alone appreciate, what they have.
Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan is such an official.
Name a positive adjective and it fits: bright, courageous, hard working, creative, leadership, compassionate, friendly, articulate, thoughtful, giving . . . the list is endless.
And there are two reasons why I mention that today. One is that he's just announced his campaign for re-election to a second term on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Kathryn Fiegen, "Sullivan decides to seek another term,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A3.
The other is an item in his weekly "Sullivan's Salvos," Monday's edition. (It's available to you, as a free email if you're not already a subscriber: Just email rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.) Not incidentally, while we're raving about Sullivan, this is in my opinion the single most useful of all the e-zines and email services maintained by any public official.
Not only does it keep you up to date on what Johnson County (and other counties) are doing, it contains personal items, and other informational pieces as well.
Wellmark Joins Doctors, singing: "Taxpayers, can you spare a dime?"
For example, yesterday's edition of "Sullivan's Salvos" contained the following:
A GREAT book for anyone who might be interested is The Great American Jobs Scam by Greg LeRoy. Are you tired of hearing about governments giving our tax dollars to big corporations so they can "retain jobs"? Me, too.
LeRoy debunks several common myths, such as "Company X would have left the community but for these incentives." LeRoy writes at length about the myths of TIF, Enterprise Zones, and many other common economic development tools used by municipalities in the name of growth.
The book offers important suggestions to the tax code that State lawmakers can use to protect our interests, such as combined reporting. This book also notes the work of UI Professors Peter Fisher and Alan Peters.
I urge everyone to read this book, then ask your state and local elected officials to read it as well. It is available at local libraries.
And speaking of TIFs, the Press-Citizen offered a well-written and balanced assessment of the proposed $600,000 subsidy for doctors on this morning's editorial page: Editorial, "TIF is the Wrong Prescription for Surgery Center,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007, p. A11. (Why "balanced"? Because the paper sets forth the reasons for supporting the hand-out offered by the "Iowa City economic development staff . . . [because of the ] cumulative effect of a number of smaller reasons . . .." And the editorial repeats, "We've always asserted that [TIFs] can be a good tool when used effectively." My position has increasingly become that there is no worthwhile, benefit-cost-risk-justified basis for arguing their "effective" use in any circumstances.)
Want another example of outrageous corporate subsidies?
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield will build a new $175 million headquarters in downtown Des Moines . . ..
Des Moines will provide a number of incentives . . .. [Des Moines] City Manager Rick Clark . . . declined to put a dollar amount on the incentives . . . , but [Wellmark Group Vice President Cliff] Gold said the combination of state and local incentives is more than $10 million.
. . .
The city's incentives will be in four areas, Clark said.
- The city will shoulder the burden of straightening out High Street to provide a little more room for the project.
- Eventually, the city will help extend the downtown skywalk to the building. That may take some time because the nearest connection now is at Ninth Street and Grand Avenue.
- Some type of mass transit encouragement for Wellmark employees to take the bus will be included.
- Tax increment financing will be use to rebate some property tax money to Wellmark. Clark declined to say how much TIF money might be involved.
Among other things, he said, TIF money will be used to make the new building LEED certified, a designation for buildings that are energy-efficient and use environmentally friendly building technology.
The city could also use TIF money to pay some of the cost of removing chemicals from the property now occupied by a dry cleaner.
The city will work with businesses located in the area to find new locations within the city, Clark said. City officials also helped negotiate the sale of parcels of land on the building site not owned by Iowa Health Systems.
. . .
Wellmark has more modest growth plans - perhaps as many as 100 new employees in the next few years, according to Gold. . . .
Advantages to a downtown site include a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district, Gold said. . . .
Gold said that Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it.
"We don't think we'll need to borrow," he said.
Note the following:
(1) At best, these corporate subsidies accomplished no more than shifting a building from West Des Moines to downtown Des Moines -- a classic example of intra-Iowa (in this case intra-city!) competition producing no benefit whatsoever for Iowa's taxpayers.
(2) Claims of significant new job creation are often inflated or downright bogus. In this case they were virtually non-existent with a "modest growth" possibility of 100 low wage jobs -- "perhaps."
(3) The real reasons for this corporate decision, as is almost always the case, involved factors other than bribery with taxpayers' money -- as the company's executives revealed they wanted the downtown location because of "a central location, access to transportation and sticking to a 68-year history with the central business district."
(4) Moreover, they didn't need the money. In addition to the fact that they earlier had enough spare pocket change to invest in a 66-acre urban plot they ended up not using, as Wellmark's Executive Vice President Gold put it, "Wellmark has adequate resources to pay for constructing the building and equipping it" and "We don't think we'll need to borrow." Not only does it not sound like low income housing (one of TIFs' original purposes) it doesn't even sound like a gold-plated corporate tin cup in need of additional funds from the taxpayers.
And speaking of Wellmark buildings . . .
. . . UI President Sally Mason would prefer not to have a policy on building naming.
The Regents decided to postpone coming up with a naming policy, but Mason is quoted as saying, "I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis."
Sounds like we may be in for weapons in the hands of campus police AND corporate names on UI's building -- "on a case-by-case basis," of course.
Erin Jordan, "Regents Seek New Naming Policy,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 9:34 a.m. ("New U of I president Sally Mason said last week that the Regents and the universities should remain flexible on the issue. 'I would prefer our hands not be tied and we look at it on a case-by-case basis,' Mason told Des Moines Register editors and reporters Friday.")
Senator Joins Fruitless Call for Research and Balance on Campus Weapons Issue
Since the Regents are also looking at providing their campus police officers with deadly weapons I thought I might add today that four days ago I wrote, "the evidence [regarding weapon-toting campus police] was, at best, equally divided as to whether arming campus police would make the UI community safer or more dangerous. The discussion of the issue was not driven by academic inquiry, data -- or even a traditional debate format -- with spokespersons putting forward their best case. It was permitted to be driven by those who advocated bringing more guns onto the campus." Nicholas Johnson, "On Point, Politics, Psychology, Police and Public Relations" in "Politics and Psychology," September 14, 2007.
This morning we read that a much more authoritative -- but probably no more persuasive -- source is making similar suggestions: "In a Sept. 10 letter addressed to Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy and later sent to the nine members of the Iowa state Board of Regents, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said the report lacked data-driven analysis, trends in campus crime, assessment of risks and an analysis of possible effects of such a change." Brian Morelli, "Senator questions security report; Quirmbach: Recommendations lack thoroughness, objectivity,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2007.
Given Governor Chet Culver's last minute jump on the well-armed bandwagon (because of Virginia Tech), my "Politics and Psychology" analysis of this groundswell seems more and more correct with every passing day. Associated Press, "Culver Favors Arming Campus Police,"Des Moines Register, September 18, 2007, 10:48 a.m. ("He [Governor Culver] says the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus in April highlights the need for serious consideration of security on college campuses.")
To no one's surprise, the Regents have now come down with a "firm, possible maybe" on the issue:
The Iowa Board of Regents delayed a final decision to arm campus police for at least a month. The board unanimously approved a motion to develop a comprehensive safety and security plan for Iowa's three public universities. That plan would be approved at a future meeting. The board then voted 7-1 to allow a provision as part of that policy allowing campus police officers to carry firearms in the regular course of duties. Before Regent Michael Gartner voted on the second motion, he clarified that the decision to arm police could still be reversed with a future vote on the comprehensive safety plan.
Regent Ruth Harkin of Cumming says there are many other issues that go into a secure campus, and it's difficult to single out arming campus police. "I just wouldn't want to give the impression that we think we have responded to the security call by voting on a firearms policy," Harkin says. The board asked its staff to develop a comprehensive security plan that would include arming campus officers.
The only Regent to voice opposition to the idea - Rose Vasquez of Des Moines - says the issue shouldn't be bundled into a larger plan. Vasquez says she's ready to vote on arming officers, saying she's opposed to arming the officers and it won't have anything to do with not beefing up security measures. Vasquez says even after hearing from the directors of the three public safety departments about the threats that face campus police, she did not favor arming the officers.
Vasquez says, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."
Think, Students: Do you Really Want More Weapons on Campus?
Students can be a real source of trouble for university administrators.
Sometimes it can be because of what the students do. Other times because of what they say -- or think -- the signs they carry, or the sit-ins they organize.
So while I've never had any difficulty understanding why university administrators would want more, and better armed, police to protect whatever they may find threatening at any given moment, I'm really bewildered as to why students would want more fully armed "authority" with which to deal.
Here's why.
Witness this event from last evening (September 17), demonstrating how the campus police at Florida University, Gainesville, made students "safer" on that campus when one was in the process of asking former Senator John Kerry a question:
That student in the video, Andrew Meyer, can be grateful that his campus police chose to limit the pain they inflicted to a taser. Based on his screams, however, it sounded like they were pushing tasers to their limits.
When guns are brought onto a campus to control students the results are both painful and deadly. In the case of the Kent State Massacre, where armed national guard troops were used, the results were four dead students and nine injured from gunshot wounds.
For those students not old enough to have lived through the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, you might want to review the video below. Because it starts with President Nixon's speech, just substitute "President George W. Bush" for "President Richard Nixon," "Iraq" for "Vietnam," and "Iran" for "Cambodia" to bring it up to date and make it easier to relate to.
Here's another take on those events, from "Democracy Now."
You can't imagine how much safer I feel, knowing that soon the UI will also have access to the weapons necessary to control unruly students.
The Gazette has a Monday morning editorial feature it calls "Homers" and "Gomers" -- Gazette speak for "what's going right" and "what's going wrong." Yesterday it awarded a "Homer" to UI's new President Sally Mason:
VOICE OF REASON: Less than two weeks on the job, new University of Iowa President Sally Mason already has brought a calming demeanor to contentious campus issues.
She’s urging thorough, thoughtful discourse regarding a particularly emotional debate about corporate naming of colleges or departments. This is about Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s offer of $15 million from its foundation in return for renaming the College of Public Health after Wellmark. Mason said discussion at next month’s Board of Regents meeting must clarify when corporate naming is appropriate and when it’s not.
Meanwhile, she rightly reminds that universities should not accept naming gifts from companies if there is an expectation of equivalent value in return. She’s also not about to fire the College of Public Health dean, as a prominent donor called for after the dean raised legitimate concerns about the Wellmark offer. Good to have you here, Mason.
Everyone -- except perhaps my beloved, and otherwise all-knowing colleague Arthur Bonfield -- knows that the big news last week was Barry Bonds 756th career home run, a feat (however achieved) that surpassed the former record of Hank Aaron.
But who knows what the "Homer" record is for UI presidents, and who holds it? When Sally Mason's swinging for the bleachers in the bottom of the ninth from time to time, what's the record she's trying to beat?
How about it, Gazette? "Inquiring minds want to know." How many "Homers" were her predecessors awarded?
Failing to Learn from our Mistakes
The evidence is continuing to mount that those getting the big bucks in our country aren't earning their pay.
The top one-half of one percent of the American people are given one-half of all the income. Why? Because, as the commercial used to put it, "They get it the old fashioned way; they earn it." They're smarter and more far-seeing than the rest of us, wiser and more experienced, deserving of being paid some 450-times more income than their employees.
Whenever I encounter a service person who's not performing up to what I'd hope for, I don't blame them, I blame their boss -- and that boss's boss. They are the ones who do the hiring, the training, decide who fits best in which jobs, set the standards and institutional values, the pay scales and benefits, impose quality control and safety standards, provide the preventive maintenance routines, and so forth.
I've written at length in this blog and elsewhere about board (and CEO) "governance," the value of the really tough task of thinking through "ends policies, and then tracking them with management information reporting systems.
Really competent management isn't in the business of responding to lost horses by manufacturing locks for swinging barn doors. It doesn't take a Virginia Tech shooting to get them thinking about campus safety. If you start thinking about "ends policies" for a university, student safety is going to enter the discussion fairly early on, I'd think. (In point of fact, it has for Iowa's universities -- the Regents, presidents, and responsible administrators had protections and procedures in place long before Virginia Tech -- procedures professionally followed in yesterday's threat.)
It's one thing not to do your highly-paid job when it comes to anticipating possible problems -- and opportunities -- in advance, and then doing something about them before it's too late. That's a skill worth paying for (even if not as much as we do pay).
But what can you say about someone who knows to a certainty, from prior disasters, what the problems are going to be -- and then does nothing?
Consider the recent news:
* Six coal miners in Utah -- the latest in a series of coal mine disasters befalling profit-maximizing, safety-minimizing coal mine companies -- are trapped (and likely dead) in the very spot in that mine that had already collapsed before!
* The I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis, killing perhaps as many as a dozen unsuspecting motorists, was known for over ten years to be defective in some particulars.
* The lives of seven astronauts on board the shuttle Endeavor are now at risk because of what may have been significant heat shield tile damage at lift-off. This is the same kind of problem that caused the deaths of the seven astronauts traveling in the Columbia in 2003. Other shuttles have had similar damage for similar reasons. (Bear in mind, the damage apparently leaves a layer of felt to protect the occupants from surface temperatures in the range of 2000 to 3000 degrees on re-entry.)
Note that none of these problems involve any legitimate element of surprise. They are not the result of having overlooked a detail despite the best efforts of bright, resourceful, administrators engaged in hours and hours of "what-if" scenarios, planning and the creation of "ends policies."
Nor is any the result of a low-level employee violating procedures in spite of management's best efforts to monitor performance.
No, they are the result of the negligent leadership by very highly paid executives who either don't even have the ability to learn from their own obvious, and literally fatal, prior mistakes -- or who simply don't care -- and who are then rewarded with embarrassingly large pay packages anyway.
"When will we ever learn?"
Arming Campus Police
Golly, if only the UI campus police carried guns we wouldn't have pipe bomb threats.
Really?
Yesterday's police blowing up of what turned out to be a perfectly benign student backpack is but one more example of the ineffectiveness of arming campus police. To have them carrying guns may increase feelings of security on the part of the university community in general -- and those police officers in particular. But it is unlikely to be an effective preventative for many (if any) of the threats to campus security we are likely to confront from pipe bomb threats to tornados -- or even shootings.
None of which is to detract from the campus police's judgment call on this occasion. Any bomb threat has to be taken seriously, even though many will prove to be a hoax. They responded promptly, in a measured way, found an unattended backpack, minimized risk to themselves and others, and destroyed it. I'm not sure what better response there could have been.
Still to come: Can UI's IT folks track down who sent the email and from where? Was the backpack left where it was because it was forgotten by its owner? Or was it left there to produce the response it did?
Finally, if this backpack was as smelly and dusty as reported -- and presumably had been there long enough to produce those conditions -- is that perhaps a clue that we need to have in place (like the airports) a little more attentive focus on "unattended baggage"? A policy like that holds a lot less risk to campus safety than putting guns in the hands of anyone.
What are we to make of Joe Stack's deliberately flying his plane at high speed into the Austin, Texas, offices of the IRS? (Photo credit: Alberto Martinez/Associated Press).
