Was [PLUG-TALK] I don't like a certain change on plug...

[Darkhorse]

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:46, Russ Johnson wrote:
> Darkhorse wrote:
> 
> >I am curious if administrators are paid the
> >lion's share with teachers coming in a distant second.
> >
> Are these details available in the public copy of the budget?
> 
> >As far as
> >tunnel vision for teachers, I'm thinking initiatives to depoliticize
> >the schools while not stepping on people's religious rights would
> >make a lot of sense.
> >
> You do realize those two are mutually exclusive, don't you?

Are they?  Believe it or not, the visible politics at many
educational institutions are strongly biased.  We don't need gay pride
days in schools for example where we step on people who consider
marriage something reserved for a man and a woman.  It's a minority
that's pushes gay pride days, with the passage of measure 36 the public
said quite clearly it has concerns there might be a radical homosexual
agenda in the state.  

On a seperate issue,
Why are there anti Bush posters at PCC that tout five day work week,
etc. etc. etc. union union union, while saying that Bush and the
Republicans are the enemies of this progress?  Take that stuff down or
pressure the people who put it up to be more balanced, that may improve
PCC's one sided political image considerably.  These posters 
are not fair to people who aren't democrats and they ignore 
other sides of the story to a fault. 

> Sorta like knowing everything that will happen, and freedom of choice. 
> You can't have it both ways.

A large degree of freedom can be allowed.  The political leanings of
individual people in our public schools don't have to get in the
way of educating.  There are such things as political honesty, fairness,
and civility.  This country has never aspired to true anarchy, such a
state of affairs never lasts very long when it does arise.

What concerns me is the forming of these community groups that get all
kinds of power not only over educational issues, but also over other
issues as well.  An example is this 50% homosexual counsel that set
anti discrimation policies in Beaverton.  Was discrimination banned,
or was a progressive agenda forwarded?  I imagine that counsel considers
Measure 36 discriminatory much like Tom Potter and Jim Francesconi.
If this famous counsel had a better cross section of people in it,
I wonder if it's so called anti discrimination measure would have ever
passed?  It's not national politics that are scary in Oregon, it's the
local politics.  Portland as a whole does not appear to be coming to
grips with the widening political divide in the state.  There seems
to be a political attitude among Portland democrats of, "we own Portland
and we own Oregon."  It was sure displayed at Wu's party recently and
also by the governor's communications manager when he was elected.
There isn't respect for non democrats like there should be and it
stinks.  I don't even have to talk about religion.

The problem in Oregon is the power of some of these miniature governing
bodies such as metro and even smaller community based groups that are
established in a seriously biased and flawed manner.  I think 37 was
bad law, but it passed because people are angry about being abused by
these small governmental bodies.  Who condemns your property?  Metro.

Who tries to tell you that you have to insure an openly homosexual
couple the way you would a married heterosexual one?  Multnomah county
commissioners or a community group in Beaverton.  Who says children
should be taught that's it normal to have two mothers or two fathers?
Is this something the people of Oregon mandated, or is it a local
interest group that doesn't care what community let alone what
statewide values are?  The answer is interest groups.  Interest
groups can harm both schools and communities if they aren't kept
in check.  The democrats won't do it, I'd say that the democrats in
this state are a large part of the problem.