KGO radio host Gene Burns said something like ...
if a guy grabs a woman's
breast while passing by her in a hallway,
she should be glad. It's a compliment!
He said this 3 or 4 times that night.

The latest news is here from Nov 14.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/122026.shtml
The lawyer says that it's a slam dunk case.
I agree.
Schwazenegger is not going to pay out of our tax
money, is he?
So the pig harasses this woman, and when
she tried to complain, the pig broadcasts
on TV and newspapers that she's a prostitute with
multiple felony arrests (completely false).

Let's say she lost $50,000 due to lost work
from the pig's lies.

The latest news is here from Nov 14.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/122026.shtml
The lawyer says that it's a slam dunk case.
I agree.
Schwazenegger is not going to pay out of our tax
money, is he?

So the pig harasses this woman, and when
she tried to complain, the pig broadcasts
on TV and newspapers that she's a prostitute with
multiple felony arrests (completely false).
Let's say she lost $50,000 due to lost work
from the pig's lies.
How much is she going to get from the pig?
3 or 4 times that amount?
________________________
Rhonda Miller is the stunt woman who came forward in a
press conference
and accused Arnold of Groping her during the making of
True Lies and
Terminator 2.
Within two hours of the press conference, Sean Walsh,
the spokesman for
Arnold's campaign, emailed a memo to media outlets
directing them to
type in the name "Rhonda Miller" in a criminal records
database (the URL
link provided by Walsh) to see "the truth about her".
The search turned up multiple arrests for prostitution
and drug crimes.
The press and right wing radio jumped all over the
information branding
Miller a felonious liar.
The only problem is that the "Rhonda Miller" Walsh
pointed to is not the
same woman who made the allegation. This Rhonda Miller
has never been in
trouble with the poilce.
It would be a week after the election before the real
story became known
and it hasn't received a fraction of the coverage as
Ms. Miller's
"record". When contacted, Walsh said, that it wasn't
"his job" to verify
the identity of the woman with the actual criminal
record and that he
and the campaign hadn't done anything wrong. He
refuses to apologize.
In the meantime, Ms. Miller has been blackballed and
branded a liar and
hooker without retraction in the national media.
__________________________
From: Felix Oscar (tree01@inreach.com)
I didn't like what Gene [Burns] said
about groping women.
He said it's a
"compliment" - that's just dumb, Gene!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
Not the same question at all. The state could possibly be liable
for a state officer's financial obligations whether or not the officer
draws a salary, or beyond the salary.

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
Indeed; but nevertheless completely independent of whether or not
he draws a salary, which was the assertion I was refuting.

Merlin Dorfman (dorfman@rahul.net) wrote:
Besides, who knows what he's done in the week he's been in
office :-)

The latest news is here from Nov 14.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/122026.shtml
The lawyer says that it's a slam dunk case.
I agree.
Schwazenegger is not going to pay out of our tax
money, is he?
So the pig harasses this woman, and when
she tried to complain, the pig broadcasts
on TV and newspapers that she's a prostitute with
multiple felony arrests (completely false).

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
Of course that's another $5 billion a year (plus interest)
that has to go on the March bond issue, but "pay me now or pay me
later."

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
...
"Deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be."
The fact is for the immediate future the money has to come from
somewhere.

Without more data, that's meaningless. Was this a largely rural
district with huge transportation expenses?

Many
non-English-speakers?

Any other factor causing high expenses that
don't directly affect schooling?

Also graduation rate may not be a
good measure; maybe all the other districts were graduating
illiterates and this district insists on competence.

And how did that happen? Did they fire senior teachers and
hire younger, more enthusiastic ones at lower salaries? Did they
bring in many parent volunteers? Surely there is no direct
correlation beetween cutting the budget and increasing graduation
rates. Or maybe they just started graduating everybody regardless of
competence :-)

If your increased expenses are work-related (home telephone for
business calls, gasoline for business travel, etc.), it is perfectly
reasonable to expect your employer to pay you for them.

Other than
that, the analogy is false; a good analogy would be that the school
budget need not be raised to pay for the personal expenses of school
employees.

All government is inefficient; "fat" if you will. That is
inherent, and it is why we should not ask government to do more than
is necessary.

History shows that the inefficiency cannot be reduced,
at least not much or for very long. It is futile to say that we can
get more for the same amount of money by spending more wisely.

can get less by deciding what not to do.

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
Instead of pouring more money into the vast expanses of our state
government, I would prefer for everyone that is supposed to be
responsible for it be held accountable for their spending.
"Deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be."
The fact is for the immediate future the money has to come from
somewhere.
Indeed. And as Arnold is finding out now, you can absolutely
gut programs like those for seniors, the disabled, low-income
children, and immigrants, and for transit, and all it saves is
$2 billion; less than half what was lost by rescinding the end of
the reduction in car taxes. The vast majority of the budget is
mandated by law or the constitution...including mandates of money
for after-school sports programs per an initiative supported a
couple of years ago by some foreign-born movie star/body builder...
and, assuming that cutting those expenses is desirable, it will
take time and legislation and/or initiatives to terminate them.

...
More money wasn't going to help them. As a matter of fact, they
didn't start increasing the graduating rates until they started
spending less money.
And how did that happen? Did they fire senior teachers and
hire younger, more enthusiastic ones at lower salaries? Did they
bring in many parent volunteers? Surely there is no direct
correlation beetween cutting the budget and increasing graduation
rates. Or maybe they just started graduating everybody regardless of
competence :-)
Excellent idea. I recommend that all citizens get involved
with their local school boards, attend meetings, run for office, and
in general work for improved quality and lower costs.

And in the 90%
of districts where that doesn't happen...do you propose to punish
them by cutting their funding to what you (with no knowledge of the
specific issues and problems of those districts) think they should be
able to get along with?

I don't question that at all.

It's how it is spent, not how much. If I need more money because
my expenses were raised, I would not expect my employer to pay me
more because I need it.
If your increased expenses are work-related (home telephone for
business calls, gasoline for business travel, etc.), it is perfectly
reasonable to expect your employer to pay you for them.
OK, taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill for the
personal expenses of school employees.
Other than
that, the analogy is false; a good analogy would be that the school
budget need not be raised to pay for the personal expenses of school
employees.
Are you talking about a person, a business, or a government
agency? Or a portion of a business, which can try to convince
management to increase its budget at the expense of other portions
of the business?

Cut spending and spend more wisely. I'm sure that a lot of money
can be saved by trimming the fat.
All government is inefficient; "fat" if you will. That is
inherent, and it is why we should not ask government to do more than
is necessary.
No disagreement. But it's not just going to happen, it happens
only if citizens get involved and stay involved.

It is not in the
nature of a bureaucracy to do it by itself. To expect that is
unrealistic, and to punish a bureaucracy for not doing it will hurt
those who are dependent on the bureaucracy (e.g., students) more than
the bureaucrats themselves.

History shows that the inefficiency cannot be reduced,
at least not much or for very long. It is futile to say that we can
get more for the same amount of money by spending more wisely.
Recognize that the efficiency of a government agency is lower
than the efficiency of a business that faces competition; thus (1)
don't ask government to do more than necessary and (2) realize you
are going to get something less than $1 worth of value for each $1
spent. The inefficiency factor should be constant, there is no
reason for it to get worse with time.

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
...
Probably so. But my point is that you can delete the entire
program--top and bottom, wasted and valuable--and still only scratch
the surface of the state's financial problems.

...
Excellent idea. I recommend that all citizens get involved
with their local school boards, attend meetings, run for office, and
in general work for improved quality and lower costs.
No argument there. For a business, customers vote with their
dollars. For a government, people "vote" and get involved between
elections. The only thinks that screw up the system are apathy,
and the massive amounts of money and time that special interests
put in.

And in the 90%
of districts where that doesn't happen...do you propose to punish
them by cutting their funding to what you (with no knowledge of the
specific issues and problems of those districts) think they should
be able to get along with?
Good point. If proper credit is given, government employees
benefit by their ideas being used elsewhere.

...
Cut spending and spend more wisely. I'm sure that a lot of money
can be saved by trimming the fat.
All government is inefficient; "fat" if you will. That is
inherent, and it is why we should not ask government to do more
than is necessary.
Then it is time to take out the inherited "fat". Why should we
accept the status quo? We should expect them to do more with less,
and not accept the waste as a byproduct of the process.
No disagreement. But it's not just going to happen, it happens
only if citizens get involved and stay involved.
And massive lobbying and financing by special interests.

If you only believe more is needed when government is spending
your tax money efficiently, you will never believe more is needed.

Then I invite you to observe government in various other places
such as the Deep South, some big cities back East, and most foreign
locations.

Of course. If we can get more people involved, we can get better
government. But it won't happen by withholding money until they
improve.

We
can get less by deciding what not to do.
Or do the same or more with less. It can be done. It is done in
businesses every year.
Busi

L Alpert (alpertl@xxcomcast.net) wrote:
Frankly I doubt if it ever happened on its own.

...
If they don't straighten up, there should be limitations set up
until they can define their own. Communication is key. Your
neigbor could be doing something right. Leverage it for your own
use and pass it on to the next town. It isn't like private
business where evrything is secretive and an intellectual property
issue.
Good point. If proper credit is given, government employees
benefit by their ideas being used elsewhere.
However it is possible for governments to get into a "NIH" mode
just as businesses do. E.g., CIA and FBI.
...
If you only believe more is needed when government is spending
your tax money efficiently, you will never believe more is needed.
Great ideas. They can be accomplished in two ways: find a large
number of energetic, intelligent, selfless people who are willing to
work for peanuts and put them in charge of the agencies, and make sure
they talk to each other extensively; or put a system in place that
motivates average employees to put forth, and accept, good ideas,
to accurately measure the quality of what they are doing, and in
general to do what they are supposed to be doing rather than building
empires and protecting their butts.

I don't believe either approach
has ever been successful on a large scale. For obvious reasons.

In your professional life you are rewarded with more money by
doing good things for your customers/clients, because there is
competition they can go to if you are not doing good things for them.

In government, that is not the case. It is the direct relationship
between good products/services and monetary reward that makes the
(capitalist) business model work.

...
I recognize that the way it is currently set up that it is as
inefficient and inflexible as it can get.
Then I invite you to observe government in various other places
such as the Deep South, some big cities back East, and most foreign
locations.
I am also originally from the East. That is one of the reasons
that I hate to see California's governments (state and local) held up
as poor examples. But maybe we are from different places back East,
or perhaps the East has improved since I left :-)

I refuse to accept that it has to be that
way. It may not ever be as efficient as a well run business, but
we should demand more.
Of course. If we can get more people involved, we can get
better government. But it won't happen by withholding money until
they improve.
Excellent. But I can tell you that that will not

Merlin Dorfman (dorfman@rahul.net) wrote:
...
Government will not operate efficiently, and business will
not operate altruistically.
Nor will government run altruisticlly. Too many SIGs with too much
influence. Political reform is needed, but it won't happen until
the people are pissed off enough. The trouble I see with CA,
everyone gets pissed for a short time, does something drastic like
elect actors, and then sits back and waits for everything to get
better.
Yes, and also when they get pissed, the actions they take are
typicaly not those that will resolve the problem. It makes the
people feel better--like they are doing something worth while--but
nothing is really accomplished.
The belief is that something is being done, and something is. A
message is sent that the status quo isn't good enough.
Unfortunately, after that is done, everyone seems to pat themselves
on the back and say "good job", then not follow up while there is
momentum.
Here's the quote:
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures." -- Daniel Webster