Disqus

Sunday, February 10, 2013

The Times Just Can't Stop

Honestly, I just don't get the Times.  So now they have trotted out an op-ed against BOTH levies (and, gotten the name of the pro-levy supporter, Greg Wong -not Wang - wrong to boot). 

It's yet another person who is late to this party of "accountability" and yet this guy even casts a bigger swath.  And he's a public school parent who wants both levies to fail. 

I understand his unhappiness but failing the Operations levy won't change that.  In fact, if he wants to see our district fall to its knees, let the Operations levy fail.  He gives NO solutions to what might happen after that failure - not so helpful - but yes, he's voting against both of them. 

(He also points out "big-city cronyism" from the Potter scandal.  Yes and that came at the hands of a superintendent who swept in with big changes supported by the powers that be.  Let's remember that.)

I'm with him on changing how we run SPS and frankly, changing the protection of a lot of what happens at the headquarters level rather than the school level.

But failing both levies is not the way.

Please folks, hardly anyone who supports the levies goes and submits a comment of support for them.  Please do this for this op-ed and don't let the nay-sayers and trolls be the last word in these few hours before the election.  Stand up for those levies and let's get this done.


24 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Melissa Westbrook said...

Next time, give read what is above the comment box and give yourself a name. Thanks.

Juana said...

I know that you didn't mean any malice, but I don't support Proposition 2 and I am not a troll.

Melissa Westbrook said...

I meant the commenters, not the writer of the op-ed. I wrote that in reference to the comments section which is largely populated by people who don't know our district. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

I don't know, I sort of like the op-ed. I like letting people share their viewpoints and then debating them in an open and productive manner.

Of course, I also believe both levies will pass. My secret hope is that the thought that the no votes go beyond the group of people who always vote no for any tax will get the attention of the District. Changing the board members every election cycle doesn't seem to be the answer, so maybe a little scare will help.

Now go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong. While I might not agree with you, I will appreciate your point of view as I appreciate all of the work that you do to support our kids and the District in the way that you think is the best.

Hoping for Change in Seattle

Melissa Westbrook said...

Okay, but what's your answer for losing 25% of the district's budget? What are you willing to lose at your school?

Nick Esparza said...

I like the op-ed Erik Levy Frequently Used Facts something you never do Melissa Westbrook

West_ Seattle_Mom said...

Melissa you have iQ of a House plant

Melissa Westbrook said...

West Seattle Mom, care to sign you name or did that nice safe anonymous posting make you feel quite brave?

West_ Seattle_Mom said...

Does the Truth Hurt? Melissa

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
West_ Seattle_Mom said...

you Melissa are a Public figure so Deal wih it!

In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a sample on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.
The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
According to attorney Aaron Larson:[2]
A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]... Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children] were fair comments... within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

suep. said...

Anyone else find the second item on Mr. Levy's list of grievances rather odd? (Bold emphasis mine.)

"The irony is that by continuing to support the lack of accountability, restrictive and expensive collective-bargaining agreements, bloated administration and poor budgeting, ..."

How often do regular parents who claim to have been recently "swaddled" by "naivete" care about something as arcane or pointed as collective bargaining agreements and know to what extent the one in their kids' school district is "restrictive" or "expensive"?

Sounds for the world like a talking point from the Alliance for Ed, which is planning another assault on teachers this year, and plans to butt into this year's CBA negotiations.

Or maybe it's a coincidence... maybe.

mirmac1 said...

Right, West_Seattle_Mom (Nick Esparza wannabee) so you're saying you are a malicious slanderer and defamer. Well, good on you.

The best course is to ignore people like you who chime in with useless jibes. I encourage Melissa to do the same. Fact is, I've wasted too much of my life even typing this post.

Josh Hayes said...

@mirmac, quite right. The old advice is the best advice: don't feed the trolls.

ArchStanton said...

Please, just delete the trolling, sniping, one-liners. Maybe you don't want to give the appearance of silencing your critics, but those comments contribute nothing. It's your blog; you can leave 'em up, but you can dump 'em, too. Trolls like that don't deserve fairness.

I still wish you would insist on some kind of registered name. Throwaway emails are so easy to come by that any anonymity concerns in that regard are pretty much moot.

Anonymous said...

West Seattle Mom,

You are way out of line. Try a healthy debate instead of a personal attack.

-disgusted

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Melissa Westbrook said...

I am aware that the troll is one person and I know who it is and I have zero interest in anything he says. You should follow suit.

And you're right; I should just start deleting the comments that are not part of the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Frankly I thought that op-ed was sophomoric and demonstrated as extreme a case of armchair quarterbacking I've heard from a public school parent in a long time. "I've gone to PTA meetings..." Wow, then you've got it all figured out, don't you bub?

Could this parent name the current Superintendent? Does he know Potter is in custody and MGJ has been gone two years, and passed away? Punish innocent kids for corrupt adults' cronyism? What the hell kind of logic is that? Good grief. Call for controls and transparency so the money is better spent, fine. But starving government to make it more efficient doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work, because it can't work. Again, the magic of the market has seduced and blinded a gullible person.

Seriously, for the Times to print a piece from a person with such little insight and knowledge (yet, about on par with it's editorial board) shows that they'll give column space to literally anyone who agrees with their agenda. So we must starve the children to help the children. Brilliant. Wow, just wow.

I hope the writer reads this blog, and has the cajones to stare my West Seattle neighbors in the face and explain how he held hands with the Times and tried to screw my community's kids out of two desperately needed school buildings while lobbing grenades from afar because things he really doesn't understand, and can't specify, just don't seem right downtown.

If ever a levy needed to be passed, it is now, with multiple buildings city wide bursting at the seams with overflowing enrollment.

So sure. If an entity is so popular with the public that people are willing to squeeze into every inch of it, then lets cut its funding because some adults downtown, outside the schools are wasting money.

So burn the village to save it. That's the best this parent can come up with? God forbid investing any effort, thought, or work into solving the problem. Starve it instead, until it solves itself. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Disgusting. WSDWG

Jan said...

Melissa -- this is your blog and of course you can do what you want. But I am writing to contradict Arch (very rare occurrence indeed, I might add). I suggest that (unless the volume increases and/or the tone becomes even more bitter) you leave them up and that we all take the very good advice to just ignore them. My reason is that it actually takes little or no time to just skip over them and move to the next thoughtful (or at least not offensive) response. AND -- by leaving them, you deprive the bitter trolls from the satisfaction of claiming (which they will) that you silence all reasonable dissent by dictatorially deleting anyone who disagrees with you. (You don't administer your blog that way, of course, as anyone who spends much time here knows -- but the fact that it is false won't stop them from making the claim).

Unlike Arch -- that is the only harm I see. Trolls hope that nasty comments and baiting will cause their comments to be deleted so they can squeal and bleat about how unfair everyone is to them. I'd rather just skip the posts than have to listen to the squealing and bleating ((much less have to marshall the arguments to show how wrong they are -- which just acts as more troll feeding.)

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jan. I think it's important to know how people feel, whether they agree with me or not. If the best to be offered is snarky crap, let the posters be tarred with that label & reputation. I'm sure there are those who feel that way about me at times. Fine. Let em rip. I can take it and dish it too! WSDWG

Melissa Westbrook said...

I generally ignore them and only delete those that name-call. We don't allow that.

Anonymous said...

Nick: I like that you march to your own drumbeat and raise awareness of issues others don't talk about. But attacking Melissa with your mean-spirited snipes reeks of sour grapes and attention envy. Accusing MW of never using facts? Nick: You're soiling yourself. WSDWG