Monday, April 06, 2009

Richard Poplawski's mom is a real gem....

That Richard Poplawski is a piece of work is no surprise. But if you read the story below, you see that mom is a real gem herself. She's threatening reporters with "the biggest lawsuit in the history of the city of Pittsburgh." Here's an idea for the widows and families of the dead and the neighbors of this woman. How about filing the biggest lawsuit in the history of the city of Pittsburgh against her, her son, the gun makers, the gun sellers, and anyone else involved in bringing about the death of three police officers. Hey Mom, if your child is stockpiling guns inside YOUR house, maybe that's a sign that you needed to get help months or years ago.

Richard Poplawski fired several shots into the body of a wounded Pittsburgh police officer during a siege Saturday that left three officers dead and a fourth wounded, a neighbor told police.

The neighbor was awakened by gunfire shortly after 7 a.m. and rushed to a window. An officer, later identified as Stephen J. Mayhle, was sprawled on the ground near the stoop of 1016 Fairfield St. in Stanton Heights.

The neighbor told police a man standing in the doorway "fired 2-3 more shots into the downed officer, then re-entered the residence," according to a criminal complaint.

Mr. Poplawski, 22, is charged with killing Officer Mayhle, 29, and Officers Eric Kelly, 41, and Paul J. Sciullo II, 37, who were responding to a 911 call placed by Margaret Poplawski, the suspect's mother. He also is charged with multiple counts of attempted homicide as a result of a lengthy gun battle with other police officers. Another officer, Brian Jones, broke a leg while scaling a fence behind the house.

Mr. Poplawski, who told friends that he was afraid the government was going to take his guns and that police could not protect citizens during the economic downturn, was arraigned at 2 a.m. Sunday in his hospital bed at UPMC Presbyterian. His preliminary hearing is set for 2 p.m. Wednesday in City Court.

A spokesman for the Allegheny County district attorney's office would not speculate on whether Mr. Poplawski might face the death penalty on the charges against him.

"It's inappropriate to even talk about this case at this point," said Mike Manko.

The criminal complaint gives this version of the siege:

Mrs. Poplawski called 911 at 7:03 a.m., saying she wanted her son out of the house "because he was giving her a hard time." She said she had awakened and confronted him after discovering that a dog had urinated on the floor, and the two had argued.

Officers Mayhle and Sciullo arrived at 7:11. Mrs. Poplawski opened the door "and admitted them, saying, 'come and take his ass.' Mrs. Poplawski reported that as the officers entered approximately 10 feet into the residence, she heard gunshots, turned and saw her son about six feet away with a rifle in his hands, at which point she fled after screaming, "What the hell have you done?"

Officer Timothy McManaway arrived at 7:17, one minute after a radio call that officers were under fire. He saw Officer Kelly, who was off duty but had driven to the scene to back up the other officers, wounded and supine in the street beside his sport-utility vehicle.

As he tried to assist Officer Kelly, who said he was unable to breathe, more gunfire erupted and Officer McManaway returned fire toward the house. He was hit on the hand by a bullet or shrapnel.

Officer McManaway pulled Officer Kelly to cover behind the SUV, where they awaited rescue by a SWAT unit.

"Officer McManaway reported that he was able to see the one officer lying outside the residence near the front stoop, and it was clear that he was dead, having been shot in the head. He could not see the second officer, who was later found inside," the report said.

Paramedics took Officer Kelly to UPMC Presbyterian, where he died. An autopsy by the medical examiner later found he died of gunshot wounds to the trunk and lower extremities.

Back on Fairfield Street, a three-hour standoff ensued, punctuated by gunfire. Mr. Poplawski fired numerous shots that hit a bulletproof SWAT vehicle occupied by eight officers.

Shots fired by Mr. Poplawski also hit homes at 1021 and 1025 Fairfield, both of them occupied at the time, police said.

A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said he watched through his window as a police sniper perched on the front stoop of his home at Fairfield and Antoinette streets fired a shot that clearly struck Mr. Poplawski.

The same man later found bullet holes in his Toyota Camry, which had been parked on the street.

Police who tried to get to where Officers Mayhle and Sciullo lay wounded were turned back several times by gunfire from the house, said Don Sand, an Allegheny County 911 administrative shift commander who lives down the street.

"It was terrible to watch the officers lying there because no one could get down there. It was heart-wrenching to see," he said.

"It was just a constant barrage," said Kathleen Gilkey, whose Downlook Street house is directly behind Mr. Poplawski's and was a staging area for SWAT personnel.

Police eventually persuaded Mr. Poplawski, who was wounded in the leg, to surrender. They found Officer Sciullo's body in the living room.

He and Officer Mayhle were pronounced dead at the scene. Autopsies determined that Officer Sciullo died of gunshot wounds to the head and trunk; Officer Mayhle died from a gunshot wound to the head.

Police said Mr. Poplawski wore a bulletproof vest during the siege. They found several firearms in the house, including an AK-47 assault-style rifle.

Mrs. Poplawski told police her son, after being kicked out of Marine Corps boot camp for assaulting his drill sergeant during basic training, had been "stockpiling guns and ammunition, buying and selling the weapons online, because he believed that as a result of the economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society."

Reached yesterday afternoon, Mrs. Poplawski declined comment on the police report.

Earlier yesterday, she called David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, to complain about the newspaper's coverage of the shootings and threaten a lawsuit.

She demanded that the newspaper stop publishing information about her and her son, saying the reporting thus far was not factual and should be limited to the officers and their grieving families.

"You're going to have the biggest lawsuit in the history of the city of Pittsburgh," she later told a reporter.

Jon Schmitz can be reached at jschmitz@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1868. Moriah Balingit can be reached at mbalingit@post-gazette.com or 412-263-2533.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Support Our Stinson?????

TheVilleVoice.com had a story today about a new website devoted to legal defense for Jason Stinson. Stinson has the right to a fair trial and I'm sure he has many friends and family who support him. But this website leaves a bad taste in my mouth for many reasons.

  1. There is substantial testimony that Jason Stinson DID deny water to players during a very hot day. That's perfectly fine (okay, no it isn't) if you're dealing with adults, but not when you are in charge of minors.
  2. There is substantial testimony that Stinson taunted his players for desiring water, apparently wanting to toughen them up by dehydrating them.
  3. The website never mentions Max Gilpin and his death. While this is perhaps understandable, the martyrdom of Stinson is a bit heavyhanded in light of the fact that a young man is dead and he died on his watch.
  4. The chairperson of the legal defense fund, Rodney Daugherty posts this quote in a message on the website: "I respectfully request that you donate if you can afford to. If you are a coach of any sport from the youth leagues on up, you should pay attention to what is going on. This trial, regardless of its conclusion, will affect the way young athletes are coached and trained all across the United States." Does this mean that Daugherty feels coaches should be concerned that they will no longer be able to deny children water during practice, run them mercilessly in the heat, and to taunt them if they collapse?
  5. There are a number of coaches associations supporting Stinson. While I understand this to some extent, I also think this makes a mockery of the child that has died.
  6. The website states: "Coach Jason Stinson has spent many years in the Louisville area being a Christian friend, mentor, leader, teacher and coach to many." What does his religion have to do with anything? Was there something in the Bible about "thou shall give no water to wussy children who don't want to practice hard?" or "thou shall taunt children who are not able to practice in 90 degree temperatures?" Regardless of whether Stinson is responsible for the death of Max Gilpin or not, there is ample evidence that his coaching methods were harsh and potentially dangerous for impressionable young men. I don't consider that moral or "Christian".
Again, I think Stinson deserves a fair trial, and I don't believe for a second that Jason Stinson wanted any child at his practices to suffer injury or harm. Stinson didn't do anything that I'm sure 75% or more of his colleagues in other schools has done. But to run a practice in unbearable conditions and to deny children water in the name of macho BS is a bit much for my tastes. In the end, I hope the truth about what happened that day comes out and that any necessary changes to the responsiblities of coaches will occur. It sounds like they are long overdue.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Live Blogging the Oscars....

8:29 -- As I wait for Hugh Jackman to start the show, I'm thinking the same thing everyone else is thinking.... was Ryan Seacrest too busy with the red carpet show to host? Seriously. A show known for sucking is going to be worst.

8:30 -- Wow, he's really bad at doing an Australian accent.

Kate Winslet looks about 50.

Wow, it is nice to see that they decided to do something different this year. Instead of a funny opening that was the highlight of the show, they decided to open with a cheesy off, off, off, off, off, off, off,off, off, Broadway number that wouldn't look out of place on the Tony Orlando and Dawn Show.

Hugh Jackman -- A straighter Nathan Lane?

8:38 -- The musical number is over, and I wish

8:39 -- Mickey Rourke looks great? He looks like the victim in last Thursday's CSI.

8:40 -- A montage of Best Supporting Actress nominees. So tonight is going to be like a ---th Anniversary show with lots of nominees who had nothing better to do presenting the awards? Whoopi Goldberg looks like a pregnant leopard. Tilda Swinson got all dressed up in her finest 400 count sheets.

8:44 -- Wow, Anjelica Houston looks no different than she did a couple of decades ago..... unfortunately. So this is how it is going to work, people who aren't going to win tonight pretending to admire those that don't? Whoopi, what's up with that tattoo? Classy.

Goldie Hawn -- So this is what cute looks like it its mid 60s? I wonder how many of the muscles in her face are currently NOT paralized?

8:48 -- The Oscar goes to....... Penelope Cruz. Damn, I've already missed my first prediction. "This ceremony was a moment of unity for the world!". Yes, I understand that Israelis and Palestinians have a big Oscar party that stops the fighting for just a minute. And in case you're wondering, this is what Penelope said in Spanish, "It isn't an honor just to be nominated, I wanted and deserved this, and all you American dogs can stick it in your leveraged and bought-out bums! Long live Spain. Oh, and Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead."

8:52 -- Tina Fey and Steve Martin -- Wow, those would be novel hosts. A Scientology joke. Why not cut to Tom Cruise?

Best Original Screenplay -- Dustin Lance Black for Milk. I love those commercials. It does a body good. What's that? No matter, I got this prediction right. Is it just me or is the podium uncomfortably close to the audience? Wow, by promising that gay people might actually get treated like humans, this guy just provided the fodder for 100 different AM radio stations tomorrow.

Best Adapted Screenplay -- "There's an inept quiet?" You're going to nominate a guy who writes that? Slumdog Millionaire wins and I'm now 2 for 3 in my predictions. And his speech gets our first bleep of the night. Given the FCC, it was probably for saying poo.

9:03 -- Jack Black and Jennifer Anniston -- Who are two people who didn't get nearly enough attention as children?

Best Animated Picture -- What, you mean Space Chimps and Clone Wars weren't nominated? Can't imagine why. This show is slowly taking on the feel of one of those 4 hour AFI 100 biggest movies of all time shows.

Wall-E wins. Wow, big shock. And I'm now 3 for 4.

9:08 -- Best Animated Short -- I have no idea how to spell what won, but any guy who says, "Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto" in a speech that he knows nobody will understand is great. I would have picked this film to win, but for some reason, I left the Animated Short category out of my predictions.

9:16 -- Sarah Jessica Parker & Daniel Craig -- Bond and the Horse he Rode In With. Why would Matthew Broderick want to ever leave that. Did they really give her a line that ends in "...full face-lift?"

Art Direction: -- Winner -- Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I'm now 3 for 5, but did have this as the potential spoiler. Did they bring the set behind them from the Muppet Show?

9:19 -- Costume Design Award -- What is the deal with all the camera movement? Is NFL Films producing this year? Uh oh, The Duchess wins. I'm now 3 for 6.

9:23 -- SJP -- "We don't have to tell you what a makeup artist does." Really, Sarah, have you seen yourself on screen? The Make-Up award goes to.......... Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- 3 for 7. Really? Did you see the Dark Knight? That guy was missing half his face! Oh wait, I forgot that Aaron Eckhart was a method actor who actually had his face ripped off for the role.

9:25 -- The guy from the movie that too many women swooned over and the chick from Mama Mia. The chick from Mama Mia is wearing Aretha's bow under her boobs. Wonder why she took the lights off. A montage of romance from this year's films. A nice match cut between Mickey Rourke and Nicole Kidman shows how much they're starting to look alike. Eve and Wall-E were the least manufactured looking of all the faces shown.

9:31 -- Oh my God, this is how we're trying to improve the Oscars, by giving us a lesson on how movies are made? Ben Stiller is wearing a Joaquin Phoenix beard while Natalie Portman tries to do the intro. Would it have killed her to work on her timing? Ben Stiller derailing the show might be the funniest thing tonight. I'm sure the cinematographers aren't laughing, though. Slumdog Millionaire wins, completely trashing my record. Wouldn't it have been much funnier to have Christian Bale present this f-ing award?

9:39 -- Jessica Biel was the hope of the Sci-Tech awards dinner, and she showed up tonight in the curtains from that event. I just noticed the set looks a bit like the stargate in 2001. Maybe they can warp me to the end of this snoozefest.

9:43 -- Pot jokes from Pineapple Express. Seth Rogan has lost weight, which is the most interesting thing from this montage. Although having the cinematographer from Saving Private Ryan was amusing. This goes on far too long, which isn't surprising since it was done by Judd Apatow. My understanding is that when this bit comes out on DVD, it will be in a four hour director's cut.

Toyland wins best live action short. 3 for 8.

9:52 -- Hugh Jackman has now switched to hosting the Tony Awards. Is that Beyonce? Forgive me, I can't really tell my semi talented R&B stars from one another anymore. Hey look, it's one of the plastic doll toys from High School Musical. Ooops, my bad, that's Zac Efron. The number was created by Baz Luhrman. It was hard to tell because they held each shot for more than one second.

10:03 -- Cuba Gooding Jr. was able to be there? I would have thought Snow Dogs 4 was shooting. Another supporting actor award. Seymour Philip Hoffman showed up in a designer outfit and a watchcap from a BP station. Nice. Joel Gray is able to be there? Josh Brolin did brilliant work in Milk? I think he did brilliant work in winning Diane Lane. Hubba. And look, Christopher Walken decided to grow out his forelocks. Kevin Kline gets the honor of introducing Heath Ledger's award. Kline is looking more and more like John Cleese.

Heath Ledger wins. Awesome. Nice heartfelt speech from his family. And a classy move by the academy to use the "Hoe-down" theme for their playoff.

10:14 -- Best Documentary -- Bill Maher gets serious. Yawn. Man On Wire wins. I am at 5 for 10 or something like that. Cute acceptance speech by the subject of the documentary.

10:17 -- Best Documentary Short -- Smile Pinki wins. Bill Maher is disappointed to find out it isn't one of those movies with the fingers that have mouths painted on.

10:23 -- An annoying quick montage set to loud music. Baz Luhrman strikes again? Will Smith shows up to give out the visual effects award, which oddly enough is one of the least produced award presentations of the night. Winner - Ben Button again.

10:29 -- Sound editing -- Dark Knight. Another random playoff -- Mr. Blue Sky

10:31 -- Sound mixing -- Slumdog Millionaire. Wait a second? Isn't this only to be given to action movies? Hey look, there is John Mayer and Jennifer Aniston. In lousy seats.

10:34 -- Film Editing -- Slumdog Millionaire. Thanks for showing the clip from Benjamin Button, which made it clear the visual effects kind of sucked.

10:41 -- Nice to see Eddie Murphy has managed to get over his anger at Meet Dave not being nominated. Perhaps I'm not French enough, but I still don't see much to laugh about in Jerry Lewis. Of course, the man invented one of the most important pieces of film equipment ever, the spit take glass.

10:44 -- Jerry takes the stage and looks 100 pounds lighter. And apparently he left the funny in that tuxedo.

10:50 -- The Producers, realizing that we're all worked up over the non-stop excitement they've provided us all night, decide to play several minutes of lullabies inspired by the films that have been nominated. Hugh Jackman looks disappointed that they haven't found a way to work in a dance number for him.

10:54 -- Zac Efron shows up to show us his range of emotion from A to A and a half with the award for Best Score. Slumdog Millionaire wins. I'm fighting off sleep.

10:57 -- Best songs goes to show that this was a lousy year for songs. Apparently so bad that they brought John Legend in to sing a song from the Lion King.

11:01 -- Slumdog wins another award. Best song. Honestly, didn't we have our fill of Indian music with Ravi Shankar at Woodstock?

11:07 -- Best foreign language film -- Departures.

11:10 -- Queen Latifah gets to do the death roll call, wearing some sort of blue dress and OMG, she's going to sing for the In Memoriam? To be fair, she originally was going to rap an NWA song, but then thought better of it. I love the way the producers have decided to take full advantage of our big screen TVs by showing us the death montage not on our TV, but on TVs in the hall. Nothing to show how important Paul Newman was by putting him on 1/10th of my screen. BRAVO!

11:19 -- Best director is being given by famed director Reese Witherspoon, who I can't help but stare at and think of last week's Family Guy, in which her chin was used to cut into a safe. Danny Boyle. Slumdog Millionaire.

11:26 -- Is Anne Hathaway pretty or not? I can't decide? What happened to Halle's Berries? Sophia Loren looks good for a 90 year old. And so does Nicole. Hey Nicole, Michael Jackson called and wants his nose back. Kate Winslet wins. And thanks everybody, including her breasts.

11:39 -- Best actor. Bobby DeNiro is the funniest thing tonight, which says a lot about the crapfest this telecast has been. Poor Richard Jenkins has to see Adrian Brody, the most likely person on the stage never to be up there again, talk about his career. Sean Penn wins, and looks instantly depressed that George Bush is no longer in office..

11:54 -- Best picture has been given out...... Slumdog Millionaire. I'm too comatose to care.

12:00 -- Game over, exactly at midnight. In exactly one year, stay tuned for Howie Mandell hosting the show.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Why is this Cartoon Offensive?


Okay...... I'll have to say that when I first saw the headlines about an "offensive" NY Post cartoon, I looked at this and assumed that someone from PETA was up in arms over what is a tasteless picture of a dead chimp, or perhaps just general good taste over the fact that some poor woman suffered greatly in a story that is essentially turned into a joke here.

Now that I realize that it was the tenuous connection between the monkey and Obama's race. Here's the thing...... I don't see it.

Have the people protesting ever been in your average first grade class? Ever seen that it is common for out of control kids to be referred to as monkeys? Ever seen a Super Bowl commercial? How about the one where incompetent coworkers are portrayed as....... Monkeys.

Need a refresher? It's right here:



I'm left leaning, voted for Obama, and generally find the Murdoch owned media reprehensible. But it seems to me that the people furthering a stereotype here are the people who turned this into far more than it actually is. The fact is, most of our politicians are dumb monkeys, to busying flinging poo to do anything serious. That's what I got out of this. If anyone deserves an apology, it is the poor woman who apparently needs a new face after being attacked by a chimp.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Daisy gives Jax a massage

Friday, January 02, 2009

What is G? It's a Gatorade Commercial.

It took me a couple of viewings of the commercial with Misty May, Kerri, Derrick Jeter, Muhammad Ali and a cast of other greats, but the (c) S VC at the end is the giveaway. Stokely Van Camp. Owner of Gatorade.

Annoying attempt at viral marketing, that sadly, worked on me.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Ben Foster's Response

First, an apology for not publishing this sooner. I forgot I'd said I'd post it, and I apologize.

Second, I wouldn't have voted for Mr. Foster anyway, but I do think that his opponent's campaigning was out of hand today. Larry Hujo seemed to have signs every 5 feet and had two people that were dangerously close to the polling place waiving his signs. For a job that pays so little, that is a lot of money and turnout.

So I called the elections hotline about how close the people were, and I wrote my own name in.

I appreciate your comments. First, Farmer Elementary School is public property. According to JCPS headquarters, candidates may pass out literature and talk with parents as long as they are not within 10 feet of a door to the school. (I asked the Principal of Cochrane Elementary the first time I visited a school in my District.) I will also address your other comments. I don't expect to convince you to vote for me, but I hope I do demonstrate to you that I have reasons for my positions and am interested in many important issues facing Jefferson County Public Schools. Considering the complexity of issues facing the school system and the attention the average voter pays to school board races, I necessarily kept my brochure brief.
(1) Jefferson County students, parents, and taxpayers need an objective and independent voice on the School Board. My parents were poor farmers who sent eight children through Daviess County public schools.—I know the benefits and importance of quality public education. My wife attended JCPS and has nieces and nephews in the JCPS system, one that has graduated, and some that have dropped out of JCPS for various reasons. The fact that someone does not have their kids in public schools does not mean they do not have the best for kids at heart. I have spoken with many parents who have experienced many problems with JCPS and have had very bad experiences dealing with JCPS administrators. For example, a group a Black Pastors is extremely concerned about the high dropout rates among African-American students. A group concerned about special-needs children has fought with JCPS Administrators for years to get the education required by law for their kids. Many other parents believe the school assignment plans are too complex and limit their ability to be involved in their children's school--and believe that their JCPS schools don't want parental involvement. Essentially, many parents like you who have not had any problems with their children's education are well satisfied. However, everyone I have spoken with who has had issues with their child's education has had a frustrating experience dealing with JCPS. Many parents have pulled their children out of JCPS for many reasons, and people with no knowledge of their situation cannot know the full rationale for their choice. (2) One of my campaign issues is that of the addition of "sexual orientation" to the JCPS PERSONNEL, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYMENT policy and that my opponent wants to add "transgendered" to that section of the Policy Manual. That portion of the Policy Manual not only mentions that JCPS "shall not discriminate in recruitment or employment", but also that “The District shall promote equal opportunities through a vigorous affirmative action program as an integral part of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of employees of the Jefferson County Public Schools."
http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Departments/GeneralCounsel/boardpolicy0702.pdfThat issue is very important to many parents and taxpayers in my district and they communicated their disagreement with the new policy to my opponent. Last fall, with the support of the teachers’ union, the Board added sexual orientation as a specially protected category in their employment policies anyway. In comments before the Board, Kat Crawford, a teacher and teachers’ union officer, said she mentioned her lesbian orientation to a middle school girl during a “teachable moment.” The new policy may lead to more similar discussions between teachers and children in JCPS.

What teachers do in private is their business, but all teachers should resist discussing their sexuality with students. In fact, state regulations prohibit teachers from making “sexual remarks” to students. The teachers’ union publicly supported Crawford’s comments just as they recently sued to reinstate teachers not rehired due to inappropriate behavior. Will JCPS administrators enforce the prohibition on “sexual remarks?” Because bi-sexuality is a “sexual orientation,” can teachers place pictures of a man and a woman on their desks (like married people have pictures of their spouses)? If elementary students ask about those pictures, will these teachers feel compelled to answer questions honestly in such “teachable moments?”

Including sexual orientation as a protected category in JCPS employment policies concerned many people. The teachers’ union, supported by Board members Larry Hujo and Steve Imhoff, wants to go further by adding transgendered employees as a specially protected group. Have union leaders and Board members Hujo and Imhoff considered practical implications of special employment protection for transgendered teachers? One group of transgendered people are commonly referred to as cross-dressers. If added as a specially protected group, a male elementary school teacher who started wearing dresses to work would be protected from negative repercussions. The dress code for students prohibits “distracting” attire; a man in a dress is usually distracting to children.
Also, according to some transgendered-rights advocates, a man dressed as a woman should be allowed to use the women's restroom. Citizens in Montgomery County, Maryland and Colorado now face this issue because of actions by their elected officials. Would a male JCPS teacher in a dress be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom? Could he demand a separate bathroom for himself?
People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, but children also should be sheltered from some issues. Parents' concerns about the consequences of School Board policies are not just "religious" issues; these are common sense issues with moral dimensions. Apparently, only more citizen involvement can prevent further protections for teachers who use “teachable moments” to discuss their sexuality or want to dress as the opposite sex in public schools. (3) Things I do mention are that, from 1998 to 2007 enrollment was static, consumer inflation was 28%, JCPS revenues increased from $6,000 to $10,060 per student, nearly 68%, and JCPS revenue from property taxes increased over 100%. I agree that much of this was related to new housing starts, increased housing prices, and commercial property development. However, district-wide outcomes in student education do not indicate that taxpayers received improvements commensurate with the increase in spending. Property tax rates could have been reduced, relieving a burden on many hard-pressed taxpayers, while still maintaining adequate funding levels for our schools.One thing I did not mention is that Louisville/Jefferson County is known as a high-tax location. That hinders our ability to attract new businesses that will pay additional property taxes and provide jobs for the parents and future graduates of Jefferson County Public Schools.(4) The dollar amount spent on students in Jefferson County is far more than what is spent in many other successful school systems. In one debate, both John McCain and Barak Obama agreed that we spend far more money per student in this country than in other countries, and produce worse educational results. I believe what you say about Farmer Elementary. Keep in mind that Farmer Elementary is almost a brand-new school. Since filing to run for School Board, I have received unsolicited calls from people detailing some areas of waste in the school system. (They generally say that JCPS administrators are not receptive to suggestions for savings.) As a CPA, and as someone who has experience in educational institutions for many years, I can assure you that a tremendous amount of waste exists.(5) I have in no way implied that teachers in any school do not earn what they make. The question becomes from the taxpayers’ perspective: are the teachers paid more than what they would be under a satisfactory agreement if all members of the School Board were not elected through support of the teachers union? Years ago, the president of the American Federation of Teachers said something to the effect that, when students start paying dues, his union would start looking out for students.As a person who received a top-notch education from a public school system, and two state-supported universities, I do have much knowledge about what is important in the Jefferson County Public School System. I am somewhat surprised that someone would be morally and intellectually offended by the materials I distributed. Debate about issues should not be offensive. Also, assumptions about people's motives and beliefs frequently fall into stereotypical viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum.
In the past, I probably believed more like you do regarding gay and lesbian teachers than I do today. I do not have time for the full debate, but I was more accepting of LGBT goals before reading the materials in the U of L Safe Space Training Manual produced by our LGBT Center and studying other materials. The Manual stated that nobody knows why some people are LGBT, that L women can transition to B or even H, and numerous other things that indicated uncertainty about the "people are just born that way" line usually espoused. The Guide also makes it clear that their goal is to make any type of sexuality considered normal, and from a diversity standpoint that different sexualities should be valued and "celebrated". Many studies have shown that as a group, homosexuals have more physical and mental health problems than the heterosexual population--even in cities where homosexuals are fully welcomed and valued. I would not want policies that would lead more children into less healthy lifestyles--similar to special protections for teachers who smoke. I view this as a common sense issue that has a moral dimension.
I also have studied some of the claims of excellence in our school system by JCPS administrators and the Courier-Journal such as: the Jefferson County Public School District has the highest market share of all large urban school districts, and "teachers in Louisville [are] the least likely to send their kids to private schools in the study's rankings of the 50 largest US cities". I examined the latest data from the US Census Bureau on the percentage of K-12 residents attending public schools. That data shows that Jefferson County ranks 14th lowest among the central counties in Greater Louisville Inc.’s 15 comparison markets. JCPS either must not include these counties in their comparison, or compares the market share of our combined city and county school system to inner-city school systems that do not include suburbs like that of JCPS. Either way, I believe JCPS must be making an inappropriate comparison when claiming the largest market share of all large urban school districts. The market share of most of the counties included on the chart would be well beyond any measurement margin of error when compared to JCPS. On July 13, 2004 the Courier-Journal ran a story about a study showing private school enrollments of children of public school teachers versus the general population. The storyline was that public school teachers in Louisville had the greatest difference with the general population, with only 15 percent of public school teachers sending their kids to private schools, compared to 25 percent of all families. The first paragraph of the story stated that this success applied to Jefferson County Public Schools, and a JCPS official was quoted saying the findings should 'inspire confidence' in public schools. To verify, I obtained a copy of the study, by the Thomas Fordham Institute. The Courier-Journal and JCPS were somewhat mistaken in their conclusions. First, the study was of the entire 7-county Louisville Metropolitan Statistical Area, and hence included teachers and other families in Bullitt, Oldham, Clark, Floyd, Harrison, and Scott counties, as well as Jefferson County. Second, the authors of the study estimated that public school teachers in eighteen other large metropolitan areas (among the top 50) were more likely than those in the Louisville area to send their kids to public schools. I am including another chart based on information included in the Thomas Fordham Institute study. Thus, the Courier-Journal's statement that "teachers in Louisville [are] the least likely to send their kids to private schools in the study's ranking of the 50 largest U.S. cities" is factually inaccurate. I have heard a JCPS Board member and others in our community repeat this inaccurate statistic. To disseminate fair and accurate information to the public, JCPS probably should not claim that it has the highest market share of any large urban school district. JCPS is a large urban and suburban school district and its market share should only be compared to other districts that contain a large urban and suburban area. Otherwise, any claim about market share should contain many disclosures and qualifications as to how that claim was derived. Also to disseminate fair and accurate information to the public, no one should claim that a higher proportion of JCPS teachers send their kids to public schools than any other large cities. Whether I win or lose the School Board race, I want JCPS to improve and better serve students, parents, and our community. Consequently, I believe JCPS administrators must be careful in the claims they make. Instilling a false perception in JCPS employees, county parents and students, policy makers and the general public that JCPS is superior to other similar school districts can reduce the impetus for needed change. If problems are not recognized, improvement is less likely. Sincerely, Benjamin P. Foster, Ph.D., CPA, CMA