text:
Training on Empty
An Unwelcome Distraction
It has only been recently that I've started standing up to bullies. In general, I try to be fair, turn the other cheek, or take the high road, but that doesn't always work. It certainly didn't with Kim Duclos. My tolerance for people who go out of their way to be mean is at an all-time low. I'm simply not going to sit back and do nothing when someone threatens me or attempts to push me around. I'm three weeks out from a major surgery and this isn't exactly how I want to be spending my time, but I also feel the need to address this situation.
I'm going to make this post as brief as possible because it's mostly a waste of time to pay any attention to people who create conflict and drama and make issues out of minor disputes, but since Steve McConkey, a self-proclaimed Christian who spends his time asking for donations for his "Ministry" so he can continue to "work" on interfering with and condemning athletes in the LGBTQ community, threatened to sue me a while back and continues to violate my right to privacy, I wanted to address the situation. Social media is so strange in the way it gives some people a distorted sense of esteem and accomplishment. Writing everything out, it seems silly that an adult would spend the kind of time, money, and energy he does in order to get revenge on people who dare voice an opinion online.
What would warrant such anger toward me, you might ask. My big mistake? In response to some online bickering that was going on between a friend and Steve, I had the nerve to post a Bible quote as a comment on Steve's public Facebook page. THE NERVE OF ME! Apparently, it was a passage he didn't like because this resulted in the comment being deleted within minutes and me being blocked from viewing his page while logged in. My friend was also blocked. Almost immediately after, Steve decided to post a picture of my friend on his page that is or at least was set so that anyone not logged in can view it, and pretty much invited his friends to join him in a mocking session. Steve seems fond of mocking others and has done the same with Hillary Clinton, several trans and gay athletes, Democrats, and others he doesn't like. That's not all he did, though. He also contacted my friend's employer and, well, I won't go into the gory details since you can read about everything here: https://chimprefuge.com/2018/07/20/steve-mcconkeys-funniest-lies-also-introducing-mcconkoids/#more-8163
I find it funny, in a creepy weird way, that Steve calls others stalkers given his actions. He's the type who likes to point his finger while three are pointing back at him. For example, he's quick to point out other people's past mistakes even though he has made plenty. In fact, he admits to doing hard drugs at one point in his life, an illegal activity that could potentially land a person in prison, not just jail. Just because he didn't get caught, it doesn't mean he's innocent, but the way he rips on others makes it seem like he thinks he's some kind of angel. He's not. Far from it.
After being blocked, I mostly stayed out of things except to occasionally like a comment or voice an opinion relating to something several friends posted on Twitter or Facebook, so I was surprised when a friend pointed out that Steve dragged me into the fray with a public threat to sue me and called me an accomplice, implying I had committed some kind of crime, something that could easily be considered defamation of character. When I noted this on Twitter, he deleted the post, which means he's obviously looking at what I do online.
That's not the only thing Steve has done, though. Instead of getting into everything here, I'd rather point my readers to other writers who have addressed Steve's antics. Since he's so fond of public postings about others, I'll leave it up to readers to decide what they think. Unlike many of Steve's postings, though, the following two by people remarking on his behaviors do not include lies.
This post is by Hemant Mehta. It goes into detail about Steve's desire to ban trans athletes and more:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/04/15/leader-of-christian-athlete-group-condemns-marathons-allowing-transgender-runners/
This one is also interesting:
http://whatwouldjackdo.net/2015/11/greetings-from-the-atheist-gestapo-world-headquarters-all-your-bibles-are-belong-to-us11111.html
I really hope his attempts to damage my reputation and interfere with my and others' professional lives and standing don't continue. I'm not going to stand by and watch him lie, though. He even lied about a legal document that's public (but not newsworthy or relevant - more right to privacy violations). Pertaining to that, the last time I owned a dog, I was in grade school, so his claims about someone abusing my dog aren't accurate, nor are several other claims. It's tempting to make assumptions when looking at certain brief statements, but, unless you were there, you really don't know what happened and shouldn't speculate, especially publicly which could be considered libel.
I hate taking up space on this blog to post things like this, but as long as he keeps up his lies about me and keeps pointing to his posts that reveal the address of one of my friends, I will keep Tweeting and exposing his lies, as will my friends. In reality, the more Steve keeps up what he's doing, the more he exposes his unchristian-like behavior, to say the least. Meanwhile, my true Christian friends are working in Uganda helping refugees, serving others, practicing kindness, and being the beautiful human beings that they are.
Keep in mind that this is the first blog post I have written addressing this issue. It's almost laughable Steve's response to me defending myself. His "friends" are now calling me disgusting because of the lies he spews about me, and for someone who's almost scary in his quest to find out information about me and others, him calling anyone else a stalker has to be breaking every irony meter in the universe.
"The Colorado Stalker and his sidekick Lize Brittin are writing volumes (Um, no that would be you about us, but since you won't let up on the lies, I'll gladly continue writing.) on me that nobody reads (Not accoring to my stat counter, but OK), however, they come up on google search (Wait, you're not the stalker but you're Googling us?) as you go down. She lectures me on ethics (Nope, I wrote a blog post describing what happened.), but she promotes the killing of babies (Liar. This is a complete lie. I don't even really "support" abortion, but I stand by a woman's right to choose. I've never had an abortion and never will.) and endorses the Stalker (I don't think he understands the meaning of the word endorse. Agreeing with someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting someone.) . Kevin lies continually (Nope. He has some strong opinions, but he has not lied about Steve.) about me and makes up fake news (Again, he doesn't make stuff up about Steve, and blog posts and tweets are not news, real or fake). He says he coaches Olympic runners, but never has (Yes, he has, actually. You should ask his athletes about it.). His criminal record is long (Steve's would probably be at least as long -- crashing a car drunk, doing hard drugs, etc. -- he just never got caught, and Kevin has already publicly addressed his past)."
I don't think this needs a caption.
ETA Dec 2019:
I briefly took this down but decided to repost it when Steve just couldn't stop lying and dragging me into his online spat with Kevin. One thing I really can't stand is people behaving in terrible ways and then hiding behind the title of Christian.
Similar to my comment below:
I recently talked to my brother, Alex, and sister-in-law, Lisa, (both lawyers) about all of this and got some good advice, but it's strange that someone who keeps violating the terms of service on websites like Twitter and keeps lying to the point where these websites are forced to remove content, insists on calling himself a Christian. If a God saw this kind of unethical behavior, all because some guy got mad and wanted to get revenge on someone who called him out on his questionable statements and actions, there's no doubt "he" wouldn't be happy.
The whole thing is a sham, this POOR ME! I'M BEING ATTACKED AND STALKED bullshit by people who, in reality, are bullies and too immature to have any kind of civil conversation. That's why they resort to shitty tactics like lying online and expanding the scope of conflict by dragging as many people into it as possible.
I am grateful to those who took my personal information down and am glad they can see through this guy's act of being a good Christian. If that's being a good Christian, send me to Hell knowing I made an effort to be a better person than that and at least did my best to be honest. I mean really. Starting online battles, intentionally and improperly posting personally identifiable information online, and outright lying are not honorable qualities. How do people like this sleep at night? I really want to know. I do my best to be a decent person, and I have all kinds of lingering worries about my actions, putting way too much pressure on myself to do the right thing and questioning all the time what the best action is. And then there's this guy who boasts about being in line with God, yet stoops to such incredibly, incredibly low levels. Just yuck.
ETA 2020
Apparently, he liked what Kim was doing by mocking me about my job and telling people I want my mom to die, so he posted something similar. These two are disgusting. I am so lucky to have decent people in my life. I can't imagine what goes on in someone's messed up head to do these kinds of things to another human being.
Supposedly, this is how he thinks good Christians should behave, by lying and mocking people, which is bad enough, but the people liking it and feeling sorry for him are equally bad. Imagine thinking you're morally better than someone by resorting to this:
You may not want to read through this entire exchange, but it's interesting to see someone who provoked a guy turn around and play the victim. Kim and Steve are the same that way. They continue to poke the bees and then whine when they get stung: http://www.kemibe.com/stevemcconkeythreat.htm
And both Steve and Kim are fond of dragging me into this mess. For a long time, I kept quiet, but that did nothing but cause them to include me more. In the email exchange between Kevin and Steve, Steve boasts about being able to post records online, but there are limits to doing that. See, I have talked to lawyers, too, and while I think it's ridiculous to sue someone over online bullying, unless it gets bad enough, there are some limits to what people can legally post. For example, yes, you can post someone's records online, but if it's done with malicious intent and is not newsworthy and also gives out otherwise private information, like an address (considered doxxing), then it can be considered a violation of someone's right to privacy. But who wants to go to court over that, especially when Kevin has said over and over that he doesn't care? Maybe a cease and desist letter would be enough, but I doubt it with these types. Both Steve and Kim are so dead set on "getting" Kevin that they don't give a shit whom they hurt in the process. In fact, they think that by hurting people associated with him, it will somehow be a "win". But it's so fucking pathetic. The whole thing started because of them. Neither one has the courage to have a conversation either online or otherwise, so they take stupid little jabs and then retreat, hide and pretend they are being attacked.
The funniest thing in all of those email exchanges is Steve suggesting Kevin offer Kim an apology. Dear Kevin, please offer one of the biggest bullies I have ever encountered -- someone who lied from the start just to fuck with people and made up shit about me waiting for my mom to die -- an apology. Jesus Christ, people are fucked up.
Posted by Lize Brittin at 11:02 PM
Labels: 4winds, bullshit, bully, Christian, defamation, liar, libel, lies, religion, right to privacy violation, Steve Mcconkey
kemibe July 25, 2018 at 12:56 AM
The main problem with people like Steve, and Kim is in this category, is that they have very little to lose, albeit in the precarious way of the utterly dependent.
When you don't have a job and never will, and your entire identity for 40 years has been lying for Jesus and bashing gays, you're not going to flinch all that hard when someone finally starts making real noise about who you are and what you're about. Steve survives on some combination of handouts from the rubes (donations) and support from his offspring. Even if his "ministry" does wind up losing its 501(c)(3) status thanks to, you know, that (please bray) thing, he can still beg for money and call himself 4 Winds Whatever. What bothers him now is being rightly criticized and looking like a fool in a way he hasn't dealt with before, not the threat of genuine loss.
Kim is 25 years younger but no more likely to become employable than Steve ever was. She lacks the mental constitution and is immediately revealed to anyone who Googles her as a truly evil lunatic. But because of this, she doesn't give a fuck what she does. She could lose everything if Sean dumped her, but until that happens she's one more unstable person with an axe to grind, an Internet connection
and wild delusions she feels compelled to trumpet to the world.
(The foregoing of course ignores the fact that people like this aren't really being deliberative in anything they do thanks to whatever bad brain wiring has let to the shorting out of key areas. But they know enough to know that their mostly unpreventable tantrums aren't going to cost them anything they haven't already pissed away.)
Lize Brittin December 7, 2019 at 10:45 AM
The main problem with people like Steve and Kim is that they are vindictive, vengeful, and liars. They try to present themselves to others as people who take the high road when that couldn't be further from the truth.
I recently talked to my brother and sister-in-law (both lawyers) about all of this and got some good advice, but it's strange that someone who keeps violating the terms of service of websites like Twitter and keeps lying to the point where websites are forced to remove content, insists on calling himself a Christian. If God saw this kind of unethical behavior, all because some guy got mad and wanted to get revenge on someone who called him out on his questionable statements and actions, there's no doubt he wouldn't be happy. The whole thing is a sham, this POOR ME! I'M BEING ATTACKED bullshit by both of them who, in reality, are bullies and too immature to have any kind of civil conversation. That's why they resort to shitty tactics like lying online and expanding the scope of conflict by dragging as many people into it as possible.
It's just gross. Neither one will ever win in a war of words with the person they want to see go down, yet they relentlessly try. But while Kim posts shitty comments about me and others, Steve steps into a different kind of territory. Despite it being legal to post criminal records, he is intentionally and improperly using personally identifiable information, which violates privacy laws.
Again, it's also unethical, but he doesn't care about that. He does the same kind of thing by bringing up books I have co-authored, etc. in some kind of effort to discourage people from using my services. The defamation part comes in when he suggests that people should keep their kids away! And he keep reposting this shit, just completely oblivious that he's not just being vindictive, he is also breaking the law. Posting contact information online falls into identity theft when you point people to that information unnecessarily. Forget what an asshole move it is to post someone's full name and addresses associated with that person online (there's a reason why that kind of thing violates the terms of service on Twitter and other websites); it's also dangerous. Who knows what nutjob will see that and what he or she will do with that information.
Oh, but go ahead and tell me how all of this is in line with what God wants.
Promoting eating disorder Recovery in running since 2009
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/lizefb
Available now at Smashwords.com
Lize
About Lize
Lize Brittin
I grew up in Boulder, Colorado. For many years, I was a successful runner, but I also struggled with anorexia. Eventually, I overcame the illness, and wrote a book about my experiences.
PR List
Pikes Peak Ascent 2:39
10K 35:04
1 mile 5:12
Hang Nine
Weekend 16-17JAN2021
double-d Mountain Runner
UltraRunnerPodcast.com
Ultramarathon Daily News | Thurs, Jan 14
About a Ewen
The RunACT Stromlo 5k Road Race
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
Steve McConkey's 2020: Further degraded and even down-"graded"
COURAGE, TRUTH & BOOTY:
1/4 Wave Ground Plane Antenna Calculator
The Donnybrook Writing Academy
Mom Against the Marathon
Marathon personal best 5 years in the making
Chocolate for Breakfast
No Chocolate?
Endurance and Sustainability
In the Greatest Endurance Race, There is No Finish Line!
The Middle Miles
Gear Review: Brooks Launch 2
clearlyXXconfused
it's so hard to say goodbye
A Pirate Monk
Sometimes Analog is better. Or last.. it works.
Bobbysez
Kudos to the Coach
Running towards Recovery
Mother's Day, every day, without a mom
runharrietrun
Build The Machine
Interview with Suzy Favor-Hamilton
The objectification of women
Toddlers and Train Wrecks
The Rashomon Effect
IP Blocker
You Can't Use Your Cell Phone in Here - A Book of Short Stories
https://www.createspace.com/4408253?ref=1147694&utm_id=6026&cp=70170000000bqKn&ls=Social_Media&sls=FB_Like
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/347361


Register Here for the May 12th Cacao Connection Healing Hike!
You are invited to a monthly Cacao Connection Circle where, together in a sacred circle, we share the Heart medicine of Cacao to activate and re-member our Soul's Truth.
This months New Moon cacao connection circle offers a special opportunity to take our prayers into the trees. We will begin co-creating a sacred space to share some very special ceremonial cacao in the form of a delicious cacao drink. With the aide of this self realization medicine we will set our New Moon intentions, hike into the park allowing nature to inform our journey, and share our hearts truth at a sacred nature spot that we will allow to choose us.
An experience like this is priceless! And you are worth it!
• Outdoor / hiking shoes - the hike is a gentle sloping hill.


Image Size 8 1/2" x 12"
Simpler times and quiet moments speak volumes in this new Irish Setter print by Michael Steddum. When I was a kid there were three qualifications to be a grandfather; overalls, an old truck, and a good dog. This painting is firing on two of those cylinders and I like to imagine my grandfather walking back towards this beautiful Irish Setter in his overalls for the third.
Everything about this print is designed to be the very best. From the signature in gold ink, limiting the edition to only 200 prints, to the Somerset Velvet Archival Paper it is printed on. Each print also comes with an original hand drawn personalized thank you card delivered to your doorstep in a custom made shipping box. The prints are shrink-wrapped and well protected. This is a high-quality piece of fine art delivered to your home, the way you have come to expect everything from Michael Steddum to be.


text:
Higher Education Reservations and India's Economic Growth: An Examination
Working Paper #36
Gurpreet Mahajan
In 2006 the Indian parliament passed legislation reserving an additional 27 percent of seats in all institutions of higher learning, funded by the central government, for the category of socially disadvantaged groups officially known as "Other Backward Classes." At a time when India is opening its economy to global competition, this initiative has re-ignited the debate on the efficacy of reservations and triggered fresh anxieties about the impact of this policy on India's economic growth. This paper looks closely at the offered justifications for this policy as well as the expressed concerns. While examining the implications of the policy, particularly the claim that higher education reservations will dilute the quality of human capital, the paper suggests that the policy may present long-term challenges not currently anticipated. The argument rests on the understanding that while educational institutions must be responsive to the concerns of marginalized groups, the policies for correcting prevailing exclusions must be just and fair. If they enshrine identity as a permanent economic asset or a source of ever-renewable privilege, these policies are likely to produce social conflict and disharmony. This element is ignored by the announced policy and is likely to weaken not just India's educational institutions but also its democracy - results that are likely to weaken India's prospects of becoming a global power and its goal of social equity.
Gurpreet Mahajan is a professor at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Comment: Fraudulent news undermines democracy
At first, it seemed too ridiculous and farcical to worry about, those so-called "reports" during the U.S. election that screamed Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton had dementia.
Vivian Smith
But many people said they believed such outright lies. And now we find through reliable sources that a sophisticated Russian campaign of propaganda — a.k.a. "fake news" — did create and disseminate false stories about Clinton, with the goal of helping to elect Trump.
Who knows if this Russian interference made a difference or whether other creators of claptrap circulating on the Internet caused Americans to vote for Trump or stay home? Either way, the danger is obvious: Acting on misinformation ultimately undermines democracy.
Phoney-story pushers are legion and motivated. According to reputable news organizations, for instance, young people in a Macedonian town also ran pro-Trump sites full of fake news, likely viewed by millions, generating income by misinforming voters. (They made money from ads on the site, provided by the ad technologies of Google and Facebook. The more "shares," the more ads are seen, the more money is made.) This happened after Facebook had fired editors who were responsible for rooting out fake news from its trending topic area.
This country is not immune, either. A Canadian site, Hotglobalnews.com, creates totally imaginary articles about Justin Trudeau. It's run by two teens who have struck fake-news gold with the popular PM.
Fake news might be confused with sites that are merely satirical, such as The Onion, which cleverly mocks news. CBC Radio's This Is That also parodies real stories, as does The Beaverton online. These sites are meant to entertain, not hoodwink.
But in the fast-clicking world of the Internet, people are willing to lie to us for money because we don't pay attention to the news source. Clickbait sites might have a grain of truth in them, but their producers don't care if we read the article: All they need is for us to be intrigued enough by the outrageous headline so that we click and share without looking at the content. The producers profit by selling our attention to advertisers.
The good news about fake news? People are catching on and want it to stop. We want to know that the information we rely on to make decisions in our democracies is well-researched, balanced and trustworthy. The New York Times added 41,000 new digital and print subscribers in the week after the election, the biggest one-week subscription increase in five years. ProPublica (a non-profit group that does investigative journalism), the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and the Guardian have all seen subscriptions go up post-election.
Both Google and Facebook say they will block ad revenue to fake news sites, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who previously pooh-poohed the impact of false news on the election, now says Facebook will make it easier to report false content and help third-party fact-checkers.
You and I might not agree with every article we see in a newspaper such as the Times Colonist, but we can be grateful that the people who put it together have the journalistic skills to check information and print what's accurate and to fix it when they err. They follow a code of ethics that includes telling the truth.
We trust our daily paper to give us verifiable information so that we have a common basis for understanding our community. We can have civil conversations about our differences and act on agreed-upon facts.
If we're drowning in falsehoods about the economy, our health (those anti-vaccine sites just won't give up), the environment and politicians, how can we move forward as a society?
Let's support real journalism with subscriptions and donations; as with everything else, you get what you pay for. When you are online, read before you repost and check the source. It takes a few seconds more, but since you're already spending time online, why not spend it wisely?
And stop telling me how awful "the media" are. Don't blame trustworthy outlets for the pranks and disinformation of non-journalists. If you think not having reporters is a good idea, try living in a state run by someone who hates journalists. There's about to be one right next door.
Vivian Smith is the 2016-17 Harvey Stevenson Southam Guest Lecturer in the department of writing at the University of Victoria. She is the author of Outsiders Still: Why Women Journalists love — and Leave — Their Newspaper Careers, published by University of Toronto Press.


text:
Greek Mainland
Visit Greece
Tours For Greece
home Activities, Historical, Mainland Athens 1896: The first Olympic Games
Athens 1896: The first Olympic Games
By Maggie Posted in Activities Historical Mainland
The 2016 Olympic Games to be held from August 5 to August 21, 2016 at the vibrant coastal city of Rio are expected to attract all of our attention this summer. A record number of 10,500 athletes of 26 nationalities will compete for 306 sets of medals in 28 different sports. The picture was quite different 120 years ago, at the first modern Olympic Games. Hosted in Athens, the 1896 Olympics attracted just 241 participants from 14 countries. Yet the first Olympics were greeted by the international community, as a unique multi-sport event that has maintained ever since a unique position in the heart of athletes and audiences alike.
Poster of the 1896 Olympic Games (left) and picture of Pierre de Coubertin, their founder of the International Olympic Games Committee (right)
History of the modern Olympic Games
The Olympic Games were held in antiquity every four years in honor of ancient Greek god, Zeus. It was major athletic competition to which city states from all over Greece sent representatives. Their celebration continued under Greek and later Roman rule without interruption for over six centuries; from the first Olympics that date to 776 BC until 394 AD when emperor Theodosius I suspended them in his effort to impose Christianity as the official religion of Rome. The revival of the Olympic Games came only at the turn of the 19th century. We owe the initiative for the organization of the first modern Olympics to Pierre de Coubertin, a French pedagogue, historian and the founder of the International Olympic Committee.
Fencing at the first Olympic Games in Athens
Nine sports were featured in the program of the 1896 Summer Olympics. The athletes that travelled to Athens with the hope of winning the title of the first modern Olympian competed in the following sports: athletics, cycling, fencing, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, weightlifting, wresting and shooting. The highlight of the 1896 Olympic Games was the marathon, which was included for the first time in an international sporting event. Inspired by the ancient legend, the race started from the city of Marathon and concluded in Athens at the Panathenaic stadium.
Greek athlete Spyridon Louis the first marathon runner to win the Olympic Gold Medal, holding an olive branch
Olympic Games 1896: Special Photographic Exhibition
To commemorate the first Olympic Games Benaki Museum in collaboration with Costa Navarino set up a special exhibition. Throughout summer 2016 travelers that land at Athens international airport Elefterios Venizelos will have opportunity to enjoy a collection of rare photographic material from the 1896 Olympic Games. So, if you happen arrive in Athens sometime between May 16 and September 16, 2016, do pay a visit to the 'Arts and Environment' exhibition area.
Follow the trail of the Olympic Games in Greece.
Travel Zone Greece has designed a special Olympic Games tour package. It includes a visit to Olympia the birthplace of the original Olympic Games as well as other important sites, monuments and museums connected with the ancient and modern history of Olympics.
TAGS: airport Athens History museum olympic games
See Vacations in Greece - 9 Days - Premium - Athens, Paros, Naxos, Santorini (1 reviews) reviews Reviewed on tourradar.com
Ancient Theater of Dodoni
Delphi Theater
New Year's Resolutions for Travelers
Ancient Theater of Messene in Peloponnese
Ancient Theater of Thera in Santorini
Top 10 reasons to visit Greece
Thessaloniki Cinema Museum & Cinematheque
Philippi:The impressive ancient theater from Hellenistic Times up to now
Mushroom Museum & Natural History Museum of Meteora
Discover the Olympic Games Heritage
50, Pandrosou Str.
Athens, 175 63 Greece
sales@travel-zone-greece.com
contact@travel-zone-greece.com
Tel: +30210 9484186
Fax: +30210 9484385


James Wishart, a Scotsman of about 41 years of age, was working as a draper's salesman in Manchester on 25 July 1872 when around noon a young lady entered the shop and publicly horsewhipped him in front of staff and customers alike. James rather unwisely took the attacker to court, but lost the case, and was advised that he might find it 'convenient' to leave Manchester. The particulars of the case were reported widely across England and Wales (though not in James's native Scotland) and the following was published on 3 August 1872 in the Bristol Mercury.
At the Manchester City Police-court, On Tuesday, Ellen Edwards, a young lady of very prepossessing appearance, was charged with having assaulted with a horsewhip Mr. James Wishart, an assistant in the drapery establishment of Messrs. Kendal, Milne, and Co., Manchester. The complainant stated that the defendant had been in the same establishment with him, but had since left. There had been some feelings of affection between them, and they had corresponded together. Miss Edwards had gone to live at Oswestry, and while she was there he heard something, in consequence of which he wrote to her. On Thursday last he was in the bazaar serving some lady customers, when the defendant entered the shop in a very violent temper, and produced a horsewhip which she thrashed him with about the shoulders, neck and face.
In cross-examination the complainant admitted that he had kept company with the defendant for about six months, and had given her a ring. He did not intend to marry her after he found out what he had about her lately. He wrote her a letter in which he said, "Since you have mentioned the gentleman's name, I might as well tell you it is the talk of the bazaar that he slept with you – told publicly by himself yesterday." He also wrote, "If you don't return the carte and ring by bearer I will write your mother and let her know the cause of all; you are only about one step above the streets at the present time." Mr. Cobbett, who appeared for Miss Edwards, said the complainant had circulated a scandalous and unfounded report about her, and she, having no male relations at hand to assist her, had horsewhipped the complainant for it. He admitted the assault. Mr. Rickards (the presiding magistrate) said as the assault had been admitted he would call upon the defendant to enter into her own recognisances of £10 to keep the peace. He would not say a word about the horsewhipping.


text:
TC Energy applauds Nebraska court victory over opponents of Keystone XL pipeline
Posted Aug 23, 2019 8:53 am MST
Last Updated Aug 23, 2019 at 9:09 am MST
A yard in Gascoyne, ND., which has hundreds of kilometres of pipes stacked inside it that are supposed to go into the Keystone XL pipeline, is shown on Wednesday April 22, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Alex Panetta
CALGARY – The CEO of the company proposing to build the Keystone XL pipeline is applauding a decision by Nebraska's highest court that clears one of the last major hurdles for the project designed to get Canadian oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
Russ Girling of TC Energy Corp. says the Nebraska Supreme Court's rejection of an attempt by opponents to force the developer to reapply for state approval means the "vital energy infrastructure project" can move forward.
The expansion of the Keystone pipeline system, along with Enbridge Inc.'s Line 3 replacement pipeline and the recently approved Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, are being counted on by Canadian producers to relieve a glut of trapped oil in the West.
"The Supreme Court decision is another important step as we advance towards building this vital energy infrastructure project," said Russ Girling, TC Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer. https://t.co/PJZdBHovue
— TC Energy (@TCEnergy) August 23, 2019
The court upheld the decision of regulators who voted in November 2017 to green-light a route through the state.
The Nebraska Public Service Commission voted 3-2 in favour of an "alternative route" for the project instead of developer TC Energy's preferred pathway for the pipeline.
Opponents filed a lawsuit arguing the company didn't follow all the required procedures for the alternative route.
Lawyers for the opponents argued that TC Energy's application with the commission was only valid for its preferred route, and the company formerly known as TransCanada could only seek approval for one route at a time.
Nebraska state attorneys disputed that claim, saying that the commission's decision complied with the law and was in the public's interest.
Companies mentioned in this story: (TSX:TRP)
Calgary|keystone XL|Nebraska


For most Germans, the immediate postwar period was marked by profound material hardship, which was often made worse by the breakdown of personal relationships, as evidenced by the spike in the divorce rate. While columnist and radio host Walter von Hollander felt that certain concrete reasons were largely to blame (economic hardship, for example, and inappropriate behavior by one partner during or after the war), he also pointed to far-reaching transformations in gender relationships – at home, men who had been demoralized by war defeat and whose traditional authority had been compromised encountered self-confident women who were ready to assume responsibility, who had proven themselves on the "home front," and who were not able or willing to readily relinquish their new roles.
For the most part, it is young people who are undone by the misery, but there are also plenty of older ones who, separated by the horrible Völkerwanderung [migration of peoples] or simply by the landslide of worldviews, are unable to find each other again. Very often the terrible housing situation is to blame, the material hopelessness. Often, with couples, the personal blame rests with one side or the other. The men's behind-the-lines experiences, which they readily gloss over or which even prompt them to make insulting comparisons; wartime adventures by the wives that are not so easily forgiven. The mutual neglectfulness that easily arises from daily life. Sometimes two people are separated by an incomprehensible nothing. The result is the same: divorce or the desire for a divorce.
The question of whether these marital failures point to a general marriage crisis is not easy to answer unequivocally. Since the turn of the century, there has been repeated talk about a general marriage crisis; the complete downfall of marriage has been prophesied, and with it – indeed, brought on by it – the decline of the West. In my 1940 book on marriage Das Leben zu Zweien [Life Together], I examined this question on the basis of a large amount of factual data, and I reached the conclusion that the existing marriage crisis did not actually trigger, or even reinforce, the general crisis of the West; rather, it is merely one manifestation of a general cultural crisis. To put it differently: in times of transition, marriage is invariably also in transition; in chaotic times, marriage, too, will become chaotic. In marriage, as the central institution of life, even peripheral disturbances register as strong seismographic waves. At the time, I identified the following as the main cause of the marriage crisis: women's new stance toward life and in life (that is, in a job), which should correspond to a new place in marriage, and a new stance toward sexuality as something that is necessary to life and blessed, and as something that can no longer be captured by the notion of sin.
These theses generally hold true for the current situation as well. In some cases, their applicability is even more intense. During the war, women proved themselves splendidly in a male world threatened by death and in a male world of work. Oftentimes, and only the willfully blind can deny this, they led a kind of sexual life that, rightly or wrongly, had previously been reserved for men. Now there are countless women, perhaps even the majority, who would only too happily return the burden of male life to the man, but who aren't all equally willing to relinquish the pleasures of the male life, its relative freedom. The second intensifying factor: men and women have gone through almost the same dangers. The returning soldier could usually demand forbearance and consideration. But now, who shall be kind to whom? Everyone is demanding from the other person the strength to overcome nearly insurmountable difficulties? Third intensifying factor: men fought the war and lost it. Their pride has been hurt by the defeat. But as a wise female physician observed, they retuned not infrequently with the look of winners. "Women," the physician said, "entrusted their lives to the men, and even trustingly followed them into the war, which they rejected internally. The women knew a long time ago that the war was lost. But the men assured them that they would still win it. Now, after the defeat, they cannot demand that we continue to entrust ourselves to their leadership." A bitter, not very objective word. But it reflects the mood among wide circles of women. It shows why men won't simply be given back the say in marriage. The woman has learned to bear responsibility. One will be able to take responsibility from her only when that person does in fact have the strength to lead. In those cases, women would happily and easily entrust themselves again.
There is another very bitter truth, about which it is difficult to speak but pointless to remain silent. It is not only that the German man is coming home defeated. The victors have arrived with him, and he is forced to realize that a small, not very valuable portion of the women are falling for the victors. It is nearly impossible to render an objective judgment on this. Still, the German soldier, given his war experience, would have to admit that this is just the way it has been, and is, all over the world. Or would he wish that the women who pleased him in foreign lands suffer the revenge of their countrymen? Surely not. But for the sake of the dignity of the defeated, he naturally desires that all German women maintain the necessary moral distance. And towards those who violate it he feels contempt mixed with hatred, which is entirely understandable in those cases where women yield to the victors for the sake of small material benefits.
Source: Walther von Hollander on the Breakdown of Marriages, Separation, Divorce (1946), in Von den Toren der Wirklichkeit. Deutschland 1946-47 im Spiegel der Nordwestdeutschen Hefte [From the Gates of Reality. Germany 1946-47 as Reflected in "Nordwestdeutsche Hefte"]. Selected and introduced by Charles Schüddekopf. Berlin, Bonn, 1980, p. 315f; reprinted in Klaus-Jörg Ruhl, ed., Frauen in der Nachkriegszeit 1945-1963 [Women in the Postwar Period, 1945-1963]. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, 1988, pp. 35-37.


text:
A new K-12 funding system demands new thinking in building local budgets
As the most sweeping change in K-12 school funding in decades, the new school finance system that took effect this month will require school officials to clear their minds of old formulas and assumptions and to think anew in constructing their budgets.
That's the advice of School Services of California, a Sacramento-based consulting firm that is giving budget seminars around the state this week for school officials.
For most of the hundreds of school officials at the Sacramento Convention Center on Tuesday, the session was their first exposure to the Local Control Funding Formula, which the Legislature passed last month with significant changes from Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal in May. With the passage of LCFF in doubt mid-June, most districts passed 2013-14 budgets conservatively, using last year's revenues and assumptions. This year they'll start to feel the impact of LCFF's new formula. Next year, they'll create their first budgets knowing ahead of time the rules and their allocations, which will vary from district to district.
The intent of LCFF is to simplify an unwieldy and illogical funding system based on decades of outdated, complex funding streams. It will shift the focus from funding dozens of state-mandated programs to funding based on local district control and student needs, with substantial extra dollars allotted to low-income children, foster youth and English learners.
The distribution of additional money (in green) under the Local Control Funding Formula when fully funded. The district at left, with no high-needs students, will receive additional increases only in base funding, totaling $8,000 per student. The district in the middle, where 60 percent of its students are high-needs (about the statewide average) will receive $9,100 per student. The district at right, with 100 percent of its students high-needs, will get $11,300 per child. The orange band shows what districts will get this year, the first of a projected eight year phase-in period: $180 per student for districts with no low-income children, foster youth and English learners; $312 per student for districts with the statewide average; and $576 per student for districts with only high-needs students. Source: School Services of California, Inc.
If fully implemented in 2020-21, as proposed, the LCFF will bring uniformity and predictability to school finance; districts with similar populations of high-needs students will receive the same per-student funding, for the most part. But the transition will be complex.
"The LCFF is a really good model, but during the implementation phase, there will be a lot of anomalies, with unintended consequences," said School Services Vice President Robert Miyashiro.
At full funding, districts with all high-needs students will get about $3,000 more per student than districts with none or only a few: $11,300 vs. $8,000 (see School Services chart). As LCFF is rolled out over eight years – in increments of about 12 percent per year – each district will get a different increase per year, depending on the proportion of high-needs students they serve. This year, with $2.1 billion in new money funding the first phase, some districts with mostly high-needs students will get nearly a double-digit increase in per-student funding ($576 per student on average) while others will see only 2 or so percentage points ($180 on average). Those districts with close to the average proportion of targeted students – about 60 percent – will receive about $316 more funding per student.
But averages are deceiving.
Complicating the calculations is the fact that every district is starting at a different level of per-student funding – what they got under the old system. Eliminating the historical inequities also will lead to different funding trajectories in the years of transition to the new system. (A high-needs district that got below-average funding under the old system will get more than a high-needs district that benefited greatly in the past.)
What will matter is not the overall annual increase under Proposition 98 but the unique impact of the LCFF formula for each district, Miyashiro said. A danger is that the public and teachers will believe all districts receive the same amount and press school boards to increase spending based on high expectations.
Solid revenue estimates
Gov. Jerry Brown resisted pressure from the Legislature to up Department of Finance revenue projections for 2013-14, and so the state budget uses a conservative forecast. School Services is also predicting higher revenues – $3 billion – this year, which then carries through to 2016-17. School Services says it would be risky to assume these healthy increases will then continue for an additional four years, without a recession or economic setback. Brown assumes eight straight years of good revenues will enable full funding of the Local Control Funding Formula in 2020-21. Source: School Services of California, Inc.
What districts should feel confident in – at least during the next several years – is the state's healthy K-12 revenue projections, School Services said. But, in building their budgets, they should be very skeptical of the state's forecast that the Local Control Funding Formula can be fully funded in eight years. They shouldn't make long-term commitments based on that assumption, School Services said.
"Be cautious in budgeting the out years," said School Services President John Gray. Full implementation assumes what has never happened: eight straight years of growth averaging 6 percent. "We've had three years, but not eight," he said.
Besides economic recessions, world cataclysms and stock market downturns, the passage of Proposition 30 last November adds a new degree of unpredictability, Miyashiro said. While it stabilized state finances and will provide an average of $6 million per year to the General Fund for seven years, Prop. 30 primarily raises taxes for the top 1 percent of wage earners. Basing a state budget on the actions and decisions of relatively so few earners adds volatility to an already unstable tax base, Miyashiro said.
Based on conservative numbers for next year, the Department of Finance is projecting that the General Fund will increase from $97 billion this year to $116 billion in 2016-17. The portion for Proposition 98, funding K-12 and community colleges, would rise from $55.3 billion to $65.5 billion.
School Services, in consultation with economist Brad Williams of Capitol Matrix Consulting, is predicting higher General Fund revenue: from $100 billion this year rising to $119.7 billion in 2016-17. There is about a three-in-five chance that state revenues will exceed Finance's forecast, and a two-in-five chance it will fall short, Williams concluded.
The LCFF should prompt districts to redefine risk and recalculate how much they will need in reserve, Gray said.
Under the old system, districts were required to keep between 1 and 3 percent of their budget as a reserve, with smaller districts building a larger reserve. With so much uncertainty over funding – and the passage of Prop. 30 last year – some districts accumulated larger reserves.
With the shift to LCFF, districts with the most high-needs students, expecting the biggest increases, paradoxically should build the biggest reserves, Gray said. They'll be the ones most vulnerable if revenues vanish, and if they've added staff and increased pay.
For districts getting the least under the formula, a sudden cut will be like stepping off a curb, Gray said. "For high-income LCFF districts, it will be like falling off a building."
District-by-district allocation under the Local Control Funding Formula in 2013-14 and at full funding
Terms of the final compromise on the LCFF reached in June between Gov. Brown and legislative leaders
EdSource Today summary of the final version of the LCFF
EdSource Today column by Ted Lempert, president of Children Now and leading advocate of LCFF, explaining the importance of the finance reform
School FinanceLocal Control Funding FormulaState Education PolicyLocal Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
Leave a Reply to John Fensterwald
btw, one point about how LCFF 'compares' to earlier funding models. In the earlier models, there was a deficit factor (last year 22% I think; as high as 28% in an earlier year) applied to the revenue limit. In theory, that money was always to be paid back, however, it appears with the implementation of LCFF, that deficit now dissolves into thin air, which means it likely will never be paid back (ironically prop 30 … Read More
btw, one point about how LCFF 'compares' to earlier funding models. In the earlier models, there was a deficit factor (last year 22% I think; as high as 28% in an earlier year) applied to the revenue limit. In theory, that money was always to be paid back, however, it appears with the implementation of LCFF, that deficit now dissolves into thin air, which means it likely will never be paid back (ironically prop 30 was argued to be a way to pay this down). Since the 'payback' is based on prop 98, I guess one could still assume an increases in lcff might simply be paying down that deficit (albeit in another name). it would be good if this could be clarified. Local experts seem to agree that it will simply now never be paid back (the implication is of course that when that deficit is applied, lcff probably isnt even any more money (and maybe even less than was supposedly owed in the old model–I guess the reason for the hold harmless clause?)).
Then another point is we seem to be assuming a regularly increasing slope to full funding (ie circa 12%/year), but there is no reason this number could not be 'adjusted' the same way the deficit factor was used in previous years, ie, we dont have enough money, so you dont get yours. Will this version of the deficit factor have the same rules as the previous one?
John Fensterwald 6 years ago6 years ago
navigio:The target figures for the base funding at full funding under LCFF (the amounts differ by grade) do assume the repayment of the deficit factor amassed since 2007-08 on the AVERAGE revenue limit. COLAS will be added to those amounts moving forward, starting this year. Now, there are 230 districts -- those with few high-needs students and those with historically high revenue limits -- that would not return to levels of funding in 2007-08 if the … Read More
navigio:The target figures for the base funding at full funding under LCFF (the amounts differ by grade) do assume the repayment of the deficit factor amassed since 2007-08 on the AVERAGE revenue limit. COLAS will be added to those amounts moving forward, starting this year.
Now, there are 230 districts — those with few high-needs students and those with historically high revenue limits — that would not return to levels of funding in 2007-08 if the cuts in 24 percent categoricals also are added. For some of these districts, the formula includes a feature called the Economic Recovery Target, that will act as a hold-harmless supplement. I haven't gotten into this. The LAO new analysis explains this. Go about a third of the way down in the online report.
Thanks John, yes it does. The ERT section seems pretty specific in indicating that the deficit factor will be 'retired', so I guess districts haven't gotten the message yet. But it is interesting that this essentially does away with the value of LCFF for about 13% of our districts (another 10% would have qualified, but will likely get hold-harmlessed instead, ie lose money as compared to 07-08), at least to the extent 'the value' meant … Read More
Thanks John, yes it does. The ERT section seems pretty specific in indicating that the deficit factor will be 'retired', so I guess districts haven't gotten the message yet. But it is interesting that this essentially does away with the value of LCFF for about 13% of our districts (another 10% would have qualified, but will likely get hold-harmlessed instead, ie lose money as compared to 07-08), at least to the extent 'the value' meant seeing any increase in funding. So that seems to imply about a quarter of districts will get equal or less than 07-08, COLA-ed funding. I am trying to imagine which kinds of districts would get ERT, but its a bit difficult to do. The deficit factor impacted poorer districts disproportionately, and those would also have been more affected by categorical shortfalls, but they are of course going to be the biggest benefiters of the supplemental grants. It would be cool if someone listed these districts, or at least quantified where they fall on the spectrum.
Anyway, figure 6 about halfway down is a good graphic on seeing how this progresses over years.
It is interesting to note that the other hold harmless section does not seem to take deficit factors into account, but again, those are richer districts, who were much less impacted by the deficit factor and probably had fewer categoricals.
Thanks for pointing me to that.
I should have included this link to a document I have posted. The last column indicates which districts would qualify for the Economic Recovery Payment; perhaps a pattern will emerge.
Quentin Wilson 6 years ago6 years ago
I thought you might be interested in the blog linked to below that was published in the Huffington Post today. It's message is quite consistent with that contained in your article. The points I made would have been more powerful when backed by the specific data you provided. As School Services of California apparently implied in their seminars, good is not good enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quentin-wilson/california-here-we-come-t_b_3640680.html
Rob 7 years ago7 years ago
It is very difficult to develop an average using only one student per grade span. But doing it that way I also get $7,540. A very slightly more accurate way is to put one student in each grade level in K-12, add them all together and divide by 13. Then I get an average of $7,646. Of course if there are fewer grades in your district (maybe K-8 or 7-12) the average … Read More
It is very difficult to develop an average using only one student per grade span. But doing it that way I also get $7,540. A very slightly more accurate way is to put one student in each grade level in K-12, add them all together and divide by 13. Then I get an average of $7,646. Of course if there are fewer grades in your district (maybe K-8 or 7-12) the average will be different for you.
John it was nice to meet you at the SSC Conference. Keep up the good work!
Thanks, Rob. School Services is on the road, so I will venture some comments. Rob: Did you include the 10.4 percent add-on for class size reduction for K-3 and the $215 per student for career technical education add-on for 9-12? That could make a big difference and raise the total. Manuel: The title of the School Services chart may not be clear enough, but the $8,000 figure you cite is for a district with no targeted students at … Read More
Thanks, Rob.
School Services is on the road, so I will venture some comments.
Rob: Did you include the 10.4 percent add-on for class size reduction for K-3 and the $215 per student for career technical education add-on for 9-12? That could make a big difference and raise the total.
Manuel: The title of the School Services chart may not be clear enough, but the $8,000 figure you cite is for a district with no targeted students at full implementation, in eight years. Only the yellow band of $180, added to $6,500 bringing the total to $6,680, applies to 2013-14.
The figures that you cite are the base spending amounts at full implementation, not 2013-14, to which a district's supplemental and concentration amounts are added.
Manuel 7 years ago7 years ago
John, I read the title of the graph and I wrongly assumed that the second bar (the $8k one) was for 2013-14 based on $6.5k for 2012-13. If that bar is what it will be at full implementation (in 2021?), then I stand corrected but this raises even more questions. For instance, given current enrollment LAUSD has and this allotments as well as the ADA rate, I get an average of $7,091 for the base … Read More
John, I read the title of the graph and I wrongly assumed that the second bar (the $8k one) was for 2013-14 based on $6.5k for 2012-13. If that bar is what it will be at full implementation (in 2021?), then I stand corrected but this raises even more questions. For instance, given current enrollment LAUSD has and this allotments as well as the ADA rate, I get an average of $7,091 for the base alone. So why is it $6,680 in this calculation? "Not enough data, cannot compute."
As for the amounts I cited, Section 42238.02(d)(1) states:
(1) For the 2013-14 fiscal year, a base grant of:
(A) Six thousand eight hundred forty-five dollars ($6,845) for average daily attendance in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive.
(B) Six thousand nine hundred forty-seven dollars ($6,947) for average daily attendance in grades 4 to 6, inclusive.
(C) Seven thousand one hundred fifty-four dollars ($7,154) for average daily attendance in grades 7 and 8.
(D) Eight thousand two hundred eighty-nine dollars ($8,289) for average daily attendance in grades 9 to 12, inclusive.
The extra 10.4% for K-3 is in (3)(A) and the 2.6% for 9-12 in (4)(A). Therefore, unless I am in some parallel universe, this is the "base" for the whole process. In fact, (2) says that these amounts shall be adjusted for COLA in subsequent years.
BTW, if I am wrong, then there is a major problem as this "base" is about the same as the "base" calculated by LAUSD prior to LCFF based, pressumably, on SSC's projections based on the good ol' formula. If that's not the case I expect major discussion on funding problems at the next LAUSD Board meeting.
Manuel: That certainly appears to be an accurate reading of the LCFF statute. I'll see if the Department of Finance can straighten me out tomorrow. As you mentioned earlier, averages create problems in understanding the formula. Every district is guaranteed no less than the 2012-13 level for the revenue limit and categoricals included in the formula. Because of TIIG (desegregation dollars), LAUSD starts at a high base, according to a document comparing some districts that DoF … Read More
Manuel: That certainly appears to be an accurate reading of the LCFF statute. I'll see if the Department of Finance can straighten me out tomorrow.
As you mentioned earlier, averages create problems in understanding the formula. Every district is guaranteed no less than the 2012-13 level for the revenue limit and categoricals included in the formula. Because of TIIG (desegregation dollars), LAUSD starts at a high base, according to a document comparing some districts that DoF published last month. LAUSD's base for 2012-13 is $7,738, about $1,000 per student higher than Long Beach, with similar students. The 2013-14 per student funding for LAUSD is $8,102.
Thank you for the confirmation, John, as the last time I tried to interpret Ed Code language I got it wrong. There are a couple of other wrinkles: 1) The formula in the Ed Code seems to refer to ADA per grade. I could not find mention anywhere in the original SB 91 of whether or not ADA would now be so defined, as opposed to how it is done now (for overall attendance as shown in … Read More
Thank you for the confirmation, John, as the last time I tried to interpret Ed Code language I got it wrong.
There are a couple of other wrinkles:
1) The formula in the Ed Code seems to refer to ADA per grade. I could not find mention anywhere in the original SB 91 of whether or not ADA would now be so defined, as opposed to how it is done now (for overall attendance as shown in the document you linked to). Absent that language, the current ADA count could be converted to percentage by dividing it by total enrollment at year's end. This percentage can then be used for all grade bands,
2) I originally thought that the supplemental grant would be calculated for each individual grade band, based on actual number of unduplicated pupils in need. However, this is not so as the "need ratio" (my words) calculation is defined in 42238.02(b)(5) by diving the total unduplicated count as defined in 42238.02(b) by the total enrollment. It is this "need ratio" that, according to 42238.02(e), is multiplied by the base grant times 0.2 to obtain the supplemental grant. Notice that ADA is not mentioned as it is included in the base grant already, and
3) 42238.02(f) again uses this "need ratio" to calculate the concentration grant.
As I said above, the average base grant/student for LAUSD using this formula and the enrollment numbers from CALPADS together with the ADA for the District (published by LAUSD in their budget and excluding fiscally independent charters) is $7,159 (the difference between the number I give above and this one is using 0.9833 instead of 0.98). This is $1,000 lower than the average published by DOF for the base grant in 2013-14 (if that's what it is).
Forging ahead and using the "need percent" of the DoF, the supplemental and concentration grants can be calculated, and when added together and divided by actual enrollment give an ADA of about $9,500/student. Of course, that's not how LAUSD funds schools because it historically has used only the base grant to fund them as well as the overhead. The categorical money has been used to supplement the local budgets, but those haven't officially counted towards the school budget. (That way the school budget is being reported changed this past year, but it is still not as transparent as it should be.)
But now the gravy is significantly larger (nearly $1.5 billion!) so you can imagine the "negotiations" that will take place. To give you an idea of the current state of affairs, the 2013-14 LAUSD budget shows that the overhead rate is around 70% when special education costs are excluded. This is extremely high and I am concerned that a good portion of the "new" money will be swallowed by the overhead. I'd be happy to share with you my analysis of the published budget that leads me to this conclusion.
(One last thing: as we discussed before, the base grant is not what the state will actually contribute to a district as it has to be reduced by the portion of local taxes that a district is due by its county. That causes claims, as Torrance USD did in a LA Times article, that some districts are being negatively affected by the new funding formula. Those claims have to be looked at very carefully to ascertain where The Truth actually lies. Not easy when the numbers are not very accessible.)
if there is one thing districts seem to do in a timely manner, its attendance; probably because funding depends on it. i expect grade ada rates are available at least on a monthly, and maybe even daily basis. our district published monthly reports of ada rates for each school, for example, though obviously not by grade. i expect you're right that they will now have to do that as the grades determine funding (actually, in … Read More
if there is one thing districts seem to do in a timely manner, its attendance; probably because funding depends on it. i expect grade ada rates are available at least on a monthly, and maybe even daily basis. our district published monthly reports of ada rates for each school, for example, though obviously not by grade. i expect you're right that they will now have to do that as the grades determine funding (actually, in the old system, that was true to some extent already in secondary).
that said, many of these methods of per-student funding use more than just 'current' ada. some programs use ada from the previous year, or the max of the previous and an earlier year, etc. some may even try to do it on a real-time basis, but this is difficult to do given that cbeds day isnt till october. i havent noticed whether this new funding method uses something like this or not. anyone?
On our to-do list is a plain-English summary of how the LCFF will work. Meanwhile, Manuel, I did speak with Department of Finance folks yesterday, who offered this explanation: As you noted, the figures you cited are the statutory grade-level base funding levels for 2013-14. BUT, as I expected, there is not sufficient money now to fund them. They will reach that target level, through incremental funding, over the next eight years (or however long … Read More
On our to-do list is a plain-English summary of how the LCFF will work. Meanwhile, Manuel, I did speak with Department of Finance folks yesterday, who offered this explanation:
As you noted, the figures you cited are the statutory grade-level base funding levels for 2013-14. BUT, as I expected, there is not sufficient money now to fund them. They will reach that target level, through incremental funding, over the next eight years (or however long it takes to reach full funding). The next section of the law you cited — 42238.03 — explains this.
So, why write into statute now base funding levels that will take eight years to reach? According to Chris Ferguson of the Department of Finance, it's an equity issue. Think of it this way: Every district is guaranteed to get no less in funding than it received in 2012-13. So each district's base funding, starting off, is different and will move, in the transition, at different rates toward the target base funding levels that you cited. To ensure that every district receives the same amount in cost of living adjustments every year (as they roughly did in the past, with revenue limits), the COLAs will be based on the 2013-14 base funding levels. (A district's extra money for high-needs students, the supplemental and concentration dollars, will also get COLAs.) Chris said that legislative leaders pushed for this approach during negotiations to ensure more uniform yearly rate increases for all districts.
On another point raised in the discussion, ADA, a district's daily attendance figures on which funding is calculated, is reported and distributed grade by grade, not done on a district's attendance divided by 13 for each grade.
FYI, the cde is having a number of public sessions around the state to solicit input from the community on the implementation details of LCFF. I believe this happens around the middle of August. Ideally, the community would actually understand LCFF before it tries to comment on it. 😉 A plain english description could contribute to that but would obviously need to be done ahead of those dates in order to achieve that.
navigio: Can you point us to a link with the dates and locations of the sessions?
Oh, and as I mentioned in a few earlier comments, I really think the definition of dollars needs to be extraordinarily clear. Inflation causes a greater number of them to be equal to a lesser number of them at some time in the past. From that perspective, a number increase could actually represent a value decrease. This was not clarified in earlier infographics.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/lcffsessions.asp
John, thank you for the clarification. While your expectations are reasonable given your experience, that is not what the mythical "taxpayer on the street" thinks. The public believes, correctly, that they voted for more money for schools that would be available in 2013-14. The Legislature reportedly worked a compromise that assured the public that funding would go up from the first year that the public started paying more taxes. Why did the Legislature promise a set of … Read More
John, thank you for the clarification.
While your expectations are reasonable given your experience, that is not what the mythical "taxpayer on the street" thinks. The public believes, correctly, that they voted for more money for schools that would be available in 2013-14. The Legislature reportedly worked a compromise that assured the public that funding would go up from the first year that the public started paying more taxes.
Why did the Legislature promise a set of amounts that the state cannot deliver? Why didn't the Legislative Analyst Office make a big deal of this? Why didn't the DoF report that this "compromise," which Gov. Brown signed, would not be met?
Yes, I was aware that some districts were concerned that they would be getting less under the new plan and that sections of the compromise ensured this would not be the case. But I never thought that what is given in 42238.02 is taken away in 42238.03. For my own education, I will now how to see how they managed to pull this off without anybody noticing until now. No wonder they call it "making sausage."
At any rate, my examination of LAUSD's expected budget state contributions for 2013-14 shows a very modest increase over 2012-13 and it actually is slightly higher than what the base amount yields (after subtraction of local property taxes). If the base amount for 2013-14 is less than what is described in 42238.02, then LAUSD will be getting less than last year contrary to DoF's assertion. I hope I am wrong because if I did not make any error in my comparisons, then things will get very interesting indeed.
As for the ADA, well, as Navigio has pointed out, they could be calculated on real time, but they could certainly be calculated based on previous year attendance per grade as the data exists. Those numbers, of course, are unknown to all because DataQuest reports enrollment not ADA. That reduces the ability of anyone willing to watchdog the process. Incidentally, this was never included in the projections made by DoF and disseminated by you. A moving target, eh?
Paul 6 years ago6 years ago
Hello, Manuel. From my perspective, the governor and the popular press forthrightly disclosed the originally proposed seven-year and finally agreed eight-year funding schedules. The differences in elementary and high school funding were discussed in general terms. I also saw some coverage, both before and after the election, explaining that Proposition 30 merely prevents further cuts/satisfies baseline budgetary commitments. The completely arbitrary nature of the eight-year compromise disappoints me. Nevertheless, the LCFF plan offers school districts more certainty … Read More
Hello, Manuel.
From my perspective, the governor and the popular press forthrightly disclosed the originally proposed seven-year and finally agreed eight-year funding schedules. The differences in elementary and high school funding were discussed in general terms. I also saw some coverage, both before and after the election, explaining that Proposition 30 merely prevents further cuts/satisfies baseline budgetary commitments.
The completely arbitrary nature of the eight-year compromise disappoints me. Nevertheless, the LCFF plan offers school districts more certainty about funding than they have enjoyed at any point since 2007-2008. As long as education funding depends so heavily on personal income tax revenue — including the state capitals gains tax and a (temporary!) surtax on high-income earners (Prop. 30) — there will never be absolute certainty from one year to the next.
Voters are enjoying exactly the funding regime that they've created over the past 35 years. Rather than try to smooth things over/cover things up/pretend miracles are possible — a game that superintendents, school board members, and political apologists feel obligated to play, those of us in the know should continue to remind the public, "Sorry, you get what you pay for."
I don't think much more can be done, given California's electoral climate.
Kim 7 years ago7 years ago
Manuel,
Did you take into account that each amount is for a different number of grades? When I add up all those amounts (assuming one kid in each grade)and average them, I get $7645.
I just did the dumbed-down approach: added them and divide by 4. That works out to $7,541. Of course this makes no sense because the amount is for different students. The proper way would be to define the number of students in each grade in an average district and then calculate the average overall by dividing the total funding received by this mythical average district by the total number of students. But this is, really, … Read More
I just did the dumbed-down approach: added them and divide by 4. That works out to $7,541. Of course this makes no sense because the amount is for different students. The proper way would be to define the number of students in each grade in an average district and then calculate the average overall by dividing the total funding received by this mythical average district by the total number of students. But this is, really, a silly exercise as all districts are different. How did you get to $7645?
Anyway, this demonstrates that just quoting a number means nothing unless the reader is informed what method was used to arrive at said number. Especially when the average is greater than all but one of the elements of the sum.
An interesting article because it highlights, as John puts it, that averages can be deceiving. For instance, the average funding per "not needy" student for 2013-14 calculated by SSC is $8,000. Yet, the funding formula is highly specific for 2013-14: K-3: $6,845 + 10.4% = $7,557 4-6: $6,947 7-8: $7,154 9-12: $8,289 + 2.6% = $8,505 Averaging these four amounts does not give me $8,000. So how does SSC calculate even the simplest average? Does it assume a particular student population to … Read More
An interesting article because it highlights, as John puts it, that averages can be deceiving.
For instance, the average funding per "not needy" student for 2013-14 calculated by SSC is $8,000.
Yet, the funding formula is highly specific for 2013-14:
K-3: $6,845 + 10.4% = $7,557
4-6: $6,947
9-12: $8,289 + 2.6% = $8,505
Averaging these four amounts does not give me $8,000. So how does SSC calculate even the simplest average? Does it assume a particular student population to get this average? Is it a proprietary algorithm?
There is no question that poor districts will have a "windfall" and the way the new Ed Code sections are written suggest that the supplemental and concentration grants are the new categorical funds as "money should be proportionally spent."
I know for a fact that categorical funds never showed up in the official on-site school budgets at LAUSD on the grounds that they were categorical even though they were, by and large, used to supplant, not supplement, the base budget.
So how will the public know where the funds are being used? Indeed, it will require that "school officials … clear their minds of old formulas and assumptions and to think anew in constructing their budgets." The bigger question is whether or not they'll tell the stakeholders.
Expect big fights with the unions serving the districts over where the money is going. That's already been made clear at the last three meetings of LAUSD's Board. Fireworks coming. Bring popcorn and a lawn chair. And some good beer, if so inclined.


text:
May 20, 2020 May 20, 2020 by fredlaceda
Colonialism and Consumerism
Culture, Reflection, Spirituality, Theology
Fred Laceda
The lectionary text for this Sunday has an interesting reception in Christian history. We know of Matthew 28:16–20 as the missionary text par excellence. This association with missions was a late development, however. Modern missions – or the sending of Christian missionaries in foreign lands – is a product of the Reformation period. It was also at this time that Western powers began their colonial adventurism. Hence colonialism and Christian mission gestated from the same imperialistic womb. It is in this entanglement that we should situate the Western missionary enterprise. And the "Great Commission" text stands as its greatest theological legitimation.
May 3, 2020 by ivarisag
Differing Opinions: Reflection on John 10:1-10
Biblical Studies, Ethics, Theology
Nestor Ravilas
On this side we have Jesus, the Good Shepherd, whose distinctive voice consoles and entices us, who leads us where flourishing of life is possible, and protect us from threats against our well-being. That is our Jesus, our refuge.
On the other side are the scoundrels: strangers, thieves and bandits, whose business in life is to thwart the good intention of the good shepherd. These are the enemies which we have to push and keep outside.
April 10, 2020 April 10, 2020 by ivarisag
The Riddle of Romans 13
Biblical Studies, Politics, Reflection, Theology
#UTAKAPENUEL
Romans 13 again comes to the fore as the national government is miserably fumbling and mishandling the management of the current pandemic. When democratic principles granted us the rights for free speech demonstrable in expressing our opinion publicly, Evangelical Christians immediately seize the public space to shelter and protect the government with the usual and irritating "be-subject-to-authorities" discourse of Romans 13. Proudly, they brandished that the Bible is higher than the Constitution. But, do they really know their Bible?
Did the Bible really say that the emperor, or the government for that matter, is beyond reproach? That we should refrain from criticizing the government, which amounts to challenging the authority of God in the same way?
April 9, 2020 April 9, 2020 by fredlaceda
At the Foot of the Cross: The Violent Legacy of a Theological Symbol
Christology, Church History, Ethics, Reflection, Theology
N.T. Wright asks why the Cross became the enduring symbol of Christianity especially if we consider its original purpose as Rome's mechanism to literally quash dissent. In a typical Wright fashion his answer comes in a form of weaving together seemingly disparate theological threads to create a coherent metanarrative. The finished product is a comprehensive and learned theology which most Christians would agree with. What is lacking in such a theological appropriation and remembering of the Cross is the road it travelled from a violent symbol to a symbol of redemption. This road, contrary to our Christian bubble, is accompanied by antagonism, exclusion, and violent hatred. Let me tell that part of the story.
April 8, 2020 by ivarisag
What would you do with a dead God?: A Theological Problem of Jesus' Suffering and Death
Biblical Studies, Reflection, Theology
Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem
and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders
and chief priests and scribes,
and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Let them recite the song of Marduk,
Who bound Tiamat and took kingship.
Enuma Elish VII 161–162
The disciples were shocked. For a moment they were stunned, and no one could utter a word. Something is wrong with what Jesus was saying, this is not how the story should go? Jesus has just shared to them his imminent suffering and death in the hands of his enemies.
Peter, the most impertinent of the twelve, able to regain composure and blurted out, "God forbid it, Lord. This must never happen to you!" And from there Peter gained his first slide to infamy in Christian history.


text:
YouGov deploys Pure Storage via VAR Softcat
Antony Savvas (a_savvas@yahoo.co.uk), July 22, 2016, 11:10 am
IT TrendsStorage
Surveys 80 percent faster to complete, database transactions four times faster and download times halved
Pure Storage has been selected by surveys firm YouGov to help increase the speed and completion rate of its surveys.
The internet-based market research firm chose Pure because it allows data from more than 20 million survey responses each year to be stored and retrieved at much faster speeds.
In the process of completing an online survey, milliseconds can make a big difference when it comes to those surveyed moving from one page to another. After swapping from hard disk to Pure's flash storage technology, YouGov saw an improvement of 200ms per click.
Overall, surveys are up to 80 percent faster, ensuring more engagement and YouGov believing they will no longer be abandoned due to a slow system.
"We had a big issue where the database became slower and slower as the times to click went up," said Nick Carter, head of infrastructure and system operations at YouGov. "Panellists' times would go from 500ms to one, two or three seconds, and at that point they would stop completing questionnaires and just give up."
With spinning disks too slow to handle the transaction, the switch to flash has eliminated the issue.
Based on the scale of YouGov's operations, faster transaction times can make a considerable difference. Before the 2015 General Election, YouGov polled 30,000 people at seven-day intervals to understand their voting intentions and track changes in sentiment.
Peter Gadd, Pure Storage's director of Northern EMEA, said: "We've helped YouGov accelerate access to information and speed up the decision making process. YouGov's systems are performing much more quickly – surveys are 80 percent faster, database transactions are four times faster, and download times have halved. It means panellist experiences are smooth and uninterrupted."
He said: "Before installing the Pure Storage Flash Array, storage took up 29 percent of the total processing time. During the proof of concept, YouGov reduced this to 1 percent. We improved YouGov's ability to get data ready for external communication more quickly, beating its competition to market and improving its ability to win business."
The solution was recommended to YouGov by IT infrastructure provider Softcat. Tim Jeans, data centre sales manager at Softcat, said: "Our staff work incredibly hard to agnostically advise Softcat's customers in relation to the plethora of options available to them, particularly when it comes to storage.
"We were delighted to connect YouGov with Pure Storage's FlashArray, which provides density, ease of management for enterprise functionality and performance – whilst maintaining affordability."
Major tech firms join forces for 'zero outage' standard
Cloud infrastructure spending in 2016 jumps 16.2 percent
Life's a Stage for cloud service provider Proact