Finally. The Utah voucher fight is over! The 62% of Utahns who voted against taxpayer subsidized vouchers for private schools have spoken. Maybe we can finally put that issue to rest and work on making a difference for the 96% of Utah's kids who attend public schools.
Let it not be said that the campaign was boring. Anything but! Everyone waited to see what the proponents would come up with next. They certainly seemed to employ some bizarre campaign tactics.
And, I, for one, waited with anticipation to see what Patrick Byrne would say next!
He didn't disappoint.
Early in the evening he told a news station that the voucher vote was an "IQ test" for Utah voters as noted by Deseret Spectacle here:
"I think that this is basically a state-wide IQ test, and I'm very interested to see whether Utah passes or fails the IQ test." - Byrne said.
OK, then as it became clear that vouchers were being rejected in EVERY county in the state, Byrne came up with this gem:
"They (Utahns) don't care enough about their kids. They care an awful lot about this system, this bureaucracy, but they don't care enough about their kids to think outside the box," Byrne said.
So, according to know-it-all Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com - the non-profit making company - who is under investigation by the SEC - Utahns are...well....stupid.
Not only are Utahns stupid, they don't care about their kids! WHAT?!?!
Oh, and that is not enough. No, Byrne had to impugn the integrity of Gov. Jon Huntsman when he said:
"When he asked for my support [for governor] he told me he is going to be the voucher governor. Not only was it his No. 1 priority, it was what he was going to be all about," Byrne said. "He did, I think, a very tepid job, and then when the polls came out on the referendum, he was pretty much missing in action." (Reported here in the Tribune.)
Geez. This time Byrne can't say his words were taken out of context, as he did when the NAACP asked him to apologize for saying that minority children who didn't graduate from high school should be "burned" or "thrown away."
I imagine all of Byrne's comments will come under scrutiny in the next state he plans to take his message: South Carolina, as Accountability First reports here.
South Carolinians, beware Patrick Byrne. He thinks you are stupid, you don't care about your kids, and if they are minorities, they should be "burned."
And, a message just for you, Patrick: The "Sith Lord" eats Oreos.
Showing posts with label Patrick Byrne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Byrne. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Thoughts before the voucher vote
Soon the issue of taxpayer funded vouchers for private schools will be decided by Utah voters. Most of us would say "not soon enough" after having been bombarded by radio and TV commercials, and having hauled pounds of mail out of our mailboxes, and seen the newspaper ads, etc. etc. etc.
After having written about the media observations of vouchers, and various other aspects of this campaign for several weeks, tonight I am making a few observations without links to this or that.
First is that this whole voucher campaign was not a Utah-driven effort. It was thrust upon Utahns by out of state groups that continue to seek out "small states" that they can "use" to experiment with this Libertarian driven concept. (See accountabilityfirst for details.)
My second observation is that a lot of really good Uthans - teachers, parents, business people, civil rights leaders - recognized that this out of state voucher effort was not in keeping with the values of Utah. So they organized a huge effort to ensure that voters would have a say - yes or no - on the issue.
From that, a host of people and organizations weighed in and the whole issue became one of intense interest and emotion.
Now, my position from the start has been clear. You can tell from the title of my blog.
What has had me riled through this whole debate is that the pro voucher advocates have used "dirty tricks" and intimidation and obfuscation to keep the underlying issue at bay. They've tried to put up the teachers association as some bad entity when all the association really is is - duh - an association of teachers. They even went so low as to steal yard signs and send spam e-mail. Good grief.
The pro voucher campaign was single-handedly funded by Patrick Byrne, a childless bachelor, CEO of a struggling (to say the least) company, and paranoid who thinks the "Sith Lord" is out to get him. What was his stake in this effort? It certainly hasn't been the interest of children.
No, the whole underlying effort is truly about dissolving public education and public schools. It is a philosophical tug of war about how our children should be educated. It's a difference of opinion about the public good and the "free market."
Should we be a state, a nation, a democracy where children gain their opportunities through education? Should we fulfill the vision of Thomas Jefferson, who fought for a public school system open to all that would help teach generations about the values of freedom and democracy so that they could intelligently participate in that democracy and stand up to defend freedom? Should we continue and value our public schools and our teachers in their quest to, despite all bureaucratic obstacles, ensure that every child has a chance?
OR, as the pro voucher folks believe, but won't say, should education - the ability to think critically - be reserved for a few? Should the education of our children be open to the "free market" where those perceived to offer a better product be subsidized by state taxpayers? Should a "free market" compete to teach our children? Teach our children what? We know, and we influence, what our public schools teach. There is no influence like that in a "free market."
Utah voters will answer those questions for themselves on Tuesday.
So, however you chose to vote, please do vote. It is a lesson important to our children.
After having written about the media observations of vouchers, and various other aspects of this campaign for several weeks, tonight I am making a few observations without links to this or that.
First is that this whole voucher campaign was not a Utah-driven effort. It was thrust upon Utahns by out of state groups that continue to seek out "small states" that they can "use" to experiment with this Libertarian driven concept. (See accountabilityfirst for details.)
My second observation is that a lot of really good Uthans - teachers, parents, business people, civil rights leaders - recognized that this out of state voucher effort was not in keeping with the values of Utah. So they organized a huge effort to ensure that voters would have a say - yes or no - on the issue.
From that, a host of people and organizations weighed in and the whole issue became one of intense interest and emotion.
Now, my position from the start has been clear. You can tell from the title of my blog.
What has had me riled through this whole debate is that the pro voucher advocates have used "dirty tricks" and intimidation and obfuscation to keep the underlying issue at bay. They've tried to put up the teachers association as some bad entity when all the association really is is - duh - an association of teachers. They even went so low as to steal yard signs and send spam e-mail. Good grief.
The pro voucher campaign was single-handedly funded by Patrick Byrne, a childless bachelor, CEO of a struggling (to say the least) company, and paranoid who thinks the "Sith Lord" is out to get him. What was his stake in this effort? It certainly hasn't been the interest of children.
No, the whole underlying effort is truly about dissolving public education and public schools. It is a philosophical tug of war about how our children should be educated. It's a difference of opinion about the public good and the "free market."
Should we be a state, a nation, a democracy where children gain their opportunities through education? Should we fulfill the vision of Thomas Jefferson, who fought for a public school system open to all that would help teach generations about the values of freedom and democracy so that they could intelligently participate in that democracy and stand up to defend freedom? Should we continue and value our public schools and our teachers in their quest to, despite all bureaucratic obstacles, ensure that every child has a chance?
OR, as the pro voucher folks believe, but won't say, should education - the ability to think critically - be reserved for a few? Should the education of our children be open to the "free market" where those perceived to offer a better product be subsidized by state taxpayers? Should a "free market" compete to teach our children? Teach our children what? We know, and we influence, what our public schools teach. There is no influence like that in a "free market."
Utah voters will answer those questions for themselves on Tuesday.
So, however you chose to vote, please do vote. It is a lesson important to our children.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Don't trust your children to Patrick Byrne
We learned from the Utah campaign finance filings yesterday that Patrick Byrne - and his Mum and Dad - have almost single-handedly funded the pro-private school voucher campaign.
To the tune of more than $3 million. Patrick is the largest donor at about $1.5 million, but he managed to secure $1 million from his Dad, and $200,000 from his Mum. (You can read the coverage of the Deseret News here.)
Anyone else besides me see the absolute, fundamental hypocrisy in "Parents for Choice in Education" (the Patrick Byrne mouthpiece we now know it to be) hysterically screaming that teachers in Utah and throughout the country, through small dollar donations, were contributing $3 million through their national organization, the National Education Association?
At least Utahns for Public Schools, the anti-voucher group of parents, teachers, educators, business people and civil rights groups, is made up of REAL people! They listed more than 2,500 individual donors. Donors that actually live and vote in Utah.
(Unlike Jack and Dorothy Byrne. They aren't registered to vote in Utah.)
So, we know Patrick is rich.
What else we know about Patrick Byrne is this:
He hates teachers and hates public education. (Calls teachers "educrats" and was quoted by George Will as saying that if he had a "silver bullet" he would shoot the NEA - an organization of teachers.)
He labels the 60% of Utahns polls reveal to be against vouchers "bigots."
He then states that minority children who drop out of school should be "burned" or "thrown away."
You know, one could put this down to the throes of this private school voucher campaign, but after looking around, this really could be a sign that Patrick Byrne is, well, nasty.
See below what he's written in e-mails to some people in the business world. Forgive the graphic language it is Byrne's, not mine.
o In October 2004, Byrne had an email exchange with Bethany McLean--a Fortune magazine reporter who was involved in exposing the Enron scandal--about her 1995 decision to leave Goldman Sachs to become a reporter. Specifically, Byrne wrote, “So, why exactly did you become a reporter? Giving Goldman traders blowjobs didn’t work out?” (New York Post, August 18, 2005)
(An Overstock.com statement indicated Byrne had been upset because McLean discussed Byrne’s cancer in an article she wrote about Overstock.)
o When Donn Vickrey of Camelback (now known as Gradient Research) wrote something about one of Overstock’s Board members that Byrne thought was unfair and unkind, Byrne wrote an email back to him saying he should be “beaten, f---ed, and driven from the land,” a phrase Byrne thought was “particularly colorful.” Byrne said he has always “admired those who can swear creatively.”
(New York Post, August 18, 2005)
And, Byrne is vengeful and deceitful.
Take, for example, his systematic lies about using an underling to blog for him, and using those blogs to get "even" with his detractors as outlined by Sam Antar here.
Then, his "failure" to reveal a subpoena by the SEC for a year. That is documented here.
Then there is how Byrne treats employees, or former employees. Take the case of a couple who worked for Overstock, were accused of "stealing" e-mail addresses, and then held almost "hostage" to the whole suit against them for over a year. At the end, Overstock dismissed the charges as unfounded.
Read all about it because it's all in the court records:
On December 5, 2003, Overstock filed a lawsuit against Jeffrey and Rachelle Knight, accusing the couple of stealing more than 3 million email addresses from the Overstock’s customer database and selling them to other companies that send junk e-mail. On that day, Overstock fired Rachelle Knight.(It had previously fired Jeffrey in an April 2003 layoff.) Overstock also filed a restraining order against the couple to turn over any Overstock equipment and their personal computer, only to withdraw it within weeks.
The Knights and their attorney, Lauren Scholnick, said the lawsuit was nothing more than a “publicity stunt” to show that Overstock was fighting for customer privacy. Before filing the suit, Overstock alleged that it had received a “significantly increased” number of complaints about junk e-mail.
Almost right after Overstock filed a complaint against the Knights alleging civil conspiracy and breach of contract, two Overstock employees who had claimed they saw Rachelle Knight log on to Overstock’s main computer changed their testimony. The witnesses claimed they saw Knight log on to the computer system in September 2003, but later changed that to April.
Days after filing a lawsuit against Rachelle and Jeffrey Knight, alleging they stole 3 million e-mail addresses from the company’s files, Overstock reduced its estimate to a mere “few dozen."
Jeffrey Knight noted in a counterclaim that Patrick Byrne threatened to fire his wife, who was reportedly pregnant, and sue SmartBargains.com, the company that offered Knight a job. Byrne denied the charges and said the lawsuit against the Knights had nothing to do with SmartBargains.
In February 2004, Overstock dropped the lawsuit against the Knights, arguing that the allegations that they stole information from Overstock were “unfounded.”
On February 26, 2004, Third District Court Judge Sandra Pueller approved an order that dismissed the lawsuit, essentially clearing the Knights of all allegations. The order stated, “Overstock has determined, after a full investigation, that its customer database has not been compromised, is fully secure and that (the Knights) did not attempt to, and have not, accessed any confidential customer information.” Neither party had to pay monetary damages; each paid their own legal fees.
Utahns who care about their children, and their children's education, should take note of this man who is trying to sell them flawed private school vouchers.
With no children of his own, Byrne doesn't really care about YOUR children. He only cares about revenge.
To the tune of more than $3 million. Patrick is the largest donor at about $1.5 million, but he managed to secure $1 million from his Dad, and $200,000 from his Mum. (You can read the coverage of the Deseret News here.)
Anyone else besides me see the absolute, fundamental hypocrisy in "Parents for Choice in Education" (the Patrick Byrne mouthpiece we now know it to be) hysterically screaming that teachers in Utah and throughout the country, through small dollar donations, were contributing $3 million through their national organization, the National Education Association?
At least Utahns for Public Schools, the anti-voucher group of parents, teachers, educators, business people and civil rights groups, is made up of REAL people! They listed more than 2,500 individual donors. Donors that actually live and vote in Utah.
(Unlike Jack and Dorothy Byrne. They aren't registered to vote in Utah.)
So, we know Patrick is rich.
What else we know about Patrick Byrne is this:
He hates teachers and hates public education. (Calls teachers "educrats" and was quoted by George Will as saying that if he had a "silver bullet" he would shoot the NEA - an organization of teachers.)
He labels the 60% of Utahns polls reveal to be against vouchers "bigots."
He then states that minority children who drop out of school should be "burned" or "thrown away."
You know, one could put this down to the throes of this private school voucher campaign, but after looking around, this really could be a sign that Patrick Byrne is, well, nasty.
See below what he's written in e-mails to some people in the business world. Forgive the graphic language it is Byrne's, not mine.
o In October 2004, Byrne had an email exchange with Bethany McLean--a Fortune magazine reporter who was involved in exposing the Enron scandal--about her 1995 decision to leave Goldman Sachs to become a reporter. Specifically, Byrne wrote, “So, why exactly did you become a reporter? Giving Goldman traders blowjobs didn’t work out?” (New York Post, August 18, 2005)
(An Overstock.com statement indicated Byrne had been upset because McLean discussed Byrne’s cancer in an article she wrote about Overstock.)
o When Donn Vickrey of Camelback (now known as Gradient Research) wrote something about one of Overstock’s Board members that Byrne thought was unfair and unkind, Byrne wrote an email back to him saying he should be “beaten, f---ed, and driven from the land,” a phrase Byrne thought was “particularly colorful.” Byrne said he has always “admired those who can swear creatively.”
(New York Post, August 18, 2005)
And, Byrne is vengeful and deceitful.
Take, for example, his systematic lies about using an underling to blog for him, and using those blogs to get "even" with his detractors as outlined by Sam Antar here.
Then, his "failure" to reveal a subpoena by the SEC for a year. That is documented here.
Then there is how Byrne treats employees, or former employees. Take the case of a couple who worked for Overstock, were accused of "stealing" e-mail addresses, and then held almost "hostage" to the whole suit against them for over a year. At the end, Overstock dismissed the charges as unfounded.
Read all about it because it's all in the court records:
On December 5, 2003, Overstock filed a lawsuit against Jeffrey and Rachelle Knight, accusing the couple of stealing more than 3 million email addresses from the Overstock’s customer database and selling them to other companies that send junk e-mail. On that day, Overstock fired Rachelle Knight.(It had previously fired Jeffrey in an April 2003 layoff.) Overstock also filed a restraining order against the couple to turn over any Overstock equipment and their personal computer, only to withdraw it within weeks.
The Knights and their attorney, Lauren Scholnick, said the lawsuit was nothing more than a “publicity stunt” to show that Overstock was fighting for customer privacy. Before filing the suit, Overstock alleged that it had received a “significantly increased” number of complaints about junk e-mail.
Almost right after Overstock filed a complaint against the Knights alleging civil conspiracy and breach of contract, two Overstock employees who had claimed they saw Rachelle Knight log on to Overstock’s main computer changed their testimony. The witnesses claimed they saw Knight log on to the computer system in September 2003, but later changed that to April.
Days after filing a lawsuit against Rachelle and Jeffrey Knight, alleging they stole 3 million e-mail addresses from the company’s files, Overstock reduced its estimate to a mere “few dozen."
Jeffrey Knight noted in a counterclaim that Patrick Byrne threatened to fire his wife, who was reportedly pregnant, and sue SmartBargains.com, the company that offered Knight a job. Byrne denied the charges and said the lawsuit against the Knights had nothing to do with SmartBargains.
In February 2004, Overstock dropped the lawsuit against the Knights, arguing that the allegations that they stole information from Overstock were “unfounded.”
On February 26, 2004, Third District Court Judge Sandra Pueller approved an order that dismissed the lawsuit, essentially clearing the Knights of all allegations. The order stated, “Overstock has determined, after a full investigation, that its customer database has not been compromised, is fully secure and that (the Knights) did not attempt to, and have not, accessed any confidential customer information.” Neither party had to pay monetary damages; each paid their own legal fees.
Utahns who care about their children, and their children's education, should take note of this man who is trying to sell them flawed private school vouchers.
With no children of his own, Byrne doesn't really care about YOUR children. He only cares about revenge.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Byrne won't apologize
Last night I "borrowed" from Gary Weiss's blog (here) that posted Patrick Byrne's You Tube video where he suggests that minority children who don't graduate from high school should be "burned" or "thrown away."
Today the NAACP of Utah called for Byrne to apologize and retract his comments. He wouldn't. What a surprise.
So what did Byrne say? He tried to turn it around, of course. Obfuscate. From the Associated Press, as reported by the Deseret News (story here):
"Byrne said he had no intention of apologizing and claimed his comments were taken out of context."
But, Jeanetta Williams of the NAACP held her ground:
"Williams said she believes Byrne literally meant that minorities who don't graduate should be burned or thrown away.
"Those were his words, not mine," she said."
For Byrne "burning" or "throwing away" a few kids really doesn't mean that much to him. Especially kids of color.
Consider this:
1. In September 2001, after returning from a trip to India and Southeast Asia, Byrne launched Worldstock "Socially Responsible Goods," a store within Overstock.com whose ostensible purpose was to sell disadvantaged artisan work “as inexpensively as possible so as to maximize the amount of return for them.” Regarding Worldstock’s relationship with vendors, Byrne said “it’s got to be paternalistic” because in reality, Worldstock is “holding all the aces.”
2. One issue Byrne knew Worldstock would face was the possibility that its goods were produced by child labor, products which he described as being “morally tainted.” However, after considering the arguments for and against the possibility of child labor in making Worldstock items, Byrne decided “children might legitimately help their parents in informal, cottage-industry settings, if their work were [sic] limited and they go to school.” Given a “blurry world,” “Worldstock allows child labor for less than two hours a day, coupled with mandatory schooling, because such labor occurs in the home rather than the factories.”
Yes, this is the multi-millionaire bachelor funding Utah's private school voucher scam. In his own words. For which he will never, ever apologize.
Today the NAACP of Utah called for Byrne to apologize and retract his comments. He wouldn't. What a surprise.
So what did Byrne say? He tried to turn it around, of course. Obfuscate. From the Associated Press, as reported by the Deseret News (story here):
"Byrne said he had no intention of apologizing and claimed his comments were taken out of context."
But, Jeanetta Williams of the NAACP held her ground:
"Williams said she believes Byrne literally meant that minorities who don't graduate should be burned or thrown away.
"Those were his words, not mine," she said."
For Byrne "burning" or "throwing away" a few kids really doesn't mean that much to him. Especially kids of color.
Consider this:
1. In September 2001, after returning from a trip to India and Southeast Asia, Byrne launched Worldstock "Socially Responsible Goods," a store within Overstock.com whose ostensible purpose was to sell disadvantaged artisan work “as inexpensively as possible so as to maximize the amount of return for them.” Regarding Worldstock’s relationship with vendors, Byrne said “it’s got to be paternalistic” because in reality, Worldstock is “holding all the aces.”
2. One issue Byrne knew Worldstock would face was the possibility that its goods were produced by child labor, products which he described as being “morally tainted.” However, after considering the arguments for and against the possibility of child labor in making Worldstock items, Byrne decided “children might legitimately help their parents in informal, cottage-industry settings, if their work were [sic] limited and they go to school.” Given a “blurry world,” “Worldstock allows child labor for less than two hours a day, coupled with mandatory schooling, because such labor occurs in the home rather than the factories.”
Yes, this is the multi-millionaire bachelor funding Utah's private school voucher scam. In his own words. For which he will never, ever apologize.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Patrick Byrne says "burn those kids"
WOW. This is completely stunning!
Patrick Byrne, pro-voucher funder and debater (and failed businessman) said that kids who fail to complete high school should be "burned" and/or "thrown away."
Gary Weiss found a You Tube video and posted it on his blog here.
To quote from his writing:
"As he continues his charm offensive in Utah, where the lifelong bachelor is campaigning for school vouchers -- yesterday he called voucher opponents "bigots" -- Byrne has brought a refreshing Hitlerian tone to the voucher debate..."
And:
"I guess that's easy enough to say when you're the son of an insurance industry executive, and have never had to work a day in your life. Just burn the underclass. Useless people. Untermenschen."
Please check out Gary's blog. And the You Tube video.
You will be shocked, too.
Patrick Byrne, pro-voucher funder and debater (and failed businessman) said that kids who fail to complete high school should be "burned" and/or "thrown away."
Gary Weiss found a You Tube video and posted it on his blog here.
To quote from his writing:
"As he continues his charm offensive in Utah, where the lifelong bachelor is campaigning for school vouchers -- yesterday he called voucher opponents "bigots" -- Byrne has brought a refreshing Hitlerian tone to the voucher debate..."
And:
"I guess that's easy enough to say when you're the son of an insurance industry executive, and have never had to work a day in your life. Just burn the underclass. Useless people. Untermenschen."
Please check out Gary's blog. And the You Tube video.
You will be shocked, too.
Patrick Byrne can't do math either
Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, hasn't ever been good at math. One can see that in how he's run (or run aground) his company - which has yet to make a profit. (Can he even add or subtract??)
(Byrne also can't hold his temper and is always offering to "fight" people. As he did at Fechheimer Bros when he offered to settle a union dispute with fisticuffs, Gary Weiss noted here yesterday that Byrne got into a tussle with Utah legislators, too. Weiss also notes that Byrne has labeled 60% of Utahns as "bigots." Hardly a temperate comment.)
But, I digress. Byrne can't do math. That view is reinforced by Byrne's position in a "business leaders" (aka "business bullies") group that wants CEOs to intimidate their employees into supporting the Utah voucher measure. None of them can do the math - which also makes me a little wary of their role as company heads.
If Byrne and the others COULD do math, they might know that it would take over 20% of students in public schools to switch to private schools to make the Utah voucher measure come close to "breaking even." And, folks, that isn't going to happen. There aren't enough spaces in Utah private schools to hold even that many students. Plus, historically, not that many students are going to "switch" and leave Utah's public schools.
But, Byrne just joins a growing list of pro-voucher folks who can't do math.
See Paul Rolly's articles here and here where Sen. Bramble not only bumbled the so-called fiscal analysis of vouchers by presuming that ALL private school students would end up in public schools, his subsequent analysis of public school enrollment was off, too. Wildly off. In both cases.
The Parents for Choice in Education pro-voucher group also can't do math. They keep claiming that tuition would be affordable for average Utah families with a voucher and they cite erroneous tuition data.
But, as reported here in this morning's Deseret News, even with a voucher most families (and particularly the low income families that all the millionaires seem to want to "help") cannot afford to send their children to private school. Period. Even the highest level voucher of $3,000 would barely cover half the cost of tuition. And, then when you add in uniforms, books, school activities, transportation to and from school, then vouchers seem even more paltry.
Since Byrne and all the other the people supporting school vouchers can't seem to do basic math you've got to ask: What they are trying to put over on the people of Utah?
(Byrne also can't hold his temper and is always offering to "fight" people. As he did at Fechheimer Bros when he offered to settle a union dispute with fisticuffs, Gary Weiss noted here yesterday that Byrne got into a tussle with Utah legislators, too. Weiss also notes that Byrne has labeled 60% of Utahns as "bigots." Hardly a temperate comment.)
But, I digress. Byrne can't do math. That view is reinforced by Byrne's position in a "business leaders" (aka "business bullies") group that wants CEOs to intimidate their employees into supporting the Utah voucher measure. None of them can do the math - which also makes me a little wary of their role as company heads.
If Byrne and the others COULD do math, they might know that it would take over 20% of students in public schools to switch to private schools to make the Utah voucher measure come close to "breaking even." And, folks, that isn't going to happen. There aren't enough spaces in Utah private schools to hold even that many students. Plus, historically, not that many students are going to "switch" and leave Utah's public schools.
But, Byrne just joins a growing list of pro-voucher folks who can't do math.
See Paul Rolly's articles here and here where Sen. Bramble not only bumbled the so-called fiscal analysis of vouchers by presuming that ALL private school students would end up in public schools, his subsequent analysis of public school enrollment was off, too. Wildly off. In both cases.
The Parents for Choice in Education pro-voucher group also can't do math. They keep claiming that tuition would be affordable for average Utah families with a voucher and they cite erroneous tuition data.
But, as reported here in this morning's Deseret News, even with a voucher most families (and particularly the low income families that all the millionaires seem to want to "help") cannot afford to send their children to private school. Period. Even the highest level voucher of $3,000 would barely cover half the cost of tuition. And, then when you add in uniforms, books, school activities, transportation to and from school, then vouchers seem even more paltry.
Since Byrne and all the other the people supporting school vouchers can't seem to do basic math you've got to ask: What they are trying to put over on the people of Utah?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Surreal hypocrisy
If there is one thing that seems to bind together many of the paid PCE workers and consultants it's this: Hostility.
Each of the PCE ads and presentations I've seen has a strong undercurrent that is downright hostile. Hostile to teachers, to school administrators, to parents, to anyone who disagrees with their numbers or their opinions.
Read this diatribe about our public schools below, which is pasted from a pro-voucher blogger:
"It is only from a special point of view that education is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it's a good one. The pay isn't high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is pretty good...in fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it."
And, most of PCE's paid ads are a rant against the teachers' association. You know, it is your teachers (and my Mom) who belong, voluntarily, to the association.
Even toward the end of Richard and Linda Eyre's 7-minute Oreo cookie video, Richard says to the camera, "and if our schools have to cut a few teachers, that won't be so bad..." (which of course causes one to question his wide-eyed claims that schools will hire MORE teachers because of vouchers).
There are even the PCE-led letters to the editor that claim that Utah's public schools are controlled and "monopolized" by teachers through their union. Clearly that can't be true because if the teachers' association controlled education, then they would be the best paid teachers in the country! And, they wouldn't have to deal with the huge classes that they have. Too, Utah would be a lot better than last in the nation in per pupil funding.
With so much hostility emanating from the PCE campaign, it is impossible to believe their latest ad, in which U.S. Congressman Rob Bishop says: "I know how hard our Utah teachers work and what a great job they do with the resources they have."
The hyprocrisy is surreal.
P.S. For those who tuned in for the next chapter on Patrick Byrne, it will be forthcoming. There is a LOT of material to go through.
Each of the PCE ads and presentations I've seen has a strong undercurrent that is downright hostile. Hostile to teachers, to school administrators, to parents, to anyone who disagrees with their numbers or their opinions.
Read this diatribe about our public schools below, which is pasted from a pro-voucher blogger:
"It is only from a special point of view that education is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it's a good one. The pay isn't high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is pretty good...in fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it."
And, most of PCE's paid ads are a rant against the teachers' association. You know, it is your teachers (and my Mom) who belong, voluntarily, to the association.
Even toward the end of Richard and Linda Eyre's 7-minute Oreo cookie video, Richard says to the camera, "and if our schools have to cut a few teachers, that won't be so bad..." (which of course causes one to question his wide-eyed claims that schools will hire MORE teachers because of vouchers).
There are even the PCE-led letters to the editor that claim that Utah's public schools are controlled and "monopolized" by teachers through their union. Clearly that can't be true because if the teachers' association controlled education, then they would be the best paid teachers in the country! And, they wouldn't have to deal with the huge classes that they have. Too, Utah would be a lot better than last in the nation in per pupil funding.
With so much hostility emanating from the PCE campaign, it is impossible to believe their latest ad, in which U.S. Congressman Rob Bishop says: "I know how hard our Utah teachers work and what a great job they do with the resources they have."
The hyprocrisy is surreal.
P.S. For those who tuned in for the next chapter on Patrick Byrne, it will be forthcoming. There is a LOT of material to go through.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Mr. Byrne and Associates
Although campaign reports aren't due until the end of the month, it's pretty obvious that Parents for Choice in Education(PCE) is getting a huge influx of money from SOMEWHERE or SOMEONE. They're running a field operation (that includes lots and lots of e-mails, so watch your inbox for their spam), have increased their TV and radio ads, and generally don't seem to be as underfunded as they once claimed.
Again we ask, where is the money coming from? Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, has put plenty of his own money into PCE and the legislators' PIC. Or is Byrne tapping his friends?
We have the report from California that money was going to be diverted to the Utah voucher issue. Charles Hurth, the Missouri mystery-man behind the money in California was linked to Byrne through his failed "First Class Education" operation - a short-lived concept that went defunct in every state.
Or, is Byrne getting money out of his friends from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation? (The Friedman Foundation exists solely to get taxpayer funds diverted from public to private schools via school vouchers.)
On the Board with Byrne are two familiar names in voucher schools: William Hume, a huge donor to the "All Children Matter" operation in Michigan, and one Howard S. Rich from New York City. (You can learn more about Howie Rich here.)
Or, is Byrne really digging deep in his own pocket to fund PCE? He certainly seems to have a lot of personal money, despite the fact that his company isn't doing well. (Please look here and here for some thorough reviews of Byrne's business dealings. I must say these are very telling and thanks to Gary Weiss and Sam Antar for the information they've posted.)
Byrne, of course, was born into a well-to-do family. He had all the privileges and connections that enabled him to get a good education, graduating from Walt Whitman High School, then Dartmouth, then Stanford.
His father, Jack, proved himself to be a very smart businessman, saving GEICO insurance from near bankruptcy. Jack also served on Boards and such for both Dartmouth and Stanford, positions that undoubtedly helped young Patrick.
Patrick Byrne has proven himself to be resilient, surviving bouts with cancer, becoming a heavyweight fighter and an expert in martial arts. He's a pilot, though he hasn't apparently flown in some time. (More later about a little incident in 1997.)
But there are also some things that are a little "odd" about Patrick. Like someone who tilts at windmills but can't even get that right. His "jihad" against the "Sith Lords" (his words, not mine) that he claims are ruining Overstock.com seems more than a little off the charts.
And, his relationship to a Col. Bo Gritz seems a little strange, too. Gritz recounts his relationship with a young Patrick Byrne in China. Seems Gritz used Patrick as an "agent" in Asia. Young Patrick sought Gritz's counsel, and later Gritz claims to have helped Patrick attain a "miraculous" recovery from his cancer. You can read Gritz's claims here, once you get past some of the religious verbiage and the rants about Ruby Ridge.
Some of these references are Patrick's early years. We will continue to explore his relationships to people, and we will see if we can figure out who - besides Patrick Byrne - is funding PCE.
Again we ask, where is the money coming from? Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, has put plenty of his own money into PCE and the legislators' PIC. Or is Byrne tapping his friends?
We have the report from California that money was going to be diverted to the Utah voucher issue. Charles Hurth, the Missouri mystery-man behind the money in California was linked to Byrne through his failed "First Class Education" operation - a short-lived concept that went defunct in every state.
Or, is Byrne getting money out of his friends from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation? (The Friedman Foundation exists solely to get taxpayer funds diverted from public to private schools via school vouchers.)
On the Board with Byrne are two familiar names in voucher schools: William Hume, a huge donor to the "All Children Matter" operation in Michigan, and one Howard S. Rich from New York City. (You can learn more about Howie Rich here.)
Or, is Byrne really digging deep in his own pocket to fund PCE? He certainly seems to have a lot of personal money, despite the fact that his company isn't doing well. (Please look here and here for some thorough reviews of Byrne's business dealings. I must say these are very telling and thanks to Gary Weiss and Sam Antar for the information they've posted.)
Byrne, of course, was born into a well-to-do family. He had all the privileges and connections that enabled him to get a good education, graduating from Walt Whitman High School, then Dartmouth, then Stanford.
His father, Jack, proved himself to be a very smart businessman, saving GEICO insurance from near bankruptcy. Jack also served on Boards and such for both Dartmouth and Stanford, positions that undoubtedly helped young Patrick.
Patrick Byrne has proven himself to be resilient, surviving bouts with cancer, becoming a heavyweight fighter and an expert in martial arts. He's a pilot, though he hasn't apparently flown in some time. (More later about a little incident in 1997.)
But there are also some things that are a little "odd" about Patrick. Like someone who tilts at windmills but can't even get that right. His "jihad" against the "Sith Lords" (his words, not mine) that he claims are ruining Overstock.com seems more than a little off the charts.
And, his relationship to a Col. Bo Gritz seems a little strange, too. Gritz recounts his relationship with a young Patrick Byrne in China. Seems Gritz used Patrick as an "agent" in Asia. Young Patrick sought Gritz's counsel, and later Gritz claims to have helped Patrick attain a "miraculous" recovery from his cancer. You can read Gritz's claims here, once you get past some of the religious verbiage and the rants about Ruby Ridge.
Some of these references are Patrick's early years. We will continue to explore his relationships to people, and we will see if we can figure out who - besides Patrick Byrne - is funding PCE.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Still on the voucher money trail
Finding out how much money is being spent on this voucher campaign won't come until the end of the month when reports are due. Once again, Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) likely will complain about the money that Utah teachers, and teachers around the country, are putting into the opposition to Referendum 1.
And I will bet anyone in Utah $1 that the PCE finance report again shows that the majority of its expendable funds were donated by the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." Both those entities clearly were created to obfuscate the REAL donors to the pro-voucher side. Neither foundations nor corporations making political expenditures are required by Utah law to reveal their donors.
It could well be that the All Children Matter operation out of Michigan is still funding PCE. Likely, even. But, since the ACM operation in Michigan is a corporation too, it can donate to its heart's content to the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." and never leave a trace.
Or, it could be that ACM has its hands full right now. It got a little too clever when operating in Wisconsin in 2006 where the organization was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws. (You can read about it here if interested.)
Now, ACM's mother operation faces similar election law violations in Ohio where the Secretary of State is challenging ACM's convulted money laundering operation. (And, if you're interested in Ohio, you can read about ACM's troubles here.)
But then we just don't know if ACM's multi-millionaire donors are funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah. We do know at least one Utahn, Patrick Byrne, is investing some of his considerable fortune into PCE and its operations.
Mr. Byrne will be worth looking at and I relish the opportunity. Stay tuned!
P.S. If the Friedman Foundation also is expending money to persuade reluctant Utahns to support vouchers, does it have to register as a PIC? Glen Warchol noted this in today's Salt Lake City Tribune:
"The voucher discussion began with a slick promotional film, paid for by the Milton Friedman Foundation, that presented the voucher program as necessary to prepare Utah for an expected onslaught of 155,000 new students over the next five years."
And I will bet anyone in Utah $1 that the PCE finance report again shows that the majority of its expendable funds were donated by the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." Both those entities clearly were created to obfuscate the REAL donors to the pro-voucher side. Neither foundations nor corporations making political expenditures are required by Utah law to reveal their donors.
It could well be that the All Children Matter operation out of Michigan is still funding PCE. Likely, even. But, since the ACM operation in Michigan is a corporation too, it can donate to its heart's content to the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." and never leave a trace.
Or, it could be that ACM has its hands full right now. It got a little too clever when operating in Wisconsin in 2006 where the organization was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws. (You can read about it here if interested.)
Now, ACM's mother operation faces similar election law violations in Ohio where the Secretary of State is challenging ACM's convulted money laundering operation. (And, if you're interested in Ohio, you can read about ACM's troubles here.)
But then we just don't know if ACM's multi-millionaire donors are funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah. We do know at least one Utahn, Patrick Byrne, is investing some of his considerable fortune into PCE and its operations.
Mr. Byrne will be worth looking at and I relish the opportunity. Stay tuned!
P.S. If the Friedman Foundation also is expending money to persuade reluctant Utahns to support vouchers, does it have to register as a PIC? Glen Warchol noted this in today's Salt Lake City Tribune:
"The voucher discussion began with a slick promotional film, paid for by the Milton Friedman Foundation, that presented the voucher program as necessary to prepare Utah for an expected onslaught of 155,000 new students over the next five years."
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Watch the money go 'round and 'round
From my post earlier today (Show me the money - see below), there were several folks named in the LA Times story who didn't seem to have a close connection to California or the now-defunct ballot initiative that would have divided the electoral college votes of that electoral college vote-rich state. (There is a link to the full story in my post below.)
You may recall that with the California effort on the outs, spokespeople indicated the money was going to be re-directed to the Utah voucher campaign. In fact it was this in the original story that first caught my eye:
"Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers."
One oddity from that news story that seemed really out of place was the Missouri attorney, Charles Hurth III who appears to be the conduit for the "large donor" who gave to the defunct ballot effort. Hurth lives and works in a small town in Missouri so it puzzles me why he would get involved in such an initiative so far away.
Missouri is, after all, a ballot initiative state much like Utah, so why would Hurth be so interested in an electoral college initiative only in California? Why not Missouri?
And, what else has Hurth been involved in?
Well, heavens be. I did a little research and found Hurth's name attached to the so-called "First Class Education" effort bankrolled by Utah's Patrick Byrne, the mercurial CEO of Overstock.com and funder of the Utah legislators' pro-private school voucher political issues committee (PIC) and major donor to PCE.
You can see some of the ties here and here as reported by San Francisco and national reporters.
Not only was the "First Class Education" effort by Byrne an utter failure, he wasted more than $1 million trying to foist it on states only to find that it cratered in every place where it was brought up -- including Utah and Missouri. You can read all about Byrne's mis-steps and mis-guided education reform package here.
SO, if the California money is to be re-directed to Utah, will that money be Hurth's? Or Byrne's, re-routed through Missouri and California? Or some other shadowy Libertarian who shuns the spotlight?
Byrne admits to being a Libertarian. Or at least he did here when he was in Florida (nice place to be in winter) flacking for his so-called education "reform". And that brings me back to speculating that Libertarians are funding PCE. They certainly were vocal last week in their support for vouchers, even if their logic was a little convoluted.
But until the donor or donors come forward big questions remain: Who is funding PCE? And, why don't they want to tell us?
If it is just Byrne, why doesn't he tell us? If it is Byrne, Hurth, Howie Rich from New York City, and other like-minded Libertarians, why aren't they proud of what they are doing?
Doesn't anyone supporting vouchers have enough conviction in the issue to say he/she/they are willing to put their funds where their convictions are??
You may recall that with the California effort on the outs, spokespeople indicated the money was going to be re-directed to the Utah voucher campaign. In fact it was this in the original story that first caught my eye:
"Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers."
One oddity from that news story that seemed really out of place was the Missouri attorney, Charles Hurth III who appears to be the conduit for the "large donor" who gave to the defunct ballot effort. Hurth lives and works in a small town in Missouri so it puzzles me why he would get involved in such an initiative so far away.
Missouri is, after all, a ballot initiative state much like Utah, so why would Hurth be so interested in an electoral college initiative only in California? Why not Missouri?
And, what else has Hurth been involved in?
Well, heavens be. I did a little research and found Hurth's name attached to the so-called "First Class Education" effort bankrolled by Utah's Patrick Byrne, the mercurial CEO of Overstock.com and funder of the Utah legislators' pro-private school voucher political issues committee (PIC) and major donor to PCE.
You can see some of the ties here and here as reported by San Francisco and national reporters.
Not only was the "First Class Education" effort by Byrne an utter failure, he wasted more than $1 million trying to foist it on states only to find that it cratered in every place where it was brought up -- including Utah and Missouri. You can read all about Byrne's mis-steps and mis-guided education reform package here.
SO, if the California money is to be re-directed to Utah, will that money be Hurth's? Or Byrne's, re-routed through Missouri and California? Or some other shadowy Libertarian who shuns the spotlight?
Byrne admits to being a Libertarian. Or at least he did here when he was in Florida (nice place to be in winter) flacking for his so-called education "reform". And that brings me back to speculating that Libertarians are funding PCE. They certainly were vocal last week in their support for vouchers, even if their logic was a little convoluted.
But until the donor or donors come forward big questions remain: Who is funding PCE? And, why don't they want to tell us?
If it is just Byrne, why doesn't he tell us? If it is Byrne, Hurth, Howie Rich from New York City, and other like-minded Libertarians, why aren't they proud of what they are doing?
Doesn't anyone supporting vouchers have enough conviction in the issue to say he/she/they are willing to put their funds where their convictions are??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)