Tiny school districts to Lansing: Stop acting like ‘middle-schoolers’

Whitefish Township school

Whitefish Township Community School faces an uncertain future after Gov. Whitmer vetoed isolated school funding as leverage in a fight with the GOP. (Courtesy photo)

Do you have a question about the Michigan budget?

Email Capitol reporters Riley Beggin at rbeggin@bridgemi.com or Jonathan Oosting at joosting@bridgemi.com 
and it could be the basis of a future story.

As principal and superintendent of the one-building Whitefish Township Community School in the Upper Peninsula community of Paradise, Tom McKee recognizes middle-school behavior when he sees it.

His school district is set to lose 16 percent of its funding because of vetoes by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the failure of the Democratic governor and GOP leaders in the Legislature to come to a compromise in their budget fight.

The 47-student Whitefish Township school system is one of five tiny, rural Michigan school districts on islands or in the U.P. that receive a sizable portion of their budgets from an “isolated district” school fund. That money helps keep the doors open in those districts, and keeps students from having to ride on buses as much as four hours a day to get to the closest adjoining schools.

That funding was vetoed by Whitmer Sept. 30 as part of a negotiating ploy to force Republicans to compromise on the 2019-20 budget.

So far, neither side has budged.

“I call the governor’s office every day,” McKee said. “They tell me ‘We want to fix it but they (the Legislature) won’t negotiate.’ Lee Chatfield (the Republican Speaker of the House) says the same thing about the governor.

“Being in education, it’s like walking into a room of middle-schoolers and they’re all messing around,” McKee said.

Except McKee can’t put the Lansing middle-schoolers in detention.

“I’m disappointed that the 319 kids (the total enrollment in those districts) in the most isolated districts in the state are being used as a political football,” McKee said. “They’re caught up in political games of finger-pointing.”

Whitmer made 147 line-item vetoes in the state budget, cutting almost $1 billion from a budget that was passed by the GOP-controlled House and Senate with no input from the governor. About $128 million of those cuts came in the School Aid budget which funds the state’s public K-12 schools.

Many of those cuts are controversial – $35 million in per-student funding for charter schools, for example – or would seem to fly in the face of priorities Whitmer outlined in her campaign, such as a $16 million cut to career and technical education and $15 million for a summer reading program for third-graders in danger of being held back because of poor reading scores.

The line-item veto of the $7 million isolated school fund is “devastating” to the five districts that rely on the funding to keep their doors open.

Those districts – Whitefish Township in Paradise, Burt Township in Grand Marais, Mackinac Island, Beaver Island and DeTour Area Schools on Drummond Island – all enroll under 100 students. Consolidation with neighboring school districts is problematic because of distance.

Because of low enrollment and low tax bases, the five districts have been the primary recipients of the state’s isolated school funding formula since it was created in 2004. The program has continued through Democratic and Republican governors.

In recent years, the program has been expanded to include funding for about 100 rural districts to help pay for gas to transport children, but other districts rely on the funding for a much smaller portion of their budgets.

If the five original districts don’t receive isolated school funding this year, “it’s going to be catastrophic for all the reasons this was put into place in the first place,” said Daniel Reattoir, superintendent of Eastern Upper Peninsula Intermediate School District, the home of three of the isolated districts.

“Those districts are going to have a hard time fulfilling the Michigan Merit Curriculum” because they will have to shrink their teaching staffs, Reattoir said, referring to a set of state standards and classes that students must meet to graduate. “I know this is political gamesmanship. (But) when it impacts students and the opportunities available to them, it becomes no longer a game.”

About 80 miles west of Paradise, Burt Township School in Grand Marais would lose $221,674 – 23 percent of its annual budget – if the vetoed funds are not restored.

“With that much of a shortfall, we’d need to reconfigure to a K-6 (district) or close our doors,” Burt Township Superintendent Greg Nyen said of the 26- student K-12 district on Lake Superior. “We have enough in our fund balance to continue status quo for the school year. But if this drags out into the new calendar year, then the board is going to be forced to make some difficult choices” about next school year.

The nearest neighboring school district is more than 50 miles away, Nyen said. With winter weather, “our kids would be on the school bus four or more hours a day.”

Young families in Grand Marais are already talking about moving to avoid putting their kids on long bus rides to school, Nyen said.

 “That’s going to hamstring our community, because it’s the young people with children in school who do the snow plowing and run our stores,” Nyen said. “If this does turn into a mass exodus, it’s going to have a compounding effect on the community itself.”

Whitefish Township schools would need to eliminate either its elementary or high school grades next year, or close the entire district in June 2021, said superintendent Mckee.

The closest neighboring district is 90 minutes away on a good day. “And on the shore of Lake Superior, we don’t get many good days between November and May.”

Tiffany Brown, spokeswoman for Whitmer said the budget the Republican-led Legislature passed was “fataly flawed,” and the governor wants to negotiate a supplemental budget “to achieve meaningful, long-term funding that will actually support our children and their schools.”

Three of the five school districts suffering major funding cuts are in the 107th House district, represented by Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield, one of the key people with whom Whitmer hopes to continue budget negotiations.

Gideon D’Assandro, spokesman for Chatfield, R-Levering, told Bridge in an email “these schools should not be targets; they should be priorities. That’s why the Legislature funded these districts.”

Amber McCann, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, told Bridge in an email this wouldn’t be happening if the governor hadn’t vetoed the funding.

“The Senate Majority Leader plans to meet with the governor this week regarding her actions,” McCann said.

Burt Township Superintendent Nyen isn’t holding his breath. 

“Both sides are using students as pawns,” he said. “It’s not a good situation any way you look at it.”

Has this story impacted or informed you about Michigan? Please support our work.

No other news outlet is dedicated to providing the same level of in-depth, data-driven coverage of Michigan’s issues as Bridge Magazine. Any donation between now and December 31, will be matched dollar-for-dollar, thanks to our generous partners. Become a Bridge Club member and help our reporters get the resources they need to ramp up coverage during a critical election year. Join the Bridge team today.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Agnosticrat 2.0
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 8:05am

I wonder if living on the dole is what these people were planning when they chose to throw in to the pull yourself up by your bootstraps self sufficient lifestyle in the upper peninsula?
Conservatives are a wonder to me as they rush to game the system and gather money made possible by a government they distrust and seek to drown in the bathtub!
Our governor didn’t do this to them. It was the “I hate government” politician they elected that sold the bill of goods that we can afford things without having to pay for them.

fox1george
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 10:52am

Absolutely. Another term for such "subsidies" is socialism. Gee, I thought socialism was a crime in Republican eyes.

Matt
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 8:06am

I'm confused the ending Democrat's accusation, how again are the Republicans using these kids as pawns? The Governor specifically vetoed the money at issue, this wasn't part of some omnibus everything or nothing bill the US congress sees, it was pointed. Instead of mean spirited maneuvers to target speaker Chatfield, the Gov should resubmit bills so everyone knows what she will accept.

Cindy
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 10:54am

This governor was hamstrung during lame duck before coming into office. Republican ‘s have had a history of not funding schools so this is the only recourse for balancing a budget. Where were the voices of outrage when Gov Snyder and 40 years of Republican control (gerrymandering) brought us to their own study showing at minimum our kids were shorted on average 2k per student? This cheating of public schools is far more sinister than one might imagine. Think Betsy DeVos and privatization of public schools (charters) as well as secondary student grants which turn out to be loans instead. More people should have been pushing back before this. Our students and children have suffered for four decades. The result? Our children are leaving the state!

Matt
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 5:38pm

Leaving aside your other nonsense. The Governor specifically choose this item along with the autistic kids and others as targets for her to vent her anger on. Don't blame the Republicans here, it was all her. Seems like maybe she found a way to punish parents who don't choose unionized schools or to abort handicapped kids?

middle of the mit
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 9:05pm

Did you have such concerns when the Republicans over the last 28 years have been decimating the public school funds?

And could you provide proof that what she says is nonsense.

I need links.

Matt
Wed, 10/09/2019 - 8:43am

Proof that the Gov deliberately selected these particular items for her vetoes regardless of what it does to the children? You mean evidence that there is little correlation between educational outcomes and school funding, making the entire premise of her,(your?) statement nonsense? ( Rather than other societal factors impacting Michigan schools ?) That kids are leaving the state because we didn't fund colleges to her standard? That allowing parents to choose the school they believe suits best their kid somehow is a terrible wrong and is wrecking our schools. Narrow it down for me.

middle of the mit
Thu, 10/10/2019 - 5:31pm

Matt, you said Cindy was espousing nonsense. Keep up or stop obfuscating. None of you were complaining when Republicans and Snyder were gutting education funding. As a matter of fact you want to take the sales tax on a gallon of gas away from schools and local governments. More proof of what Cindy said, conservatives gut school funding. And now you Governor Whitmer for standing her ground against a bunch of fair weathered friends.

And you admit this in the very comment I am replying to right now. How, where?

[[You mean evidence that there is little correlation between educational outcomes and school funding, making the entire premise of her,(your?) statement nonsense? ]]

If that is fact, then this loss of money is a moot point. In YOUR opinion it means nothing.

Tell that to the kids.

Matt
Fri, 10/11/2019 - 8:22am

The fact that more money is spent per kid at the end of Snyder's term than was spent at the beginning or even during Granholm's admin, isn't even an arguable fact? Is that seriously your contention?

duane
Wed, 10/09/2019 - 11:09am

This is politics and to ask for 'proof' verifies it is politics. We watched for the last couple of years about 'collusion' and there was no proof only a concocted 'dossier' being claimed as 'proof.'
If you truly wanted to address the problem, you would be offering ideas and not asking for 'proof' on a non-essential distraction.
Why are we talking about alternative means/methods to address learning and how to use this situation as a place to test such approaches.
We have heard about how a northern Michigan district has installed WiFi on their school buses where kids can read and study, it would be interesting to see how effective that has been and see if that is a tool to use in other districts.
If we were talking about the learning process we could be sharing different perspectives on ways to enhance or modify the student learning process for the students in the small remote schools, but instead you want 'proof' of that there is politics in Lansing.

middle of the mit
Thu, 10/10/2019 - 6:31pm

No duane, I asked for proof from Matt because Matt has been telling me that I NEED PROOF to back up my statements. So if I need proof, shouldn't you too? And all I was asking for proof from Matt on this particular subject was that he said Cindy's comment was nonsense. I wanted proof of why. She stated that Republicans have been hammering and cutting school budgets for a long time. What's wrong? Is that something that is not quantifiable and there are no hard proven facts like legislation or TV or radio interviews that we can prove that with? Or is it just that the facts would back up Cindy's statement?

Duane, I would love to have a rational conversation or banter back and forth ideas, but that's not what Republicans do. They know what they want then they obfuscate, twist and distort and then flood their ideas no matter how bad they are.

They complain about how schools don't need more money. Nothing but the economy and the wealthy can be fixed by throwing money at it. Did you see any conservative comments on the piece about Sheriffs depts complaining about loss of money? Were they saying that the cops should just cut costs? No.

I am not looking for proof of politics in Lansing. I want proof your ideas work.

Why hasn't FOX News left the liberal taxhole of Manhattan for the greener more tax friendly pastures of rural Kansas? And why are they based in the biggest taxhole their is?

If what you conservatives say about cities and taxes is true, that should've happened 9 years ago or within those 9 years. And you Matt and the rest of the conservatives should move up here, right now. Live the same lifestyle you live down there up here amongst your Republican base.

And as for the dossier? I suppose you think that started with Carter Page too. What about Papadopolous? Ohh he got conned by an exotic professor? And that professor set him up? Even if the professor did set up George, George took the bait and ran with it. If it was you or me? We'd be in jail still. Especially if was a lessor crime.

But "Russia if you can here me, if you could find Hillary's e-mails". Sounds kind of like " Ukraine, if you could find bad things about Biden", or " China might want to look into this too" doesn't bother you in the least bit does it?

Manafort is still sitting in jail on one count of passing off RNC polling data to a pro-Russian oligarch.

And Cohen is sitting in jail for passing some checks from the President (individual 1 in the case) to a porn star and a playboy bunny.

They are the only ones that did anything wrong in your eyes, Aren't they? Or do even believe they did anything wrong?

duane
Fri, 10/11/2019 - 6:19pm

middle,
Point well taken, whomever raises the point of proof opens themselves up to the same expectations.
As for how the Republicans act sounds much like Democrats are acting. What about those of us not affiliate with either Party [I was raised a ‘yellow dog’ Democrat but saw the flaws], are you open to a conversation and what would be the guides to be followed?
I my resistance to all issues/programs/agencies requesting money is not mentioning what that money will provide in improve results, whether education, law enforcement, regulations. I spent a career with a manufacturing company, I quickly learned which was reinforced every year, there will be less money available and the results will be better. What facilitated our success was a culture of change and performance expectations. We were always trying to find better ways to deliver improved results, we included as broad based involvement as appropriate [we learned to include local neighbors, customer, other departments, government agencies, etc. I know that back in the 80s there was even multiple offers to include ‘Green Peace’ on activities that may impact the environment [they refused but local advocates did participate]. The point is that what we did was start with desired results, then had conversations about how to achieve those results, cost/money only entered the conversation when the desire methods were identified and we began looking to implement the ideas. For my whole career I was always asking to spend other people’s, and those people expected results for the money.
In the case of the smalls calling for more money are they describing how the student experience will be changed, their learning process will be change to improve their learning results? If not, then it seems they simply want more to do what they are doing and we will still be getting the results we are currently disappointed by.
I don’t know if the schools or police need more money because I don’t know what they are going to differently with that money and whether they will even assess performance to see if they are spending effectively. DO you think a person should be paid more if they don’t improve their performance, productivity, or in some other way increase their measurable value?
My income and spending was always tied to improving results, why should I or anyone simply open their wallet every time we hear a cry for more money with nothing about improved results? Why don’t we hear accompanying ideas of how the spender will be drastically changing their methods to improve results, why and include performance metrics with their money requests?
As for FOX’s decisions, I don’t know the culture, the need for proximity, and personnel [how many staffers like the area]. As for trying to justify the failure of politics by only talking about one Party undermines any proof you may feel you have. I watch the verbal abuse of woman victims during the 90s, so your holier than thou cries fall on deft ears. I like I say my Democrat education started at about ten in western Wayne County so I got over believing Dems are pure and only the Republicans are flaweds. As for where I live, there is seldom a Republican candidate for any office at or below State Representative and they never win, so your assumptions are weak.
My voting is usually picking the lesser of two flawed candidates.
If you still want a conversation, pick a topic and let’s explore it. I will commit to describing why and what experience feeds the view.

middle of the mit
Sat, 10/12/2019 - 7:23pm

Duane, here is my problem with your standard of proof theory. You act like asking for proof of what someone says is true, is politics. That's not what politics is though. Politics is the art of persuading people to your way of thinking.

When you take proof and act like it is propaganda, where does truth come from? What are facts? Then everyone is able to play politics by just simply stating that someone else they don't agree with is an idiot. Even if they can't prove it. How would that work in a professional environment? Currently the police think that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol or texting while driving, even though they are putting more ads for people not to do those things because that is what is causing all the accidents. But they demonize cannabis for things that they predicted but have never come to fruition.

As for dems sounding like what I described republicans as? I grew up a hard core republican. No yellow, hard core. Then I started looking at what they were doing as opposed to what they said. Are dems the upright moral law abiding party? They are not the party that claims that.
But when republicans have law breathing down their white collars, all of a sudden, the law enforcement agency they helped create to take down booze runners and then cannabis is all of a sudden DEEP STATE. They had no problems with these agencies when they used them to go against dems.

Now I understand your reluctance to just shove money at any cause that asks for it. But you don't mind giving tax breaks to the wealthy that literally defunds the programs that our State provides. Even when those wealthy are the ones that gain the most from most of the States services. Roads? Yep the poor and the rest of us benefit, but how would businesses and the wealthy conduct business without them? How about the courts? Except for criminal and domestic squabbles the big courts are for business and they rule like it. And when it comes to you and me dealing with a disagreement with a business? Arbitration.

Yes there are ways to cut costs. And they should be looked at. But at some point in time you are going to have to realize that the more business makes the more they charge. Even after they cut wages, move plants and jobs to third world hell holes and they do that to hurt workers and pad their bottom line. Arjays comment here, https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-why-michigans-complex-... , which I never thought I would say, shows you what society is moving towards. As have many Bridge articles. No one wants poors near them. But they all need them to do the work the wealthy won't or don't want to do. Yet they don't want to pay them enough to live in the areas that they are needed in.

You and every conservative KNOWS why FOX News doesn't leave the liberal taxhole of Manhattan. Same reason that rural is contracting. The same reason that you and others literally can not come up here and live your same lifestyle. It doesn't exist up here or in rural Kansas or Mississippi or Arkansas. The sad fact of that matter is this, to keep those things you have to pay for them.

[[As for trying to justify the failure of politics by only talking about one Party undermines any proof you may feel you have. I watch the verbal abuse of woman victims during the 90s, so your holier than thou cries fall on deft ears]]

Are you referring to Bill Clintons accusers? Do you feel that Individual 1's accusers are telling the truth too? Or have you not been listening to what the religious party is saying about women today?

I don't believe the dem party is pure. But when one party says they ARE THE PARTY OF GOD and then blame dems , the party EVIL AND DEBAUCHERY, for doing the same things and less than the party that "says they are moral"? That is politics.

Where I live a dem rarely if ever gets elected. And if they do, it is only because another republican or independent is running as a dem. Does that make your assumptions weak?

I comment on stories because I got sick of seeing a bunch of republicans and libertarians pushing their view with no pushback. I just don't like long platitudes about how tax cuts are the only way to stimulate business while Kansas went bust. Business needs consumers first and foremost. Competition second. That is what keeps them on the ball, isn't it? Taxes are a function of the society you want to live in. Cut taxes the way you want and you are going to start complaining less about how Silicone Valley treats it's impoverished and you are going to start seeing it in your community.

duane
Mon, 10/14/2019 - 12:27am

middle,
More topics, I had hoped for fewer so we could go in more detail and tried to develop different approaches to them. Your choice, I will try to be brief.
‘Truth’ is much like what one wants to hear, it isn’t what is said but what is heard. I have been involved with data [temperatures, pressures, chemical analysis] that all present agreed were facts and yet the interpretation of the data was different [what the people believed was creating those conditions]. ‘Truths’ reflective how data is presented, ‘spin.’ Personal perspective determined what the ‘truth’ was and how to apply it in deciding changes to the process generating the data. I hope you don’t believe ‘politics’ isn’t practiced in academia.
Politics [Party, workplace, neighborhood, not for profit organizations, science] is spin, sometimes it involves factual data, but in all cases it is trying to get others to lean to the view of another. The best way to view politics is as a competition of ideas and not natural laws, so it isn’t about proof but about rationale. The effectiveness of politics is driven by what people hear not what is said.
Your example of cannabis, using the word ‘demonize’ is putting your spin on the issue. I believe that cannabis can impair a person’s reactions, I feel people shouldn’t be operating ‘heavy equipment’ while so impaired [private use isn’t of concern]. Your ‘spin’ [demonizing police] isn’t a ‘lie’ nor is it proof that my view is not true, simply your politicking fails.
Another example of the difference in what is said and heard was my use of ‘yellow dog Democrat.’ ‘Yellow dog Democrat’ is a phrased used for nearly a century d by Democrats to describe the Party loyalty. It infers if the Democrats ran a ‘yellow dog’ the loyal Democrats would vote for it. My brother is an admitted ‘yellow dog Democrat’. Another point is there are dogs with yellow coats, there is even a movie about a dog the is titled “Old Yeller.” My best guess is that you had a different thought reading ‘yellow dog Democrats’, which affected what you heard.
“They are not the party that claims that.” I grew up and still hear the Democrats touting their being the Party of the ‘working man.’ That seems to me to be a ‘claim.’ When my mother was in Lansing she would talk about the political coos the Democrats made on the Republicans rather than talking about the issues of concern to the Michigan politics, sounds a lot like Washington today. You may want to believe in the purity of one Party, I don’t.
My view of taxes is predicated on the spending. Since I lack confident in the agencies/politicians responsible spending or even in regulating Michigan, I am not so sensitive to reduced taxes. I have more confidence in those paying the taxes [individuals and businesses] to get value for the money and benefiting Michigan then the State.
I am not sure how you determined how the ‘wealthy’ gain more benefit from the roads. It seems to me that there are a lot of trucks on the roads and I wonder how many of those drivers are your ‘wealthy.’ I can see how the ‘wealthy’ get more from education. You seem resistant to the ‘wealthy’ gaining more from a government service that the ‘poor,’ are you suggesting a need to deprive the ‘wealthy’ having access to such service? Are the added educational benefits for the ‘wealthy’ because of their wealth or is the added benefit earned by their kids/ students staying in school and doing the necessary studying to earn a degree which helps them earn their wealth?
Do you want to talk about why large and smaller companies want to grow and need to expand their markets globally?
You are again hearing what you want to hear and not what is being said, I don’t say ‘cut costs,’ I talk about results, performance, creativity, and effectiveness. When all you can hear is that resistance to taxes is about cutting cost you fail to understand the concept of value and budgeting that businesses and individuals use and why they are used in judging government spending. Value is what people want from government; cell phones are a good example of how people will pay more for greater value.
A business needs a measurable purpose more than a competitor, a business that is committed to such a purpose will excel more to achieve that purpose then it would in response to a competitor. A measurable purpose will create a culture of change/improvement, while a competitor will instigate reaction not necessarily improvement. A government organization has no competition so its focus becomes manipulation of the system, while an agency that has a measurable purpose will be driven to change to achieve the purpose [what we measure we strive to improve].
Why would a Republican ever run as a Democrat in an area where a dem is rarely elected? In my town Republicans rarely run because they are never elected, I mention this because you seem to feel I should be living with Republican as if politics and Party should be the controlling factor in life. In my life, politics is very low on the topics of conversation in social settings. I learned early on that Party politics are a ‘contact sport’ and should view it as entertainment.

middle of the mit
Tue, 10/15/2019 - 9:03pm

I tried to keep to keep the topics relevant. I don't like getting bogged down anymore than you.

[[The best way to view politics is as a competition of ideas and not natural laws, so it isn’t about proof but about rationale. The effectiveness of politics is driven by what people hear not what is said.]]

So what you are saying is that "perception is the law of the land"? There is nothing that is fact. There is no truth? You think that the rural folks up here are self sufficient. The only people up here that fit your "perception" of self sufficient are the Amish.

I cannot find the previous comment I made to you about this, so here it is again.

Conservatives think that somehow rural America is immune from the economy. They somehow aren't effected by the markets or anything else. Why do I think this. Because people like you tell people like me and those that live around me that we will somehow persevere through our "self reliance". Yet none of you understand that we are just now starting to feel the economic rebound that happened over 8 years ago.

It is the same reason that everyone up here voted for Donald J Trump because he told us he was going to stop the flow of jobs to China. Yet there are people that say that American workers forced American employers to go to the communist country. Ha ha ha..

Those same people tell you that Americans should be making more, but yet unions aren't the way to do it. Those are the same people that are going to do what the President said he would do. Pose the low wage Southern States against the Unionized Northern States until the Northern States were willing to succumb to the low wages of the Southern States.

And hey! You keep telling Americans in MI that the only thing they have to look forward to is making as much as someone in Mississippi!

Good luck with that!

duane
Wed, 10/16/2019 - 11:53pm

middle,
I would first like to than Bridge for allowing us to have this extended and especially for allowing me to post these extended discourses.
I am offering that ‘truth’ and fact are not synonymous; fact is a point of information ‘truth’ is a perception in the context of a moment. Even in science what is considered a truth one day may be proven wrong the next, our history of scientific ‘truths’ have evolved through time and I expect they will continue to evolve. Why wouldn’t believe that as technology provides additional information that the idea/’truths’ won’t change? If ‘Truths’ based on scientific fact can change then why shouldn’t we expect political ‘truths’ to change? That’s why I say politics at best is about ideas not ‘truths’ because ideas allow us to work them to add/subtract as the context changes [what maybe a political’ truth in California isn’t necessary a political ‘truth’ in Michigan [the context differs].
This leads us back to ‘fact’ and ‘truth’, see numbers as facts or as truths? Or does it matter how the number are captured? Are the numbers of 3rd graders able read the state collects fact? And yet we hear many claim that they prove the ‘truth’ that schools’ reading programs are underfunded, and yet we hear nothing about the means and methods use by those schools where student fail and students succeed. What are the ‘fact’ about reading and ‘truths’ about funding? Does it even matter in the current political environment? I have learn ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ are relative and it is how you use them and the results you achieve with them that matters. I would rather hear the differences in practice of children who are consider successful readers and those who aren’t to figure out how to leverage success to those failing. And how much funding is not a point of information until we have learned what can be leveraged and what new success will be achieved.
As for the ‘truth’ of law, what was the law about ‘cannabis’ 50 years ago, was that ‘truth’ and how do you know it was or wasn’t ‘truth’ then? And simply because it in the law doesn’t prove anything about ‘truth’ of the law accept the tolerance for the change in the law has changed, that sounds like the will of the people and ‘representative democracy.’ On a more personal note, I believe ‘cannabis’ does affect people and it affects their reactions so I can understand the police’s belief of the risks associated with it. The difference with alcohol and the risk are a few things, the outward signs are more apparent, the public is more likely to respond to those outward signs and intervene with the drunk, and society has even created a socially accepted practice [designated driver] to manage the abuse of alcohol. All lead to contributing to better management of the risk of alcohol excesses, while ‘cannabis’ use has not evolved to a similar management structure make the risk less managed and more likely to impact others. Have you ever seen an excess use of ‘cannabis’ cause the user to pass out becoming incapacitated, have you ever seen that of an excess use of alcohol?
“Conservatives think that somehow rural America is immune from the economy.” Is this a ‘truth’ or a suspicion? How do you define ‘conservative’, because many have claimed I am a ‘conservative’ and I never believed that? I could see how some people may think that true because the impact isn’t as visible [media effectively ignores the rural parts of America] and the rural areas/economies are always much less affluent and so the fluctuations are not as noticeable say as those neighbors are laid off during a down turn.
I think one of the reasons people support Trump they don’t take him literally but they take what he says seriously. Do they think he will return the millions of jobs that have been lost to China and technology, no but they take him seriously that he will not meekly accept the losses and he will make China feel significant discomfort for their actions. He not only expresses the feelings of his supporters but puts actions with them. For too long we have heard the words but seldom if ever have we seen commensurate actions. The best validation we have for Trump taking action are the whining American economists and financial ‘talking headers’ on TV crying how he is doing it wrong. They offer no alternatives, they don’t describe any actions taken by predecessors, they simply belittle him for his actions, much like they do to the electorate that put him in office. You need to separate out the supports from the emotions of his winning the election. I know I am a ‘deplorable’ because a Democrat told me so and the media repeated time and time again. I also know them I am no uneducated, I do not have a gun [though well experienced with a few] but I will defend the 2nd Amendment until they pry the Constitution from my cold dead hand.
Have you considered why the rural is considered self-reliant, have you consider that they have a self-perception of that so they are less likely to use government programs and the data indicating a lower per capita use rate reinforces the perceptions. I believe this because when working [volunteer, interim executive director [receiving a broader view of programs], no one else would take the role] for a not for profit and the medical care programs such as prenatal and infant care were not only less used but upon asking them why, they were both more confident in what they were doing and less trustful of the government. Do you think the people on farms and in the rural areas are more likely to fabricate or repair things than buy them [for lack of money or having the ability to make do? Are they more likely to have a place to make or repair things? Do you think those are true of people in urban settings [apartment dwellers]? Do you think that the perception the people in rural setting are more likely to do for themselves than the urban dwellers? If the answer was yes, then why are you so resistant to the idea the rural community is more self-reliant?
Do you really want to talk about why companies go outside the US, why wages aren’t growing for everyone, why locals will have different wage scales, etc.? Or do you have a problem/issue that you would like to is if it would be possible to develop a different approach to, and one that address each other concerns?
As for the worker situations in Mississippi, it the workers hear do grow their knowledge and skills and the increase the value they provide, why should they expect more? Why should we expect businesses to stay in Michigan if the only workers available are the ones that drop out of school, don’t learn the work ethic, and they have to be told what to do and when to do it? I have had the opportunity to interact with many people in many different states. I have found that they all have similar capabilities, but it is their mind set that distinguishes them and their value. Until the individual develops the necessary mindset their expected opportunities look bleak.

middle of the mit
Thu, 10/17/2019 - 8:13pm

Duane, you aren't doing yourself any favor here.

[[I am offering that ‘truth’ and fact are not synonymous; fact is a point of information ‘truth’ is a perception in the context of a moment. Even in science what is considered a truth one day may be proven wrong the next, our history of scientific ‘truths’ have evolved through time and I expect they will continue to evolve.

As for the ‘truth’ of law, what was the law about ‘cannabis’ 50 years ago, was that ‘truth’ and how do you know it was or wasn’t ‘truth’ then? And simply because it in the law doesn’t prove anything about ‘truth’ of the law accept the tolerance for the change in the law has changed, that sounds like the will of the people and ‘representative democracy.’ On a more personal note, I believe ‘cannabis’ does affect people and it affects their reactions so I can understand the police’s belief of the risks associated with it. The difference with alcohol and the risk are a few things, the outward signs are more apparent, the public is more likely to respond to those outward signs and intervene with the drunk, and society has even created a socially accepted practice [designated driver] to manage the abuse of alcohol. ]]

Duane, cannabis was legal in America until the 1930's. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that at least 150 years of being legal with no problems or "perception" problems until you, those who believe "perception" should rule?

And didn't your type then, make a movie called refer madness? How can you tell us that movie is true while also saying those who chose to use cannabis will end up like Cheech and Chong, in the movies not real life? You can't be what refer madness portrays and be a couch potato at the same time.

And as far as society goes with dealing with drunks vs stoners, when has society ever really had a problem with stoners in a FACTUAL sense? Were people who wore white tank tops, that are colloquially referred to as wife beaters, using pot? Ha ha ha! And I have never seen as many arrests for pot, simple possession or driving under the influence as I have for alcohol. That is why cops still have signs about driving while drunk, click it or ticket and texting while driving and NOTHING FOR MEDICAL OR RECREATION USE OF CANNABIS. I guess those would fall under what you call FACTS.

This is why I am done trying to have a conversation with you.

Tell Jesus that VERITAS does not exist.

duane
Fri, 10/18/2019 - 12:42pm

middle,
Where did the 150 years ago come from, I said 50 years, it seems what you want to hear not what is said. I really don't know who made the movie, do you know or do you simply want it to be so you can blame was done 75 years ago on people you disagree with today.
It is disappointing you didn't want to have a conversation about a particular problem to see if we could create a different approach to solving it.

middle of the mit
Sat, 10/19/2019 - 8:59pm

Duane,
The 150 years ago was the law and "perception of law for the first 150 years of United States Government. What about for all of human history around the world? Until people like you who believe "perception" should rule. You don't want me to blame you for a movie made 75 years ago, but you want to blame people who use cannabis for being a "perceived" problem. Even though it's never been a problem.

You can't come up with any proof that it has been a problem because apparently your line of thinking says that doesn't matter. This is my problem with you. Everyone else has to show their own work. They have to provide proof of why their ideas work. The problem you have with me is that my proof is the past, with how and why things are the way they are today and why we have the things we have. You don't like it because it came from high taxation on wealthy individuals, all of whom only grew wealthier while society did too.

The cannabis problem has been solved. There is no reason to come to a solution. People who chose to use it are just forced to keep it in house, unlike drunks. Why is it that you can drink as much as you can afford while your fishing on a public river, but you can't smoke a joint? Would you like to come up with a solution for that? And before you say it, read your own local newspaper. Find out how many are being busted for being high while driving. Compare it to the drunks who "know" about designated drivers. And you saying it isn't physically apparent? That means they are less inebriated and all you have to do is check their eyes. Blood shot? They are high. But does it mean they are inebriated? Drunk test. They pass, they go home. Works for drunks, doesn't it?

Seems like I just found our solution. But seeing as how those who use cannabis seem to be doing it in a more law abiding way than the drunks, I don't think we will have a problem. We don't now.

And the reason the DNR wanted to cut back on drinking on public rivers? Because of belligerency. Drunks getting drunk and thinking they owned the river. Drove people away on the weekends.

Do you think that would happen on a river full of pot smokers?

All the "perceptions" are being proven false.

duane
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 12:33pm

middle,
Perceptions reflect experiences and the experiences of those around you. Have you considered the experiences that the perceptions are built on? Have you wondered how the perceptions of those who are/have been directly responsible for the safety of the public? Have you consider a soldier in combat and what they have seen from marijuana user in combat, or someone that has worked around heavy equipment beyond cars and trucks? If not, why not?
Have I asked you for ‘proof’, have I called any of your ‘truths’ lies, or have I been responding to what is said as if it is a ‘truth’? What ‘proof’ do you want from me?
I don’t dwell on the past because it can’t be changed, I try to learn from the past, otherwise it is past and what we talk about and do may affect the future. It seems more beneficial to invest most of our energies on what we can change, not what we can’t. Another ‘fact’ about the past is that what was believed as a ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ is different today. Another reason I don’t dwell much on the past is how the context of what happen then is commonly inconvenient for making a position today it is ignore, which in effect discredits the use of the past today. Your claim about 150 years ago is valid, but does make what was the law 50 years ago a lie, and what is accepted to day change anything about the past? Or is this a ‘proof’ that ‘truth’ is no fixed and changes over time?
As best I can tell taxes come from more than the ‘wealthy’ [however that is defined], I have paid taxes on money earned ever since I began working outside the home, and I have never considered us ‘wealthy’, what my concern is about getting best value for those tax dollars and everyone else’s tax dollars. I notice you haven’t offered any example or interest in program or agency performance accountability for the spending of tax dollars, why?
You seem to want me to take a position on cannabis and alcohol when I am not a user and am disappoint how society has accepted the abuse of one. But that acceptance one doesn’t justify allowing similar abuses of the other. Do you think your test of looking at the eyes will survive a test in the courts? I am surprised you haven’t included sleeplessness in your justification of driving under the influence.
You are the first person I have heard that claims all users of cannabis have the same reactions. I have heard that individuals are unique and how people react to particular chemicals may vary drastically. To repeat my view, I don’t believe people operating heavy equipment that can impact others should be imbibing any substance that has the potential to distort their actions and judgement if it is nothing more than slowing their reaction time in less than a second. You seem to be so set on getting special considerations for cannabis that you won’t even acknowledge my concern and roll it into the whole of societies approval of users.

middle of the mit
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 9:27pm

Duane,
Here again is your problem with "perception". Perception is being used to push ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_St...

And your arguments about using cannabis while being military? Do you know what soldiers were using in Vietnam? Cannabis was one thing, but it was the least thing you had to worry about. You yourself have admitted that it is hard for the general public to determine whether one is high or not, which means they aren't that inebriated, (And just so you don't get the perception that I think it is OK to drive high, NO it isn't . )And the fact that you cannot rebut that there are still more drunks on the road means that is true. Did you check your local paper? And most people don't go to work drunk or high. Otherwise they would lose their job. In fact, if you work around heavy equipment and driving trucks, you have to take a drug test, so you are literally not even able to imbibe, period. What does your "perception" say about those facts?

And yes, my example of cannabis being legal and then "perception" changing and now "perception" changing back and none of the "percieved problems" coming to pass, yeah, that works in my favor.

And where do get the idea that I don't care how our tax dollars are spent? Another "perception" because I don't think government is evil? Why did you have a problem when I wanted forensic accountants to drill down on everything? They have people who look into more than just numbers.

I never asked you for your position on cannabis, I just use it as "perception problem" , and I think you just gave your position. But then you say you can't have a position because you don't use either one, but you do have "perception" of them. I just want you to accept the facts. Alcohol is way more dangerous than cannabis ever has been, but for some reason that is not what the "perception" has been, even when the facts and truth were staring you in the face. And why do you think users are abusers? That is "perception" again with no facts to back up why you feel that way. Is everyone that drinks an abuser? I don't believe that, and I don't know how any thinking person could "perceive" that.

And I never claimed cannabis has the same effect on everyone, you were the one that said that the public couldn't readily tell when someone was using. Some people don't like it. There a few who may be allergic. Guess what? They don't use it.

And to once again alleviate your "perceptions" of stoners operating heavy equipment, Drug tests. They are mandatory for those jobs. Fact.

And what "special considerations" am I asking for for cannabis users? Just to be treated the same as drinkers. Do drinkers have special consideration now? When all you want is to be treated the same as everyone else, that is not asking for special treatment. Unless those who are complaining about those asking for equal treatment feel they are special. Then yes, I would like cannabis users to be special too. Why is it OK for people to be drunker than a skunk at any community event or river, but someone can't go to their car or just out in the woods while fishing and smoke a joint? Considering that the "perceptions" are being proven wrong with data and cannabis users are turning out to be more lawful than their alcoholic counterparts I would think that may alleviate most of your concerns. But "perception" is a hard thing to change, isn't it? Especially when you don't take facts and data into account. Then you can just say what you "perceive" and if you scare enough people, laws change.

See why I don't like "perception"? A cop in Texas just tried to use that defense after shooting someone in their own house without even identifying themselves as cops. Then they tried to claim the woman had a gun, which she did, she just didn't shoot. Would it have been OK if she shot the cop who she didn't know wasn't an intruder? That was her perception. What would you do if it was you someone "perceived" as a threat, even though you weren't? And do you think that "perceived threats" should be a defense in court.? Lets find out how you really feel about peoples perceptions.

I don't care if you don't answer any question other than that last couple of questions. Those are the questions I want answered.

duane
Tue, 10/22/2019 - 10:19pm

I suspect it is only a relatively small portion of soldiers in a combat situation, that the intent and action of those they are fighting are of the highest importance. However, in such a situation I would offer that an impaired 'buddy' would multiply the risk significantly. Can you imagine being out on patrol needing a hand up and you 'buddy' a bit impair offers the muzzle of his 'assault rifle' which is on rapid fire and the safety switch is off. It is a simply thing, but how would you feel about his impairment looking up at the muzzle of his gun? I expect it would be an emotional moment. I offer this scenario because as you suggest the outward signs of impairment from alcohol are commonly more apparent than those from cannabis, it is more likely that the alcohol impaired 'buddy' would be prevent from going on the patrol.
It is back to your perceptions, why do you see heavy equipment as truck why can it be the operator of a highly hazardous process, something the government doesn't require testing, and something many proponents of legalized cannabis use strongly [employer testing, and condition of employment] oppose? Do you support employer mandated testing and passing as a condition of employment in jobs where the employees actions and reactions could impact others not involve? This raises the question about whose risk are you talking about and whose has a choice in taking that risk. When you say their is greater risk from alcohol than cannabis are you only considering the user or do you include those the user may impact? I wish it were only the user, they can make an 'informed' choice, but on the highway or even in the workplace there are others that can be impacted that have no choice in the matter and suffer the worst consequences.
How can alcohol and cannabis be treated the same when they are different, you acknowledge that testing for excess use is different?

I do believe that perceived threat is a credible defense. As an example, toy guns have lead to fatal shootings of the holder of the toy. The toy in and of itself maybe only the tipping point to the preception, it is the whole of the situation that creates the preception and leads to the tragic incident. I will use an extreme scenario of a soldier in a combat zone, a place where when he is on patrol knows that young or old, male or female he has to expect there is someone trying to kill him, the people in the situation are unknown to him or his buddies and there have been hostile action there recently, it is at dusk where lighting is changing, he catches a sudden flash of movement and he sees a gun [very real looking toy] pointed at him, his reaction is to shoot protecting himself and his buddies. I think he has a justifiable defense based on perception. Now if that toy had a red tip as more and more do that would impair the defense. If the setting were in America it would be a more difficult defense if it were in certain parts of certain cities in the America it may be a more credible than in other cities.
The other incidents you ask about don't offer enough information to judge on. I have learned that there are a sequence of events that lead to any unplanned event and unless you understand the whole of the sequence you are guessing at what happened and you judgement is likely to be flawed.

Back to the point about your caring about spending. In our conversations I have not hear you talk about government program or agency accountability, for performance or of spending. If you never even ask a question [ask about defining value, measuring performance, developing accountability] about the topic or challenged what I said, you simply ignore the topic, how should I know you are interest let alone care enough to expect it of the government?

middle of the mit
Fri, 10/25/2019 - 2:19am

Duane, this is why I don't really want to discuss "perception" with you. Because somehow you always push your "perception" against what REALITY is telling you. Most of the people in Vietnam or any other conflict are not using cannabis. Most of them are not impaired and you still believe that cannabis effects you the same as alcohol or any other elicit drug. It doesn't. No one who uses cannabis is just going to keep smoking joint after joint. Once you are high, you are high. If you keep smoking more? You are literally wasting your supply. That is why cannabis users only smoke a joint. They are never going to be as inebriated as a drunk. EVER. You can literally drink yourself into a coma. Or to death. Can you show any scientific evidence that that has ever happened from smoking a joint? AGAIN, where do your perceptions come from? The movie Refer Madness? And once again, prove to me that cannabis users are less lawful that alcohol users. There should be facts. And if it is true that cannabis users are less law abiding than alcohol users, don't you think that would be all over the news?

And the only reason that toy gun users were shot by cops, is the same reason that the woman in Texas was shot. "Perception". And if you were fully informed of that case in Cleveland, you would know that it took less than 5 seconds before those cops showed up and killed that 12 YEAR OLD CHILD. Even though the person who made the 911 call told 911 he thought it was a fake gun. Why are you still pushing perception? Because you are white? That is the very reason I am pushing against it! What about Philando Castille? A black man, with a LAWFUL CONCEAL CARRY PERMIT? In an area unlike most of MI that he may have needed one. Yet when he did what was lawful, and told the officer that he had a concealed weapon? He got shot. DEAD. In front of his girlfriend and kid. But ..but...perception.

And now you want to blame perception of toys against real guns. Why do we have toy guns? Who promotes that? Who allows it? Who shoves it down our throats (to use a phrase you should be familiar with)?

Duane, we don't live in combat zones. And I am tired of you using extreme examples to rectify your "perceptions". Sure, gravity can be exploited under certain scientific experiments. I could go to the moon and experience 1/8 gravity. I could just go into space and experience NO gravity. Heck, I could even book a flight on a special plane and experience no gravity for a few seconds multiple times on that flight. I could go on a flight on fighter jet and experience 6+Gs. Doesn't change the fact that when back on Earth, I am going to experience 1G.

As for time? You can manipulate that too. The faster you go the slower time gets. In fact, if you were to get to the speed of light, time wouldn't stop, but if you went two light years away and came back? Everyone else would be way older than you. Do you think your employer would allow those two years paid? I am unsure of how much older they would be, but your the scientist, you should be able to understand, that people would be probably be a lot older than just two years older.

See Duane, we all have to rely on what is happening in the here and now. And conservatives want us all to use English as the National language. Why? Because they don't understand anything else. But then people like you try to tell us that there are no truths or facts. Or there are "alternative facts"(Kelly Ann Conway), or ("what is truth? Who knows what truth is?")(Rudy Giuliani) Or "What you are hearing.. and seeing.. is not what is happening.")( President Donald J Trump) What is 1G? What is time? Can I use YOUR teachings for me to rule my time? Perception is the name of the game. But what if your or my perception doesn't match other peoples perception?

That IS the ONLY Question I want answered. If you can't do that then you all you are doing is wasting OUR time with negligent words and rhetoric.

And as for my comments about Government spending?

YOU better check them again.
Just on this thread.

And why didn't the GOP allow more transparency in the MI government when they were in total control for the last 8 years? OH no! Facts and nothing to deny them with except "perception"!

duane
Fri, 10/25/2019 - 2:00pm

Why don't others [not just a group you select] when in control promote transparency? Lack of experience, lack of understanding of benefits, lack of trust, a desire for control [of anything and everything], fear of how others will used [taking small bits out of context, media creating false headlines] etc. the answers are innumerable.
The first fail in accepting/implementing transparency, people is they don't know what transparency is [not simply listening in on other conversations [transcripts and such, but actioning learning about practices and protocol assessing/verification/responses]. You ask the wrong question if you want there to be more transparency. Better to ask, how can we make transparency valuable to all concerned, to the people/programs/organizations you want to know all about, how do we prevent the selective abuse of transparency, how do we make transparency a part of the activities necessary to achieving the desired outcomes rather than and after the fact added work load. When the preception is that transparency is just a tool for playing 'I gotcha,' than you have lost the value of transparency and have build a high barrier to getting the benefits. Consider a government employee using a private Email server and all the angst and wasted time an effort [even 10 years later] that was trigger simply to avoid one piece of transparency.
More to the people you want to targeted, I expect they looked around and felt why feed the beast of 'I gotcha' politics.

It would have been better if you would have started all of this with a question about transparency and how could it become integrated into organizational practices, how we could ensure the broadest benefit to the whole of the community, how we could make it a beneficial tool while minimizing it as a political weapon.

middle of the mit
Thu, 10/17/2019 - 9:40pm

I don't care what you are, conservative, libertarian, anti- government, What you are is wrong. And what proved with your own post is that ant-government pro markets are NOT helping rural America.

[[I think one of the reasons people support Trump they don’t take him literally but they take what he says seriously. Do they think he will return the millions of jobs that have been lost to China and technology, no but they take him seriously that he will not meekly accept the losses and he will make China feel significant discomfort for their actions. He not only expresses the feelings of his supporters but puts actions with them. For too long we have heard the words but seldom if ever have we seen commensurate actions.]]

There are literally only a handful of politicians that have spoken up against free trade deals. Bernie and Sherrod Brown are the only the ones I can think of off hand. As a matter of fact, for as long as I have been alive (around 45 years) the republican party has run on free trade. And that is why all the well paid talking heads are bashing it along with everyother thing that benefits workers. Also, republicans are the ones that have said that workers pay and benefits force Patriotic American corporations to give up 51% of their operating revenue to access the commie Chinese market. Seems like the NBA is doing the same to free speech for their American workers. What's the bottom line? Mammon, or money.

[[ I know I am a ‘deplorable’ because a Democrat told me so and the media repeated time and time again. I also know them I am no uneducated,]]

NO! Hillary said there a basket full of deplorables. Did she specifically call you a deplorable? NO? You only have "perception of truth" to back up your statement? Where are the facts? Do you hate gays? Do you hate and despise the disabled? Do you hate the poor?

If not, you are probably not in the basket that Hillary commented on, not the media. But hey! Perceptions!

[[ I also know them I am no uneducated, I do not have a gun [though well experienced with a few] but I will defend the 2nd Amendment until they pry the Constitution from my cold dead hand.]]

I do have a gun. And I am very proficient with it. So proficient that I don't believe I need a 30 round clip or more to defend my home unless I am being invaded by a horde of zombies. Using a rifle to defend a domestic home is dangerous. Those bullets travel a lot further than a shot gun. How would you feel if you missed the intruder and the bullet hit one of your neighbors kids, or your own? And even with Beto's remarks, no one is coming to take your shot gun or rifle. And if you feel so passionate about defending your second amendment rights, when are going to become a member of a well regulated militia that there 2nd amendment talks about in the first four words?

[[Have you considered why the rural is considered self-reliant, have you consider that they have a self-perception of that so they are less likely to use government programs and the data indicating a lower per capita use rate reinforces the perceptions.]]

https://www.bridgemi.com/search/node/rural%20poverty%20and%20government%...

I don't think you are comprehending the facts that Bridge is reporting on. Could you check how many kids up here are on MICHILD? Could you check how many get county and State subsidies for healthcare?

https://www.bridgemi.com/search/node/rural%20disability

[[I believe this because when working [volunteer, interim executive director [receiving a broader view of programs], no one else would take the role] for a not for profit and the medical care programs such as prenatal and infant care were not only less used but upon asking them why, they were both more confident in what they were doing and less trustful of the government. ]]

Don't you think that may be because they have the "perception" that government isn't going to help them? And my bet, if you dig deep enough, where do you think the areas up here found the funding to keep their services going?

[[ Do you think the people on farms and in the rural areas are more likely to fabricate or repair things than buy them [for lack of money or having the ability to make do? Are they more likely to have a place to make or repair things? Do you think those are true of people in urban settings [apartment dwellers]? Do you think that the perception the people in rural setting are more likely to do for themselves than the urban dwellers? If the answer was yes, then why are you so resistant to the idea the rural community is more self-reliant?]]

Yeah! A lot of what you just said is true. Are you going to hire those farmers to build an oxygen tank that will be used to launch a space shuttle? We do up here what we can with what we have. The fact that we don't have as much should tell you that our economy doesn't hold a candle to the liberal taxholes. It is still why YOU WILL NEVER MOVE HERE UNTIL YOU RETIRE. It is why FOX News WILL NEVER LEAVE THE LIBERAL TAXHOLE OF MANHATTAN! Will you ever accept that FACT?

[[As for the worker situations in Mississippi, it the workers hear do grow their knowledge and skills and the increase the value they provide, why should they expect more? Why should we expect businesses to stay in Michigan if the only workers available are the ones that drop out of school, don’t learn the work ethic, and they have to be told what to do and when to do it]]

Yeah, first you have to pay for schools that will educate your populace better than they are in Mississippi. And once again, NORTHERN MICHIGAN thank Duane for telling you that you are stupid after he just espoused how efficient you were with able to do with less. And value? Isn't that perception? If your workers don't provide you "enough value" doing the work you need done, so that you can't pay them to be able to afford to live in the area you need the work done in, guess what? THEY WILL LEAVE. It isn't about value it is about affordability. And why does the corporation get to keep all of the profit from the workers productivity? Like I said Duane, You better take some lessons from some of us up here and start to learn how to do your own plumbing. Because LABOR IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA IS WORTHLESS.

And by the by, being a worker means that the boss has to tell you what they want done. If you get to decide what you want to do that day, you may be a manager or the boss.

Listen to the words coming out of their mouths. They tell you what they mean.

BELIEVE IT!

duane
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 2:12pm

middle,
Why are you blaming for politicians [of both Parties] spending tax dollar for generations where they can influence and sway the most voters?
Which are you blaming for China trade Trump or the Republican Party? Do you think the issue is only a recent problem of has it been growing for nearly 50 years? Do you truly believe Trump is constrained by the historic practice of Republicans and Democrats?
I didn't call anyone stupid, I don't do that, I even said how from a young age I have felt northern Michigan [north of Bay City] is a beautiful and appealing place to live.
I have employed farmers [soybeans] and others in rural northern Michigan as welder [with verified skills] and other tech jobs, if you consider Gladwin, West Branch, and Standish norther Michigan.
You keep calling for more and more money for the schools but you never mention what value that money should provide, you never mention interest in results, you never mention accountability. It is much like what I have heard my whole life, 'throw money at it' and forget it.
Since I starting work outside my home I have earned my pay by applying my knowledge and skills, early on both were minimal. As I developed both and my value grew as did my pay, that sounds like 'labor'. Why would I believe, "LABOR IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA IS WORTHLESS.," if I am 'labor'?

middle of the mit
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 10:01pm

How can you be labor if you are a scientist? Or do you not "perceive" the physical part of it? And most of those farmers don't have qualifications for welding, they learned the hard way. If it breaks, you didn't fix it right. Try and try again until you get it right. Otherwise they would've needed a school to go to and the money to pay for it.

And once again we are back to age old conservative meme. You can't throw money at things and expect them to be better UNLESS it is throwing money at banks and the wealthy. How do you think those free trade deals got passed? Mega corps wanting to build their products in third world hell holes and send it back here tariff free.

And since you know so many farmers, ask them if they got their hand out from the Government because they can no longer sell their product. Huh. Seems like throwing money at them works. Throwing money at the military an their private contractors seems to work too. We just can't do it for education. That makes for cheap employees.

And yes, LABOR IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA IS WORTHLESS. Read your own words. Those may not be verbatim, but weren't you the one that said they aren't bringing any value to the employer? When is the employer going to do all of the work and not have to pay for employees? And when are people who make that argument going to purchase their new car unassembled for the same price as an assembled car. Can't beat up on line workers without acknowledging they bring value. Put your wrenches where your talking points are, to work.

duane
Wed, 10/23/2019 - 12:23am

So you think 'labor' is define by the sweat on the brow and the stiffness of muscles. If that is the case 'labor' is soon to disappear in America.
I have watch the long hours and anguish that 'scientists' have put for in an effort to solve problems, I have watch those who were trying to get equipment change in the field crawling around where those would had the skills to install the changes would have to work to going through the contortions and work it would require to do the job so the jobs could be done safer and made more convenient.
I don't what is so holy about being a 'labor', do you not consider thinking as work, as laboring? Have you had it so easy that you haven't had to confront problems no one has seen before or even consider and try to figure out the causes and then the solutions. I remember watching a couple of machinist [I believe one was a part-time farmer (where I worked and lived was a relatively small town surrounded by soybeans and corn)] sketch out the a piece of equipment to solve a problem, an engineer standing there recognized the importance of their idea, taking it and beginning the process for a patent. The patent was granted and the machinists were credited [by both the patent office and the company for the idea/design]. In you mind were they 'labor' or 'scientists', it was technology and their understand of the science of the problem and the means to solve it?

Haven't you heard of AI and how it is coming to replace us all. The reality computers and their programs are best suited for improving efficiency. The more repetitive a job task, the more risk the task involves, the less judgement a task requires, even the less questions the performer of the task needs to ask and answer the more it is a candidate for replacement by 'machine.'
On a personal note, the plant floor was where I learn the importance of perspective, and the value of diversity of perspectives when trying to solve a problem.
I am the one the talks much about value, no matter the job/role/person/situation. Whether as a parent, a volunteer, an employee, a part of a conversation I should consider whether I am bring value to others. From a personal perspective, as a parent why should my children bring me into their family drawing on their time if I am not bring value to the family? Why should an employer pay me more if I am doing the same thing I did the previous year? As a volunteer, why shouldn't I be adding value to the organization, to the program, to the individual being served? Looking for or verifying the value you provide is important not just to others, but to yourself. When you look for value it reinforces yourself worth [it gives you reinforcing feedback]. When you are striving to provide value for others and it is something they recognize and especially when they mention it they are providing feedback the elevates you self worth and desire to continue. When you work to provide value for your employer and they recognize it with nothing more then a paycheck [feedback] it reinforces yourself worth encourages you to return, It also helps the employer to survive and continue to have work/paycheck for your, which allows you to the future/hope which is good for you.
I feel/believe I have labored all my life in one setting or another so why should I believe you claim that I don't value labor. Currently my volunteering is dirty work [I take about the fitting in sinks [drains with dried crud], vacuum cleaners that are long out of use that weren't emptied, fans with years of dirt, anything and everything that can't be resold, and sort the metal for recycle. You don't think I know what labor is, or that I don't value, simply because you perceive of the type of work I have done. I am frustrated that all you can be concerned with is your image of a person that you can effectively listen to the ideas offered. This is an attitude that feeds the growing divide that is preventing us from solving problems we are living with across our state.
Why don't you offer a specific problem and asked how to solve it, or what are the concerns that a given solution might create?

As for an unassembled new car, why are you so quick to remove another layer of jobs. I have to admit the added technology those engineers have put into the cars has put the shade tree mechanic out of out of work. I can still remember laying on a sheet of cardboard, covering the snow, replacing a rear axle in January, I doubt I could even replace the battery today. [the last battery I had replaced had to be done by the dealership because not even the chain auto repair shops would try].
I wonder if you have an appreciation of the dynamics of an organization and the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure it is effective and successful, if you appreciate the change in the marketplace from one of leveraging strength and endurance to one that leverages knowledge and skills and the is moving to one that leverages judgement [questioning and listening and deciding]. The advantage to the market economy is that the masses decide and feed a system that is always trying to provide more and better to grow the access to more people.

Which set of wrenches do you want the socket or box end, the English or metric, do you want my pipe wrench, channel locks, or vise grips. You still can't let go of the idea there is someone who disagrees with you that has a wide range of experiences, and laboring to get those experiences. I wonder if you ever had to burn 'shit', because that was a rotating task to keep we had to do because of time and place, it was pour in some diesel or gas, light it, and stir and stir, and repeat. I have come to doubt if you knew the extreme of my work history it would really matter you would stay with the stereotype you are using, Thanks for you thoughts and time.

middle of the mit
Fri, 10/25/2019 - 4:15am

[[So you think 'labor' is define by the sweat on the brow and the stiffness of muscles. If that is the case 'labor' is soon to disappear in America.
I have watch the long hours and anguish that 'scientists' have put for in an effort to solve problems, I have watch those who were trying to get equipment change in the field crawling around where those would had the skills to install the changes would have to work to going through the contortions and work it would require to do the job so the jobs could be done safer and made more convenient.]]

All I see you saying is that you watched while everyone else labored.

duane
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 6:45pm

What do you want to know, what criteria are you using to determine if I know what 'labor' is? Do you just consider 'laboring' for pay or would 'labor' without pay [volunteering or for family] still be considered 'labor'? If you accept that I have 'labored' will it matter?
I talk about watching others because seldom if ever what I did was without the help of others and those around you tell much about whether you are carrying your 'load'.

middle of the mit
Fri, 10/25/2019 - 5:14am

Brother, I live up north. We have to do with what we have. That means if we don't have the tool, we make it or we make do without it. Want to compare your ability to do without modern conveniences with mine?

Everything you describe in the paragraphs after, we do on a daily basis. If you want to trust the future to HAL, go ahead.

Some jobs can't be done by computer or machines.

What you call value, is defining humans to a monetary value. And yes, everyone wants a place in society. The only people that have a hard time understanding that are literally conservatives. They think most people are just wanting to suck off of them and Government, even if their bodies are broken from decades of physical labor. You know where to find that information. Disability belt. Highlight those two words, put them into the search bar on this website and tell me that conservative posters are going to help them. Good luck.

As for assembly workers and ME wanting to get rid of a job? YOU putting words in my mouth when you know conservatives do not believe that assembly workers add any value to the car. You are not the first person I have this argument with. You may believe that those workers DO add value, and I would commend you on that, but that is how right to work got passed. Most conservatives DON'T BELIEVE IT.

[[ I have come to doubt if you knew the extreme of my work history it would really matter you would stay with the stereotype you are using, Thanks for you thoughts and time.]]

I could say the same about me to you.

But I wonder if your "perception" would allow it?

Also, I have never had the opportunity to watch anyone do anything, that is what others did while I was doing the labor. Maybe I shouldn't have been so good at doing the hard work and figuring out how to do it better than the people who wouldn't or couldn't give me the tools to do it? Where is the value in that?

duane
Sun, 10/27/2019 - 1:04am

middle,
Why should people have to do without what is available to them simply to satisfy your test? My best guess you are living in a house that is far superior to those that were used in northern Michigan a hundred years ago, or clothing that wasn’t available then, or even the food [quality and selection] and what should that matter? What would living the way they did ago hundred years achieve?

You keep making claiming about ‘conservatives’, it would help if would describe what that means. I have been call a ‘conservative’ many times, and yet you're claiming things that don’t represent my beliefs or actions.

I offered a list of criteria that are used for deciding whether a task will be a candidate for computerization/mechanization, and there how politics will drive changes in jobs.
“They think most people are just wanting to suck off of them and Government, even if their bodies are broken from decades of physical labor.” You’re talking about perceptions; reality is that many want to defer much of their responsibilities/choices to others [the government], including the necessities [food, shelter, clothing, cell phones, medical care, etc.]. And after a generation or two people learn how to manage the system [much like working in a company and they pass on what they learn to their families and that feeds perceptions]. Did you expect a growth in the number of people receiving government in a time of declining employment?

I can’t find where there might have been a suggestion you would want to eliminate any jobs. I do expect that you would like to eliminate those job tasks/activities that increase personal risks that stress the body/mind.
You had it right; I wouldn’t be good at assembling a car. I do appreciate those who do put things together and expect to pay for their added value.
Why should it matter what your work history, it is your point of view and your reasoning that interest me. I want different perspectives, that is what makes me think and look at things in a slightly different way and see how that affects the ideas.
It was a rare situation when I worked alone, I regularly look to see how those I worked with are doing for many reasons [always to ensure their safety, to see what I might do to help, what I could learn from them, what we might do differently]. When working it is always about being observant.

middle of the mit
Tue, 10/15/2019 - 9:46pm

Your comments about my comments about cannabis?

Yes! The police are demonizing it! Did I ever condone driving under the influence? You better check my comments! I said that according to my local newspaper those court cases are non existent anymore. There may be a few, but if you want to compare them with alcohol or any other controlled substance my friend, just punch in any Northern Mi town newspaper and read the court section. Have at it!

All that proves is that you don't need proof or facts to back what you interpret! You are just like Matt.

Perception is everything.

[[My view of taxes is predicated on the spending. Since I lack confident in the agencies/politicians responsible spending or even in regulating Michigan, I am not so sensitive to reduced taxes. I have more confidence in those paying the taxes [individuals and businesses] to get value for the money and benefiting Michigan then the State.]]

Isn't Michigan the State?

[[I am not sure how you determined how the ‘wealthy’ gain more benefit from the roads. It seems to me that there are a lot of trucks on the roads and I wonder how many of those drivers are your ‘wealthy.’ I can see how the ‘wealthy’ get more from education. You seem resistant to the ‘wealthy’ gaining more from a government service that the ‘poor,’ are you suggesting a need to deprive the ‘wealthy’ having access to such service?]]

Obfuscating! Whose businesses benefit? The poor peoples businesses? And those truckers? They don't have a very good contract for who they haul for anymore and they can barely afford gas.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trucking-truck-drivers-fuel-card-delinqu...

I know, you hate links that prove you wrong because equals politics.

But what you are failing to understand is how the Federal Interstate road system got put into place and funded.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm...... this is the site.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/history.cfm ,,,,,,,this is the link.

And what so ever were the tax rates at that particular time?

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1956

[[$200,000.00+ 91% filing singly

$400,000.00+ 91% filing jointly]]

That is how the Interstate highway system was built.

You can interpret it any way you want. But facts are facts.

duane
Thu, 10/17/2019 - 12:33am

middle.
I said politics isn’t about proof or facts since they are transient and we should be working on ideas [means/methods, process/protocols, problems/issues]. We are talking about people and people make everything ‘grey’, you seem to want politics/life to be ‘black and white’, I have never found it so. As I have mentioned even in my science classes I learned critical formulas that had a ‘fudge factor’, number that made the formula work but no one knew why it worked, it just did. When science facts and ‘truths’ of today are likely to be proven wrong tomorrow why are you so sure that politics can be distilled to facts and ‘truths’?
As for my differentiation of Michigan and State, it is the difference of those who are government and those who are governing. A simple test/example, do you believe that the writers of regulation are driven by improved performance of those being regulated or by the easy to prove citations? Which do you think it should be, a regulation designed to improve performance of the regulated or prescription of practices?
You act as if I am denial about who is getting screwed by whom and why, no. I realize the reality that moves with who and the position they are in. I know [up close and personal] life isn’t fair. You seem to distain the business owners/managers because they make more money, while you ignore the benefits/value those businesses provide to the customers, employees, communities, governments, and what drives their success. It seems you want people managing organization that employs people to have no personal interest in the success or failure of the business only that they get no more money than those they employ. I differ with you there, I want each person employed to have a piece of the ‘action,’ I want them to have a skin in the game.’ And that means they should be expecting their compensation to be commensurate with the value they provide and increases in compensation are driven by increases in value provided.
As for your links, first why should I read them if you are not willing to give me a reason to read them other than that you can attach it to your comments. I won’t deny the articles because I won’t read them they are not your thinking, they are someone else’s that you want to claim are ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ that should overwhelm my experience and thinking, and I already said in politics they are transient. If you really want to talk about one, pick it out and tell me why it is so important. On a more personal reason for my resistance is that I am a very slow reader, I can’t read any faster silently that I can out load, by today’s standards I would probably been flunked in third grade for my inability to read. And in spite of that if you have one you want to talk about I will read it.
As for the Interstate highway system, Eisenhower saw how it gave the German Nazis a military advantage so he want to create a similar core of transportation to facilitate what he had learned from WWII. The reason it was complete so quickly and effectively is he had established a specific expectoration and held to it. The reason it has grown so expansive it ‘pork barreling’ without functional purpose or goal. Those are based on simple observation.
Do you think we have more abundance, more creativity, more productivity today than in the 1950s and Eisenhower promoted the interstate highway system and the tax rates were significantly higher?

middle of the mit
Fri, 10/18/2019 - 3:44am

Bridge, I would like to thank you also for allowing this "discussion". The reason I started commenting was to push back on the whole "perception" and " who knows what truth is?" When you have to start comparing scientific theory with what people are actually saying? Educated guess or I guess what the person said is true? And isn't using "perception" a little dangerous? What if you are the person someone else "perceives" as a threat? Even if you aren't? How are going to feel about that judgement of "perception"?

But then I got at least the idea that facts were facts. then Duane said this;

[[As for your links, first why should I read them if you are not willing to give me a reason to read them other than that you can attach it to your comments. I won’t deny the articles because I won’t read them they are not your thinking, they are someone else’s that you want to claim are ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ that should overwhelm my experience and thinking, and I already said in politics they are transient. If you really want to talk about one, pick it out and tell me why it is so important. ]]

So Bridge, I can not use your reporting to enforce why I believe what I believe. I can not use facts from the past because they are not relevant. What you are reporting on are not truths or facts. Because truth and facts are transient and we only need opinion and ideas to not deal with what you report on. And considering Duane doesn't take your reporting too seriously, it kinda makes ya wonder why he even reads your reporting, because he admits he doesn't , and why he comments on it. Doesn't it? The question is where does Does Duane get his information from that bases his opinion on and why does he trust it? If nothing is truthful and truth and facts are transient, how do you believe anything? And it isn't that the real reason he is posting?

Again, thank you for allowing me to post these drawn out comments.

duane
Fri, 10/18/2019 - 9:00pm

middle,
Since you use me for your example, I will address a bit about what you said/asked. I read Bridge most for the comments, I read the articles [as slow as I am], I read the comments, and I think about what is said. I think again about how to articulate my views on what was said. I repeat this thinking every time I read and write. What I value most is the different perspectives I hear for they usually give me pause and a reason to reconsider my viewpoint. I share my views to have them challenged in a way I had considered so I will need to think again.
If you notice I don't claim having any 'truth', any facts, or blame [use any others] thinking in place of my thinking and speaking. I offer up my perspective to whomever wants to see and I listen to what ever they have to say. I don't make personal attacks, and I will respond to anyone who comments.
My thinking/comments are form in my experiences, the lessons I have been taught and learned by application, so I take ownership of my comments because they are in my words.
I readily admit that I don't read all of the Bridge articles, I will read the article header expecting it is framing the article and based on that I will chose to read or not read. I use that header as a means for a Bridge editor to justify or entice me into reading the article [they always have one]. My view is that most articles and books use that technique so I am resistant to read anything simply because there is a coded link made available.
I also appreciate Bridge allowing for such extended interchanges.

middle of the mit
Sat, 10/19/2019 - 9:30pm

Duane,

The reason I chose to comment to Bridge and use you as example is because your last post was an example of crap. And I really didn't want to reply to crap, but if want me to I will. Not here though.

What you are admitting and the reason that I posted my response to Bridge in the first place is that you don't read most of the articles. All of the links to back MY commentary were from Bridge. And you said this;

[[As for your links, first why should I read them if you are not willing to give me a reason to read them other than that you can attach it to your comments. I won’t deny the articles because I won’t read them they are not your thinking, they are someone else’s that you want to claim are ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ that should overwhelm my experience and thinking, and I already said in politics they are transient. ]]

I attached them to my comments because they backed what I was saying. That is what people do who are trying to make sure that what they are saying isn't just opinion. There is reporting. Facts behind why they are saying what they are saying. Isn't that what scientists do? Isn't that the whole reason for their existence? To find out what other scientists are doing, repeat those experiments and see if they are repeatable? And if they are? What happens then? Is it only a "perception"? Gravity is a "perception" it fluctuate in time. Oh but time. If you are doing something boring, time may drag on. You may stare at the clock every ten minutes thinking an hour passed. Yet, if you are doing something fun, you may not even know an hour passed. Does it really matter with "perception"? Because if you need to be work in the next hour, that is something that is concrete. Tell your employer your "perception" was off, see if they went to same school you went to.

duane
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 2:52pm

If I have accepted your idea why should I read more, if I have already read the article why should I reread the article, if it is only smart parts of the article why should I have to read the whole article? When I suggest someone read a book that I feel relates to the conversation I offer the point being made and the page of the book to refer too, that is my effort to recognize their time is limited.
Your example of gravity is a good, but are you sure that isn't an example of magic? Have you ever heard anyone explain why gravity works or do they simply describe how it works. The way Einstein's theories were validated was by people trying to prove them wrong, we are now hearing that gravity is distorted by speed. That would suggest that the 'truths' of Newtonian physics weren't true, but only as predictable as the means/methods available at the time, that is science.
When it involves people and politics why are you so sure 'truths' will not change? If they will change why not use them as ideas and be willing to make the better?
There was a 'War on Poverty', a noted 'Liberal' US Senator Patrick Moynihan wrote extensively about why the unintended consequences would be [it was his 'truth', the family stability would be lost, poverty would persist and people would become wards of the system] but the politicians held their own 'truths' of the time that that people were financially 'poor' and government spending would end it. Whose 'truth' is the today's 'truth?'
What are your 'truths'?

middle of the mit
Mon, 10/21/2019 - 7:35pm

Duane,
Why did you chose gravity and not say anything about the "perception of time"?

See, we have gone from what this whole conversation was about in the first place. Conservatives not wanting to be taxed to pay for public services such as public schools. And that is what "perception" argument is all about. You refuse to see what was in the past and find out why your idea of the wealthy benefiting society would never work. They are not benevolent. We have all of human history to learn that they don't do that unless someone forces their hand. Sure some are benevolent but if they were going to help out, they wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail against wage raises that they probably spend more money lobbying congress (both State and Feds) to make they sure they don't have to do that.

And if you think the war on poverty hasn't helped people, what would the Walton families employees do with out foodstamps or State and Federal benefits to corporations so that their employees aren't living out their vehicles? Get an education and a better job? Then who would stock the shelves?

Also, you could look to the past and see what the poverty rate amongst the elderly were before these programs. But that is living in the past and how can you learn if your programs are working if you don't care about what the numbers in the past were?

Make sure your perception of time fits what your watch says.

We are done.

duane
Thu, 10/24/2019 - 12:09am

middle,
You talked about gravity in you previous comment, I thought it was a good one, so I continued with it.
The point about the ‘wealthy’ was how you said it was the most concentrated now and I pointed how it was more concentrated a hundred years ago.
I agree that ‘conservatives’ don’t want to be taxed as many others don’t, we hear about some who do encourage being taxed more though having the opportunity to donate moneys to the government as if they were being taxed more the donate to charities instead [even then in a way that there are tax considerations they can take advantage of].
The other side of ‘conservatives’ not wanting to be taxed is share by others; they want value for their taxes. See the ineffective use of their tax dollars can be a strong discouragement to wanting to pay more and more taxes..
Again with the wealthy not being beneficial, you must wish those financial collapses I mentioned had happened otherwise the relatively wealthiest person prevented the collapse would be considered a ‘good thing’. It seems with your concern with the flaws in people with wealth you ignore the harm people without wealth do to others. Where you seem to believe good and bad are a function of wealth, I see it as a choice of the individual irrelevant of their money.
Back to wages and how the wealthy should pay more for the same value that the poor or middleclass pay. If anything that distorts the market and creates problems in the marketplace. A provided of service who gets paid more because of who is paying rather then the service provided distorts the market of all, why should a person work for anyone paying less?
Are you trying to suggest that only the wealthy have paid lobbyists, look at all the organizations claiming they represent the poor and unemployed [such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, any number of unions who are described representing the little man that used paid lobbyists.
The ‘War on Poverty’ was a 60s program, and was touted by LBJ to end Poverty. Are you suggesting that all or a significant part of the 1.5 million US WalMart employs are on food stamps is it just enough to have a report sight and anonymous source? IN 2013 the verified count was 3200 employers were accepting food stamps when USA Today reported that a Democrat staffer claimed they were receiving over $6,000,000,000. What are they calling that in Washington today, ‘Fake News’?
Who is taking the orders at McDonalds, a computer online, can stocking shelves be far behind? They already have robots in the AMAZON warehouses stocking the shelves and putting together shipping orders.
I grew up in the shadow of a Michigan ‘Poor house’, my Dad only had an 8th grade education I know the then and now, and I recognize the why, You seem to be satisfied with the ineffectiveness of such programs simply because you like the intent, what you miss is that I don’t say eliminate the programs, I ask for accountability. Why support a program that wastes money, why not expect excellence from the programs?

middle of the mit
Sat, 10/19/2019 - 10:39pm

Duane,
First I would like to address your reading "deficiency. After reading what you posted, I tried reading faster than I could out loud. It didn't seem to matter the fastest I could read in my mind was the fastest I could read out loud. Unlike some, who would doubt peoples need for cannabis as a pain reliever, I am not going to doubt you. But it would be nice if I could get some concrete facts on how many words you can read in a minute.

I too also take an hour or so reading the articles and comments that I reply on. But I have never said that Bridge Magazines reporting was transient or didn't mean anything other than in the time it was reported and may be wrong within minutes.

Now to your comment..

You are a scientist. You don't work in absolutes. Go work for someone who isn't a scientist or a school. Find out how the rest of the world works. Be a plumber, carpenter or welder or anything else.

[[As for my differentiation of Michigan and State, it is the difference of those who are government and those who are governing.]]

Don't the people of the State get to decide that? And isn't that how it is supposed to work? Otherwise we could go back to how it was before, you know, Kings, Queens, Dukes and Duchesses and the landed gentry. But didn't we break from that for a reason?

The difference is that you think the wealthy, those I just listed, will govern diligently and not for themselves. Yet, that is why we broke from them, because they didn't. That is why after the Great Depression, tax rates went up until JFK. That is what paid for America. That is why you are able to be what you are.

[[. A simple test/example, do you believe that the writers of regulation are driven by improved performance of those being regulated or by the easy to prove citations? Which do you think it should be, a regulation designed to improve performance of the regulated or prescription of practices]]

You asked the wrong question again! Do you believe that Governments force regulations down your throats? Where did they get those regulations from? My bet? Insurance companies, and those that build the things that the regulators put into LAW. And for the most part? It's to make sure that the insurer doesn't have to replace your house with the insurance money you have been paying into the insurance company. Want to take my bet?

And in one paragraph you say this

[[You act as if I am denial about who is getting screwed by whom and why, no. I realize the reality that moves with who and the position they are in. I know [up close and personal] life isn’t fair. You seem to distain the business owners/managers because they make more money, while you ignore the benefits/value those businesses provide to the customers, employees, communities, governments, and what drives their success.]]

And in the next you say this

[[ It seems you want people managing organization that employs people to have no personal interest in the success or failure of the business only that they get no more money than those they employ. I differ with you there, ]]

The problem that you are forgetting is that it doesn't matter how awesome your idea is. It doesn't matter how much your product is in demand. If you are an individual and only an individual, you can not do it on your own. I would love to see Bill Ford build all the cars he sells and still sell as many as he does without employees. That is what you are saying about all the people that work for all the companies around America and the world. They don't produce enough value.

[[As for the Interstate highway system, Eisenhower saw how it gave the German Nazis a military advantage so he want to create a similar core of transportation to facilitate what he had learned from WWII. The reason it was complete so quickly and effectively is he had established a specific expectoration and held to it.]]

Yeah? Who benefited the most from the interstate highway system? Businesses?

[[The reason it has grown so expansive it ‘pork barreling’ without functional purpose or goal. Those are based on simple observation.]]

One, is observation the same as perception? And two, why don't you look into where the highway system has expanded? Rural areas dude. Whose pork barrel is that?

[[Do you think we have more abundance, more creativity, more productivity today than in the 1950s and Eisenhower promoted the interstate highway system and the tax rates were significantly higher?]]

Uhh we have more abundance, but it is more concentrated. Are you going to tell me an educated person such as yourself has never heard of conglomeration? And yes, Tax rates during Eisenhower were at or above 90% top marginal tax rate.

Those are facts. Deal with it.

duane
Tue, 10/22/2019 - 9:26pm

What test would want used for my reading speed? Is there anything particular passage you want me to read for testing? By asking for me to test my reading speed your doubt in my veracity.
Your questioning my experiences is a classic political ploy to discredit the person when frustrated with ineffectiveness to discredit the ideas a person is offering. My practical experience started when I was young, in my preteens helping my Dad replace the steel water lines in the crawl space [I was under the house handing him tools and pipe, digging out areas to work], during college doing hot roofs [running the kettle, spreading the tar, spreading gravel], bending and hanging duct work, working a wheels assembly line [cars/trucks]. I have worked with all the trades you mention [outside in the middle of Michigan winters and Missouri summers] that includes lying flat on an open grating in January blowing snow and 20 below winds and sitting in a bosun’s chair hanging from a crane 60 feet in the air. I have worked with trades you omitted, riggers, welders, machinists, insulators, instrumentation techs. I have done framing, hanging drywall, laying wood floors, plumbing, and electrical. I have worked with electricity from 12 volts to 12,500v, less than an amp to over 70,000 amps DC, fluids from 1 gpm to 100,00 gpm, I never struck an arc or laid a bead, I have used an arc welder to thaws lines in January [before climate changed was felt]. Do you need to know more, ‘guns’, parenting, money, social/political issues, how deep do you want me to go? My political experiences started in local Democrat campaigning at 10 putting up posters and passing our campaign literature in western Wayne County. Do you want to know about my brief time employed by the government, would details help?
Have you noticed I haven’t asked about your personal credentials? I take what you say as thoughtful and worth consideration because you offered it in this forum, I need no more, it doesn’t matter to me who you parents are, how you have come to your perspectives, it is enough that you are willing to share and engage and give me an opportunity to think about it.
I believe the governing should feel a need to be accountable for the spending of other people’s money, I think those who are governed should expect accountability of programs and agencies spending their money.
My desire is for effective regulations. Regulations are always after the fact; someone has already addressed the problem. Government has three weaknesses in writing regulations; lack of practical experience, desire to ensure citations standup in court, and a resistance to change [controlling from the past not for the future]. I have testified before OSHA on a few regulations, I was either the only one or one of two testifying that had worked what OSHA was trying to regulate. How does a person write an effective rule for entry into a confined space that has never prepared such a space for safe entry and working [we were able to get the writers on this reg to visit a plant to see our practices and the wide range of equipment that we apply our practices to, even that bit of exposure changed their perceptions]. Overwhelmingly regulations are written to prescriptive activities not to improve the performance of those regulated.
The possession of ‘wealth’ is not a validation of people’s management skills nor the reason for anyone to have a government position. If they use their ‘wealth’ to purchase a business then by law they have the authority to place themselves in a position of authority, but that doesn’t guarantee the business will succeed, in effect if they are poor ‘managers’ they assure the loss of their wealth.
You seem to feel that Bill Ford shouldn’t receive any more from company sales than any other person at the company, you seem to think that hours worked are the only criteria for receiving moneys from the company. I consider the amount of money Bill Ford may have at risk in owning the company should receive compensation for that risk, without reward for risk why should we expect anyone to invest in creating or maintaining a business and employing people? Another consideration is the value that the person produces for the company, should the person whose decisions will affect the survival of the business be compensated the same as the person whose activities have no impact on the whole of the company, I believe so. By your view all players on a professional sports team roster should be paid the same even though their impact is different. How much compensation is paid is up to the owners of the business since they are ones risking their money.
How much people benefit from the Interstate highway system is directly proportional to how much they put into using it. If an individual crisscross the country on vacations they will benefit more than someone who stays at home, businesses will benefit based on the size and nature of their business, a country wide or international business is more likely to benefit than a small local restraint. Benefit is proportional initiative. Who benefits from I-75 north of Bay City, or don’t you consider that rural? Who was the Congressman, Senators, and Governor at the time, take your choice for benefiting from the road being built there who pushed for that stretch of road since you don’t believe it provide justifiable benefit locally?
As for the concentration of ‘wealth’ you should read a bit more of history, in 1893 one man [JP Morgan] had sufficient ‘wealth’ to loan the US Treasury the moneys necessary to prevent the federal government’s financial collapse and again in 1907 he invested his moneys and induced other banks to invest to prevent the financial collapse of the country. I call that a concentration of wealth. Today there isn’t a person or a small group that have the wealth to do the same things, it was a far greater concentration of wealth then rather than now . I have used my efforts to provide a better life than I expected, I really don’t care how much more others may have, in money, things, and experiences, I am enjoying my life. I have found that many people make choices in life that affects their lives, their financial opportunities, their health, their social life, their family life, I don’t feel anyone should make the choices for them nor should others decide the results they should have. You seem to feel money is the most important thing, that it is the answer to everything [it is the only thing you talk about, taking and spending]. I have found time is the most valuable thing, for once it is gone there is no way to create more, money can be replaced. Many done smartly can cost less money and provide greater value, but unless you look for the smarter way before one goes after the money one is assured of being wasteful and being disappointed.
You claim it was high tax rates in the 1950s that paid for the highway system, your facts fail to include that the rate of spending was so much less then, that it was the near balance that paid for the road system. The other thing you fail to consider is how much more financial risk people are willing to take today with when they have a potential for greater returns. Why risk losing your money on a new or old business when the best a person could expect was 10¢ on every dollar of return? Especially when no risk government bonds were paying 5% and if they were income tax exempt as they are today a better return? The rate then and now is why you hear so much more about venture capitalists and the equities markets supporting so many new and old businesses which feed our abundance. Your fact is clear but not the whole of the facts.

middle of the mit
Fri, 10/25/2019 - 3:56am

After this comment,[[Your questioning my experiences is a classic political ploy to discredit the person when frustrated with ineffectiveness to discredit the ideas a person is offering]]

Without you taking into account my comment [[Unlike some, who would doubt peoples need for cannabis as a pain reliever, I am not going to doubt you. ]]

I am no longer going to ask you about your reading speed, which you brought up, I am going to ask about your reading comprehension and I am not going to answer your post. If you can't take my words and not change them? Well, You are not seeing reality, you are seeing your "perception" of what I am saying.

NO one can have an honest conversation with parameters like that.

It was....challenging to say the least. But!

Reality calls!
Make sure your "perception of time" matches your employers!!

middle of the mit
Tue, 10/15/2019 - 10:52pm

[[A business needs a measurable purpose more than a competitor, a business that is committed to such a purpose will excel more to achieve that purpose then it would in response to a competitor. A measurable purpose will create a culture of change/improvement, while a competitor will instigate reaction not necessarily improvement.]]

That might have been the case in my and your generation. but compare the competition now compared to when we were growing up. Oh there more corporations, but does that necessarily mean more competition? Not if there is one corporation that owns most of those "sister corporations". Check out how many corporations are under the Koch umbrella.

You corporatists have no shame. And it is time for you find out what shame is.

Look up the difference between a goat and a sheep nation.

Have

As for why a Republican would run up here as a dem? So they don't have to spend money running a primary campaign and then the general.

And the only reason that I feel that you, Matt and Kevin should move up here is because you "perceive" a connection between you and the people up here that vote similar to you. Yet you think that life is so wonderful up here yet you decide to live down there. Why would you continue to pay taxes to people that you feel are taking advantage of you and not move up here?

Because YOU CAN NOT MAKE THE MONEY UP HERE THAT YOU MAKE DOWN THERE. Why?

Isn't that the same reason that FOX News will NEVER leave the Liberal taxhole of Manhattan?

It literally is the ONLY question I want answered, honestly, with no platitudes.

And if you think politics should be seen as nothing more than a football game?

Are you even a person? And if you are, do you give a hoot about your fellow person? That will answer a lot of questions I have.

duane
Thu, 10/17/2019 - 1:35am

middle,
I am concerned you are now reaching outside Michigan to make you point, that suggest you are getting frustrated and may be struggling. Do you honestly believe that Koch doesn’t have serious competition in each of the industries it operates? I would offer in the chemical industry it is a worldwide competition, in the food industry it is worldwide; it is similar in the petroleum industry. And many competitors in each industry have bigger market share than Koch. Or is you simply are so upset by their politics you can see more than that.
You say I have no shame and yet I am willing to talk about specific while all you seem to do is make wide splashy remarks. I surely don’t claim that anyone on either side of a table is without errors, but I also acknowledge that when people [because that is all that any organization is, is the people who operate it] learn and change things that we all benefit. I learn that regulation can be an effective source of knowledge, i.e. best available proven knowledge, and a means to help other improve their performance [especially of their competitors]. I realize just as I mentioned how science evolves so does the knowledge and with that knowledge those with access to that knowledge should be changing and improving. Why should I have shame if at the behest of my employer I help to spread better practices around the world to create a safer workplace and community? What shame should I have if when OSHA creates the regulation that we have been part of a group recommending and ask for help in training their compliance officers my employer sends me to do the training, or that my employer develops effective tools for improving a safe workplace and we share it with OSHA and they include it as a recommend means for use. It is disappointing you make such personal attacks by trying to shame someone without asking a questions. You seem to believe you have a ‘truth’ about the evils of business without even offering ‘facts.’ What is you facts? Mine is OSHA Code of Federal Register 1910.119 with the associate OSHA preamble and EPA RMP, all as just one data point from25 years ago.
I don’t see the reasoning for a Republican to run as a Democrat if they are not likely to win as a Democrat, not matter how less it will cost. Running to lose doesn’t seem to be a good spending plan whether it is a little or a lot.
I won’t disagree that I may not find a job in you town that employs my type of knowledge and skills, but do you think that is in every rural community, is that in evert part of northern Michigan? I would like to hear your definitions of norther and rural does you line for northern cross start in Bay City and cross to Muskegon or do you pick in choose the towns and counties, does your definition of rural exclude the towns like Fremont, Gaylord, West Branch?
When do you accept I know nothing about the decision made by FOX News or any of their peers? There are places in up-state New York along the finger lakes that are attractive, but I wouldn’t hazard a guess about why stay in NYC.
Is there any answer about concern and caring about others, about ‘your fellow man’ that would satisfy you? I would rather hear your ideas to address problems/issues, I have found the diversity of perspective is the most valuable part of any conversation. Disagreement is valuable if we share the concerns and ideas. You pick a problem tell me you concerns and let me respond offer possible way to address those concerns and offer some of my own. One reason we were able to work with OSHA to get that regulation in place and shared around the world because we talked about concerns and how to address them.
I am one person responsible for all that I say, think about what I am saying and take blame for the inarticulate way I say what I am thinking.

J Kat.
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 8:30am

This Governor will never let this happen, it is difficult to negotiate with this GOP who have basically run this State for 10 or more years. They just say no. What did they do in those years, poison Flint, underfund schools as usual and not do a damned things for our roads. Please add others I have missed. Thanks.

fox1george
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 10:55am

And like Trump, the Republicans who let our schools, roads, hospitals (mental), environment (water, etc) completely collapse by not funding them adequately for 10 years are blaming the current Governor for the mess they created!

EB
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 11:48am

It's Rural Red v. Urban Blue. Starting in 2022 there will be more players on the Blue team and less on the Red team. Strikes me that the Red guys should be thinking ahead and maybe just maybe consider the word, "compromise."

Larry Murton
Tue, 10/08/2019 - 6:27pm

Only BULLIES put little kids in the middle of an argument they have no part in or a way to resolve. Fight your own battles and solve problems!

susan worley
Wed, 10/09/2019 - 8:58am

How about we call it like it is. The governor's spokesman says the republicans wouldn't negotiate. But it's the governor herself who walked out 3 weeks before the end of the fiscal year because she wasn't getting what she wanted, a 45 cent increase in the gas tax. She vetoed $1 billion in funds to go to roads because she wanted $2 billion. The legislature worked together, democrat and republican, to put a budget on her desk. They did their part the governor did not and has not done hers. If anyone is using students as political pawns, it is the governor.

Matt
Wed, 10/09/2019 - 4:15pm

Funny how she's in no hurry to put a ballot question for this .45 /gal together for the next election? Why is that?

Chris
Sun, 10/13/2019 - 12:45am

Students are political pawns to the left. All of the student protests are for left views.

Richard Colony
Thu, 10/31/2019 - 6:07am

I get sick and tired when a news article states that the Legislators passed the budget without input from Governor Whitmer. The reason Governor Whitmer had no input is she walked away from the negotiating table. Based on her unprecedented actions since the Legislators passed the budget it is clear this was was part of her negotiating strategy. It is that strategy that has resulted her budget cuts aimed at rural programs such as these rural school districts and rural medical programs. I would respectfully request that writers of these needed articles state exactly why the Governor had no input, "SHE WALKED AWAY FROM THE NEGOTIATING TABLE."