Swine flu may be the most overblown story of 2009 so far. It’s my bet that it’ll take the title come year’s end.
Maybe it’s a kind of crisis hypersensitivity. We all got conditioned to the economic news getting worse and worse — continually exceeding expectations for bad news.
So as soon as the swine flu story broke, everybody seemed to immediately go to the worst case scenario. Every hypochondriac nerve in the population started jangling. Wait... I’m getting a sore throat. I’M GONNA DIE!!!
Well, no. Turns out that swine flu, though it has claimed lives in Mexico, isn’t all that deadly. It’s not the 1918 flu. It’s probably not even an average year’s flu.
Why do we do this? Every year thousands of people die from complications of seasonal flu (36,000 in the U.S. is the number currently being reported. So far, swine flu has claimed one life in the U.S. — of a little boy who came here from Mexico and had underlying health conditions).
Influenza can be deadly, especially if you have underlying medical problems. I’ve had the real-deal flu a couple of times and I can see how it could kill you. I’ve got a pretty stout constitution and it wiped me out.
But the flu is a normal part of life and most years, most people don’t get it. Those that do mostly suffer and recover. Some die.
Eventually there will be another 1918-style pandemic and boy that is scary. A lot of people died in that one and, perversely, it disproportionately affected the young and healthy.
Those kinds of pandemics happen very rarely. It makes sense to plan ahead and for public health and emergency agencies to coordinate a response. I don’t fault the CDC and the World Health Organization for tracking a new mutation of a virus and informing the public. That’s their job.
But I do fault the national media for climbing all over the story with a maximum of hype and bombast and a credulous public for reacting as if the sky was falling.
I guess there’s something extra scary about the idea of a virus spreading silently, deadly, like a conscious malign force. It’s the stuff of Stephen King novels; in fact he wrote the story in The Stand.
But c’mon folks, let’s keep things in proportion here. Take the usual flu season precautions — you’re gonna be okay.
...Until SKYNET becomes self aware and launches a nuclear strike, destroying most of mankind and launching a war between humankind and cyborgs. Where are you John Connor????...
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Big trouble in Pakistan
We’ve got big trouble in Pakistan and there’s very little we can do about it.
The Pakistani Taliban are making significant territorial advances in the wake of a peace deal that basically turned over big swaths of territory in the Swat Valley and elsewhere to the black turbans.
This is a huge problem for the Obama Administration, which has linked Afghanistan and Pakistan strategically.
In the immediate sense, it means an ever-larger sanctuary for Taliban fighters engaged in Afghanistan.
The 20th Century history of insurgency and guerrilla warfare from Rhodesia to Vietnam shows that insurgencies that have sanctuaries are almost impossible to defeat, no matter how successful counterinsurgency forces are in the area of operations.
In the larger sense, Pakistan is well on its way to becoming a failed state — nuclear-armed failed state. For years the real nightmare scenario of Islamic terrorism has been the possibility of fanatics getting their hands on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
That raises the specter for which we went to war in Iraq: the possibility of a state regime handing over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. It must also be making India very nervous...
Pakistan is near economic ruin and the massive aid packages planned by the Obama administration may just be poured down a rat hole. We can’t afford to prop them up, but we can’t allow them to fall down.
All this may seem very far from Sisters and very distant from the daily concerns of keeping afloat in a dire economy. But we’ve got community members going into harm’s way in Afghanistan. They will be directly affected by what goes down in Pakistan.
And if Pakistan itself goes down, we will be living in a much more dangerous, much more unstable world. If Southern Asia goes up in flames, don’t think it won’t have an effect on us.
There’s nothing you or I can do about Pakistan, obviously. But it makes sense to get ready for the aftershocks as it totters toward a fall.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The Pakistani Taliban are making significant territorial advances in the wake of a peace deal that basically turned over big swaths of territory in the Swat Valley and elsewhere to the black turbans.
This is a huge problem for the Obama Administration, which has linked Afghanistan and Pakistan strategically.
In the immediate sense, it means an ever-larger sanctuary for Taliban fighters engaged in Afghanistan.
The 20th Century history of insurgency and guerrilla warfare from Rhodesia to Vietnam shows that insurgencies that have sanctuaries are almost impossible to defeat, no matter how successful counterinsurgency forces are in the area of operations.
In the larger sense, Pakistan is well on its way to becoming a failed state — nuclear-armed failed state. For years the real nightmare scenario of Islamic terrorism has been the possibility of fanatics getting their hands on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
That raises the specter for which we went to war in Iraq: the possibility of a state regime handing over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. It must also be making India very nervous...
Pakistan is near economic ruin and the massive aid packages planned by the Obama administration may just be poured down a rat hole. We can’t afford to prop them up, but we can’t allow them to fall down.
All this may seem very far from Sisters and very distant from the daily concerns of keeping afloat in a dire economy. But we’ve got community members going into harm’s way in Afghanistan. They will be directly affected by what goes down in Pakistan.
And if Pakistan itself goes down, we will be living in a much more dangerous, much more unstable world. If Southern Asia goes up in flames, don’t think it won’t have an effect on us.
There’s nothing you or I can do about Pakistan, obviously. But it makes sense to get ready for the aftershocks as it totters toward a fall.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Here comes the big hit
Last week, Sisters schools were looking at a $970,000 shortfall. Superintendent Elaine Drakulich told the board she could deliver a balanced budget on that number by not renewing temporary contracts, using up most of the district’s budget carryover and through savings from various efficiencies.
This week, the district is looking at a $1.5 million shortfall, thanks to a revised budget forecast from the state.
That means the district is going to have to look at cutting school days, freezing salaries and benefits, or cutting staff — or a combination of these moves and more.
This could open up some interesting questions for debate in the schools and community.
How many days can be cut before there is real damage done to students? (Hey, we’ll get the two week spring break back!)
Should cut in-service days to preserve as many teaching days as possible?
What about using merit rather than seniority as the criterion for a Reduction in Force (RIF)? Mike Morgan raised the question with the Budget Reduction Committee and with Board Chair Chris Jones. He tells me he’s planning to push the issue and he says he’s got a lot of folks in his corner.
“Merit” is a big sticky wicket in education. Everybody believes in rewarding merit, but nobody wants to implement “merit pay” or use it — at least not formally — to determine who stays and who goes in a RIF.
Undertstandably, there doesn’t seem to be much stomach for a RIF. Cutting staff could well mean cutting valuable programs and nobody wants that to happen.
We could cut days rather than staff, which both parents and staff seem to favor. That keeps class sizes smaller, but less time in the classroom can’t be considered a good deal. It’s not at all clear whether a salary/benefit freeze combined with other cuts would save enough money to stave off cuts.
It all comes down to finding another $530,000. Cutting days may seem like the easy route, but 10 days to two weeks is not compatible with quality education.
This crisis calls for creativity and courage. Day cuts? Pay cuts? Staff cuts? Program cuts? None of it is appetizing, but the district has to make the tough calls with one mission in mind: delivering the best quality education possible with the resources available.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
This week, the district is looking at a $1.5 million shortfall, thanks to a revised budget forecast from the state.
That means the district is going to have to look at cutting school days, freezing salaries and benefits, or cutting staff — or a combination of these moves and more.
This could open up some interesting questions for debate in the schools and community.
How many days can be cut before there is real damage done to students? (Hey, we’ll get the two week spring break back!)
Should cut in-service days to preserve as many teaching days as possible?
What about using merit rather than seniority as the criterion for a Reduction in Force (RIF)? Mike Morgan raised the question with the Budget Reduction Committee and with Board Chair Chris Jones. He tells me he’s planning to push the issue and he says he’s got a lot of folks in his corner.
“Merit” is a big sticky wicket in education. Everybody believes in rewarding merit, but nobody wants to implement “merit pay” or use it — at least not formally — to determine who stays and who goes in a RIF.
Undertstandably, there doesn’t seem to be much stomach for a RIF. Cutting staff could well mean cutting valuable programs and nobody wants that to happen.
We could cut days rather than staff, which both parents and staff seem to favor. That keeps class sizes smaller, but less time in the classroom can’t be considered a good deal. It’s not at all clear whether a salary/benefit freeze combined with other cuts would save enough money to stave off cuts.
It all comes down to finding another $530,000. Cutting days may seem like the easy route, but 10 days to two weeks is not compatible with quality education.
This crisis calls for creativity and courage. Day cuts? Pay cuts? Staff cuts? Program cuts? None of it is appetizing, but the district has to make the tough calls with one mission in mind: delivering the best quality education possible with the resources available.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Sunday, April 12, 2009
One rescued captain; three dead pirates
Excellent outcome.
This is one area where the historical record gives clear guidance on the path to take. Piracy, unlike drug trafficking, can be curtailed by stepped up paramilitary law enforcement that makes the risk/benefit calculus to heavy for the pirates to bear.
Aggressive attacks on pirates has squashed piracy outbreaks across the Seven Seas, from Pompey Magnus in the Roman Mediterranean to Brooke in the South Seas to the Shores of Tripoli.
Good for us, good for the French. Yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate's life... sucks.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
This is one area where the historical record gives clear guidance on the path to take. Piracy, unlike drug trafficking, can be curtailed by stepped up paramilitary law enforcement that makes the risk/benefit calculus to heavy for the pirates to bear.
Aggressive attacks on pirates has squashed piracy outbreaks across the Seven Seas, from Pompey Magnus in the Roman Mediterranean to Brooke in the South Seas to the Shores of Tripoli.
Good for us, good for the French. Yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate's life... sucks.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, April 9, 2009
That's the spirit
A bunch of citizens rebuilt a Hawaiian road that was washed out by flooding. Their own initiative. Gotta love that.
"Their livelihood was being threatened, and they were tired of waiting for government help, so business owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free."
— CNN.com
Reminds me of Curt Kallberg standing up in a school board meeting when Sisters couldn't pass a bond to build new classrooms at Sisters Elementary School. "Why don't we just build em?" he asked. And Curt and a bunch of buddies in the trades and volunteers did it. Donated labor, donated cash/materials and a quick turnaround on a project that has benefited hundreds of local kids.
We need that can-do spirit right here, right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
"Their livelihood was being threatened, and they were tired of waiting for government help, so business owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free."
— CNN.com
Reminds me of Curt Kallberg standing up in a school board meeting when Sisters couldn't pass a bond to build new classrooms at Sisters Elementary School. "Why don't we just build em?" he asked. And Curt and a bunch of buddies in the trades and volunteers did it. Donated labor, donated cash/materials and a quick turnaround on a project that has benefited hundreds of local kids.
We need that can-do spirit right here, right now.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
No “Dear Leader” please
I never got Obamamania.
I never understood the hope invested in the man, the nearly messianic expectations. I have friends who got completely swept up, who are believers.
I saw the same thing with George W. Bush: people who should have known better believing utterly that this son of privilege was just like them — and a great leader to boot.
I know people — my dad for one — for whom Ronald Reagan is a hero. (I have to say I’ve never personally met anyone who hero-worships Bill Clinton. Good thing.)
There’s something distasteful to me about elevating politicians to heroic status. It’s anti-republican (that’s small “r,” for the record). In our system of government, we hire these people to do a job and we owe it to ourselves to view their performance with skepticism, to hold them accountable.
Too much faith — I would say much faith at all — in a leader is misplaced and unhealthy for the Republic. The cult of personality is better suited to monarchies and authoritarian regimes. Americans should never have a “Dear Leader.”
Maybe I’m just being a crank. But I don’t think politicians should be treated like rock stars. (I don’t think rock stars should be treated like rock stars, either, but that’s another story.) I get uneasy when I see giant crowds going nuts over Obama.
Didn’t like the George W. Bush action-figure landing on the aircraft carrier, either.
Obama seems like good guy — personable in interviews, lovely family. I like his “cool.” I think his rep as an orator is overblown, but he does communicate well (though not as well as The Great Communicator).
But we hired the man to do a tough job and all that matters is what he gets done.
I suppose it’s natural to project our hopes and fears, dreams and nightmares, aspirations and demonic visions onto leaders. But the American form of government assumes that we can get past that kind of irrationalism and see with clear eyes.
If we’ve forgotten how, we need to relearn how to do that — now more than ever.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
I never understood the hope invested in the man, the nearly messianic expectations. I have friends who got completely swept up, who are believers.
I saw the same thing with George W. Bush: people who should have known better believing utterly that this son of privilege was just like them — and a great leader to boot.
I know people — my dad for one — for whom Ronald Reagan is a hero. (I have to say I’ve never personally met anyone who hero-worships Bill Clinton. Good thing.)
There’s something distasteful to me about elevating politicians to heroic status. It’s anti-republican (that’s small “r,” for the record). In our system of government, we hire these people to do a job and we owe it to ourselves to view their performance with skepticism, to hold them accountable.
Too much faith — I would say much faith at all — in a leader is misplaced and unhealthy for the Republic. The cult of personality is better suited to monarchies and authoritarian regimes. Americans should never have a “Dear Leader.”
Maybe I’m just being a crank. But I don’t think politicians should be treated like rock stars. (I don’t think rock stars should be treated like rock stars, either, but that’s another story.) I get uneasy when I see giant crowds going nuts over Obama.
Didn’t like the George W. Bush action-figure landing on the aircraft carrier, either.
Obama seems like good guy — personable in interviews, lovely family. I like his “cool.” I think his rep as an orator is overblown, but he does communicate well (though not as well as The Great Communicator).
But we hired the man to do a tough job and all that matters is what he gets done.
I suppose it’s natural to project our hopes and fears, dreams and nightmares, aspirations and demonic visions onto leaders. But the American form of government assumes that we can get past that kind of irrationalism and see with clear eyes.
If we’ve forgotten how, we need to relearn how to do that — now more than ever.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
