Posted on August 7, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.

Let's correct the record. It is not true that much of the discussion at Monday nights meeting concerned Carolyn Morris. Specifically, two people got up during citizens communications and called for her resignation. None of the other speakers mentioned Carolyn by name. Two speakers spoke about other issues. One speaker, Ellen Clark, said that the items identified by the TEA for correction by the district, were trivial, and she went on to criticize other people who weren't in her opinion, sufficiently involved in trying to raise academic performance in Lancaster.

One person calling for Carolyn's ouster was a pastor. If he is an individual and a voting constituent in Lancaster, he should speak as an individual, and make it clear he is only speaking as a citizen, not as a representative of his church. If he is acting as a lobbyist for his congregation, he's out of order, because churches can't do political lobbying.

I ask, why is it primarily the pastors who are calling for Carolyn's resignation? Why are the constituents who elected her not calling for her resignation? She won by a majority vote, didn't she? Didn't she, also, win her current position by a 5-2 vote? How then, given our faith in a democratic process, can we now call for her resignation? What we have now is essentially mob rule. The Democratic process worked, and resulted in Carolyn's election. It is mob rule to now ask for her ouster after she was so recently placed in the position as president.

Now, let's remember who did the bickering at the July 28 meeting. The issue was whether to hire an investigator. The only people who bickered during that meeting were Ed Kirkland and Marie Elliot. Carolyn Morris did not bicker.

Why then, did the pastors focus their attacks solely on Carolyn Morris and not on Ed Kirkland and Marie Elliot?

It appears to me that the pastors are not so much concerned with stopping the bickering, as they are determined to depose Carolyn Morris, whether she bickers or not. They give Ed Kirkland and Marie Elliot a free ride, only because they are on their side.

It appears that Ed Kirkland and Marie Elliot are extremely upset that they find themselves voted out of power, and they just can't take it.

The people demanded change. They didn't want the status quo to continue. Mendoza, Johnson, and Stanmore, had their heels dug in and wouldn't budge. They needed to go.

On Lancaster parents call for removal of school board president

Posted on August 4, 2008 at 4:12 p.m.

Why is it that preachers got involved in this scam?

Does it have something to do with opposition to "evil capitalism?" Is this taught in "liberation theology" classes? Is there, in the minds of these preachers, the idea that foreclosure is a form of taking from the poor, and that these scams are a way of taking property back for the oppressed masses? Do the preachers think it is immoral for houses to remain empty in the face of homelessness, held by the money lenders, who seek profit in the form of interest and capital appreciation? Do the preachers feel morally justified in taking that empty housing and turning it over to people who would otherwise be homeless?

If these preachers feel morally justified in what they are doing, how can they, in good faith, charge rent, which is just like usury, without, in turn, making a financial investment in the form of a loan?

If these preachers were truly motivated by a moral philosphy, wouldn't they simply occupy these houses for their tenants and let their poor tenants live there for nothing? Wouldn't they, also, feel a burden to preserve the property while they were occupying it, since abusing the property of others is a form of stealing, in violation of the commandment, "thou shalt not steal?"

Do not these preachers act immorally, making a return on investment that is infinite in size, given their zero investment, while the so called "greedy capitalists" are limited in the return on investment they can get by what the market is willing to pay? Do these pastors fail to realize that capitalists and lenders build wealth slowly, through risk and hard work? Do they not understand that when capitalists take risks, they are just as likely to lose wealth as gain wealth? Do they not understand that, even when capitalists take risks, risk involves hard work, preparation, study, and sometimes sweat and labor?

Or does this represent the naked greed of the pastors involved? Do the preachers lack any moral philosophy to guide their actions? Is this simply a way the preachers amass power and wealth for themselves? Is this completely self serving, or is it an outgrowth of a delusion brought on by a moral philosophy emphasizing the duty to occupy this earth, to intervene on behalf of the poor, and to make sure that no property is withheld from the market when there are people who need it? Or is this simply a means by which these pastors take advantage of the poor and unsuspecting? Do the preachers abuse their positions of trust to take advantage of the poor?

If these pastors are driven by naked greed, how many more of them and their kind are out there? How can we know when people are driven by pure greed, even while they use slogans and gain power that lead us to believe they are driven by a willingness to be self sacrificial?

Is anyone in this world truly driven by self sacrifice, or can we trace all efforts to be beneficial to desire to acquire wealth, power, and status, with the ultimate goal of ensuring our long security?

On Former Lancaster mayoral candidate embroiled in home rental scam

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 11:11 p.m.

There are two dictators in this world who serve as a warning and as a model. One is Hugo Chavez of Venzuela and the other is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The first step in controlling a population is to control the flow of information. Chavez controls the press. Tell people what they want to hear, and spin the truth. Make it difficult for them to obtain the information they need to know. Mugabe shows us that when the people rise up and attempt to retake their government, a desperate man resorts to intimidation and threats.

We heard Dr. Lewis use the police to intimidate the audience Monday night. When people groaned when Lewis made an irresponsible statement, he threatened to remove them from the room. However, when his cheering section groaned in opposition to the failure of the board to reprimand Morris, his police force didn't move a muscle, and Lewis didn't utter a peep. Watch his police force. Once they discover who opposes Lewis, they glare at the Lewis opponents in an intimidating manner. They clearly show favoritism. Just as Mugabe is using the military to intimidate his political oponents, Lewis is using his police force to intimidate his opponents.

Marxists know that it is possible to say something often enough and people will believe it. Propagandists know this. Instead of meeting the burden of proof with hard facts up front, make unsupportable statements and put the burden of proof on one's detractors to establish the falsity of the assertion. Lewis does this. His favorite words are "show me the data." It is his burden to show us the unfiltered data, yet he makes outlandish statements with insufficient supporting data, then makes it difficult to pull the information out of his office to test the truth of his statements.

One such false statement that Lewis has repeated is that property values in the former Wilmer Hutchins increased 82% in one year. He makes that outlandish statement to prove that we were foolish not to take over Wilmer Hutchins. Neither the taxable values nor the market values from 2005 through 2007 support this statement. Using the numbers for Wilmer and Hutchins alone, we find that combined taxable values increased 19% and 28% in 2006 and 2007 respectively from the prior year, and that market values increased 36% and 34% respectively for those same years. We don't know how Lewis computes that 82% number. Until we know the data upon which he relied in reaching that number, it is impossible to refute what he is saying. It is his burden to prove, not our burden to disprove, his outlandish and irresponsible public statements.

Once we can agree on a common set of data from a public source, then we can have a debate as to what that data means.

It is possible to gain control over people by having greater access to the information outlet and having the means to control the flow of information.

There is a reason why Dr. Lewis doesn't want to post the check register online. That would make his administration too transparent. He needs to control the flow of information, so he can spin it in his favor.

An advantage of having a conservator in Lancaster would be that the conservator would have no reason to filter information and spin the truth. The conservator could insist on access to information immediately. If Lewis made it difficult for the conservator, the conservator could suspend Lewis.

I don't know if an attorney or the conservator would be cheaper. The conservator costs $60.00 per hour. I suspect an attorney will cost $300.00 per hour or more. Unless the attorney works quickly and finds enough information to fire Lewis for cause, so that we don't have to buy him out of his contract, we might have been better off financially with a conservator.

On Common sense trumps spin at Lancaster ISD meeting

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 7:59 a.m.

Anyone who wants transparency in government should question this policy. What is the check, when the superintendent is in the position to control the spin coming from his office and when it is obvious, both to local citizens and the larger Dallas Metroplex area, that he is spinning the truth, as was noted in the Sunday editorial page of the Dallas Morning News? It should be obvious that when an audit presents information that questions the superintendent's spending and accounting practices, that the superintendent is going to control the information in such a way that it only reflects favorably upon him. There needs to be a check in the form of an independent voice.

Further, where the school board had the ultimate legal authority and responsibility to enact permanent policies to force the superintendent to adopt practices that are in accordance with TEA recommendations, it seems that the school board had a responsibility to at least communicate with TEA officials about the status of a conservator. A school board president, reading an audit that presents a sense of urgency in enacting policies to correct the errors of the past, would be prudent in taking the intitiative to contact the TEA to determine whether it is sending a conservator to the district. She has the responsibility of calling a special meeting to begin the process of developing policies suggested by the TEA.

Thereafter, it seems prudent for the board president to immediately inform the Supt. of the communciation and thereafter inform the board. If the Supt. withholds this vital information from the press, it seems it is only right, for the sake of transparency in government, to inform the citizens of the communication through the press. If we do it any other way, then we are making the superintendent's job a self serving job and we are downplaying the importance of transparency in government.

It is also obvious that in order for there to be clear communications coming from the district, there needs to be at least a sense that there is a reliable source of truth. Numerous voices purporting to speak for the district would be confusing.

Just as there are occasionally rifts between CEOS of corporations and their boards that occasionally leak out to the press, conflicts arise betwen executives in government and their governing boards. Whether the stakeholders are taxpayers or stockholders, they need to be informed. Spin, whether it is from the CEO's office or the Board's office, needs to be detected.

The executive function and the legislative function will always have conflicts. Each group will always have its own spin, just as we see in the national government. It is a natural tension that will always exist. When the legislative branch gives up its right to speak, it cedes too much power to the executive branch, and the truth suffers.

On Lancaster ISD board of trustees to reprimand board president

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 2 p.m.

Everybody's copying each other. Towns are offering generic solutions, and generic solutions aren't intersting.

The problem is that cities don't have a soul anymore. They don't have groups of writers and thinkers that gather spontaneously to exchange ideas. They don't have musicians and artists. They don't have groups of technical geeks who get together to tinker and explore ideas and show off inventions. People in small towns nowadays, just stay there. They live and work and do things elsewhere.

That is one possible blessing with high gas prices. Maybe, instead of going somewhere else to find excitement or consume entertainment, people will start living where they live. They don't have to be someone else. They just have to be who they are.

On Duncanville's Main Street has no easy fixes

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 11:17 p.m.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News posted at 8:30 p.m. Wednesday evening, it has not definitely been decided that a conservator will be coming to Lancaster.

We know this. Carolyn Morris stated with a high degree of credibility that a TEA official definitely told her a conservator would be coming to Lancaster. She named the time and the person with whom she spoke.

By Lewis' own words, he spoke with TEA officials Wednesday after Morris' conversation on Tuesday. He wouldn't reveal the name of the person with whom he spoke or the substance of his conversation. The position of the TEA apparently changed after Larry Lewis spoke with the TEA.

We, the public need a complete transcript of the conversation between Larry Lewis and the TEA official with whom he spoke. Then we need to know who communicated with the TEA spokespersons to develop the spin that the TEA gave to press.

Finally, the TEA speaks through a spokesperson, not through the TEA official who spoke to Carolyn Morris. We need to know what Ron Rowell is now saying. We need to hear it straight from him, not through a TEA spinmeister.

Because Carolyn Morris named the person with whom she spoke and the time, she is the most credible. Lewis' silence on the details of his conversation with TEA officials makes him less credible. When the TEA speaks through a spokesperson instead of through the official with whom Carolyn Morris spoke, it has the appearance of spin.

Anyway, apparently a definite decision has apparently not been made to send a conservator to Lancaster.

It seems to me that from now on, we are going to all have to start recording our conversations with government officials, so that these government officials can't backpedal and deny what they said.

This is starting to stink.

As for Lewis' saying he's praying to God to bring this community together, he has used God words for too long to manipulate people in this community. He's going to be unmasked, and the soonner the better.

Just think of the people who have used God words to manipulate people in the past. Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Jim Jones. The list is endless. The truth is going to come out eventually. Lewis can't hide behind his mask forever.

On Lancaster ISD superintendent should be held more accountable for credit card use

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 11:13 p.m.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News posted at 8:30 p.m. Wednesday evening, it has not definitely been decided that a conservator will be coming to Lancaster.

We know this. Carolyn Morris stated with a high degree of credibility that a TEA official definitely told her a conservator would be coming to Lancaster. She named the time and the person with whom she spoke.

By Lewis' own words, he spoke with TEA officials Wednesday after Morris' conversation on Tuesday. He wouldn't reveal the name of the person with whom he spoke or the substance of his conversation. The position of the TEA apparently changed after Larry Lewis spoke with the TEA.

We, the public need a complete transcript of the conversation between Larry Lewis and the TEA official with whom he spoke. Then we need to know who communicated with the TEA spokespersons to develop the spin that the TEA gave to press.

Finally, the TEA speaks through a spokesperson, not through the TEA official who spoke to Carolyn Morris. We need to know what Ron Rowell is now saying. We need to hear it straight from him, not through a TEA spinmeister.

Because Carolyn Morris named the person with whom she spoke and the time, she is the most credible. Lewis' silence on the details of his conversation with TEA officials makes him less credible. When the TEA speaks through a spokesperson instead of through the official with whom Carolyn Morris spoke, it has the appearance of spin.

Anyway, apparently a definite decision has apparently not been made to send a conservator to Lancaster.

It seems to me that from now on, we are going to all have to start recording our conversations with government officials, so that these government officials can't backpedal and deny what they said.

This is starting to stink.

As for Lewis' saying he's praying to God to bring this community together, he has used God words for too long to manipulate people in this community. He's going to be unmasked, and the soonner the better.

Just think of the people who have used God words to manipulate people in the past. Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Jim Jones. The list is endless. The truth is going to come out eventually. Lewis can't hide behind his mask forever.

On Lancaster ISD's balance of power shifts following elections

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:49 p.m.

A superintendent is not a trustee and is therefore not a member of the board of trustees. A superintendent is an executive. The seven trustees make policy and the executive, the superintendent, carries out policy.

On Highland Park ISD Board of Trustees

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 8:39 a.m.

Now that it is a reality that a conservator is coming, I can imagine the spin coming from Vick, Kirkland, Johnson, Stanmore, and Mendoza.

"If we had just passed a bond, we wouldn't be in this condition."

"Lewis was working to correct the problems and was making steady progress."

"Every district has financial problems and we weren't in any worse condition than other school districts."

"We were in terrible shape when Ted Warren left. Lewis was making steady progress to correct his mistakes."

"At least we were better off than we were under Bill Ward."

"Lewis raised our year end fund balance from a negative to a positive."

Stanmore: "We are a thriving school district."

Lewis: "The best thing a struggling school district like ours can do is to pass a bond."

Johnson: "Anyone who knows anything about school finances knows that it is smart to use bond money for maintenance expenses and free up maintenance and operations money for the classroom."

Johnson: "I've been in education over 40 years and I still can't understand these financial reports."

Johnson: "The reason I don't say anything during school board meetings is that I study my materials and get my questions answered before we meet and when we disagree with each other during school board meetings, the children lose."

Mendoza: "At least I voted against taking over Wilmer Hutchins."

Lewis: "We made a terrible mistake by not taking over Wilmer-Hutchins and capturing a tax base that was growing at the rate of 82% a year."

Mendoza: "This administration inspired me to teach."

Vick: "If you had just kept me on the board we wouldn't be under a conservator."

Lewis: "It takes the ability to see the invisible to do the impossible."

Lewis: "Give me $75 million and in five years I will give you the best school district in the nation."

Lewis: "If you believe it, you will see it."

Lewis: "This is based on lies and misinformation by the naysayers. They will just give you opinions and conjecture. Everything we say is based on the data. If you disagree with us, show us the data. We always tell the truth."

Lewis: "Arnie Knecht told me not to let anyone run me out of town because I was sent to this community by God."

Lewis: "It's all about the children."

Lewis: "We implemented the recommendations of the Legislative Budget Board. Now we need to hire the Cambridge group for $100,000, to begin work now which will be paid for in the 08-09 budget, to go to the next step."

On Lancaster ISD's balance of power shifts following elections

Posted on May 28, 2008 at 11:19 p.m.

I agree with family planning, but I cannot understand why a graduate student isn't smart enough to do family planning without a free clinic. Can't you just wait a month to have sex, and if you simply can't wait, given that you believe in planning, as evidenced by your support for planned parenthood, can't you plan to have sex with a man who has the will to buy a pack of condoms at 50 cents each? I mean, if a dinner and a movie cost at least $30.00, why is 50 cents for a condom every once in a while such a stretch? Why would you give yourself to a man who (1) doesn't take you out and show you a good time and (2) doesn't care enough about you to provide the contraception? Do you think that little of yourself? Do you have no power or will to say no to a person who refuses to show you more respect?

And if you want more security, how about using your own off the shelf vaginal suppository or contraceptive jelly in addition to the condom you demand, not only for the sake of avoiding pregnancy, but of avoiding a potentially deadly disease?

Also, shouldn't a graduate student already have learned, not only about her natural rhythms to know when she's ovulating, but about her vaginal secretions that tell her almost 100% of the time when she's ovulating?

Maybe it's too much to expect a poor, struggling graduate student to know about the biology of reproduction. Maybe we should just excuse her and say she should have sex anytime she pleases, with no thought and no planning, if that makes her happy. If we want her to behave like that, why do we call it Family Planning?

There is more to natural family planning than just watching the calendar. One book, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" told all about it. There are ways to do family planning without altering our bodies chemically, and exposing ourselves to all of the cancers and health risks associated with dousing ourselves with hormones.

On Planned Parenthood of North Texas opens 29th clinic in McKinney with express services