Take Shelter . . . or leave it

Tornado Alley.  Two words synonymous with Oklahoma, the central corridor in particular.  We know extreme weather.  In fact, every Okie I know says the same thing to the transplants.  "You can tell a real Okie by the direction they go in the event of a storm."  That direction being to the nearest covered porch to watch the thunderous murmurs wash over the countryside.  There is a (possibly insane) calmness to the deafening thunderclaps and rain hitting metal roofs.

Romanticism aside, when the weather here becomes bad, it becomes fatal.  Unfortunately, Oklahomans lose their lives every year to sever weather.  Sometimes those Oklahomans are children, currently under State care at their schools.

Is it the role of the State government (especially the Governor) to spearhead the charge for shelter legislation?

It seems our current governor does not think so.  Her idea to solve the issue is to allow more bonds to be taken out by municipalities to cover schools if that area feels it is appropriate.  This mirrors Republican views that government should be handled at the smallest level possible.  The shelter issue, then, can be seen as a local problem.

Joe Dorman, leader on the issue of sheltering Oklahoma's schools, disagrees.  From Dorman's perspective, the safety of our children is a right while we are keeping them in State custody.  Dorman has spearheaded a campaign to use the Oklahoma Franchise tax to raise $500 million dollars to retrofit storm shelters into every public school in the state.  Estimates vary but tend to be around the $800 million dollar mark.  The rest of the money could potentially be made up for with potential grants from FEMA.

The franchise tax would cost all of Oklahoma but would ensure that all of Oklahoma's public school kids have a place to go.  The Fallin approach is a de facto permanent property tax increase in every school district that decides to build a shelter (how else will they pay?)  Which is more fair?  Does every part of Oklahoma need storm shelters?  Should more dangerous communities pay more of a burden?  After all, most tornados happen after 4pm when kids are supposed to be home from school.

This is a difficult question to answer.  After all, it is the duty of the government to ensure the safety of its citizens and promote public good.  The franchise tax forces Oklahoma communities to look out for one another, sharing Tornado Alley's burden on the entire state.  It also guarantees that low income, rural communities will have access to the same shelters that upper income suburban districts will have.

It is also the duty of the government to spend its constituents money intelligently.  Is it a better approach to decide where shelters should go based off of research first and not potential fear mongering?

I might lay down a suggestion for a third position.  Maybe we should use a portion of the franchise tax to fund storm shelters.  However, a task force should be put together to see where it needs to be done and where the spending would be wasteful.  In this way, we will ensure the safety of the lives of Oklahoma's kids without a "bridge to nowhere" style spending problem.

The "Shelter for nothing" scandal... I can see it now.  I'm going to keep this one short, voters.  I think it is up to you to make a decision on this point if it is a sticking point for you.  I can see both sides and understand what is at stake, and I understand both ideologies at this point.  I honestly don't know which side of the fence I lay on (if looking at the plans put forth with no compromise).

Tornados are so often after school and don't affect the state equally, so I have a hard time asking for $800 million dollars spent on something like this, but I also understand the duty we have to protect our children from something that clearly does happen here.

What do you guys think?  Should we be funding shelters for Oklahoma's schools?  How about you take this back to the Facebook page, like us, and give your opinions?  I think this is an issue that is much more built for dialogue than monologue.      

We DO need that education!

I used to be a teacher.

I don’t know who felt more ineffective.  Was it me as a first year English teacher? What about the stuck-up administrators of the small charter school I was in that thought kids needed lectures (Can you imagine 30 inner city 6th graders lectured to 5 days a week)?  Was it the PASS objectives that were so long no one could actually remember what they were supposed to teach?  Was it our State government who was consistently inconsistent with their message and their expectations?  Was it the parents who showed us teachers so little respect in front of their children that the kids learned we were powerless?  Was it the children?  Had our system of privilege and funding for some and poverty and missed opportunities for others left this group of kids out of the scope of my mission for the 186 days I had them?  Was it a question I hadn’t even thought of yet because I was so frustrated with my life as an educator that I didn’t even have a concept of what or whom to blame?
I used to be a teacher.  And I’ll be damned if I vote for anyone who won’t make their jobs better, because the ones that stayed in the trenches were made of tougher stuff than me.

Neither Joe Dorman or Mary Fallin are currently in support of the Common Core initiatives, but I feel due to their recent importance in Oklahoma and the Fallin Flip-Flop Effect (a scientific term detailing the fact that we may never know what she actually wants) deems it necessary that we go over what the Common Core is, where it came from, and what it means to the country.  From there, I will look at the education platforms of both candidates and critique all of it with a mix of my usual razor sharp wit and middle school snark.

Michael Brown's death, though tragic, is not the national lesson we need to learn from Ferguson, MO

This is a mini post as it doesn't really relate to the scope of this blog but it is something that we are all keeping tabs on.

The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO is not a national issue.  The news media wants it to be but it isn't.  It is a local issue, albeit one that may be generalizable across most of the country.  

The issue at hand for us, as Oklahomans (just read on and substitute with your neck of the woods if applicable) is an increasingly militarized police presence.  Communities all over the country, like Ferguson, are looking more occupied than protected.  

For those of you that believe that we are overreacting and that police need military grade vehicles and weapons to patrol the streets, I would say two things.  First, travel to various countries and look at the policing style of those countries.  Would you rather live in a place that the police force looks more like France or Afghanistan?  Second, when police act like the military, they do so to promote fear, not protection.  Police in camouflage is intimidating to almost anyone.  What happened to protect and serve?

A Brief Glimpse at Mary Fallin: Through her Campaign Website

I'm going to keep this one fairly short.  We've experienced Fallin in the office, so we are probably a little more familiar with her.  Also, I don't plan on this being my actual post this week (it's probably coming Sunday).  Things have been busy this week with my real job (I'm taking all next week off, so maybe I'll get to spend more time in my fake job as a blogger).

To accomplish this post, I'm going to look at Mary Fallin's campaign website.  She also has a more in depth State website than Dorman but since I only looked at Dorman's campaign site, I saw this as more fair.

Also, since we have experienced her as governor, she uses a list of accomplishments instead of goals / platforms.  I'll analyze these in short order.  The Governor lists 12 accomplishments (pretty proud of herself, I miss Dorman's five short and sweet already): fiscal responsibility, economy and jobs, government efficiency, education, energy and environment, infrastructure, healthcare, sanctity of life, veterans, vulnerable Oklahomans, 2nd amendment, and agriculture.  Did you get all that? There will be a quiz later...

For the uninitiated pt. 1: Joe Dorman

It is important to start like in most things at the beginning.  Let's face it... it seems most people don't really follow State politics all that closely.  Even in many of our political science classes and external dialogues, we focus on National and International politics with a sprinkling of sensationalized topics of the week and news of the weird thrown in.

This has to change now... for me too.

In November, we are going to have some big decisions to make about the future of our great state.  We have two candidates with what seem to be drastically different platforms, philosophies, and goals.  I think that we should first look at each of these candidates individually.  See what makes them tick... in 500 words or less (don't hold me to that).