Tuesday, October 31, 2006


I've just discovered the EFF's blog covering the WEA Supreme Court case (more here), and I have to admit: the graphics are great, but the content... leaves a little to be desired. Rebutting Charles Hasse's claim that the WEA "tries to be bi-partisan," Mike Reitz writes:
Yet just this year the WEA has worked to defeat a repeal of the estate tax. In the past two years approximately 95 percent of the group's partisan contributions have gone to a single party.
2006: 93%.

2004: 94%.

2002: 85%.

2000: 85% (this plus this).

Partisan, surely, yet not blindly partisan--and evolving over time. Why? Could it be that--gasp--Democratic legislators have supported the WEA's (insidious, truculent, omnivorous, cantankerous) policy agenda? Furthermore, why would the WEA push to repeal an estate tax that currently provides $100 million for smaller classes, scholarships, and WASL remediation?

The EFF believes the Hudson Packet process doesn't respect the rights of dissenting nonmembers, coercing them into supporting the WEA's aims--and at a rate of "millions" of dollars, presuming that all of the nonmembers in the class of about 4,000 are all dissenters (even though only 300 used the established process to reclaim their shop fees).

Makes me want to order a Hudson Packet for myself. Is it really that hard to decipher?

No comments: