Comments for Ellen Smith for Oak Ridge http://ellensmith.org/blog I'm Ellen Smith, member of the Oak Ridge City Council. Thank you for visiting my blog and reading my views on public and private life in and around Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This website is my own; content here does not represent the official policies or views of the City of Oak Ridge. To add your own comments, click on the topic title to open a comment box. To read posts about a particular topic, scroll down to "Categories" (in the sidebar) or use the "Search" box in the sidebar. Look under "Archives" to see collections of past posts organized by date. Wed, 02 May 2012 13:01:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on HB 0368/SB 0893 is harmful to the interests of Oak Ridge and Tennessee by TPB http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/19/hb-0368sb-0893-is-harmful-to-the-interests-of-oak-ridge-and-tennessee/comment-page-1/#comment-41544 TPB Wed, 02 May 2012 13:01:54 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=752#comment-41544 Thank you, Ellen, for the succinct and powerful response to Mr. McDaniels. Religion is not science, and science is not religion. Those who deliberately or ignorantly try to equate the two, especially in the educational arena, harm the nation. Thank you, Ellen, for the succinct and powerful response to Mr. McDaniels. Religion is not science, and science is not religion. Those who deliberately or ignorantly try to equate the two, especially in the educational arena, harm the nation.

]]> Comment on Another new ordinance on parking by Jim McDaniels http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/04/02/another-new-ordinance-on-parking/comment-page-1/#comment-41461 Jim McDaniels Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:02:48 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=757#comment-41461 Good ordinance. Agree with the other two about street parking, also. Good ordinance. Agree with the other two about street parking, also.

]]> Comment on New ordinances for parking, on-street and off by Ellen Smith http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/27/new-ordinances-for-parking-on-street-and-off/comment-page-1/#comment-41435 Ellen Smith Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:15:53 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=751#comment-41435 When I first saw your message, my thought was that you shouldn't keep your nice vehicles outside, but then I realized what you are saying: putting the trailers in the driveway and the cars in the carport would mean that the trailers would block the cars from getting out. Not good! I'm glad to be able to tell you that you can continue to keep your trailers in the side yards... When I first saw your message, my thought was that you shouldn’t keep your nice vehicles outside, but then I realized what you are saying: putting the trailers in the driveway and the cars in the carport would mean that the trailers would block the cars from getting out. Not good! I’m glad to be able to tell you that you can continue to keep your trailers in the side yards…

]]> Comment on New ordinances for parking, on-street and off by Hal Hoyt http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/27/new-ordinances-for-parking-on-street-and-off/comment-page-1/#comment-41434 Hal Hoyt Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:05:56 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=751#comment-41434 My concern was our own 3 trailers (boat, utility, and camper), 2 of which are parked in my side yard and 1 in my mother's side yard. I think we're OK with your understanding of 'front'. I'd hate to have to park the smaller trailers in the carport and leave our nice pickup truck and LEAF outside. My concern was our own 3 trailers (boat, utility, and camper), 2 of which are parked in my side yard and 1 in my mother’s side yard. I think we’re OK with your understanding of ‘front’. I’d hate to have to park the smaller trailers in the carport and leave our nice pickup truck and LEAF outside.

]]> Comment on New ordinances for parking, on-street and off by Ellen Smith http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/27/new-ordinances-for-parking-on-street-and-off/comment-page-1/#comment-41433 Ellen Smith Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:32:08 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=751#comment-41433 The definition of “front” is not at all straightforward. It's my understanding that for a house that is oddly positioned on its lot (like many original houses in Oak Ridge), the front is the area between the house and the street, regardless of which side of the house is closest to the street. For a corner lot, I think that the side facing one street is the “front” and the side facing the other street is a “side”. For a lot that fronts and backs onto two different streets, I believe only one of them is the “front,” but I don't know how that's determined. You may be thinking that this means some eyesores won't be removed from the public realm, and I believe you are right. I expect that some corner lots are going to continue to have boats, SUVs, utility trailers, etc., parked on the grass and visible from the street on whichever side is the “side.” Consider this one of the features of the new ordinances that's going to be less than perfect... The definition of “front” is not at all straightforward. It’s my understanding that for a house that is oddly positioned on its lot (like many original houses in Oak Ridge), the front is the area between the house and the street, regardless of which side of the house is closest to the street. For a corner lot, I think that the side facing one street is the “front” and the side facing the other street is a “side”. For a lot that fronts and backs onto two different streets, I believe only one of them is the “front,” but I don’t know how that’s determined.

You may be thinking that this means some eyesores won’t be removed from the public realm, and I believe you are right. I expect that some corner lots are going to continue to have boats, SUVs, utility trailers, etc., parked on the grass and visible from the street on whichever side is the “side.” Consider this one of the features of the new ordinances that’s going to be less than perfect…

]]> Comment on New ordinances for parking, on-street and off by Hal Hoyt http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/27/new-ordinances-for-parking-on-street-and-off/comment-page-1/#comment-41425 Hal Hoyt Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:48:25 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=751#comment-41425 Hi Ellen, Is 'front side' of the property defined? What about 'L-shaped' houses like the Cemestos 'C' models? What about a house on a corner lot? Thanks, Hal Hi Ellen,

Is ‘front side’ of the property defined? What about ‘L-shaped’ houses like the Cemestos ‘C’ models? What about a house on a corner lot?

Thanks,
Hal

]]> Comment on HB 0368/SB 0893 is harmful to the interests of Oak Ridge and Tennessee by Ellen Smith http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/19/hb-0368sb-0893-is-harmful-to-the-interests-of-oak-ridge-and-tennessee/comment-page-1/#comment-41398 Ellen Smith Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:48:17 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=752#comment-41398 Discussion and debate about public issues has a place in school, but it belongs in the classes that used to be called "social studies" in my day and in extracurricular organizations -- like the high school debate club that I participated in. At the secondary school level, science education needs to expose kids to the methodology of science, which emphasizes the logical testing of alternate explanations of natural phenomena against empirical data. Also, kids need a solid grounding in the concepts that underlie modern science. Teaching them "alternative theories" and "controversies" is not teaching science -- and it definitely will not help qualify them for a future as leaders in scientific and technical fields. Those giants in science who "went against the orthodoxy of" their times did so on the basis of solid empirical observations of the natural world -- and they formulated new hypotheses that fit their observations, even though the hypotheses may have conflicted with existing orthodoxy. Scientific revolutions do not come from attempting to find empirical data that would fit a hypothesis formed on the basis of a preferred philosophical, political, or religious view. You might want to recall the history of Lysenkoism, which was popular because it was contrary to established science and was supportive of government goals, but ended up seriously handicapping biology and biotechnology in the Soviet Union. Discussion and debate about public issues has a place in school, but it belongs in the classes that used to be called “social studies” in my day and in extracurricular organizations — like the high school debate club that I participated in.

At the secondary school level, science education needs to expose kids to the methodology of science, which emphasizes the logical testing of alternate explanations of natural phenomena against empirical data. Also, kids need a solid grounding in the concepts that underlie modern science. Teaching them “alternative theories” and “controversies” is not teaching science — and it definitely will not help qualify them for a future as leaders in scientific and technical fields.

Those giants in science who “went against the orthodoxy of” their times did so on the basis of solid empirical observations of the natural world — and they formulated new hypotheses that fit their observations, even though the hypotheses may have conflicted with existing orthodoxy. Scientific revolutions do not come from attempting to find empirical data that would fit a hypothesis formed on the basis of a preferred philosophical, political, or religious view. You might want to recall the history of Lysenkoism, which was popular because it was contrary to established science and was supportive of government goals, but ended up seriously handicapping biology and biotechnology in the Soviet Union.

]]> Comment on HB 0368/SB 0893 is harmful to the interests of Oak Ridge and Tennessee by Jim McDaniels http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/19/hb-0368sb-0893-is-harmful-to-the-interests-of-oak-ridge-and-tennessee/comment-page-1/#comment-41377 Jim McDaniels Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:14:42 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=752#comment-41377 Ms. Smith, doesn't the bill simply let teachers teach, without fear of retribution, alternative theories about controversial subjects, such as the origin of man and anthropogenic warming? Shouldn't that label us as progressive and inclusive, rather than backward and a laughingstock? Shouldn't scientists strive to explain their conclusions, rather than resort to shouting down those who disagree? Aren't the giants in science those who went against the orthodoxy of the time? Ms. Smith, doesn’t the bill simply let teachers teach, without fear of retribution, alternative theories about controversial subjects, such as the origin of man and anthropogenic warming? Shouldn’t that label us as progressive and inclusive, rather than backward and a laughingstock? Shouldn’t scientists strive to explain their conclusions, rather than resort to shouting down those who disagree? Aren’t the giants in science those who went against the orthodoxy of the time?

]]> Comment on Are state and local budget-cutting slowing economic recovery? by Jim McDaniels http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/06/are-state-and-local-budget-cutting-slowing-economic-recovery/comment-page-1/#comment-41376 Jim McDaniels Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:04:49 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=747#comment-41376 Actually, what Krugman says is for government to spend massive amounts of money to get us out of economic trouble. Obama has tried this already, with less than anemic results. The problem with massive government spending is that the government somehow has to get the money to spend. One way is to borrow money, another is to increase taxes and another is to print more money. Of course, city government can only do the first two. All three take money from taxpayers or their children. Since government is taking the money from a taxpayer, the taxpayer has less money for consumer spending. Then the government has to pay employees to determine how to spend the money, and then someone to actually spend it. Of course, that is a big pile of money to spend, so lots of people line up to get some of that "government" money. In the end, less money gets spent on consumer spending than if the actual taxpayer spent the money. Plus, the money would actually be spent where the taxpayer wanted it spent, instead of where the politician wanted it spent. Krugman is confused when he says ..."financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries". All recoveries are from some form of financial crisis. The Reagan recovery was quick and dramatic. Obama's is weak and unremarkable. Also, what is Krugman's reasoning in saying Reagan was Keynesian? The impetus of Reagan's recovery was from lowering taxes and deregulation, which is classic Supply-side economics. Personally, I think Krugman was just trying to sully the reputation of a man who couldn't defend himself. You said in your reply, "And, no, I’m not proposing that the city should increase taxes to fuel the economy. It doesn’t work that way!" But in your original post you said, "How would our economy — and retail shopping areas — look right now if we dug into our pockets and spent more on our local needs? (That’s not likely to happen, but this is the kind of discussion we ought to be having.)" Either you are saying you want us to spend more money or that you want the City to spend more (which would require borrowing or taxing more). Which is it? Ms. Smith, please, in the future when addressing me formally, please accord me the same level of courtesy when replying as I showed you. Actually, what Krugman says is for government to spend massive amounts of money to get us out of economic trouble. Obama has tried this already, with less than anemic results. The problem with massive government spending is that the government somehow has to get the money to spend. One way is to borrow money, another is to increase taxes and another is to print more money. Of course, city government can only do the first two. All three take money from taxpayers or their children. Since government is taking the money from a taxpayer, the taxpayer has less money for consumer spending. Then the government has to pay employees to determine how to spend the money, and then someone to actually spend it. Of course, that is a big pile of money to spend, so lots of people line up to get some of that “government” money. In the end, less money gets spent on consumer spending than if the actual taxpayer spent the money. Plus, the money would actually be spent where the taxpayer wanted it spent, instead of where the politician wanted it spent.

Krugman is confused when he says …”financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries”. All recoveries are from some form of financial crisis. The Reagan recovery was quick and dramatic. Obama’s is weak and unremarkable.

Also, what is Krugman’s reasoning in saying Reagan was Keynesian? The impetus of Reagan’s recovery was from lowering taxes and deregulation, which is classic Supply-side economics. Personally, I think Krugman was just trying to sully the reputation of a man who couldn’t defend himself.

You said in your reply, “And, no, I’m not proposing that the city should increase taxes to fuel the economy. It doesn’t work that way!” But in your original post you said, “How would our economy — and retail shopping areas — look right now if we dug into our pockets and spent more on our local needs? (That’s not likely to happen, but this is the kind of discussion we ought to be having.)” Either you are saying you want us to spend more money or that you want the City to spend more (which would require borrowing or taxing more). Which is it?

Ms. Smith, please, in the future when addressing me formally, please accord me the same level of courtesy when replying as I showed you.

]]> Comment on Are state and local budget-cutting slowing economic recovery? by Ellen Smith http://ellensmith.org/blog/2012/03/06/are-state-and-local-budget-cutting-slowing-economic-recovery/comment-page-1/#comment-41244 Ellen Smith Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:51:52 +0000 http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=747#comment-41244 Jim, you are repeating the conventional wisdom, which Krugman's column says is wrong. Almost everyone knows that consumer spending on goods and services drives a lot of economic activity. Krugman's column is pointing out that local and state government spending on goods, services, and jobs, such as jobs for police officers, teachers, and lifeguards, also fuels the economy. When you think about it, that seems kind of obvious, doesn't it? Krugman says: "Conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be." And, no, I'm not proposing that the city should increase taxes to fuel the economy. It doesn't work that way! But as a city we do need to continue to look at our decisions and actions from a variety of perspectives, and recognize that our decisions and actions may have unexpected results. Jim, you are repeating the conventional wisdom, which Krugman’s column says is wrong. Almost everyone knows that consumer spending on goods and services drives a lot of economic activity. Krugman’s column is pointing out that local and state government spending on goods, services, and jobs, such as jobs for police officers, teachers, and lifeguards, also fuels the economy. When you think about it, that seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it?

Krugman says: “Conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.”

And, no, I’m not proposing that the city should increase taxes to fuel the economy. It doesn’t work that way! But as a city we do need to continue to look at our decisions and actions from a variety of perspectives, and recognize that our decisions and actions may have unexpected results.

]]>