🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Davis <jdavis@ssf-sys.DHL.COM> wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point.  What does concern me a
> great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
> defeat Prop 174.  When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
> but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
> 
> Where are the proponents of 174?  I want to hear that side?

According to the October 13 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, opponents
of Proposition 174 have raised $10.3 million dollars, a very large chunk of 
which comes from the California Teachers Association.  In contrast, proponents 
have raised $2.1 million dollars.  Because of the relative meagerness of this
amount, they have had to hold off on wide advertising until close to voting
time.

The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed.  In the 
October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:

  To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know 
  is the list of people who are opposed to it.  Based on the September 12 
  editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education; 
  the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the 
  League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the 
  California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.  
  There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.

There exists no shortage of pamphlets and papers where the self-interest of
the author is completely unveiled.  While this fact is not a refutation of
his or her position, it does completely deflate any arguments he or she may 
make based on the self-interest of others.

Mark Peercy
peercy@kaos.stanford.edu