I got one of those calls but could barely understand what she was saying. It didn't influence my vote. I plan on going to the polls to vote for Lew and Daryl Hemenway for college district and vote against P and being a drop off nonvote on school board.

Hemenway is the best candidate for the college district. His NY Times letter was gutsy and I think shows he won't be a bobble head on the board.

Ordinachev, as an incumbent, is in my opinion, partially responsible for the controversy over last year's campaign for the failed college district tax hike. As a sitting member, she should be held accountable for the lacking oversight over the campaign budget.

For both candidate bios go to stlcc.edu/commrel/BOT%20Election%2007.htm

There are a lot of reasons to vote against P. Most disturbing, to me, is the sloppy writing. The use of "or otherwise disposed" and "disposal" makes it inclusive of easements. The organizers should have written in an exemption for easements. Maybe they intentionally meant for easements to be covered because easements are cousins of leases or maybe it's a mistake. I don't know but it's absurd to require a citywide vote on what historically have been everyday legislative housekeeping matters necessary for public health and safety. That particular flaw is the most obvious basis for a court to toss it out.

Howard, do you have a hearing problem? I received a call and understood perfectly what she said.

So, you favor handing over the city public schools to a corporate model. Why don't you read The Corporation by Joel Baken to understand what is really going on behind the scenes and where some businessmen hungry for profits want more of the taxpayers' contributions.

The robo-calls came up in conversation this weekend with a number of people. Each said it was hard to understand. Each was able to pick up it was about the school board and a candidate with a W name, one thought it was Wessels and wondered if the candidate was related to Alderman Fred Wessels.

The elected board can do one of two things: get out of the way of the appointed board or fight for the status quo. It will, of course, go status quo in the usual theatrical ways.

School board members go nutty and the boards have been dysfunctional long before the current drama because they get to select their own constituents. That would not be the case if we had an electoral structure where there are constituencies defined by geography and the constituents select their representatives and hold them accountable at the ballot box. That the at-large election structure works elsewhere is not useful because we are different here in the city from everyone else and have been since our beginnings.

We are an anomaly and we hurt ourselves when we do not embrace it. In the same way we survive through good times and bad on the parochial politics of everyone getting a piece of the pie, we would not be where we are today in public education if we elected the school board by districts, each member looking after specific turf, each member having to play well with others to get a piece of the pie for his/her turf, each member held accountable by the voters of his/her turf.

Coupled with that, of course, is the need for neighborhood schools. Why is it that we do not have neighborhood schools? Because St. Louisans would not vote to fund the building and maintenance of public schools in predominately Black neighborhoods. Why did that happen? Because we didn't have the sort of parochial politics in public school matters that we have in the rest of our government. There was no horse trading, no you win and I win mechanism.

My kid nearly married a relative of Noam Chomsky. Balkan would be a waste of time for me. I would rather continue with my scheduled reads, "Rough Crossings" by Simon Schama and "A Great and Noble Scheme" by John Mack Faragher.

I highly recommend "Path of Progress for Metropolitan St. Louis" (1957) as a great read on local corporate greed. You can usually pick up a copy during the Greater St. Louis Book Sale.

I'm not sure why a kid "nearly marrying a 'relative' of Noam Chomsky" has anything to do with anything. Reading a book has nothing to do with distant marriages or near misses. That sentence in itself causes concern for logical and analytical reflection of issues. How do any of us know reading a particular book will be a waste of time unless we begin reading that book?

Sounds like more than a closed mind to me; in actuality, it may be a "tightly closed" mind.

The Desegregation Case is responsible for the demise of neighborhood schools. Surely you know more of the history of St. Louis' deseg case and school busing.

Perhaps we can agree on corporate greed whether local, national, or international.

Minnie Liddell wanted her son to go his neighborhood school but what happened? It was in all the papers.

I was an early organizer for the J.P. Stevens Boycott. That should clear things up.

===The Desegregation Case is responsible for the demise of neighborhood schools. Surely you know more of the history of St. Louis' deseg case and school busing.

Yeah, those segregated neighborhood schools were great! You understand busing was taking place before this to keep black kids away from white schools, right?

===Sounds like more than a closed mind to me; in actuality, it may be a "tightly closed" mind.

Actually it's sounds like someone who has actually read radical political pieces not based on documentaries. Or read some Weber. The Corporation is a slightly interesting and amusing documentary, but hardly groundbreaking analysis. Thinking you have discovered something fascinating and groundbreaking that has actually been around in other, better works for over 100 years is not a platform from which to condescend to people.

The response re neighborhood schools was to a question. It was a simple response, not a commentary or an opinion.

Archpundit seems to have a need to argue and pontificate where there is no need. Go back to Illinois.

His opinion of The Corporation is superficial and supercillious without anything substantial. It was not condescending; just a suggestion to read to understand how the private is encroaching upon the public spheres. One professor assigns it for all business students at a local university.

No one on this particular blog is more condescending than the ArchPundit himself.

===The response re neighborhood schools was to a question. It was a simple response, not a commentary or an opinion.

Except it was inaccurate. Neighborhood schools didn't exist as the suggestion claimed except for white kids and they actually came into being for more African-American kids after desegregation. Only if one assumes that white kids on the south side were the frame of reference for the schools is the statement true.

Max Weber is superficial? Wow.

Not Max Weber -- you! Also, except for the African American students who lived in predominantly white areas, many, if not most, felt their children had neighborhood schools too.

Talk about condescending?

===Not Max Weber -- you!

And again, do you want to debate the idea, or are you going to try and distract from the substance with this kind of silliness?

==Also, except for the African American students who lived in predominantly white areas, many, if not most, felt their children had neighborhood schools too

That were underfunded, poorly supplied and generally in disrepair in comparison to the white schools. If you are arguing that black parents like that, you are delusional. Howard pointed this out whether you got it or not.

You are your same cockey self. No one said they weren't underfunded, etc. They still were in walking distance despite the criminal treatment. That's one of your nasty weaknesses--attaching false meanings and interpretations to simple simple stand-alone statements. I won't bite.

You are the one that distracts from the issues.