text:
A candid conversation with our newest cover boy about life as a stoner hero, making the world safe for chubby; Jewish guys and, of course, porn.

Director Judd Apatow can pinpoint the exact moment he knew Seth Rogen would become a star. It was in 2000, during a taping of Apatow's first TV show, Freaks and Geeks. Rogen, just 18 years old at the time, was playing a teenage pothead who had learned his girlfriend was born with ambiguous genitals—or as he would later explain to his friends, both "the gun and the holster."
"The episode could have been bad in so many ways," Apatow remembers. "It could have been too sweet or too insensitive and nasty. But Seth played it real. He acted exactly the way one would feel when given that information."
In just one short scene you can see the genesis of Rogen's comedy persona. He's sexually awkward and self-conscious in a weirdly charming way, making jokes to mask his panic. He's simultaneously the coolest person in the room and a scared little kid who doesn't know what he's supposed to do next.
"It was such a vulnerable, funny, very human performance," Apatow says. "I thought, I would love to watch an entire movie starring this guy."
Apatow got his wish, but it didn't happen overnight. After several years of relative obscurity in tiny roles in movies like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Donnie Darko, Rogen got his first taste of mainstream success in Apatow's comedy hit The 40-Year-Old Virgin, in which he plays Steve Carell's sex-fiend buddy.
Rogen finally got his shot at stardom in 2007, in a role he seemed utterly unqualified for: the male lead in a romantic comedy. But Knocked Up—written and directed by Apatow—is a romantic comedy about unplanned pregnancy. It's a movie about growing up and accepting responsibility, but it never skimps on the crude humor.
Many of the jokes in Knocked Up would have had the teenage Rogen rolling in the aisles. Born and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia in a Jewish family (his mother was a social worker, and his dad toiled for a nonprofit), Rogen was something of a comedic prodigy: He made his stand-up-comedy debut at just 13, and while his jokes were unpolished, there were glimmers of the profane wit that would soon conquer Hollywood. When hecklers tried to boo him off the stage, Rogen would fire back, "I'm 13. In 30 years I'll be 43. You'll be dead."
Around the same time, Rogen and his best friend, Evan Goldberg, wrote a screenplay called Superbad, an obscenity-laced romp about high school kids trying to get laid. It was 12 years before the movie was finally made, in no small part thanks to Rogen's celebrity clout. Last year he starred in Pineapple Express, an action comedy about stoners, and in Zack and Miri Make a Porno, in which a pair of platonic friends make an adult film to pay their bills.
Rogen, who just turned 27, may surprise fans with his latest movie, Observe and Report, a dark comedy about an egomaniacal mall security guard. He also provides one of the voices in the animated Monsters vs. Aliens and is working on a script for The Green Hornet, due out in 2010, in which Rogen will portray the titular—and, at least by Rogen standards, lean—crime fighter.
Writer Eric Spitznagel, who last interviewed Tina Fey and Steve Carell for Playboy, recently caught up with Rogen on the set of Funny People, his third movie with director and longtime collaborator Apatow. Spitznagel reports, "I expected Rogen to look like his portrait from the Knocked Up movie poster, with the pudgy cheeks and unkempt Jewfro. But when I met him his hair was neatly shorn, his skin had a healthy glow, and despite his constant self-deprecation—Rogen joked about his 'soft, gelatin-like physique'—he could be described as almost slender.
"He may no longer be a candidate for diabetes and heart disease, and his once tangled hair may look respectable now, but when you hear that laugh, like that of a lecherous uncle who has just told you the dirtiest joke he knows, it's clear Rogen hasn't changed much."
PLAYBOY: In Observe and Report you play against type.
ROGEN: Do I?
PLAYBOY: Well, sure. You're usually the cuddly schlub, but in this movie you're playing a mall cop named Ronnie who is a racist asshole.
ROGEN: [Laughs] Yeah, he's not the type of guy you would want to spend any time with. I think people look at the characters I've done in movies and think, I'd like to hang out with that guy. But not this time.
PLAYBOY: Was it a difficult adjustment to play somebody audiences will likely despise?
ROGEN: I think it's funny. Director Jody Hill is great at writing these oddly epic tales about horribly tragic people who just keep getting worse and worse. That's what I loved about his first movie, Foot Fist Way. He pitched it to me as a comedic Taxi Driver. It's about a guy who is kind of a vigilante on a mission. He's a little crazy and slowly becomes more and more unhinged, and he has these objects of obsession that he pines for.
PLAYBOY: When you describe it that way, it doesn't sound at all different from your other films.
ROGEN: Not really, no.
PLAYBOY: Other than the vigilante stuff.
ROGEN: I don't think it's all that different. Observe and Report is about a loser and an outsider, and that's what Superbad, Pineapple Express and Knocked Up are all about. It's about these guys who don't feel they belong in the world. It's really the same kind of story. Ronnie is a much more aggressively difficult person to be around, but the general feelings driving him—how do I find my place in all this?—are very relatable, I think.
PLAYBOY: He's probably the least similar to you of any of your movie characters. Do you two have anything in common?
ROGEN: We both have disrespect for the cops. Ronnie absolutely hates the police, and I feel sort of the same way. That's something I've realized is a common thread running through the movies I've done. We've always gone out of our way to disparage the police.
PLAYBOY: That's true. Even when you played a policeman in Superbad, he was a drunken moron.
ROGEN: In Pineapple Express I don't think any line gets a bigger response from audiences than when James Franco starts screaming "Fuck the police."
PLAYBOY: Have you had bad experiences with cops?
ROGEN: When I was younger, yeah. We would get caught with weed and beer all the time. When I first came to L.A. I got caught smoking weed on a beach in Malibu and had to go to court. It was the craziest thing ever. I was thinking, We're in Los Angeles. There are probably 400 people getting murdered at this second, and these two cops are taking an hour to write up my court summons for smoking a joint on the beach. That just seemed so fucking ridiculous to me.
PLAYBOY: Didn't you once get into trouble for hugging a cop?
ROGEN: Yeah. That happened when I was a kid. I was really messed up—too much alcohol at a young age. My tiny frame could not support it all. I guess I thought maybe I could appeal to the cop by hugging him. Apparently, they view that as assault.
PLAYBOY: There's no hugging in Observe and Report. It almost qualifies as an action film.
ROGEN: It's close. It gets pretty violent.
PLAYBOY: Did you do your own stunts?
ROGEN: I did, yeah. In fact, I accidentally broke a guy's nose. I punched a stuntman in the face and broke his nose. He got a little too close. He claimed it wasn't my fault, which was very noble of him.
PLAYBOY: Did you know instantly that it was broken?
ROGEN: Oh yeah. It made a really loud popping sound. You could hear it. Everybody on the set could hear it. It was kind of disgusting. But we used that shot in the final cut. There's a scene in the movie when you can see me breaking a guy's nose.
PLAYBOY: It's hard not to notice you've been losing weight. When did you realize it was time to slim down and get into shape?
ROGEN: It was on Observe and Report. We shot the movie in Albuquerque, which is at a very high altitude. I'm somebody who can barely breathe in Los Angeles, which is at sea level. I can't walk up a flight of stairs. Albuquerque is at an elevation of about two miles, and the air is very thin. There were some big action scenes. Every day it felt as if I were climbing Everest. So the stunts were really hard, much harder than they should've been. But they're nothing compared with what we're planning to do in Green Hornet.
PLAYBOY: Which is essentially a superhero movie.
ROGEN: I realized if I was going to make Green Hornet, I needed to lose weight. Aside from how the character is supposed to look, I couldn't physically make the movie in the shape I was in. It would have literally killed me.
PLAYBOY: For somebody who isn't classically attractive, you've been naked in movies an awful lot.
ROGEN: I suppose that's true.
PLAYBOY: Porn star Ron Jeremy shaves his back before a sex scene. Do you have any special preparations for on-screen nudity?
ROGEN: Nope. Nothing. They did have me shave my back for Knocked Up, but I fought it. I didn't think it was a good idea. Judd Apatow said, "People are not ready for a hairy back in a sex scene. We're just not there yet as a society." In Observe and Report I am shirtless and I have back hair, and it's glorious.
PLAYBOY: The only thing you haven't done yet is full frontal.
ROGEN: I know, I know. When Jason Segel showed his dick in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, it changed everything. I was like, Fuck! Does that mean I'm going to have to show my dick too? Is that what we're doing now? I don't know if I'm ready for that. I'll show my balls, maybe. To me, balls are funnier than dicks.
PLAYBOY: What would it take for you to drop trou for a movie? Would it depend on the material?
ROGEN: It would, yeah. It would have to be funny. I'm a very serious actor when it comes to nudity. I'm like Meryl Streep.
PLAYBOY: Why have male genitals become a comedy staple in recent years?
ROGEN: I think it comes in waves. For comedy to be truly effective it must be shocking in some way, and it's getting harder and harder to shock people. So yeah, we gotta pull out our fucking dicks now.
PLAYBOY: There aren't many naked female boobs in sex comedies anymore. Are boobs just not as funny as penises?
ROGEN: I don't think boobs are funny at all. Period.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ROGEN: Because it's impossible to whack off and laugh at the same time. You know what I mean? Boobs and comedy stimulate two conflicting parts of the brain. Do I get to be horny over these boobs or think this is funny because of the comedy? It's too much for the male brain to process.
PLAYBOY: It's different for women?
ROGEN: It's completely different. Women are not nearly as attracted to the image of a flaccid penis as we are to the image of boobs. It doesn't even matter if the boobs are unattractive.
PLAYBOY: Porn is a recurring motif in your work. Knocked Up, Superbad and Zack and Miri are littered with graphic conversations about porn. Now you and Evan Goldberg are working on a pornshop sitcom for Showtime. Is that a coincidence or a conscious choice?
ROGEN: You write what you know. It's the first thing they teach you. You don't see me writing movies about rocket scientists.
PLAYBOY: Do you remember the first porn movie you ever saw?
ROGEN: It was called Fisherman's Wife, and it really freaked me out. In one of the scenes this guy jacks off into an ashtray, throws it at a girl and makes her lick it off.
PLAYBOY: Wow. How did that not turn you off to sex?
ROGEN: It did! It made me afraid of sex. I saw it when I was a teenager, long before I had ever had sex. I thought that's what sex was. I was like, How do I get there? I don't even know how to kiss a girl yet. Do I bring the ashtray?
PLAYBOY: It seems like modern porn is increasingly edgy.
ROGEN: Especially with the Internet, you can find the sickest shit you can possibly imagine. It's all out there. I don't like this new trend of seeing how big they can stretch out a girl's asshole. What are we going for here, guys? We all need to sit down and talk about this like civilized people. To what end, gentlemen, to what end?
PLAYBOY: Has watching porn taught you anything surprising about sexuality?
ROGEN: I think transgender pornography is the elephant in America's bedroom. If you join any heterosexual porno website, there is an inordinate amount of transsexual and transgender pornography available. Clearly people are watching it, or the sites wouldn't keep selling it. More dudes are into chicks with dicks than you would generally assume.
PLAYBOY: It's starting to make sense why there's so much male nudity in comedy: Hollywood is just giving the people what they want.
ROGEN: Exactly. They want more penises in their movies. Porno, comedy—it doesn't matter.
PLAYBOY: At least in your movies porn is a source of male bonding. Do you and your collaborator Goldberg watch a lot of porn together?
ROGEN: Never. Never would we watch porn together. I realized very early that there are two types of men in this world: Those who are comfortable sitting in a large group of men watching porn and those who are uncomfortable sitting in a large group of men watching porn. I am definitely in the latter category.
PLAYBOY: You're not the sort to enjoy frathouse hazing?
ROGEN: We don't have frats like that per se in Canada, thank God. For that reason alone I'm happy to be Canadian.
PLAYBOY: But you have admitted that you and Goldberg share passwords to porno websites. Isn't that a sort of bonding?
ROGEN: Yeah, but we don't watch porn together. I guess that's the difference. On a lot of these porno web pages, people write reviews for the scenes—like in a talk-back section—and those reviews can be the funniest things in the entire universe.
PLAYBOY: Could you give us an example?
ROGEN: There might be a scene with a 400-pound woman with a butterfly tattoo having sex, and the comment will be "I hate it when women destroy their bodies with tattoos." PLAYBOY: You started doing stand-up in your early teens, at an age when most people are pretty self-conscious.
ROGEN: I didn't have that. That didn't come for me until later. When I was doing stand-up, I was just 13. It wasn't until I was 16 or 17 that I got self-conscious and insecure. As soon as I found out all my friends had gotten blow jobs, that's when I got insecure.
PLAYBOY: Wasn't your first gig at a lesbian club?
ROGEN: It was, yes. The club was called the Lotus, so that should've been a giveaway right there.
PLAYBOY: Did it occur to you midway through your set, Wait a minute, there's nothing but ladies here?
ROGEN: No, I knew they were lesbians before I went on, thank God. They were very nice to me. That's the thing about lesbians: They have no problem with young, cherubic boys who have not yet become men. I was very nonthreatening, and I hadn't wronged any of them in any way. So yeah, it was good. I highly recommend doing stand-up comedy for lesbians. They can hold their liquor.
PLAYBOY: Are you proud of the jokes you wrote back then?
ROGEN: They were not fantastic. I had something about how my grandparents were deaf and had whole conversations in which they couldn't hear each other. It was mostly just stupid, hackneyed stuff. A lot of misunderstood-argument jokes and Jewish-camp jokes.
PLAYBOY: Did you attend a Jewish summer camp as a kid?
ROGEN: I did, and I loved it. There were no rules and no adults. At least at the camp I went to, the oldest person was 21. Our counselors were 17 or 18 years old, and we were 15 or 16. There were no parents around at all.
PLAYBOY: So it was basically Lord of the Flies.
ROGEN: Yep, pretty much. It was just a bunch of young guys set loose on an island. You could run free for the first time, stay up all night and do whatever you wanted. We listened to some of the filthiest shit you can imagine.
PLAYBOY: Filthy how? Sexually?
ROGEN: Mostly comedy and music. We listened to a lot of Wu-Tang Clan and Adam Sandler records.
PLAYBOY: You've claimed that Sandler and specifically his song "At a Medium Pace" from the 1993 album They're All Gonna Laugh at You! inspired much of your comic persona.
ROGEN: That's true.
PLAYBOY: Which part exactly? When Sandler sings about sticking shampoo bottles up his ass, the pube shaving, the strap-on dildos or the constant whacking off?
ROGEN: All of it, man, all of it. I loved everything about it. It's sweet and dirty. That's something I've tried to do with every movie I've ever done. It's about mixing the tones of sweet and filthy.
PLAYBOY: Did Sandler's movies appeal to you as much as his records?
ROGEN: Definitely. He's just one of those comics every guy my age loved when we were growing up. Whenever one of his movies came out, we felt as if it belonged to us. We went to see Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, and we were like, Ah, this guy is making movies for us. We're his audience.
PLAYBOY: When did you realize you might be funny enough to become a professional comedian?
ROGEN: I don't know. I didn't wake up one morning and realize, Wait a minute, everybody thinks I'm hilarious—maybe I should do this for a living. Honestly, if you put me in a room with all my friends, I am by no means the funny guy. If you didn't know me from movies and you just put us all in the same room, I don't think you would look at me and say, "That guy should be in comedy." When I got on Freaks and Geeks, all my friends said, "Why the fuck are you on TV? We're funnier than you are."
PLAYBOY: So why did you end up doing it?
ROGEN: It was a calculated decision. I didn't want a real job, simple as that. It was either get into comedy or end up working at a fucking bank or something. I wanted a career that did not require a college education.
PLAYBOY: You've described your parents as radical socialists. Did you grow up in a politically charged environment?
ROGEN: Not really. They weren't militant or anything. My dad sometimes yelled at people at political rallies, and he made it on the news a couple of times. But remember, we were in Canada, where everything is a little more socialist than it is here, so there was less for them to complain about.
PLAYBOY: Were they supportive of your comedic ambitions, or did they have hopes you might end up in politics?
ROGEN: They knew I didn't give a shit at all about politics. That part of them did not rub off on me in any way. They were definitely supportive of what I was doing in comedy. My mom would drive me to shows all the time. I think they saw I was kind of good at it and really enjoyed it. That was always their mantra: Just do what makes you happy.
PLAYBOY: In your high school yearbook you railed against the uselessness of education. You wrote, "Ever since I started earning more than my own teachers, everything kind of fell into perspective." Do you still feel that way, or was it the egotism of youth?
ROGEN: I can't defend it. I wrote that when I was 17 years old and I'd just made $30,000 on Freaks and Geeks, which at the time seemed like a fortune. But still, I was such a fucking cocky little asshole.
PLAYBOY: Unlike your high school peers, you were hanging out at nightclubs, watching adult stand-up comics tell dirty jokes. Did they corrupt your young mind?
ROGEN: Absolutely. It completely desensitized me to filth. From the time I was 13 until I moved to L.A., on a regular basis I was listening to people say the dirtiest things you can say, and I saw them get huge laughs for saying it.
PLAYBOY: How filthy was your material?
ROGEN: Oh man, all my jokes were tame. I didn't even swear onstage until I was 16. I used to dance on the line between dirty and clean.
PLAYBOY: On Freaks and Geeks, you were a teenager playing a teenager. Isn't that like writing about divorce while you're in the middle of a divorce? What kind of perspective could you possibly have?
ROGEN: I think it helped. That's what Judd liked about it. That's why he hired me as a writer for Undeclared, because I was the exact age of the people we were writing about. A lack of perspective can be helpful for a writer—you don't get caught up worrying about how people will perceive it. You're just writing about the world exactly as you see it.
PLAYBOY: You and Goldberg wrote Superbad when you were just 13, right?
ROGEN: That's right. We were two guys in high school writing about two guys in high school. There were no discussions like, "Remember when that happened?" It was "This just fucking happened today. Let's go write it down."
PLAYBOY: Just how accurate was it? Did you and your friends really have such graphic conversations about sex as teenagers?
ROGEN: Very much so. When Evan and I started writing it we wanted it to be as realistic to our experience as possible. So many movies and TV shows about high get laid. I remember being in a movie theater with a bunch of my friends, having the sickest conversation about blow jobs. One of us had gotten a blow job, and we were talking about it. I just remember thinking, There is nothing like this in movies. This is fucking crazy. If I heard this in a movie, I would be the happiest person on earth. That was really a lot of the inspiration.
PLAYBOY: Apatow passed out a questionnaire to the cast of Freaks and Geeks, asking them to share their most painful childhood memories. What was your most painful memory?
ROGEN: [Long pause] One time when I was in second grade I was picking my nose in the back of class. The janitor was in the room, and he said, "Hey, everyone, look! Seth's picking his nose!" Everybody stared at me and laughed. That was pretty bad.
PLAYBOY: That's your worst memory? Being teased for nose picking?
ROGEN: Yeah, pretty much. Nothing horrible happened to me as a kid.
PLAYBOY: So you're not one of those people who think comedy comes from pain?
ROGEN: I think pain can help, but it's more about your attitude. I had an incredibly pleasant childhood. I have a great relationship with my parents. But when something bad happens to me, I'm not somebody who thinks, What the hell? This isn't fair! I'm more like, Yep, that seems about right. I think that's more conducive to comedy. Whether you've actually had pain in your life isn't important. If you're the kind of person who expects pain, then you're probably more inclined to become a comedian.
PLAYBOY: Judd Apatow has blamed you for making his movies increasingly raunchy. You were always pushing him to be, in his words, more "outrageously dirty." Is that a fair assessment?
ROGEN: It is fair.
PLAYBOY: How did you convince him to embrace his inner filthmonger?
ROGEN: I just told him how I felt. When we were making The 40-Year-Old Virgin—and by "we" I mean Judd, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell and myself—it was a big deal. It was our first chance to make a movie. I had very strong opinions about what we should be doing and what I thought was lacking in comedy films at the time. I told Judd, "This is our chance! They'll never fucking make Superbad!" We had already tried to pitch that movie, along with Pineapple Express, but nobody was buying. "They're not going to let us do anything else, but they're letting us make this movie. Let's do it right!"
PLAYBOY: How did Steve Carell feel about the filthy dialogue?
ROGEN: He was a little nervous, but that's what made it funny. Steve is just so genuinely sweet that I knew the filthier the rest of us were, the funnier he would be. I remember having those discussions about it with Steve and Judd, and Steve was particularly resistant to it. He asked me to type up a version of the script without a single swear word in it, just so we would have it when we were shooting, in case it was obviously too dirty and the studio threatened to shut us down. We could say, "Okay, here's a version without any cursing whatsoever." It was just a safety net.
PLAYBOY: It makes sense that Carell would be so protective. The 40-Year-Old Virgin was his breakout role.
ROGEN: Yeah, of course. I understood that. But I was still aggressive about how important it was that we make an R-rated comedy about sex. Not PG or PG-13 but a hard R. We needed to have lots of scenes with dudes talking about sex in a realistic, dirty way. If we didn't do that, I told them, we would miss a huge opportunity.
PLAYBOY: They listened to you, and it paid off. The success of The 40-Year-Old Virgin led to Superbad and Knocked Up.
ROGEN: It certainly helped.
PLAYBOY: Knocked Up has been criticized for being too far-fetched. Could a stoned, unemployed slacker really hook up with a woman as hot as Katherine Heigl, even if she were blind drunk?
ROGEN: The people who say that are just guys with ugly girlfriends. That's all that is. [laughs] Honestly, I think that's a bullshit complaint. Before I was in movies I dated women who were far more attractive than I had any right to be dating. Sometimes it just comes down to your personality. Saying otherwise is demeaning to women.
PLAYBOY: How is it demeaning?
ROGEN: Maybe my character in Knocked Up doesn't have the greatest personality, but he has his moments. He's positive, he's funny—it's not like he's a horrible person. I think it's a discredit to women to suggest they wouldn't be able to recognize that a guy is kind and worthwhile even though he might be a little chubby. So basically, if a woman is attractive, that means she's automatically an idiot and superficial?
PLAYBOY: What happens after the end credits in Knocked Up? Does the happy couple stay together?
ROGEN: Probably not. I think they get divorced. Not right away, of course. They would wait till the kid was older, like eight or nine or maybe in his teens. They'd try to make it work for a while.
PLAYBOY: Doesn't that ruin the movie for you? What's the point of these people having a baby together if their relationship is doomed to fall apart?
ROGEN: The goal of Knocked Up is that the baby is born under nice circumstances. The father is in the delivery room, doing the responsible thing, and the mother is happy. What happens next could be a disaster, but we didn't need to go any further. That was our ending.
PLAYBOY: Is it true you never held a baby until shooting the delivery-room scene for Knocked Up?
ROGEN: It is. That was literally my first time holding a baby.
PLAYBOY: Was it a scary experience or something you would like to try again?
ROGEN: I haven't held one since.
PLAYBOY: So fatherhood isn't in the cards for you?
ROGEN: It's nowhere on my radar.
PLAYBOY: A baby to you would just be…?
ROGEN: Something that gets in the way of what I love doing.
PLAYBOY: Is it possible you'll be like Tony Randall and have kids in your late 70s?
ROGEN: Maybe. People claim their kids bring them happiness. They tell me this all the time. I hear the words come out of their mouth, but I don't believe them. My girlfriend and I have lots of discussions about how we don't want kids.
PLAYBOY: In Knocked Up your character claims that Eric Bana in Munich made it easier for Jewish guys to get laid. The same could be said of you.
ROGEN: I don't know if I'm getting anybody laid, but I have seen more guys lately who kind of look like me. I see commercials every once in a while and think, That dude wouldn't be on TV if it weren't for Knocked Up. They probably traded in their glasses for a slightly thicker frame, let their hair grow out just a bit and let their stubble come in. I created a new look for rotund Jews. It's an easily attainable look.
PLAYBOY: You're like Woody Allen in that regard.
ROGEN: I guess so. He created a look for small, nebbishy Jews, and I'm doing the same for chubby Jewish guys. I was just thinking about this the other day. In the 1980s, comedies were all about really cool guys. Like in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Ferris is awesome and smooth, and he has his shit together. But these days nobody wants to see a comedy about a guy who is incredibly cool, has a hot fucking girlfriend, skips school perfectly and has the funnest day ever. Today Cameron [the dorky sidekick] would be the star of that movie.
PLAYBOY: Your circle of friends in Knocked Up—Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Martin Starr and Jonah Hill—are also your friends in real life. Do you guys really hang out and play video games all day?
ROGEN: When we're not working on a movie, yeah, pretty much. We also like to box one another for some reason, or we'll make up drinking games, like Edward 40-Hands.
PLAYBOY: What's Edward 40-Hands?
ROGEN: You duct-tape a 40-ounce bottle of beer to each of your hands, and you can't take them off till you're done drinking both of them. We've had a few 40-Hands parties.
PLAYBOY: Do those parties typically end with a lot of puking?
ROGEN: It's not that bad, really. Two 40s is the equivalent of, what, six beers? You want to drink fast to get the fucking things off your hands, but you don't want to drink it so fast that you get sick. It's a mental battle more than anything.
PLAYBOY: You've admitted that many of your movies are semiautobiographical. Let's separate the truth from the fiction. We'll mention a few plot points from your film oeuvre, and you tell us what's real and what's fabricated.
ROGEN: All right, let's do it.
PLAYBOY: Losing part of your ear in a gangland shoot-out [Pineapple Express].
ROGEN: That never happened.
PLAYBOY: A woman who has her period does a grind dance against you, covering your leg with menstrual blood [Superbad].
ROGEN: No, but that did happen to a friend of ours, and we were the guys on the couch who discovered it. I forget who noticed it first, but one of us pointed it out—"What is that, red wine?"
PLAYBOY: Seeing a Cirque du Soleil show in Vegas while tripping on hallucinogenic mushrooms [Knocked Up].
ROGEN: That's 60 percent true.
PLAYBOY: Please explain.
ROGEN: The drug might not have been mushrooms, but the rest is true.
PLAYBOY: Was Paul Rudd involved?
ROGEN: Yes.
PLAYBOY: Being so obsessed with dicks as a kid that you used to compulsively draw them and hide the pictures in a lunch box [Superbad].
ROGEN: No, that's fiction. That was a pure moment of imagination, which I don't have many of.
PLAYBOY: Accidentally performing a "Dutch rudder" on a male friend [Zack and Miri Make a Porno].
ROGEN: Well, I did do it while shooting the movie, so I guess that's true.
PLAYBOY: A Dutch rudder, of course, is when you jerk off another guy with his own hand. Were you shocked when you found out what that phrase means?
ROGEN: I'm always amazed when somebody tells me about an obscure sexual fetish I've never heard of. Kevin Smith, the director of Zack and Miri, is like a filth database.
PLAYBOY: Going to Tijuana to see a donkey sex show and feeling bad for the donkey [Knocked Up].
ROGEN: I've never even been to Tijuana.
PLAYBOY: Admitting you would watch a Rosie O'Donnell sex tape [Zack and Miri Make a Porno].
ROGEN: Yeah, I would. I would watch any celebrity's sex tape.
PLAYBOY: But Rosie O'Donnell's? That may be too much.
ROGEN: Really? I think you're lying.
PLAYBOY: We think you're lying.
ROGEN: You wouldn't even look at it for a second, just out of curiosity?
PLAYBOY: Okay, fine. Just for a second.
ROGEN: I knew it!
PLAYBOY: Befriending your pot dealer and joining forces to take down a drug cartel [Pineapple Express].
ROGEN: Not true.
PLAYBOY: Which part?
ROGEN: Both. They're both fictional.
PLAYBOY: You've never been friends with any of your dealers?
ROGEN: My experience has been the exact opposite. I've had really weird pot dealers, generally speaking, and I haven't wanted to spend any time with them.
PLAYBOY: Weird how?
ROGEN: Maybe it's not them. Maybe I'm just impatient. You're kind of at their mercy. You just have to wait there until they're ready to weigh it and give it to you. And that can take forever, for God's sake. I remember one guy who would just take all night to do it, and I'd be like, "Okay, man, can we get this fucking show on the road?"
PLAYBOY: Why is nobody more needy and insecure than a drug dealer?
ROGEN: I know, right? They get so hurt if you just want to rush out. They'll say things like, "Are you just gonna buy it and leave?" Well, yeah, why wouldn't I? It's not like you go to a supermarket and the checkout guy says, "What, you're just going to buy your milk and leave? Come on, let's hang out!"
PLAYBOY: You did a convincing job playing stoned in Pineapple Express. Are you just an exceptionally talented actor, or was your prop department well stocked with dime bags?
ROGEN: [Laughs] No, I wasn't stoned in that movie. It wouldn't have helped even if I were, because I act pretty much exactly the same when I'm sober as when I'm stoned. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Also, James Franco doesn't even smoke weed. I hope I haven't ruined it for anybody. Franco and I have never smoked weed together in real life. We always marvel at that.
PLAYBOY: What did you use as a substitute?
ROGEN: It was some sort of benign plant. It's called Wizard Smoke. I've seen it advertised in High Times magazine. It's supposed to be an herbal substitute that looks a lot like weed but doesn't get you high.
PLAYBOY: You were named Stoner of the Year at the 2007 Stony Awards. Do you feel you hit your peak too soon as a pot icon?
ROGEN: A little bit, yeah. The Stony Award is my Oscar. It's the award of all awards, in my opinion. I'm glad I hit it when I did, but it's a slow and steady decline from there. Franco won it the next year, for Pineapple Express, so we back-to-backed it.
PLAYBOY: He did? But he doesn't even smoke pot!
ROGEN: I know. That's outrageous. I almost raised a flag there, but I didn't. At least he played a stoner, and I'm sure he's the first stoner character to be nominated for a Golden Globe. For that alone he deserves a Stony Award.
PLAYBOY: Isn't the award statue a bong?
ROGEN: It is a bong. It's mounted on a little podium thing.
PLAYBOY: Have you ever tried to smoke weed in it?
ROGEN: I have, actually. I put it off for a while and eventually decided not to do it. It seemed oddly disrespectful. But then I had a party, and I saw somebody holding it with smoke coming out of it. I thought, Ah well, there goes my pristine Stony Award.
PLAYBOY: Just how superobsessive are you about marijuana? If we mentioned purple Afghani train wreck, would you know what we're talking about?
ROGEN: [Laughs] Yeah. I know something about weed. I know the difference between a sativa and an indica.
PLAYBOY: Do you know enough to have a conversation with Woody Harrelson?
ROGEN: I think I could, yeah. That doesn't mean I would. I've met a few celebrities who are notorious for smoking weed, and I can't ever bring it up with them. I get shy about it. So I don't know what I would say to Woody. "So…smoke a lot of weed, do you? Me too!"
PLAYBOY: There was some controversy about your appearance on the 2008 MTV Movie Awards, when you and James Franco appeared to be smoking a real joint on national television. Did the backlash surprise you?
ROGEN: Not really. MTV is just insanely stupid. They knew well in advance what we were going to do. We sent them a script weeks earlier. When they cut away in the middle of our bit, it made it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually was, and it effectively ruined our joke.
PLAYBOY: So what you were smoking wasn't a real joint?
ROGEN: Of course not. But that's not my problem. I'm not offended as a pot smoker; I'm offended as a comedian.
PLAYBOY: You think MTV was trying to create controversy?
ROGEN: I think they were being hypocritical. They have shows like The Real World, which is all about drinking and fucking. If that's their idea of entertainment, then our goofy little joke about smoking a fake joint should be harmless. They're documenting the lives of promiscuous young people without any of the repercussions. Not that I care. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to show that. I'm just saying if that's your idea of acceptable behavior, don't give us a fucking hard time about one stupid joint.
PLAYBOY: Was it surprising when MTV turned against you?
ROGEN: Not at all. MTV has always fucked us. It was a nightmare doing interviews with them for Pineapple Express. We were on TRL, which thank God is over. I never have to go on that fucking show again.
PLAYBOY: You didn't care for it?
ROGEN: I did not. It wasn't even live. It was all a big lie. It was painful because Franco and I went on to promote Pineapple, and the producers told us, "Okay, you can't mention weed at all." That just stunned me. The movie's about weed! How would we even describe it? Why are we here if we can't talk about weed? That's just so silly and absurd to me. It's like bringing on the cast from Transformers and telling them, "You can't talk about robots."
PLAYBOY: How will you evolve as you get older? You can't keep playing the scruffy stoner type forever, can you?
ROGEN: I have no idea. I don't think about that, to be honest.
PLAYBOY: You don't wonder what your career will look like in another five, 10, 20 years?
ROGEN: I really don't. I have no overall career plan. I take it on a movie-by-movie basis. It's all I can do.
PLAYBOY: A lot of comic actors yearn for credibility, hoping to cross over into dramatic roles. Do you have ambitions beyond comedy?
ROGEN: Somebody recently said to me, "Man, if Green Hornet does well, you guys will be able to make whatever movies you want." No, we've always made the movies we want. Every movie we've made has been the movie we wanted. We didn't make Superbad to get somewhere else. We didn't make Pineapple Express to get somewhere else. Those were it. If Pineapple Express is the last movie I ever make, I won't say, "I never got a chance to make the big one!" That's the exact movie I wanted to make.
PLAYBOY: Do you ever worry you might be lured by a huge paycheck to make some bloated blockbuster like Cat in the Hat or The Grinch and all your comedy credibility will disappear?
ROGEN: Oh yeah, all the time. Jonah Hill and I were having that exact conversation the other day, about how easy it would be to sell out without even realizing it. It's not just about the money. Sometimes you do a movie and you think it'll be great, but then you see it and it turns out to be terrible.
PLAYBOY: How can you protect yourself from making a dud?
ROGEN: You can't. My only barometer is to ask myself, Is this something I'd want to go see as an audience member? Otherwise, you have to accept that the rest of it is out of your control.
PLAYBOY: Is it true you talked Hill out of doing a Transformers sequel?
ROGEN: I wouldn't say I talked him out of it. I was a voice against it. It's not just about the final product for me anymore. It's also about the experience. This isn't just a career anymore. It's my life. My life isn't being in these movies, it's making these movies. You have to make sure that aspect of it is as enjoyable as possible. I want to go to work and think, I'm making a movie I'm excited about, I like the people I work with, and I'm having a good time. It wouldn't be worth it if I were making the best movie ever and had to come to work and think, I hate these fucking people!
PLAYBOY: Do you care what your fans think about you?
ROGEN: You mean, do I read the Internet? My girlfriend reads the comments section on my IMDb profile all the time, and sometimes she tells me, "You have to look at what this jerk said about you." People fucking hate me on the Internet. The tide has definitely turned.
PLAYBOY: Why do you think that is?
ROGEN: It's completely arbitrary. When Superbad and The 40-Year-Old Virgin came out, I was the raddest guy on Ain't It Cool News. But now, for no reason, I am the fucking worst, most despicable Antichrist of comedy. All I did was make two more movies that were both pretty good, in my opinion. It's become almost obligatory to say how much you fucking hate me. It's like, "He's doing all the stuff that makes us laugh, and I hate that about him."
PLAYBOY: What was your favorite experience meeting a fan?
ROGEN: I was at a bookstore last week, and this 20-year-old guy was standing next to me in line. He noticed me and got a funny look on his face, then he finally said, "Oh my God, man, you're my hero. Look what I'm buying." He had a book on screenplay writing and an encyclopedia of marijuana. [laughs] I was like, "Yeah, I guess I really am your hero."
PLAYBOY: How do you spoil yourself? You don't seem like the kind of guy who would spend his paycheck on a fancy car or a Malibu mansion.
ROGEN: I buy a lot of Japanese pop-art toys on eBay. I have a massive collection in my house. I've always been obsessed with comic books. Both Evan and I have read tons of them. If any of our movies suck, it's because we were reading comic books instead of writing.
PLAYBOY: It's probably no surprise that you and Goldberg wrote an episode for The Simpsons about the Comic Book Guy.
ROGEN: That's the coolest thing we've done. Of everything we've accomplished, which is not much on the grand scale of things, writing for The Simpsons is the apex.
PLAYBOY: Do you identify with the Comic Book Guy?
ROGEN: As a very anal collector of things, I can definitely relate.
PLAYBOY: If your movie career hadn't worked out quite so well, could you imagine yourself with his life, running a little comic-book store in Vancouver?
ROGEN: Yeah! I sometimes think about that. What would I be doing if I weren't an actor? Working in a video store or a comic-book store is the only thing I could possibly enjoy as much. I'd be one of those guys you look at and say, "What the fuck is wrong with him? Why is he working at this fucking store? Why doesn't he get out and do something with his life?" I would definitely be that guy. Maybe I'd do a combo: a video-game-and-comic-book store. Yeah, that would be cool. That's definitely what I should do if I crap out in movies. You know, that sounds so good it's almost worth quitting for.


text:
Thanks to my friend, the poet Silent Lotus, I have received a few news blasts from the poetry front. First, the weirdest news: poet Michael Cirelli (a much-published poet with a major national reputation) has a new book out from Penmanship Books titled Everyone Loves the Situation. Cirelli has apparently found inspiration in the MTV television mega-hit, Jersey Shore.
While no one is likely to mistake Snooki for Virginia Woolf (although some uncharitable types might wish her to meet the same watery fate as Woolf, just off the Jersey Shore), we hope that Mr. Cirelli is gentle with our own homeboy, DJ Pauly D of Johnston and his signature hair gel which, surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly; see "Red Meat Rampage" below), has escaped a listing as an environmental hazard in the Garden State.
Meanwhile, closer to home, the Ocean State Poets crew was recently honored with a "Victims' Poetry" award commemorating National Crime Victims Rights Week. Attorney General Peter Kilmartin presented them the award at the Institute for the Study & Practice of Nonviolence in Providence (more on them later, too). I am friendly with many of these poets (I'm the director at In-Sight Radio, Rhode Island's only radio reading service for those who are blind or visually impaired, and they regularly read for our listeners) and congratulate them on their continued community service.
Speaking of literary matters, I would direct you to the Cranston Public Library (central branch at 140 Sockanosset Cross Road) on Monday, May 2 at 7 pm. It's the "Friends of the Cranston Public Library" annual meeting, free and open to the public with special guest, former Rhode Island attorney general, and longtime radio talk host Arlene "Ahhhh-lene" Violet, who will discuss and sign copies of her new book, The Mob and Me: Wiseguys and the Witness Protection Program. Ahhh-lene co-wrote the book with the late former US Marshal John Partington, who is largely credited with conceiving the witness protection program.
Since no one has a budget anymore for such frivolities as advertising and promotion, it has fallen upon yours truly (who at least has a newspaper column in which he can slip in such nefarious information) to remind you that the Young Adults, that fabulous band that had its heyday in the 1970s and appeared occasionally in ensuing years to raid Lupo's treasury, will rock again.
On Memorial Day weekend — Friday through Sunday, May 27-29 — the Young Adults play for the first time in more than 20 years. The show is at the Met at Hope Artiste Village in Pawtucket. Opening on all three nights will be Phoebe Legere and Sir George Leonard who last weekend delivered a marvelous performance at Chan's in Woonsocket. Tix are on sale now at the Lupo's box office and at themetri.com.
Table of Contents
Cover Archive
Masthead | Authors | Contact us
See all articles by:
All Slideshows

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Press Room
Brooklyn Bridge Lecture at The Hyde
On Sunday, July 24, at 2pm, The Hyde Collection will host a lecture titled Brooklyn Bridge Forever: A Monument in Stone and Steel, in conjunction with the Museum's New York, New York! The 20th Century exhibition which runs until September 18, 2011.
Presented by Professor John B. Manbeck, his talk maps the development and construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, showing how 19th-century pioneers overcame natural obstacles to create "The Eighth Wonder of the Modern World." The event is funded by the New York Council for the Humanities, Speakers in the Humanities program.
Manbeck was Brooklyn Borough Historian between 1993-2002, taught English and Journalism for 32 years at Kingsborough Community College, and is now professor emeritus. Among his publications is the text for Coney Island Kaleidoscope, (1991) and he edited Neighborhoods of Brooklyn for Yale University Press/Citizens Committee of NYC (1998 with a revised paperback edition in 2004). He also wrote the text for The Brooklyn Century (2001), a Brooklyn Borough Hall publication.
Professor Manbeck taught English and Journalism at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn for 32 years. Prior to that, he received at Fulbright Teaching Grant to Helsinki University, Finland where he taught English Philology for two years. Before his university teaching, Manbeck taught English in New York City secondary schools and worked for American Broadcasting Company. He is a graduate of Bucknell and New York universities.
Free admission.


text:
travel data 2 GB
One-time price (CHF) 49.-
One-time price (CHF) 49.- Select
Rate details
Valid for a time period of
1 month
valid for region
region 1
Weitere Tarife
More information
MTV mobile Freedom and older mobile subscriptions.
The option can be activated on the date of your choice within 3 months of registration. The option will be automatically activated when you start using roaming data for the first time
Activation always occurs according to the Swiss time zone. Pay attention to time differences.
Activation, deactivation, and duration of use are always executed based on the Swiss time zone. Pay attention to time differences.
For example: If you are traveling in New York, the option will end at 6:00 p.m. local time on the last day because it will already be midnight in Switzerland at that time.
The duration of one month starts when the option is activated. The duration is determined by the number of calendar days in the activation month and ends at the same time of day that it was activated.
The option ends automatically and is not renewed.
If you use up all of your included data volume before the duration of use is over, the data used from then until the end of the duration of use will be billed at the standard roaming rate. See roaming price list.
Further data usage after the option ends can be blocked in cockpit.sunrise.ch in order to control costs.
If the data volume is used up before the duration period runs out, a new option can be purchased. If a new option is purchased when the data volume of the previous option has not yet been used up, the data volume of the first option will expire.
If the included credit for calls, SMS, or data connections is used up before the given duration period, these services will be billed at the standard rate until the end of the given duration. See roaming price list .
If your included credit is not used up within the given duration period, it will expire. It cannot be transferred to a newly purchased option.
Region 1: in 100 KB increments
Region 2: in 100 KB increments
Every partially used unit is billed as a full unit.
By the minute. Every partially used minute will be charged as a full minute.
Rate calculation
Do you still have questions?


text:
FREE Standard Professional Installation Standard professional installation in up to four rooms only. Custom installation extra. Applicable use tax adjustment may apply on retail value of installation.
|Abbeville, SC
|Aiken, SC
|Anderson, SC
|Beaufort, SC
|Bluffton, SC
|Charleston, SC
|Clemson, SC
|Columbia, SC
|Conway, SC
|Easley, SC
|Florence, SC
|Goose Creek, SC
|Greenville, SC
|Greenwood, SC
|Greer, SC
|Hilton Head Island, SC
|Irmo, SC
|Ladson, SC
|Lancaster, SC
|Lexington, SC
|Moncks Corner, SC
|Murrells Inlet, SC
|Myrtle Beach, SC
|North Augusta, SC
|North Charleston, SC
|North Myrtle Beach, SC
|Orangeburg, SC
|Piedmont, SC
|Rock Hill, SC
|Seneca, SC
|Simpsonville, SC
|Spartanburg, SC
|Sumter, SC
|Walterboro, SC
|West Columbia, SC
Ask me about special offers for new customers. I'm here to help.
Or call to speak with
a DIRECTV specialist.


text:
As far as I know those days are gone ( Sarco ) is past that now.
It's been about two and a half years since I last built an AR and I just did some looking for kits and have noticed that they have gone up a bunch. Is anyone still selling any new kits for under $400?
As far as I know those days are gone ( Sarco ) is past that now.
Those are uppers only.
Cheapest that I know of for a complete kit is $460 at Model-1
Welcome to Model 1 Sales' Online Order Center
Model-1 gets a bad rap for cheap parts, but my brother bought his in 2003 and has had literally thousands of rounds through it with no problems at all. I would not hesitate to buy from them!
Gunco Member #10
The "original" Boltcutter Rivet Squeezers:
Project Pink - the Pink and Blue AK-74:
Blackthorne does have some complete kits minus the stripped lower for under $400. Blackthorne is the same company as Vulcan, Hesse ect.. that have changed their name every few years to avoid the bad reputation they have earned for themselves. There was a writeup on AR15.com a while ago where a guy bought a kit and critiqued it. Basically he said that parts kits were mostly cosmetically flawed items with uneven finish on the barrel and scratches on the upper receiver and handguards. If it was my money I'd spend the extra $60 and get one from either Model 1 or M&A parts.
Thanks for all the info, my last kit was from del-ton and I was very impressed with them. will prob either go with them or model 1.
try sherluk at 425.00 and the 2 i bought were very nice and shoot great
7.62 x 39, those are NOT uppers only. They are complete parts kits minus the lower receiver. They have the most choices of parts kits I have seen.
If the parts are seconds only, then someone is making a heck of a lot of seconds.
I have also seen reports by buyers who said they were as good as any other parts kits.


text:
Access your Emirates Skywards or Business Rewards account
Explore our website in multiple languages for a tailored experience.
Find flights, see our featured fares and earn Skywards Miles on your travels.
Find the best fares across our global network.
Check in online, choose your seats and add extra services with one click.
Connect to new experiences, people and cultures in over 150 destinations worldwide.
Open up a world of rewards every time you travel. Enjoy reward flights, upgrades, exclusive benefits and more.
Emirates is proud to be the Official Airline of the Rogers Cup, an annual tennis tournament held in Canada. The Rogers Cup is unique by virtue of the men's and women's tournaments now being held during the same week in August, and by the fact they rotate year-to-year between the cities of Montreal and Toronto. For tournaments which fall on odd numbered years, the men's Rogers Cup is held in Montréal, while the women's Rogers Cup is held in Toronto, and for even-numbered years the format is reversed.
The Rogers Cup is an important tournament and attracts the top names in both the men's and women's game due to the stature of the event. The men's Rogers Cup is a Masters 1000 event on the ATP tour whilst the women's Rogers Cup is a Premier 5 tournament on the WTA schedule.
Emirates' ongoing sponsorship of the Rogers Cup has seen a number of unique activations introduced across the two tournaments. The Emirates Returns CSR programme is run during the tournament each year alongside the fan engagement activities and instadia promotions.
Emirates' tennis sponsorship portfolio also includes the Dubai Tennis Championships, US Open and the US Open Series, Internazionali BNL d'Italia, BNP Paribas Open, Barcelona Open, Roland Garros and the ATP World Tour.
Share this page:


text:
Displaying 1 - 10 of 2555 results
Sort by
Plate 51: Parish Church of St. Olave, Monuments
An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in City of York, Volume 4, Outside the City Walls East of the Ouse
Plate 51 Parish Church of St. Olave, Monuments Parish Church of St. Olave, Monuments Monument to George Hutchinson. 1775. Monument to William Thornton. 1721. Monument to Alathea Jordan. 1741. Royal Arms of Henry, PrinceView result
Hearth Tax: Middlesex 1666, St Leonard Shoreditch , Ditchside
London Hearth Tax: City of London and Middlesex, 1666
Middlesex 1666 St Leonard Shoreditch : Ditchside The Ditch Side Title Forename Surname Total Hearths Listing Status Notes wid Mary Opon 4 s Will Pee 4 s Josias Hutchinson 6 s John Baker 3 s Mills 3 s Will WinchView result
Plate 43: Monuments, 18th-Century
An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in City of York, Volume 5, Central
Plate 43 Monuments: 18th-Century Monuments: 18th-Century (13) St. Michael, Spurriergate. Monument (9) of William Hutchinson, 1772. (4) St. Crux Parish Room. Monument (6) of Roger Belwood, 1694. Monument (2) of SirView result
Apprentices presented at Carpenters' Hall, 1683-1686
Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters Volume I: Apprentices' Entry Books 1654-1694
Richard Humphry " Joseph Hutchinson assigned to Richard Baldwin James Lloyde ... Crooke " Joseph Hutchinson 2 Oct 1683 Augustin Wakelin " Robert Snead ... Bowers 4 Dec 1683 Robert Russell " Joseph ...View result
House of Commons Journal Volume 6: 1 January 1651
Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 6, 1648-1651
him Notice of this Vote. Hutchinson's Composition. The humble Petition of Colonel John Hutchinson, a Member of Parliament, was this Day read. Resolved, by the Parliament, That Colonel Hutchinson,...View result
Colleges: Auckland St Andrew
A History of the County of Durham: Volume 2
besides the dean; Arch. Aeliana (New Ser.), xx, 131. Hutchinson, Hist. Dur. ... p. lxv. Ibid. Hutchinson, Hist. Dur. iii, 335. Pat. 10 Edw. II, pt. 1, ... m. 10. Hutchinson, Hist. Dur. iii, 334....View result
House of Lords Journal Volume 19: 18 May 1711
Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 19, 1709-1714
and Hutchinson: After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Littleton ... Bishop of London and Michael Hutchinson; praying the Reversal of the said ... and Michael Hutchinson put in...View result
Hearth Tax: Middlesex 1666, St Martin in the Fields , Drury Lane
London Hearth Tax: City of London and Middlesex, 1666
Middlesex 1666 St Martin in the Fields : Drury Lane Cheny yarde drury Lane Title Forename Surname Total Hearths Listing Status Notes Mr Hutchinson 5 j then Empty Tho: Aplethorpe 0 j John Wolfe 9 s empty then Fran:View result
City of Westminster, St Martin in the Fields, Bedfordbury Ward, Court
Four Shillings in the Pound Aid 1693/4: the City of London, the City of Westminster, Middlesex
Thomas 1.60 8.00 0.00 0.00 Hutchinson, George 1.60 8.00 0.00 0.00View result
Addenda: July 1688
Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 17, 1699 and Addenda 1621-1698
Mather, Samuel Newel and Elisha Hutchinson, and read before the KingView result


text:
The end part of the colon that connects to the anus. This is where your dick goes when you fuck some chick (or dude for those that swing that way) up the ass.
Also an insult. Calling someone an ass pipe is much worse than calling them an asshole.
Also an insult. Calling someone an ass pipe is much worse than calling them an asshole.
by dashiznit November 04, 2004
by Ass Master July 02, 2003
A person with their head firmly entrenched in their rectum. Frequently doling out misinformation and refusing to admit when wrong. A combination of asshole and asshat
That professor is an ass-pipe. He was wrong on several points and refused to listen to differing opinions.
by Irish619 December 02, 2010
The tiny fucking back way into the death star on the Death Star Battle server for Continuum/subspace
by DrBoris July 30, 2003
A man that continues to only enjoy or put forth pleasure through the anus. Little respect held so therefore he holds this title.
I saw that ass pipe walk out of the bathroom with a cringing smirk on his face, and when I entered the bathroom there were two other men passed out on the ground.
by babbo xmas December 10, 2006
The vengeful act of crapping on a lover's chest while they sleep.Buy the plush


text:
Town Square
More housing = more Kids
Original post made by ToldUSo, Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2007
/west clusters. Palo Alto is growing from the inside out and we definitely need more space in the schools.
Whether the existing schools can add more students or the question of re-opening a 13th elementary school, the truth is that we are growing and it may mean all of the above. The luxury of the present cap on choice schools and the necessity of them growing along with the other programs is something that is to be debated, but it will affect us all. Some of us will not like our school boundaries changing, whether it be for property values or changing which neighborhood school our children attend, changes will be made. The more residents that move into Palo Alto because of the reputation of good schools is a reality of life here in P.A.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Choice schools are a luxury, not a necessity. Choice schools add complexity and cost to the system. They create constraints (on location for example) that become less and less feasible to meet, as a the system reaches capacity. As per pupil funding get smaller, and site's become maxed out - there will be less and less likelihood that 'room' for luxury and choice can be maintained. You think we're crying about basic now, just wait until we can't even cover the basics.
But you are right, many of the luxuries we enjoy today (small class sizes, excellent teachers, small neighborhood schools, programs of choice - all are luxuries we risk losing as enrollment grows unchecked.
There should be no mistake about it - the high property values in Palo Alto are solely driven by the quality of the schools. If the city council is short sighted enough to drive population growth through new housing that does not provide for school district expansion and funding - they are damaging the property values of every single citizen.
There are other ways to improve the economy of the city, without damaging the schools. How about a business climate that attracts business and grows sales tax revenues? Where are all these new residents going to shop for groceries anyway - Mt. View?
Why, for example, is there no grocery store, or business development at the Alma Plaza yet? Shameful city mismanagement by the city council.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2007 at 10:08 am
Choice schools are neither a luxury nor a necessity. They are an educational alternative designed to create diversity and to meet the needs of a minority of families. It makes no sense to invoke district priorities when considering a choice programs.
Choice schools must be cost neutral, a criterion that was met by the MI proposal, so they bring no additional load on the district.
Choice schools make us a better district and a better community.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2007 at 10:44 am
District Staff time is not compenstated by the choice school model. The development and operation of choice programs adds cost and comlexity to the school distict.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 24, 2007 at 10:53 am
How about building that 13th school in East Palo Alto? Think of the savings on busing alone.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm
If I had to drive my children across town or anywhere not my neighborhood school, then it would cost me time and gas money. Therefore, choice programs at neighborhood schools are never cost neutral for the parents who didn't get in. They should never be called cost neutral, because they may not cost the District money (or so they say) but they certainly cost money to the public, or doesn't that count?
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 24, 2007 at 12:36 pm
CB: You say "It makes no sense to invoke district priorities when considering choice programs," and "Choice schools must be cost neutral, a criterion that was met by the MI proposal, so they bring no additional load on the district."
I disagree. Once choice schools and programs are up and running, they appear to be cost neutral. But there are start-up costs, and there is considerable debate as to whether those costs were accurately represented by the MI feasibility study, which lists the following steps that would need to take place over the next few months in order to begin an MI program in August:
-Involve teachers, administrators, staff, School Site Council, and PTA at the proposed site in the planning process: February 2007
-Provide extensive professional training and observation/collaboration opportunities for the principal
-Advertise, provide informational meetings, and conduct program lottery using District procedures for choice lotteries: February/March 2007
-Form Parent Advisory Group: March 2007
-Conduct meetings and trainings to ensure integration of the choice program in the selected school:
February-May 2007
-Staff meetings: information and awareness opportunities
-Parent meetings with parents already at the school
-Parent meetings with choice program parents and parents already at the school
-Recruit and select credentialed teachers and support staff March/April 2007
-Select and/or develop instructional materials: March 2007
-Provide staff development to teachers and staff at the site: April-August 2007
-Provide ongoing program and professional development August 2007- May 2010
Some of these line items don't sound free to me, and I don't see them listed in the feasibility study. It seems reasonable to me that the principal, current teachers and other staff would have to devote a fair amount of time incorporating the new program into an existing school, especially when it would be a "choice within a choice" program as proposed by the superintendent. Who would conduct the extensive professional training and staff development? What about the district staff time required to implement such a program? Staff time equals dollars.
If you look at the low enrollment forecasts for next school year, you see that elementary enrollment could actually drop. The demographer's figures have been high in the past, so it's not unreasonable to consider that the low number might be right. While there is a recommendation to add modular classrooms to five elementary schools, including Ohlone, between now and 2011, it's not clear to me that those classrooms, at a cost of $250+K, will be required for the next school year. If they are built at Ohlone to accommodate MI, without knowing if and where they are really needed, then those become MI start-up expenses, in my book. Similarly, if Garland has to be reopened to provide space for MI to grow after three years, and it turns out that a 13th elementary school is not needed before 2012 or later except to house MI, then that is a multi-million dollar MI expense.
This brings us back to district priorities. MI startup costs must be balanced against other district priorities. As a basic aid district, PAUSD's budget must be developed a year ahead of knowing what its actual income will be, based on predictions which rise and fall due to several factors, including:
- The fortunes of Palo Alto-based businesses, the real bread and butter of our tax base.
- Values of homes in PAUSD attendance area.
- The state budget, which is revised every May and affects funds that are earmarked for specific purposes: K-3 class size reduction, textbooks, GATE, etc.
The school board and superintendent must be very conservative about how they allocate funds to ensure that existing programs can be sustained before adding new ones. The initial premise of this thread, that there are many new housing developments that could dramatically increase our student population, is very concerning, because it is likely to mean less money to spend on each student in the district. The question asked by "Parent" in a previous comment is an important one to consider in order for our schools to continue to be excellent: "How about a business climate that attracts business and grows sales tax revenues?"
I know that some MI proponents feel that people only became interested in a foreign language program in the elementary schools (FLES) as a result of the MI proposal, and this might be partly true, but it's also true that foreign languages are core academic subjects that the district should be providing as part of a quality education regardless of parental pressure. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 states: "The term core academic subjects means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, FOREIGN LANGUAGES, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. Web Link
The fact that a student in this district can graduate without ever having studied a foreign language is shameful. The district may be finally stepping up to the fact that elective course offerings in middle and high school are not enough to claim that our students are adequately educated in this regard.
Not all of us opposed to MI are flat out opposed to it ever, but rather to rushing into a program starting next August. Heck, I can't even get one very basic question answered, which is, where do you put a fourth new classroom (needed for year three of the trial period) at a school that only has room for three? How thoroughly was this proposal by our lame duck superintendent thought out, anyway?
The board appears to be headed towards a conservative decision, which I fully support, not to start a new program when we have pressing issues including an ongoing investigation of the senior cabinet's management practices, an achievement gap between our Asian/Caucasian students and our Hispanic/African American students, the search for a new superintendent and financial manager, and concern about burgeoning enrollment, to name a few.
In her SJ Mercury News column on Jan. 17, Patty Fisher says that this is a prescription for mediocrity. If she thinks mediocrity is not spending money on new programs before ensuring that you can at least meet the needs of all students, then so be it. But that mediocrity is forced upon us by our state's inadequate system for school finance that under funds the majority of districts and leaves basic aid districts to fend for themselves as the economy fluctuates. It just doesn't allow much room for vision and creativity in the uncertain times we live in.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Lynn. Your post is a work of art. Bravo!
I hope that if you haven't already, you will send a copy to each of the the PAUSD board members, to the San Jose Mercury Editor (cc: to Patty Fisher who completely failed to put MI into PAUSD's context), and to the editor of the Palo Alto Daily who has also failed to understand the PAUSD big picture.
(Its probably too long to get published but it will at least give those editors some food for thought, which they have obviously been starved of so far.)
You might also copy the Palo Alto Weekly writer Alex Rocha who published an article today with more balance than they've had so far, but still not completely comprehensive in its statement of the issues against MI. Also, the Weekly Editor came out against MI in today's editorial, for much the same reasons you listed, but again, not as specifically stated as your essay. At least some balance and reason is creeping into the coverage, and for that we are thankful.
Your essay says it well. Thanks!
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 24, 2007 at 4:22 pm
My children are the crown jewels of my life. Children are what it is all about. Somebody's children will inheret this land, if not ours, then whose?
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 24, 2007 at 4:54 pm
By the numbers, it looks like those who speak Mandarin will inherit the earth. Will our children be part of them?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2007 at 6:30 pm
This thread has turned into another debate about MI. The weekly covered it quite extensively again. However, this is only part of the debate. Do we want another elementary school opened? Do we want larger elementary schools? Do we want bigger class sizes? What do we do at the middle school level to cope with overcrowding? When will we need to return Cubberly to our third High School? These are all important questions that need to be answered. It looks like the Board are not going to go with MI, at least for the time being. What else can be done to deal with this overcrowding situation that will help the situation without opening old wounds???
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 24, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Another view of new housing is the lift in revenue they will bring to the community. Let's take Rickey's Hyatt House, which is being developed into 179 townhouses + 10 houses. Assuming an average sales price of $1 million per unit, that's a new valuation of the property of $189 Million. Property taxes would amount to $1.89 Million of which the schools and city gets a share. In addition, there is the school parcel tax, which brings in $490+ per unit to the schools, or another $92 thousand. On negative side, there is the loss of occupancy tax revenue from the previous use of the property as a hotel.
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 24, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Someone did an analysis of what residents pay versus what they cost, and where the money comes from, and I seem to recall that even new residents (who pay such astounding property taxes) don't pull their weight, we are all subsidized by local business. Does someone have that link? I can't say how accurate that analysis was, it would be interesting to see it in relationship to the Hyatt development.
Some cities have an additional tax added to property sales as a one-time additional fee for schools. I don't think adding one in Palo Alto would hurt sales, frankly. And, you can add a pretty high tax that just seems part of the noise with the high price of housing here. I've paid such a tax in another city, but not here. I wasn't happy about paying it, but it wasn't a make or break item on the sale by any means. I'd rather get the money through creative business initiatives. But it's something to think about.
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm
With respect to your statement that parcel taxes would bring in $490 per unit, it is actually per parcel of land. I'm not sure how many parcels are involved in this particular project, but I will try to find out.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2007 at 9:05 am
Here's the link that A.J. referred to. It was an opinion piece in the Palo Alto Weekly last November.
Web Link
It is not a rigorous analysis. The general conclusion is that new residents carry a lot more of the load than older residents but that businesses subsidize them all.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2007 at 10:19 am
We need to avoid the drawbridge attitude. Palo Alto, like it or not, is of this world.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 25, 2007 at 11:39 am
You say that "there is considerable debate as to whether those costs were accurately represented by the MI feasibility study" and that MI would force the district to install modulars or reopen Garland.
I don't see any debate. The district professionals have given their views and answered questions about how they came to their conclusions. You and others are convinced that there are hidden costs, though you're not sure what they are. There can be no answer to a radical skepticism that asserts the existence of something but cannot point to it. You surmise a lot about the potential extra costs but cannot point to anything concrete. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.
As for the modulars and Garland, I think you are misinformed. No one has suggested installing modulars or reopening Garland solely for MI. I agree that would be wasteful.
The district will be installing modulars before the fall, and the question is where to put them. If Mi were passed, it would make good sense to put some at Ohlone. Even if the MI pilot were canceled it would make sense to keep the modulars at Ohlone and expand that choice program, which has great demand.
As for Garland, that will only be reopened if the district decides in later years that it is necessary for district-wide enrollment reasons. That has nothing to do with MI.
You also raise district priorities, but they are irrelevant to choice programs, which are created to provide educational alternatives for a minority of families. Since all new choice programs must be cost neutral, the issue of tax revenues plays no role here. I agree with you that the premise of this thread--new housing could ramp up the student population--is a concern.
But that is driven by tax policy going back to the far-sighted Jarvis and Gann. Those funding issues will not be solved by killing MI and pursuing an education policy with no vision. Killing MI will also not improve the Asian/Caucasian gap, or address any of your other concerns.
You say mediocrity has been forced on us. We can always find excuses to be mediocre. But I believe that if we are ready to innovate, we can take this district beyond that mediocre vision. MI ought to be a part of that vision.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I.b. -
If a pilot MI program is started this year at Ohlone, where would you propose putting MI in three years time once it out grows Ohlone, assuming we don't need Garland to re-open until 2012 or later?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Pa Resident,
Don't know.
That would depend on what happens with enrollment between now and the, etc. If there's no room at Ohlone or anywhere else, it'd have to be nixed. It's a pilot program, after all.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I.b. - That's one detail I just can't get around. It would be such a shame (and some would argue not a good use of limited resources) to nix a program after 3 years if it took countless hours of district/administrative/principal/parent, etc., time and energy to get it going and it was working. If there was only an answer to that one question, I think I would be on board, which is a change for me. That's why I'm thinking maybe this could work if/when the district knows for sure that we need that 13th school, but I don't think we are there yet. Then there is no issue or suggestion that it was opened only to house MI.
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I forgot to add another couple of revenue sources with new housing: on purchase of a property, there is a city transfer tax of $3.30 per thousand; so with all the housing being built at the old Hyatt location, that's another $600,000+ in revenue for the city. In addition each unit's utility bill will get charged monthly for that storm drain tax that passed. Add this to the $1.89 million in annual property taxes, and the $92,000 in additional school parcel taxes, and you can see why the city likes these new developments.
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 25, 2007 at 4:34 pm
This is not a new issue, but the issue itself is changing. I remember having to almost camp out to get my daughter into my neighborhood school. She is now in college, but that was how it was done back then.
No, we don't want to increase class sizes. No we don't want huge elementary schools with portables everywhere. But, we can be imaginative and do more with what we have. Palo Verde isn't big enough to become a 4 strand school, or even a 3 1/2 strand school. But we could take a bubble class because we have done it before. We could put in a portable behind one wing (where one has been before)and use it as resource rooms, freeing up the classroom which has been divided into 2 resource room.
We could do similar things elsewhere and invent posts of traveling vice principals and admin staff. We have to be inventive and be realistic. It is ludicrous to send children all around town because of idealism. Children need to go to school where they live. We need to make sure that we put round pegs into round holes, not round pegs into square holes.
In an ideal Palo Alto, every child would be able to get into a neighborhood school and each neighborhood school would be small and not crowded. But, we are living with the leftover heritage from a previous Board who closed schools and sold off the land.
a resident of another community
on Jan 25, 2007 at 7:12 pm
No kids = graying population and storing economic, cultural stagnation: a future like Europe's and Japan's for Palo Alto ...
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 25, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Regarding the revenue estimates by curious, according to the analysis that I linked to, the city directly gets about 9% of the property tax paid. So of the $1.89 million that that curious estimated, the city would get about $170 thousand annually. The conclusion of the article was that new development is not a "big win" for the city in terms of revenue.
a resident of Jordan Middle School
on Jan 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Don't equate school revenue sources with city revenue sources. The schools are funded by property taxes. I believe about 65% of the local property taxes go to the schools. I don't think any of the local sales tax revenue goes to the schools. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Of course, Prop 13 has created a school funding disaster in California. Palo Alto is basic aid district and has thus benefited from its relatively high property tax base. This high tax base hasn't kept up with the local cost of living (and thus school labor expenses). The situation is only going to get worse. Many seniors and boomers will be moving out, but renting out their homes (or passing them on to their heirs). Wait till more students start pouring in from rental homes and apartments that have a low property tax valuation.
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 26, 2007 at 8:36 am
l.b.: You say, with respect to my earlier comment that there has been debate about all the MI costs being represented accurately in the feasibility study, "I don't see any debate. The district professionals have given their views and answered questions about how they came to their conclusions." I was referring to the debate that took place on other threads in this forum, which was quite lively in the first week or two after the study was published, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
While you obviously trust the district professionals to be thorough, accurate, fair and honest in their work, I do not. I have my reasons, which are too off-topic to go into on this thread, but I am not alone; district principals, assistant principals and program managers expressed their distrust of senior management en masse last fall.
You say that I "surmise a lot about the potential extra costs but cannot point to anything concrete," and even quote Wittgenstein in German-impressive! The fact is that the feasibility study was not very concrete, and I was as concrete as I could be with the information available, even quoting directly from the study itself.
Take the first item on the list of tasks to be accomplished in order to implement an MI program: "Involve teachers, administrators, staff, School Site Council, and PTA at the proposed site in the planning process." Granted, the parents on Site Council and PTA members are volunteers, but everyone else on that list is a paid employee and would likely need to be compensated in some way for time spent above and beyond regular duties.
The PACE community knows this as well as anyone. Their $60K paid for district staff time to do the feasibility study. So, if district staff time is needed to implement MI, where are those costs listed?
If we could ask questions and actually get answers, that would help. But answers are in short supply for those of us who have tried to get them. Not one person has told me how the district would come up with a fourth classroom in year three of the pilot, for example. No one.
I'll end with another quote, in English this time: Don't trust the person who has broken faith once. - William Shakespeare
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:29 am
Crown Jeweler, too,
Love your argument: "World Domination by China: It Is Futile to Resist"
Very funny. I hope the school board is smart enough to see through that. I wonder why China is drilling their kids with Math, Science, and English, while goading on the US to whittle away scarce education resources teaching Mandarin?
(Actually very clever of them to convince US to spend their educational resources on teaching Mandarin - so the US takes their eyes off the ball, to ENSURE China runs far ahead in the technology fields that matter.)
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:36 am
I.b - if you don't see any debate then you just joined the conversation yesterday. For example, in the Board meeting on 12/16 when the first feasibility study was presented, Dana Tom said he thought there was an understatement of district staff, and asked if there would be any more use staff time in start up. Becky Cohn Vargas admitted there was, and listed several people who would be pulled in to the start up effort, including herself, Norm Masuda, Marilyn, and others. Someone from HR will be pulled in to staffing. Someone from assessment will be pulled in to the development of a new Mandarin assessment tool. etc etc etc.
Dana asked for a fuller account of what district costs would be used in start up. Those have not yet been provided.
Another example, there is no program management cost in this study. Who will coordinate all the sources of curriclum inputs and financial sources? Happens by magic? Or are you saying Susan Charles sits around with nothing to do? That's incremental effort (time) that has a cost to this district. Some work that is done todya will not get done, or someone will be hired to do it.
Another example, there is no cost included for the entirely new Mandarin Assessment testing that will be required.
There are more, but the fact is the feasibility study left gaping holes in the start up costs, because the "professionals" who put this study together did a distinctly UNprofessional job.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:49 am
This still won't work. Connections at JLS, DI at Terman and SI at Jordan are not full. This means that whatever reasons parents want their kids in choice programs at the elementary level, the majority of them don't follow through for middle school. This means that if we were able to guide them through middle and high school from these choice programs, then possibly we would get less entering the lottery for the choice elementary programs. It seems that parents value their "neighborhood" middle/high school more than the programs.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:51 am
Ooops wrong thread - this was meant for the peer streaming thread
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 10:09 am
Correction from prior post - There is no cost included for the entirely new Mandarin Assessment testing TOOL that will be required. They either need to BUY an assessment tool, or DEVELOP an assessment tool - to prove the kids are learning mandarin to grade level. No cost for this has been included (This is just one example, among many specific missing costs.)
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I heard on the radio today that LAH (Los Altos Hills) forming their own K 8 district is a no go. This means that they will be staying with us in PAUSD afterall. Since we won't be losing them then we must get down to business on what to do with our overcrowding situation. All this discussion about MI is fine, but we have done enough of it already. What we need to do is find a way to deal with this overcrowding in a way that will be fair to all the children and not divisive to the community.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2007 at 8:11 pm
The reason California schools have gone from the best in the nation to just mediocre is Proposition 13. Remove this unequal taxation and the school district would have plenty of funding.
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Prop. 13 was a major reason for the decline in CA public schools, but not the only one. There's an excellent documentary called "First to Worst," that covers this topic in detail. The information in the film is also available at Web Link. Click on "timeline" to see how whole language reform and even, gasp, class size reduction are contributing factors.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2007 at 9:44 pm
What would the schools do with more money?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Lets see...
They might open another school site instead of piling kids up on one another on playgrounds and at portables.
They might increase the school day by one hour to be equivalent to benchmark schools
They might hire some site security to patrol their seventeen very valuable site assets on nights and weekends, buy security cameras, alarms, or other security measures similar to other schools.
They might try to hire similar numbers of counselors, and other support staff at levels similar to other benchmark peers, so our kids would stop killing themselves on railroad tracks.
They might start thinking about how to house their bursting at the seams middle school population, or they might start trying to figure out how they're going to open back up a third high school in about five or six years.
They might fund their unfunded pension liability.
They might even try to educate MORE Tinsley kids - for ALL our economic welfare Mr Wallis. The sooner those communities get 97% of their kids off to college like the rest of Palo Alto, the sooner they bring their economic status up, improve their familieis and communities economic status, bring businesses and revenue streams in, drive crime rates down, improve blight, build their own excellent school districts, drive property values up in our neighboring communities, and in our own communities, and improve life for everyone including them and YOU. Try to think outside your tiny little box.
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jan 27, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 27, 2007 at 2:56 pm
They might not have to educate more Tinsley kids because there might finally be enough money for decent schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo.
We could actually bring school facilities up-to-date.
Open another UC campus since they're clearly unable to meet the demand for reasonable college educations.
We could bring back P.E. every day.
I was in school when Prop. 13 passed, it was a quick and dirty disaster for most districts.
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm
There is much, much more at work that results in a good education than money spent on students.. Look at PAUSD..one of the highest scoring districts in the nation, on $11,000 per student.
All you have to do to get the idea out of your head that money is the most critical factor in education is look at the worst performing, but highest funded, at over $15,000 per head per year, ...Washington DC.
Much more has changed in California since the 70s than just prop 13.
Simply reversing Prop 13 will solve nothing, and in fact may make it worse. Even with prop 13, we spend 30% more money in real dollars than we did back when it began. Simply reverse it, and it would only drive down the value of housing, hurting those who bought more recently the most, and increase by 4 fold the taxes of anyone who has owned a home for more than 20 years,..just when these people are at the "downturn" phase of their earning level..pretty much everyone who is just saying goodbye to their kids and looking at retirement..but suddenly being hit by a huge tax hike. It would drive out anyone and everyone who is already living at the edge.
In real terms, because of the lowering values and flight that would ensue, we would be no better off, maybe worse. There is a reason that there is so much flight, thus decreased tax base, from high tax cities and states.
So, let's talk about how to really help.
I, personally, as an owner of a home for more than 20 years who would be driven out if my taxes quadrupled, would have no problem with a fair sized tax which would go directly to the schools, but was levied on me when I sold my home.
A certain percentage of whatever the real dollars are that I receive above the price I paid for my home, along the lines of a type of capital gains tax. It would make sense to do it that way. I move when I can afford to, or my children pay the tax when they sell my home after I die. In any case, eventually the tax is paid.
It eventually equalizes the difference in taxes between neighbors in real dollars.(by the way, with all the complaining I hear about paying so much more than your neighbor is paying who has been in his house forever, it must be kept in mind that you chose to pay the same percent of house price that I did, it is just that you chose to buy a much more expensive house than I did)
So, that is my "2 cents" worth. I would vote for it.
a resident of Jordan Middle School
on Jan 27, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Draw the line's argument against Prop 13 reform has serious flaws. I agree that the immediate removal of Prop 13 safeguards would send the residential property market into a tailspin, but there are many other remedies. The most obvious solution is make commercial properties (including rental units) pay taxes at the market value of the property. Of course, Prop 13 provides a huge unnecessary windfall for many.
The argument that the amount of school funding has increased by 30% in real terms since 1978 is pure garbage. National data on inflation is meaningless in the local context. Labor costs in the Bay Area have (driven in large part by housing prices) have gone up much more than 30% since 1978. A huge part of the school budget is labor costs. Can you honestly say that the real cost real of living in the bay area has gone up only 30% in the past 30 years?
The comparison of local funding level with DC funding levels is also specious. DC is a much larger school system with extra administrative costs and even more aggressive unions. DC's schools also have many extra costs that come with controlling drugs, controlling crime, and dealing with a much higher proportion of students from troubled families. Don't forget that DC, unlike Palo Alto, even has school buses (a Prop 13 casualty).
Prop 13 also has had the downside of converting Palo Alto into retirement community.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I am concerned about the statement that Palo Alto is converting into a retirement community. This is something I have read about in the papers and elsewhere, but can't actually see it for myself. It may have been true 5 - 10 years ago, but not in my area. The fact that boomers are staying here and retiring here may be happening elsewhere, but in my area I am surrounded by elderly neighbors who were the original owners of homes built 50 years ago. We moved into our house 7 years ago and bought from the original owner. Our home was the only house with school aged children for many houses in both directions. Since then, the elderly people have died or moved into homes outside the area and families have moved in. There are still many very elderly people surrounding us and they will not be here in the next 5 - 10 years and it is my guess that families will move in.
One thing that I am finding, particularly from families at school, is that it is getting more common to have 3 generations living in the same house which may be what is happening. Either families are moving here and bringing grandparents with them to help with childcare, or else, divorced or single parents are moving back in with their parents to enable their children to get into our schools. These single parents often stay with their parents for a couple of years and then manage somehow to get a townhome for low income families.
So these 3 generation households are sometimes paying large amounts of property tax because of recent house purchase, but not always due to the fact that the elderly parents have been here for a long time and what they pay in tax is relatively low.
It would be interesting to see what the figures of these three generation families are because I know that I am not imagining this. I just don't know how to find these figures, if there is any way to do so.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 27, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Whatever success Palo Alto schools have is more because of their raw material than beause of their process. I guess with more money they could show Moore's agitprop and Gore's fsiry tale ten time instead of five. Just add an hour to the day and let anyone who objects go elsewhere. Get rid of the silly 20 student rule since that requires less well trained teachers and avoids facing the real problem of disruptors.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2007 at 10:01 pm
You don't just add an hour to the day, unless you plan to send them out to sit on the field and entertain themselves for that hour. You actually have to pay teachers.
However, I do agree with what I think your first statement means: That Palo Alto schools' success is more due to their raw material (smart motivated kids, coming from educated motivated parents). One person recently laughed about PAUSD said:
Wow, big surprise, give me a filet mignon, and I can cook a great steak. PAUSD spends a little too much time patting themselves on the back for great test scores.
And PAUSD is also under the mistaken assumption that they need to be 'cutting edge' to be great. No, they just need to deliver a strong core basic education, and prepare all kids to succeed in college. The idea that they have to create customized choice for every spoiled parent, and the really lopsided idea that student enrollment 'growth' is a measure of greatness is really dangerous. The sooner they start realizing that student enrollment growth is a bad thing, they'll stop measuring their decision by how fancy, fabulously cutting edge they are.
Frankly, I think the most dangerous thing to happen to PAUSD in years is the advent of Hoover as some sort of miracle school among greats. Its like a blinking red light shining on PAUSD. Its a miserable idea. All the schools can be stunningly great, without being number one or number 10 (whatever it was ranked). And we'd all be alot better off. Pooling all the most motivated families into one school just creates this incredible growth magnet.
I don't agree with reverting to pre prop 13 - I don't agree with forcing people out of their homes with unbearably high property taxes.
Where should it comes from? Higher developer fees? What do we need more housing for? We need more businesses, not more housing. And PAUSD focusing the dollars they do have on the basics.
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 28, 2007 at 8:15 am
I also believe that it is the parents and kids that are the primary reason the school district is a success - the school district is an enabler and a magnet, but if it didn't attract the types of families who had the social-economics and who placed a priority on eduction, the school district would be like many others in Silicon Valley.
I don't think that more funding would cause the Palo Alto schools to be any more successful; Cupertino, which has a district which is just as highly rated, makes do with about $8,000 per student.
At the elementary & middle school level, there are other school districts which are just as successful - Los Altos, Menlo Park; but where there is a difference is at the high school level, where Los Altos & Menlo Park, because they are not a unified school district, the population changes to include Mountain View (in the case of Los Altos), and Redwood City (in the case of Menlo Park).
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 28, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I wonder how serious a magnet Hoover is. Last year it had fewer applicants than Ohlone, whose scores are just mid-range--well, for Palo Alto. <g> I always think of Hoover as sort of a siphon for the gung-ho hypercompetitive parents. I figure if they're pushing piles of homework they're not doing that at the neighborhood schools and giving the rest of us a break.
That said, homes in the Hoover neighborhood sometimes go for astounding sums, so I assume the Hoover/Gunn combo is a very strong draw for some people. I'm also guessing that the recent climb in Fairmeadow's scores has something to do with Hoover spillover--families who moved there for Hoover, but didn't get in.
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 28, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I just read your entry from 1/24 at 12:36, and I must write in for the first time. I have been studying the M.I. proposal since last April and you nailed it. I have read the Feasibility study several times and it is riddled with assumptions, biases, and a blatant lack of facts, data and actual costs. It was clear to me as well, that the list of items that you included would all cost money that was not described in that study.
Have you looked at the PiE Benchmark Study? An excellent study comparing several schools that are considered on par with ours. But, we are operating with less funds and fewer staff.
I totally agree with your points. Mandarin immersion does not serve PAUSD, no matter how you look at it.
I agree with the parent who submitted the entry right after yours. You should send your entry to the Board, Patty Fischer, and the Daily and Weekly. All of those papers have clearly not studied this issue with much depth. But thank goodness at this point, it looks like most of our Board has!
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 7, 2007 at 4:48 pm


text:
Due to construction, there has been a break in a water line leading to the Information Technology Center on the main campus in North Little Rock. Crews are working to repair the line; however, the restrooms and water service in the Information Technology Center will be unavailable until repairs are completed. The construction crew anticipates that service will be restored later this afternoon.
Public restrooms and water fountains are available in the Campus Center, Ottenheimer Library and Science building, as well as other campus buildings. Staff, students and visitors to the IT building should seek out these facilities if needed. Signs will be posted on the restrooms and fountains in the Information Technology Center.
Pulaski Technical College