"No cow is too sacred to get skewered " except from the herd Synder?

I can read. Can anybody 'round here do arithmetic?

Meadowview is platted for 790+ homes, of which 650 are built. Building started in 2002 and continues. If in fact there are 3 kids per Meadowview household enrolled in LISD, what would have been the increase in LISD enrollment since 2002 -- attributable to Meadowview alone without any increase from any other development in Lancaster (or environs, such as Bear Creek)?

650 x 3?

Now, what has been the reported actual increase in LISD enrollment since 2002? About 4000 to maybe 5500?

Do you see the problem with the Team of Eight's claims?

Now I think the problem is not that a PhD demographer who has run her own business for decades is dumber than a hack journalist and has sold bogus and unsupportable statistics to a government agency. That would be a good story, but any journalist with even minimumal delusions of adequacy, a pretense of competence, and aspirations of influence would not be bold enough to commit to his newspaper such a claim.

That sort of rumor is reserved for blogs.

The problem is not that a blogger is too lazy to check his facts and too cowardly to defend his opinions in open forum, preferring instead to block comments from any who dare prod his badly atrophied conscience, sadly decayed research skills, and madly arrogant egoism.

One gadfly more or less -- pfft. What matter?

The problem is that our duly elected public officials believe they can't tell the public the truth. No problem is bad enough as it is -- but it must be exaggerated and falsified until panic replaces thought. The LISD board of trustees is not content to claim that 100 new homes will require seats for 80 new students. No. The board, and the trustees, and the lazy innumerate arrogant uncritical Socratic Gadfly, our pretender defender, all agree that 100 new homes means 210, or 250, or over 300 new seats. And they assert that any body who doesn't think such blindingly "obvious" demographic "reality" is small-minded and anti-child.

I can understand an over-the-hill ex-football coach and former drivers-education specialist who accidentally wound up in charge of a 40 million dollar a year enterprise might have some apprehensions about people looking into his numbers.

But I can't understand or sympathize with a poseur who claims to be skeptical and anyaltical, who is content to carry the coach's water just for a seat at the game. Literally or metaphorically.

Really. Being an outsider has downsides, too, but being forced to choose between keeping one's own personal integrity and sucking up to liars is not among them.