Most diocese will publish an annual report. My Diocese, the Diocese of Arlington (Northern Virginia) is among the wealthiest. Arlington is cash positive, and is socking away money
It runs 51 schools (6 High Schools) at an annual operating cost of $80M on $81M in Revenues. Approximately $55M revenues come from Tuition. The rest is subsidized. The schools themselves are being run at a target of net $0 income.
Besides the annual subsidies, the Diocese also subsidizes the growth with capital acquisition of Land and self-funds the building expenses.
Basically, in the Diocese Arlington, there are three main divisions: Diocesan Mission, Schools, Parish Mission(s). It's rather pedestrian and depressingly SMB Corporate; but Catholic Education is being run on a safe and conservative fiscal model, generously subsidized by the general funds.
One could push for a more aggressive growth and greater subsidies (we live in an area that is under-served by the Diocesan education mission). But, with expansion comes risk, and the Church is poorly equipped to unwind "services" when they are no long sustainable... witness the agony of several other dioceses that are contracting operations.
The education model has radically changed in the past 100 yrs. Catholic education is not terribly exciting right now, it is definitely being pinched on labor and facilities costs, and the response has been to make the business model more like a regular school than a radical parallel structure of the past... but that critique is just that parochial schools are too normal.
I completely agree... he would have been HOF if he'd retired in 1997.
The fact that he was an inhuman monster at age 39... (.362,.609,.812,1.422 - Holy Shit)... That's just, just, well, incroyable.
I hadn't looked at his career stats since he retired... seems pretty clear he went to the dark-side after his injury year in 1999; having just watched Sosa/Maguire duke it out in 1998.
But yes, I admired him more as a man in his godfather's mold pre-2000.
Eeep... I'm screwed on lefty pitchers then... will have to think on a replacement for Carlton.
Re: Chemistry, that's what Koufax is for... no one likes the People's Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People's Front? - anyhow, they are both splitters.) So, he unites the team against the PFJ... but, since he pitches to Carlton Fisk, and Fisk is the ultimate guardian of the game's integrity, then he will respect Koufax's artistry and see to it that Koufax is accepted for the good of the game. Not even Cobb would challenge Fisk (more than once). Problem solved.
I'm in, sir... your first division win is not assured with this team in the field.
I broke two rules...
1. Had to take a couple pre-1920 players... Honus Wagner is mine, mine.
2. I employed the official Hall of Fame Rule 5 draft... one player from your bench can be taken to start.
1. H. Wagner (R) - SS
2. T. Cobb (L) - CF
3. F. Thomas (R) - 1B
4. H. Aaron (R) - RF
5. Ted Williams (L) - LF - Rule 5 draft
6. C. Jones (S) - 3B
7. C. Fisk (R) - C
8. E. Collins (L) - 2B
Pitchers
Christie Mathewson (R)
Carl Hubble (L)
Pete Grover Cleveland Alexander (R)
S. Koufax (L)
Greg Maddux (R)
--
Nolan Ryan (R)
S. Carlton (L)
---
T. Hoffman (R)
B. Sutter (R)
L. Smith (R)
Bench: I. Rodriguez (C); J. Foxx (1B); R. Sandberg (2B); O.Smith (SS); R. Henderson (LF); K. Griffey (CF); S. Musial (RF).
For Hitters I studied OBP and preferred that where possible (though your HOFer's have that too). I also factored speed and base-running, and, while out of fashion, I think it pays dividends in Runs Scored (and defense).
For Pitchers, I preferred to select for the lowest unforced errors (Low: BB, HR, HBP, with High SO) - with the exception of Nolan Ryan (hey every team needs a stretch reliever to mop up innings and keep the other team in line).
Your pick-of the litter team is better, but I think Whitey will be able to work with these players (who are better at all around baseball) to beat you more often than not. :-)
@blaisep Yes, it is well and good to stand guard against feckless anarchists; let us do so arm in arm.
Is it ironic that your cautionary tale is to draw and quarter The Central Banker of Bankers for not respecting Chesterton's gate? This strikes me as a most conservative principle... let us burn the Centralizers who use their power to maximal effect for the most minimal constituency by tearing down the laws made by previous generations to protect us from such excess. Is it ok if I and my kind throw the first torch?
Your points are well taken, but I'm not that kind of conservative raging in favor of anarcho-capitalism and small gubermint. An honest mistake, to be sure. My response to you above was merely to state that in prioritizing mis-governance, Dunn County Imperialism ranks a good deal lower than the constant centralization of all things.
Many conservative sociologists agree with you. But the autonomous and anonymous individual comes with a cost; that cost is the diminishment (and often destruction) of all intermediary institutions leaving the autonomous and anonymous individual naked before the state. That this state of affairs is "more tolerant" I think this is much disputed.
It is, incidentally, one of the conservative observations about the destruction of unions. And why many conservatives advocate worker solidarity. But solidarity just starts the cycle of parochialism all over again. The workers have interests particular to workers, and not necessarily aligned with those of the state.
I don't expect you to find the conclusion compelling, just that the argument you make is exactly the one we make. We're just not sure that the autonomous anonymous individual is better served by the new state of affairs.
Yes, Blaise, but are we more concerned with the rampage of non-standard weights and measures or the more likely scenario that the Federal Government is making a decision of Maximum Impact that forces the hand of Wisconsin, which forces the hand of Dunn County, which then determines exactly what Eau Claire can do with its waterfront?
As a subsidiarist, I'll stand with y'all to call for better governance at a higher order should Dunn County go rogue... but I just don't think that's the core problem we face in today's order.
Morat... and if only that element of government were subject to rational knowledgeable voters. :-) I think this is the nub of the issue, no?
To Roger's point about subsidiarity, the pendulum (IMO) has swung too far to the presumption that all decisions must be taken at the highest (most centralized) order... it is the presumption not the fact that I'm most concerned with.
Morat, your arguments are reasonable, but they are precisely the justification for a sort of creeping centralization that makes the voters of Texas less and less important to the decisions that impact Texas.
While it is indeed folly to imagine Texas striking out on its own against Iraq; Texas is an important state for providing soldiers who fight in Iraq. What one wonders is whether Texans might avail themselves of a map if the actual decision to go to war were somehow dependent upon Texans agreeing to send their kin there.
I'm not therefore advocating for total decentralization in all matters, but rather pointing out that absent actual power, local interests are never fully represented... and the longer this goes on, the less interested the populace in decisions over which they have no control or accountability. deTocqueville comments on this fairly extensively and to good effect, it seems to me.
I agree that local is not simply an answer to everything... some things ought to be centralized. If I were to add two small thoughts that are usually overlooked it would be these:
1. Some of the pettiness of local affairs are precisely because they are petty. Centralization can make this problem worse, so we're not actually seeing devolved decision-making with measurable stakes worth investing in.
2. I think I made two points in #1.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “My Complicated Relationship with Catholic Education”
Most diocese will publish an annual report. My Diocese, the Diocese of Arlington (Northern Virginia) is among the wealthiest. Arlington is cash positive, and is socking away money
It runs 51 schools (6 High Schools) at an annual operating cost of $80M on $81M in Revenues. Approximately $55M revenues come from Tuition. The rest is subsidized. The schools themselves are being run at a target of net $0 income.
Besides the annual subsidies, the Diocese also subsidizes the growth with capital acquisition of Land and self-funds the building expenses.
Basically, in the Diocese Arlington, there are three main divisions: Diocesan Mission, Schools, Parish Mission(s). It's rather pedestrian and depressingly SMB Corporate; but Catholic Education is being run on a safe and conservative fiscal model, generously subsidized by the general funds.
One could push for a more aggressive growth and greater subsidies (we live in an area that is under-served by the Diocesan education mission). But, with expansion comes risk, and the Church is poorly equipped to unwind "services" when they are no long sustainable... witness the agony of several other dioceses that are contracting operations.
The education model has radically changed in the past 100 yrs. Catholic education is not terribly exciting right now, it is definitely being pinched on labor and facilities costs, and the response has been to make the business model more like a regular school than a radical parallel structure of the past... but that critique is just that parochial schools are too normal.
On “Twenty-Five!”
I completely agree... he would have been HOF if he'd retired in 1997.
The fact that he was an inhuman monster at age 39... (.362,.609,.812,1.422 - Holy Shit)... That's just, just, well, incroyable.
I hadn't looked at his career stats since he retired... seems pretty clear he went to the dark-side after his injury year in 1999; having just watched Sosa/Maguire duke it out in 1998.
But yes, I admired him more as a man in his godfather's mold pre-2000.
"
Eeep... I'm screwed on lefty pitchers then... will have to think on a replacement for Carlton.
Re: Chemistry, that's what Koufax is for... no one likes the People's Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People's Front? - anyhow, they are both splitters.) So, he unites the team against the PFJ... but, since he pitches to Carlton Fisk, and Fisk is the ultimate guardian of the game's integrity, then he will respect Koufax's artistry and see to it that Koufax is accepted for the good of the game. Not even Cobb would challenge Fisk (more than once). Problem solved.
Whitey, right on everything? He blogs here too?
"
Which Bonds? The graceful young man or bloated Roids slugger? You can't have both.
"
I'm in, sir... your first division win is not assured with this team in the field.
I broke two rules...
1. Had to take a couple pre-1920 players... Honus Wagner is mine, mine.
2. I employed the official Hall of Fame Rule 5 draft... one player from your bench can be taken to start.
1. H. Wagner (R) - SS
2. T. Cobb (L) - CF
3. F. Thomas (R) - 1B
4. H. Aaron (R) - RF
5. Ted Williams (L) - LF - Rule 5 draft
6. C. Jones (S) - 3B
7. C. Fisk (R) - C
8. E. Collins (L) - 2B
Pitchers
Christie Mathewson (R)
Carl Hubble (L)
Pete Grover Cleveland Alexander (R)
S. Koufax (L)
Greg Maddux (R)
--
Nolan Ryan (R)
S. Carlton (L)
---
T. Hoffman (R)
B. Sutter (R)
L. Smith (R)
Bench: I. Rodriguez (C); J. Foxx (1B); R. Sandberg (2B); O.Smith (SS); R. Henderson (LF); K. Griffey (CF); S. Musial (RF).
For Hitters I studied OBP and preferred that where possible (though your HOFer's have that too). I also factored speed and base-running, and, while out of fashion, I think it pays dividends in Runs Scored (and defense).
For Pitchers, I preferred to select for the lowest unforced errors (Low: BB, HR, HBP, with High SO) - with the exception of Nolan Ryan (hey every team needs a stretch reliever to mop up innings and keep the other team in line).
Your pick-of the litter team is better, but I think Whitey will be able to work with these players (who are better at all around baseball) to beat you more often than not. :-)
On “Medical licenses are not rent-seeking”
@kazzy Whole Foods called and says you are back on the list; but notes that now John Mackey is angry.
On “The Anti Rent-Seeking Amendment, Part II: The Amendment”
Having sold to the Federal Government, there is no danger at all of this happening.
"as a market participant, the government seems like it ought to be allowed to make smart decisions with its money and pick vendors."
On “Medical licenses are not rent-seeking”
The appropriate officials at Whole Foods have been notified of Kazzy's defection.
On “A Risk Manager’s Take on the Richie Incognito Scandal”
I assumed he was related to Carlos Danger
Turns out Incognito's improbable alter ego is: Mariano Menace
On “Walk Straight or Face The Consequences”
Well, the settlement should definitely help him get out of his drug muling... says the Onion.
On “Gate to Gate”
Soooo, about those seats you designed....
"
Sure... but I want to know where Alec Baldwin goes to get his good name back?
On “Captain Justice”
You can follow me there... just turn right about a mile and a half before I do.
On “Even Worse, They Also Come With Windows 8”
Did they confirm it came from the hardware and not, as we all secretly suspect, from Windows 8?
"
Odors of cat pee in my Loire Valley Sancerre or New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc? Genius. Anywhere else? We have issues.
On “Captain Justice”
Yes, reminds me of the emails I used to write in my youth to management; the kind I don't write anymore.
On “Much Ado about a Public Shaming”
That's just like you. You never listen to anything we say.
"
Yes you do.
On “At My Real Job: The Irrationality of Voting. And What to Do About It.”
@blaisep Yes, it is well and good to stand guard against feckless anarchists; let us do so arm in arm.
Is it ironic that your cautionary tale is to draw and quarter The Central Banker of Bankers for not respecting Chesterton's gate? This strikes me as a most conservative principle... let us burn the Centralizers who use their power to maximal effect for the most minimal constituency by tearing down the laws made by previous generations to protect us from such excess. Is it ok if I and my kind throw the first torch?
Your points are well taken, but I'm not that kind of conservative raging in favor of anarcho-capitalism and small gubermint. An honest mistake, to be sure. My response to you above was merely to state that in prioritizing mis-governance, Dunn County Imperialism ranks a good deal lower than the constant centralization of all things.
"
Many conservative sociologists agree with you. But the autonomous and anonymous individual comes with a cost; that cost is the diminishment (and often destruction) of all intermediary institutions leaving the autonomous and anonymous individual naked before the state. That this state of affairs is "more tolerant" I think this is much disputed.
It is, incidentally, one of the conservative observations about the destruction of unions. And why many conservatives advocate worker solidarity. But solidarity just starts the cycle of parochialism all over again. The workers have interests particular to workers, and not necessarily aligned with those of the state.
I don't expect you to find the conclusion compelling, just that the argument you make is exactly the one we make. We're just not sure that the autonomous anonymous individual is better served by the new state of affairs.
"
Yes, Blaise, but are we more concerned with the rampage of non-standard weights and measures or the more likely scenario that the Federal Government is making a decision of Maximum Impact that forces the hand of Wisconsin, which forces the hand of Dunn County, which then determines exactly what Eau Claire can do with its waterfront?
As a subsidiarist, I'll stand with y'all to call for better governance at a higher order should Dunn County go rogue... but I just don't think that's the core problem we face in today's order.
"
Morat... and if only that element of government were subject to rational knowledgeable voters. :-) I think this is the nub of the issue, no?
To Roger's point about subsidiarity, the pendulum (IMO) has swung too far to the presumption that all decisions must be taken at the highest (most centralized) order... it is the presumption not the fact that I'm most concerned with.
"
Morat, your arguments are reasonable, but they are precisely the justification for a sort of creeping centralization that makes the voters of Texas less and less important to the decisions that impact Texas.
While it is indeed folly to imagine Texas striking out on its own against Iraq; Texas is an important state for providing soldiers who fight in Iraq. What one wonders is whether Texans might avail themselves of a map if the actual decision to go to war were somehow dependent upon Texans agreeing to send their kin there.
I'm not therefore advocating for total decentralization in all matters, but rather pointing out that absent actual power, local interests are never fully represented... and the longer this goes on, the less interested the populace in decisions over which they have no control or accountability. deTocqueville comments on this fairly extensively and to good effect, it seems to me.
"
Quite.
And yet, when Socrates proposed just such an arrangement, 80 of the judges voted to execute a man they had previously found innocent.
Rational ignorance or irrational knowledge?
"
I agree that local is not simply an answer to everything... some things ought to be centralized. If I were to add two small thoughts that are usually overlooked it would be these:
1. Some of the pettiness of local affairs are precisely because they are petty. Centralization can make this problem worse, so we're not actually seeing devolved decision-making with measurable stakes worth investing in.
2. I think I made two points in #1.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.