| Wheelchair ramp will cost $100,000 a foot
San Francisco Chronicle
Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Where else but San Francisco City Hall could a 10-foot-long wheelchair ramp wind up costing $1 million?
Thanks to a maze of bureaucratic indecision and historic restrictions, taxpayers may shell out $100,000 per foot to make the Board of Supervisors president's perch in the historic chambers accessible to the disabled.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
Swift Boating - who has the keys to the boat ?
“Swift Boating” has become a part of the political lexicon. Incredibly (predictably), the definition has been reversed. We could take this as proof that there is no political consultant alive today who hasn’t read George Orwell’s 1984, but we would also have to also assume that no voter alive today has.
Today, Swift Boating is defined as an untruthful, sinister, conspiratorial attack on anything a politician has said or done . This is a really handy way to defect uncomfortable scrutiny. It will be used daily during this election cycle.
Thus, it’s worth a moment to understand the origin of the term and the cure.
Presidential candidate John Kerry wanted some of the political capital earned by a war hero in the aftermath of 911. He made extensive use of his purple hearts from the Viet Nam war. A group of his contemporaries challenged his story.
WITHOUT REGARD to which side was right, Kerry had the keys to the boat. With a single signature he could have released his military medical records and ended the argument. How it would have turned out doesn’t matter to the point I’m about to make.
My point is this: We (the voters), are about to go through hours of needless talk about the 2008 versions of Swift Boating, again, needlessly. These iterations will obscure the real issues that real voters need to consider. Plus it will be just plain ugly and turn off the lion’s share of voters from the process. This can and should be avoided.
While I can’t claim to know who and / or what will make up all of these arguments, I can promise you that one of them will be Sen. H. Clinton’s years of White House experience. She has the keys to that boat. With a single signature she can release the records from the Clinton Library.
My opinion extends, equally, to any candidate, of any party, who trades on their record while keeping it locked up.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID
Justices to Hear Challenge to Law
By Robert Barnes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR2007122401892.html
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 25, 2007; Page A01
“The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.”
>>Snip>>
“Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.”
>>Snip>>
“The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?”
_______________________________________________________
How can anyone - without a motive - consider requiring a standard ID to place a vote as some sort of unconstitutional oppression ? ! ?
How can the media consider this issue as a partisan strategy ? Unless, maybe, it is.
And if it is - how do we decide for ourselves if Voter IDs are good or bad for a democracy ?
To me it’s as simple as can be,.Voter IDs should be required .
The argument that some folks are old enough to remember the Jim Crow laws and be intimidated to the point of not voting is ridiculous. And if there is a standing example of this hypothetical, surely they can be comforted by their party leadership.
Further, if there is someone who does not have a photo ID, they can get one. If you know of anyone who can’t, just let me know and I’ll arrange to get them help.
I personally signed up to be an election worker two years ago just to see how it works from the inside. I can tell you first hand that anyone with a phone book can vote multiple times on any given election day in multiple voting districts. Even if a poll worker is suspicious, there is no system to challenge the vote or even to call for help. The fact that in this case it is the Democrats who are going to the Supreme Court .... shame on them.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
Sanctuary Cities: The Hoax
Sanctuary cities are hard to number because while some are upfront about it, others are doing the same thing in a de facto way. In either case, they make the same general claim that it is not their
mandate to determine the legal or illegal immigration status of the criminals they arrest.
HOWEVER, these very same city, county and state jurisdictions do EXACTLY that !!
Yup, and they claim reimbursement for jailing them from the US Department of Justice. But don’t take my word for it. You can find the details of every jurisdiction and how much ... |
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
Immigration Law:
I listened to Tony Snow from the White House on the Rush Limbaugh show. I've heard discussions on the Melenie Morgan show. I listen to the topic on the remaining shreds of Air America, Ed Shultz, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Riely, et all. I’m surprised how both political polar starting points get this carrot in their lips but never in their teeth.
There are several bills and compromise bills floating around. In my opinion there is a much better starting point. Let’s see if you agree.
There are several components that all sides, including we the unwashed public, agree on:
Something needs to be done.
There are between 12 - 17 million people involved.
We can’t logistically deport that many people all at once.
Unions and political parties want 12 million “fresh meat” voters.
Illegal immigrants come here for the jobs.
American business needs the workers.
Amnesty for “Illegals” is off the table for the public .
The better starting point is:
- Offer amnesty to the American Business.
- Don’t even attempt to do a mass deportation.
- Fix the legal immigration system.
- Revamp the US Justice Dept. system for reimbursement for local law enforcement as regards Illegals.
- Establish a separate identification system for non-citizens.
Amnesty for Business:
Business has one year to register their illegal and suspected illegal workers. During this period the workers can continue working with the employer paying a per pay-period fee. This fee is calculated to even out the pay rate with immigrants and US citizens. Half of the aggregate fee will be returned to the employer if the immigrant eventually becomes legalized. The natural chain of events here is that each business will realistically asses which worker is worth the investment. Those not deemed to be worthy will be cut loose and go into the wind. It is important to recognize that these “in the wind” people will not worsen the existing problem. It will leave them in the existing problem but less of them, thus the first cut has been made. A portion of these wind people may settle into another business’s acceptable group. The rest will either “self-deport” which might include going further north to another country or they will become obvious to the ICE system. The immigrants who stay with the employer will for the first time be fully identified. This is a major accomplishment. The fees paid by the employer will be directed to partially fund the other elements of the plan.
Mass Deportation:
As I said, don’t even try it. Once the number has been reduced in step one, deportation has to be Criminals First. A One Strike, zero tolerance for crimes big or small. The question becomes to where do we deport them. If their home nations want to continue to receive foreign aid and or trade benefits, they will have to pay to come get them. In contrast to the previous step, this is not a case by case proposition. If a particular nation will not agree to come and get their citizens its time to finally make use of the UN for the type of mission they are good at. Remember, the accepted catalyst in the first place was jobs. The UN can arrange for jobs in other countries who also need workers. The illegal can accept the offer or voluntarily self-deport to their home port. As a last choice, jail. This will likely be out-sourced and cause a whole new dust up. But that can be worked out in a separate essay. However, by this point the numbers have been reduced to a manageable size, Another major accomplishment.
Fix the Legal Immigration Policy:
I won’t spend a lot of words here except to say that the main problems have grown over time, much like feature creep in computer software, with all the exceptions that have become policy. It needs to be rolled back to the original standards. Most importantly, we must remove the technicality known as the “Anchor Baby”. As it stands now if, let’s say, a couple from Denmark is on a cruise ship inside US territorial waters and have a baby - that baby is a US citizen. The current immigration policy extends extra rights to the parents. Its just plain wrong.
Revamp Justice Dept. Reimbursement:
Currently, even in the so-called Sanctuary Cities and Counties, the US Dept. of Justice pays the local costs of police and courts for jailing repeat felony illegal immigrants. The key word is repeat. This has become a planned revenue source for these entities who see it as good business to keep unused jail cells filled and overtime pay flowing in a sick catch and release dance. You can find the exact figures for all jurisdictions on the Justice Dept. web site. You have to drill down a bit but you will be shocked at the millions of dollars sent to even small communities. Look at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/05SCAAP.html and click - “ Go to the FY 2005 SCAAP Payment List... “ Shocking.
Separate identification system for non-citizens:
None of us (US Citizens) wants a National ID card. The need for this is muted by establishing a separate ID system for non-nationals. Throw all of the technology we have at it. Naturally, it should be compatible with the Interpol system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Obviously, this is a brief overview of the strategy and anyone who is predisposed to do so can chip away at the details. The objective, as it is with all the posts here, is to plant a seed and let others expand, nurture, perfect and claim these ideas as their own.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
" Salary is commensurate with experience, within the parameters of the ACLU compensation scale. Excellent benefits package provided. ... "
I became curious about the ACLU and the money that pours through it. It seems that the awards they win always include legal fees. However those fees aren't disclosed. Evidently there is such a thing as the "ACLU Compensation Scale".
I'm not having much luck finding a copy of it. When I do a search on the web it returns 155,000 job offers. I didn't, of course, count to se how many were unique. Still, when I do the same search within the ACLU.org site it returns 120,000.
If anyone has some light to shed, please do so.
I'm somewhat surprised at not finding any details about this. I'm not ready to say that the ACLU doesn't want the public to know. After all they are quick to say eleswhere that the pay rate is low.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
I think we need a new law that says every judge in the country is issued a sort of "preemptive challenge".
It would say that a judge has 3 lifetime "preemptive challenges" allowing them to decide cases brought by the ACLU using Rock Paper Scissors !
This is not to say that all ACLU cases are wrong or unworthy.
What I'm saying is this: While I don't know exactly how many judges we have in this country, if they each knocked out just three of the silly ones during their career - its a start.
I know my whacky notion can never become law. But step through the natural chain of events if it did. Judges will be called out in a de-facto way as to their bias regarding the extreme ACLU issues. The ACLU will have to up the pace in their judge shopping and hopefully the public will actually mark their ballots when it comes to electing judges.
In the case of this particular school district I bet they could spend the cost of this trial more effectively than on Tigger socks.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/local/iq_3959435.txt
ACLU v. Redwood dress code
'Tigger socks' case gears up for Napa court
By DAVID RYAN, Register Staff Writer
Sunday, May 20, 2007
When the ACLU helped a group of Redwood Middle School students and their parents sue the Napa Valley Unified School District over their school's dress code policy in March, it ignited controversy around the world in the court of public opinion.
The next round in the dress code battle will play out in the courtroom of Napa County Superior Court Judge Raymond Guadagni.
On Wednesday, lawyers involved in the case are scheduled to show up at a hearing that will determine whether the school can enforce the dress code policy or set up a system where parents can excuse their children from abiding by it.
According to court papers, the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction against the district is made on grounds the plaintiffs "have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury" unless the injunction is granted. The ACLU charges the dress code is a violation of the students' free speech rights under the state and federal constitutions -- and the state education code, which decrees students of public schools have the right to wear "... buttons, badges and other insignia."
School attorneys say the plaintiffs should not get an injunction because they bypassed the school's complaint policy, and because ACLU attorneys cite federal, not state law to show cause for it. What's more, school lawyers argue the injunction would unfairly disrupt the school with only 15 days before the end of the school year.
Redwood Middle School has the strictest dress code policy in the Napa Valley Unified School District, banning every color but white, yellow, green, blue, brown, khaki, black and gray.
Clothing must be made out of cotton twill, corduroy or chino -- no denim -- and brand labels, logos, words and flags are out, too, no matter how petite.
The rules were put in place in the late 1990s to discourage gangs on campus, a policy school officials say has worked in recent years.
Plaintiffs Toni Kay Scott and her sister, Sydni, however, are part of a small group of a dissidents who believe the policy violates their free speech rights. Toni Kay has said she's been punished, "dress coded", more than a dozen times, most famously for wearing argyle socks with a picture of the Winnie-the-Pooh character Tigger on them. School officials found Sydni in violation once for wearing a shirt that had the words "Jesus Freak" on it.
Yet courts have in recent years been struggling with the definitions of allowed free speech at schools stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, where in the late 1960s students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Students won the right to some forms of free speech in that case, but among the legal questions facing judge Guadagni on Wednesday will be whether Tigger socks can be important enough to rank with a war protest.
"Plaintiffs cannot claim with a 'straight face' that, for example the wearing of Tigger socks rises to the serious level of political speech," school lawyers wrote in court documents.
"The freedom of expression the student plaintiffs seek is not reasonably calculated to render the educational experience at Redwood any less safe," ACLU lawyers wrote in their brief.
--
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
Cruising various the Opinion Page of various smalller newspapers I came across the following commentary. My reply follows her commentary.
Standardized tests suck the life out of learning
By KARA (last name omitted)
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Kara is a Eleveth Grade High School Student
The conversation regarding education
today seems strangely inconsistent. The educational conversation should
naturally have the improvement and enlightenment of our nation’s young
minds at its core; however, the current dialogue has transcended the
discussion of education. In fact, education seems to largely have left
the picture.
The entrance of (the School District) into state-mandated Program
Improvement has brought to the surface long-simmering tensions over No
Child Left Behind. This statute represents much of the current
educational conversation — dry, focused on statistics, targets, AYP,
SPSA, AMAOs, EPCs. Yet the problem with the current educational
dialogue is not the program improvement, the statistics, the reading
enrichment and supplemental math classes or the placement of students
into additional support classes. It goes deeper than that. The
fundamental flaw in education today is its reliance on standardized
tests. English teachers may protest the invasion of anthologies and the
death of the novel, students may complain about three math classes in a
six-period day and administrators may challenge the haste with which
these standards have been forced upon them. But if we do not address
the core of the issue, a solution cannot be reached.
Standardized
tests suck the life out of learning. In encouraging instructors to
teach toward and students to pass a single test, the CST, the proposed
educational system will produce students skilled at one thing — passing
the test. Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw
conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local
ecosystems? Will they be able to connect the symbolism of Victor Hugo’s
“Les Misérables” to his commentary on politics, society and human
nature? Will they be able to relate the anti-Communist “red scare” of
the 1950s to Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” or even to the current war
on terror? Maybe not. But they’ll sure be good at taking that test.
Assessing student ability is not a bad thing; indeed, it is essential
to the constructive criticism necessary to improve as a student and as
an individual. Was the CST a comprehensive, holistic, deliberate
assessment of student ability, growth, achievement and effort, this
would be a moot subject. However, it is not. The CST tests the wrong
things in the wrong way.
In today’s dialogue, the spirit of
learning, of enlightenment, of thought and discussion and discovery,
has been abandoned. With it has gone the purpose. What is the purpose
of education if not to awaken in our children curiosity, inspiration
and realization? What is its purpose if not to prepare young students
for the analytical discussion, challenging decision-making and
uncomfortable realizations they will undoubtedly face in college and in
their adult lives? When these objectives are forsaken, education
disappears as a moral goal and is replaced as a political tool and a
business transaction. As the skills of analytical reading and writing
are undermined and textbook teaching prevails, it seems more and more
like politicians and businessmen are stripping from our children their
most basic right, that of the pursuit of valuable knowledge.
 |
|
|
The
recommendations recently passed by the school board represent not a
failure of our community to protect the rights of the student, but
rather a failure in the higher levels. The current federal
administration has proved itself inept in many areas of national
policy; education is simply an addition to its list. No Child Left
Behind is a paradoxical, backwards and unjust approach to the education
of children. The time must be taken to forsake the standardized test
and to develop a comprehensive, deliberate way to evaluate student
ability. It can be done. The key is to abandon the unflagging, rigid
superficial standards that block creative achievement and adopt
principles that embrace student realization of universal truths. The
institution of education can result in the achievement of education,
but only if such influences as money and political gain remain
peripheral.
--------- my response ----
Congratulations to Kara, the author of “Standardized Tests Suck the Life out of Learning” for a well written, cogent opinion about standardized testing (aka) No Child Left Behind.
If all our students met the standards exhibited by Kara, she’d be correct in her assertions. Sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the case is so far removed from that reality as to make her plea , well ... unrealistic.
Everything she rightly stakes out as a goal for education is unattainable without a high baseline standard of math and language. While I understand her frustration, I think its aimed at the messenger not the culprit.
At this point in time and history, it has become necessary to inflict remedial instruction on our current crop of students. That she, and some percentage of students, don’t need it is really a separate issue. As an aside, Kara and her peers should be allowed to attend a private school, of her choice, with no additional costs to them beyond the school taxes her parents and we already pay. This is a notion that has always been vilified by the educational establishment, called vouchers.
In the mean time, America owes it to their students a knowledge of math and language as a foundation to learn all of the rest. Even if that quest has to be pushed back until after high school for a while.
For example she ponders the question: “Will they be able to look at soil samples and draw conclusions based upon their knowledge of human impact on local ecosystems? “ Not detecting any sarcasm in her question, I have to say that it precisely makes the case for NCLB. How does one meaningfully create, compare and analyze soil samples without some fairly high math skills . Further, how does one then communicate the results without good language skills.
So all in all, I remind the reader and Kara in particular, that I’m very impressed with her commentary. Further, her taking a shot at capitalism in her last paragraph is understandable if one is willing to make some generalized assumptions about the adults which comprise her educational environment.
The fact that students like Kara must pay the price for the misuse of the educational system for the last 10 to 20 years is unfortunate but not wrong. The fact that they don’t have a readily available alternative is sad and hopefully a problem that Kara’s generation will solve.
I hope she and other students will utilize the newspaper to keep us up to date on how they feel and what they know.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
It had to happen - a law suit contesting the outcome of an election based on electronic voting. In Saratoga County the looser of a Congressional seat is claiming that a disproportionate “undervote” means there must be a problem.
As you probably know, an Undervote is when on one particular contest on a ballot no vote is recorded for either or any candidate.
When losers want to raise an issue (winners seldom do) this is a standard complaint. It is shocking to me that this is so, so simply remedied its ridiculous !!
The fix requirers no change to the machine. No change to the software.
Just add a choice that says: “Intentionally Left Blank”. End of problem.
No this idea should not be confused with the similar but different “None of the Above”. The folks who suggest this continue on with the notion that this choice is a vote against both candidates. And if NoA gets the most votes a new election must be held. Tempting, but that is a different question and has very little chance of being adapted.
Even the idea on the table of Left Blank will meet with stiff resistance from politicians. This is because even if it would never trigger a revote, it would hurt their feelings and send a message that they won’t want to hear.
In my humble opinion, “Intentionally Left Blank” would be a good suggestion to everyone’s Registrar of Elections.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
| The question is almost to simple and obvious to even ask. Can the foreign policy of the USA withstand the constant onslaught from half the politicians in the country ?
Lets assume that half the US politicians are form one party and the other half is from the other party.
Thus, a resounding success of our foreign policy is bad news for half of the career politicians.
So the question evolves to:
How many career politicians are willing to set aside their own self-interests to support America and it's foreign policy ? 75 % ? , 50 % ? , 2 % ? .... Sadly, the answer is obvious.
Then pile on the career politicians from around the world who share the same low threshold of intellectual integrity and we arrive at the current world view of America.
Worse yet, we the public are too busy or too lazy to stand up and make ourselves heard by those politicians.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by KG Elliott at | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
